Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In safe hands? Whose finger is on the Article 50 button?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In safe hands? Whose finger is on the Article 50 button?

“Who? Whom?” Lenin asked.  These are questions that confront the government and Parliament when determining who decides to pull the trigger to leave the EU: who is going to take control and who is going to be dictated to?  We are set for a constitutional power struggle to be fought in the courtroom and the next chapter unfolds next month.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Very interesting Alastair.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    Do we have a date for the judgment? I don't think the government would have been so bombastic had they had any doubt that they would win, but we shall see what the court decides.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    edited September 2016
    Saying that, if the court does rule against the government and Parliament seeks to delay Article 50 declaration, expect a general election shorty afterwards.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    and we've discussed this alternative scenario before. There would surely be a vote of no confidence in the government in the Commons before any such declaration.
  • PaulyPauly Posts: 887
    edited September 2016
    The argument of this thread seems to be: some other unrelated royal prerogative powers have been abolished and some have an optional supplementary vote by convention. Therefore the Royal prerogative power we are concerned of is insufficient, which is not really an argument...

    The referendum being advisory in nature is irrelevant and not required, so long as the government commands the confidence of the house.

    I guess Mr Meeks should stick to Pension law...

    FTPT:
    I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.
  • "everything hinges on what the constitutional requirements are."

    No it doesn't, as in fact Alastair notes further down. Everything hinges on both what the constitutional requirements are and on what the practical politics will allow.
  • On topic, Alastair is, in my opinion, wrong.

    You can't have it both ways. Either we follow the constitutional powers or we follow the question of mandate but we can't mix and match depending on the outcome we want.

    Constitutionally, the Crown has always had the power to exercise executive power subject to specified constraints. In this case, to activate a provision of a treaty that parliament has already ratified. It doesn't need parliament's approval for this: although there are any number of indirect legal consequences of doing so, the direct and immediate consequences are nil.

    Alternatively, if we take the question of mandate - that parliament ought to approve (or reject) such a far-reaching decision - then we actually come to the legal fiction of parliamentary supremacy. Leaving aside that within the EU, parliament isn't supreme anyway (and this very case tests that, as the argument has always been that the EU's supremacy could be overriden by withdrawal), the practical politics is that parliament is only supreme subject to the will of the people. The principle is firmly established that the Commons is voted for by the adult population on a more-or-less equal geographical basis. If that same electorate then expresses its opinion on a specific issue - and on a large turnout - then what is the mandate on which parliament should override that view, whether formally advisory or not.

    The reality is that either the electorate's view is advisory, in which case so is parliament's; or the electorate's mandate is sufficient to make up for any technical loophole, in which case parliament has no right to reverse the decision.

    In any case, the notion that parliament hasn't had a say is bollocks.

    Parliament voted to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. When it did so, it incorporated the withdrawal provisions into UK law. If it wanted to clarify or amend the pre-existing prerogative powers with respect to Brexit, it could have done so then; it didn't. The conclusion must therefore be that the pre-existing powers were left unaffected.

    Similarly, when parliament voted to enable the EURef, it could have incorporated provisions within the Act relating to the Crown powers and/or to the binding nature of the vote. It did neither. In the former case, again, we have to assume that in not legislating, parliament passively reaffirmed the status quo. In the latter, however, there was no constitutional legal status quo but there was precedent - and that precedent is that the results of all referendums in the UK have been implemented. The government itself published a leaflet, distributed to all households, that promised as much.

    Those arguing that the referendum was advisory are not missing the wood for the trees but missing the trees as well. Parliament has already spoken and has already consented.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    Nice rebuttal, David. And nice article, Alastair! Thanks.
  • Everything which is not forbidden is allowed is an old - and fundamental - principle of English Common Law (a not entirely unserious joke avows that in Germany Everything which is not allowed is forbidden)

    Where is it forbidden that the Crown may not exercise the Royal Prerogative in this case?

    As a Remainer I would vote down any MP who sought to block this.

    Leaving the EU may be damaging, but subverting the will of the people would be orders of magnitude more damaging.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198
  • Trump's Skittles ad - great tweet: Based on actual odds of getting killed by terrorist refugee, you'd need 10.8 billion skittles to find 3 killers
  • RobD said:

    Nice rebuttal, David. And nice article, Alastair! Thanks.

    Seconded.
  • Oh dear......

    ASSURANCES that Brexit will not lead to a hard border in Ireland do not necessarily mean the same rule would apply to travel between an independent Scotland and England, leading academics have warned.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14754500.UK_promise_of_no_Brexit_borders_in_Ireland_may_not_apply_to_independent_Scotland__experts_claim/?ref=rss
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    SeanT said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!
    Well quite. It's nonsense. I don't think Meeks' believes it either. I see this threader as a last nostalgic flicker of the Remainian embers. Before death and ashes, and eternal European silence.

    It's noticeable on Twitter and elsewhere that all but the most diehard Stayers have now accepted the inevitable. We are Brexiting. It's just a question of HARDNESS.
    Yeah, it's unthinkable that we'd stay in the EU now.
  • RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!
    Well quite. It's nonsense. I don't think Meeks' believes it either. I see this threader as a last nostalgic flicker of the Remainian embers. Before death and ashes, and eternal European silence.

    It's noticeable on Twitter and elsewhere that all but the most diehard Stayers have now accepted the inevitable. We are Brexiting. It's just a question of HARDNESS.
    Yeah, it's unthinkable that we'd stay in the EU now.
    I'm not sure they'd want us.....no doubt they'd have a queue of 'ever deeper integration' stuff lined up to shove down our throats......
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Trump fans are enjoying the Hillary IT bod story - the Pepe mash up

    In case you missed it.... https://t.co/RRcMQ2Bb15
  • Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?
  • RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

  • RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

    I was referring to the specific scenario of PM Leadsom invoking article 50.

    If Corbyn was PM, surely that'd mean he would have the confidence of the House? If not, the vote of confidence I described would befall him.
  • Parliament voted on the EU Referendum Act 2015; it will also vote on repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.

    I don't see why a parliamentary vote would be needed to exercise a clause in an existing international treaty to which the UK is already party, particularly since the mandate would derive from the existing referendum result, but, if it did, I suspect it would clear the HoC easily.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

    But I'm talking legally, which is what the courts will judge this on, surely? In any case, invoking article 50 is not a power that is being transferred back to us. It is a power conferred on the government by the Lisbon treaty.
  • SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    I don't think that Alastair is arguing against that. Taking back sovereignty means taking back sovereignty. That is not done by leaving decision-making to the executive.

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    RobD said:

    Saying that, if the court does rule against the government and Parliament seeks to delay Article 50 declaration, expect a general election shorty afterwards.

    Quite. Leaving aside all other considerations, it is likely that an A50 vote would, in fact, pass in the Commons (given that a mass rebellion against a Tory three line whip seems unlikely, and the DUP, Carswell and at least half-a-dozen Labour rebels would vote with the Government,) only to be vetoed by the Lords. Such open defiance of both the elected chamber AND the referendum result would create a constitutional crisis unparalleled in modern times, a situation that would almost certainly have to be resolved by a general election (and I wouldn't give much for the long-term survival prospects of the upper house under such circumstances, either.)
  • RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!
    That's the whole point about checks and balances though: if they're properly built, you don't have to write out the options in every possible scenario; you simply let the natural push and pull of competing forces, common sense and fear of the electorate do their thing.

    In constitutional theory, the Queen could simply invoke Article 50 and dismiss any government that disagreed. The practice - despite no legal constitutional restraint bar parliament's power over supply otherwise - is rather different.

    Too many constitutional theorists, especially on the left, get worked up about nightmare scenarios that have almost no chance of occurring, and which if they were a realistic possibility, wouldn't be prevented by a piece of paper.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.
  • Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.
  • Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    This is an absolute comments trollfest at the Daily Mail.

    (Remainers and left wingers of a sensitive disposition are advised to look away now).


    Bee-killing Asian Hornets have arrived in Britain.

    http://dailym.ai/2d2idwI.

  • Another non-Thursday By Election, good result for LibDems

    Britain Elects @britainelects
    Plasnewydd (Cardiff) result:
    LDEM: 48.1% (+15.4)
    LAB: 34.8% (-2.0)
    PC: 6.8% (-5.3)
    CON: 4.4% (-1.2)
    GRN: 3.6% (-9.3)
    UKIP: 2.4% (+2.4)
    11:11 PM - 20 Sep 2016
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    Another non-Thursday By Election, good result for LibDems

    Britain Elects @britainelects
    Plasnewydd (Cardiff) result:
    LDEM: 48.1% (+15.4)
    LAB: 34.8% (-2.0)
    PC: 6.8% (-5.3)
    CON: 4.4% (-1.2)
    GRN: 3.6% (-9.3)
    UKIP: 2.4% (+2.4)
    11:11 PM - 20 Sep 2016

    Elections that aren't held on a Thursday? Disgusting....
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.

    Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    There's an interesting aspect coming out of the Charlotte police shooting last night - Hillary held a fundraiser there, but didn't show or do a video link-up as far as I can see. There was significant violence again, inflamed by BLM.

    Lots of talk of her being AWOL/why didn't she say anything about it - and that she's scheduled for Orlando tomorrow - the forecast is 90F and very humid. One to watch.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

    I was referring to the specific scenario of PM Leadsom invoking article 50.

    If Corbyn was PM, surely that'd mean he would have the confidence of the House? If not, the vote of confidence I described would befall him.

    You need a two-thirds majority to dissolve Parliament on a vote of confidence, don't you? Enough Labour MPs, plus the SNP would prevent that form happening.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

    I was referring to the specific scenario of PM Leadsom invoking article 50.

    If Corbyn was PM, surely that'd mean he would have the confidence of the House? If not, the vote of confidence I described would befall him.

    You need a two-thirds majority to dissolve Parliament on a vote of confidence, don't you? Enough Labour MPs, plus the SNP would prevent that form happening.

    No, just a simple majority for a vote of no confidence. A two thirds to dissolve parliament without the two(?) week period in which a government that could command a majority could form.
  • RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
  • Mr Meeks. If the courts or parliament seek to frustrate the will of the people then it us pitchfork time.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

    I was referring to the specific scenario of PM Leadsom invoking article 50.

    If Corbyn was PM, surely that'd mean he would have the confidence of the House? If not, the vote of confidence I described would befall him.

    You need a two-thirds majority to dissolve Parliament on a vote of confidence, don't you? Enough Labour MPs, plus the SNP would prevent that form happening.

    No, just a simple majority for a vote of no confidence. A two thirds to dissolve parliament without the two(?) week period in which a government that could command a majority could form.

    I think it is perfectly imaginable for a government to survive a vote of no confidence with the support of a third party, or maybe more than one of them. If the SNP were to help him out, it would need a lot of Labour rebels to prevent Corbyn from exercising the royal prerogative and withdrawing us from NATO.

    The power of the executive is already set to be greatly increased by the reduction in the number of MPs.

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    It is undoubtedly true, as Alastair points out, that the role of the Royal Prerogative has been diminished in recent times and the supremacy of Parliament has been asserted. The most obvious example of that was the Syrian debates, in particular the one that Cameron lost in the previous Parliament. In the 1960s we fought a fairly significant war in Malaysia/Indonesia without troubling Parliament about it at all. And it is still accepted that the Prerogative is available to PMs in respect of emergencies, the deployment of special forces and in the intelligence field.

    But this is different. In this case Parliament approved a referendum by primary legislation. It decided to ask the people whether or not the government should trigger article 50 and the people said yes (just). It would be an outrage if the Courts now sought to impose additional hurdles on the implementation of that decision.

    It is also worth noting that decisions of this nature, even when they are put to Parliament, are put to the Commons. The Lords have no say in this. They will be involved in the repeal of legislation such as the European Communities Act but if there is any vote it will be in the Commons. I do not believe that there is any majority in the Commons to remain in defiance of the referendum.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    At request of the government ;)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Pauly said:


    I have finally worked out why the libdems are outperforming at local level and floundering at national level. Bitter or sad EU nationals are allowed to vote but not in General Elections. Theresa May should put this right as part of the Brexit agreement and rightly so.

    Hardly! Turnout of EU nationals is even lower than UK nationals in local elections. It is not credible that 38% of the electorate in a ward in Cardiff are sudenly Polish, up 15% from previously.

  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    That is bollocks. Outside the EU we have more influence on the single market regulations.

    This is because most of them are EU badged international standards.

    At the moment we are represented by the EU at the international bodies that set those standards. If we leave, we will (like Norway) have our own seat.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

    Speak for yourself.

    The Queen is the people and the people are the Queen.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    That is bollocks. Outside the EU we have more influence on the single market regulations.

    This is because most of them are EU badged international standards.

    At the moment we are represented by the EU at the international bodies that set those standards. If we leave, we will (like Norway) have our own seat.

    In my own field, if we stayed part of the single market we would be obliged to implement all EU law relating to intellectual property that affected the single market, but we would have no say in how it was formulated or any representation in the courts that interpreted it. There would be no international body for us to join.

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
  • RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

    Speak for yourself.

    The Queen is the people and the people are the Queen.

    The Queen rules with the people's consent. End of.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I am no Constitutional lawyer, but do think it adviseable that Parliament endorses Brexit in the Commons. There is a need to establish the limits of Royal Perogative, because of its possible further usage.

    There are going to be lots of bumps along the way to Brexit, and establishing the precedent that these should be openly debated in Parliament is a good one. The next use of the perogative may well not be one to the taste of the Brexiteers.

    We have years of this sort of wrangling to look forward to. Get the precedents right.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,172
    edited September 2016
    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.
  • DavidL said:

    It is undoubtedly true, as Alastair points out, that the role of the Royal Prerogative has been diminished in recent times and the supremacy of Parliament has been asserted. The most obvious example of that was the Syrian debates, in particular the one that Cameron lost in the previous Parliament. In the 1960s we fought a fairly significant war in Malaysia/Indonesia without troubling Parliament about it at all. And it is still accepted that the Prerogative is available to PMs in respect of emergencies, the deployment of special forces and in the intelligence field.

    But this is different. In this case Parliament approved a referendum by primary legislation. It decided to ask the people whether or not the government should trigger article 50 and the people said yes (just). It would be an outrage if the Courts now sought to impose additional hurdles on the implementation of that decision.

    It is also worth noting that decisions of this nature, even when they are put to Parliament, are put to the Commons. The Lords have no say in this. They will be involved in the repeal of legislation such as the European Communities Act but if there is any vote it will be in the Commons. I do not believe that there is any majority in the Commons to remain in defiance of the referendum.

    This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we?

  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,863
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?

    I was referring to the specific scenario of PM Leadsom invoking article 50.

    If Corbyn was PM, surely that'd mean he would have the confidence of the House? If not, the vote of confidence I described would befall him.

    You need a two-thirds majority to dissolve Parliament on a vote of confidence, don't you? Enough Labour MPs, plus the SNP would prevent that form happening.

    No, just a simple majority for a vote of no confidence. A two thirds to dissolve parliament without the two(?) week period in which a government that could command a majority could form.
    Indeed. There wouldn't need even to be a vote of confidence. The Government could resign, and then the Tory majority in the Commons could block the formation of any alternative. It would be farcical - presumably the Queen would be obliged to invite Corbyn to try (and fail) to assemble a majority - but effective. Shows up the FTPA for the idiotic piece of legislation that it always was.

    Although, for what it's worth, I think that both Labour and the SNP would struggle severely to justify voting against a dissolution (and, therefore, against a chance to beat the hated Tories at the polls,) anyway.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
    That wasn't a manifesto, that was an official leaflet from HMG.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    That is not true. Parliament would pass A50, and certainly should.

    The Commons thereby demonstrate their authority.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,215
    One thing people seem to be forgetting is that one of the two judges set to review this is a former Labour MP. Assuming their views match 90% of the PLP's, will they not look for any legal avenue whatsoever to force the decision back to Parliament?
  • Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Do you have any proof to back up that outrageous claim?

  • I am no Constitutional lawyer, but do think it adviseable that Parliament endorses Brexit in the Commons. There is a need to establish the limits of Royal Perogative, because of its possible further usage.

    There are going to be lots of bumps along the way to Brexit, and establishing the precedent that these should be openly debated in Parliament is a good one. The next use of the perogative may well not be one to the taste of the Brexiteers.

    We have years of this sort of wrangling to look forward to. Get the precedents right.

    Yep, that's my view too.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526
    RoyalBlue said:

    One thing people seem to be forgetting is that one of the two judges set to review this is a former Labour MP. Assuming their views match 90% of the PLP's, will they not look for any legal avenue whatsoever to force the decision back to Parliament?

    I sincerely hope they keep any partisan views out of it, which I am sure they will.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.

    Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.

    My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.
  • I am no Constitutional lawyer, but do think it adviseable that Parliament endorses Brexit in the Commons.

    It already has.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

  • Sandpit said:

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Yes, of course.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
    That wasn't a manifesto, that was an official leaflet from HMG.
    So it's worth even less. If should be well understood that everything claimed by either side in a referendum campaign is a lie.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    DavidL said:

    It is undoubtedly true, as Alastair points out, that the role of the Royal Prerogative has been diminished in recent times and the supremacy of Parliament has been asserted. The most obvious example of that was the Syrian debates, in particular the one that Cameron lost in the previous Parliament. In the 1960s we fought a fairly significant war in Malaysia/Indonesia without troubling Parliament about it at all. And it is still accepted that the Prerogative is available to PMs in respect of emergencies, the deployment of special forces and in the intelligence field.

    But this is different. In this case Parliament approved a referendum by primary legislation. It decided to ask the people whether or not the government should trigger article 50 and the people said yes (just). It would be an outrage if the Courts now sought to impose additional hurdles on the implementation of that decision.

    It is also worth noting that decisions of this nature, even when they are put to Parliament, are put to the Commons. The Lords have no say in this. They will be involved in the repeal of legislation such as the European Communities Act but if there is any vote it will be in the Commons. I do not believe that there is any majority in the Commons to remain in defiance of the referendum.

    This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we?

    Parliament is sovereign. It passed the legislation to allow the referendum to take place. It could not have taken place without it. It has the ability to dismiss the government of the day by a no confidence vote. But, until it does so, it is the duty of government to govern within the rules that Parliament has set. And in this case that involves the implementation of the Article 50 procedure at the appropriate time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 22,172

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?
    Which is why people will think twice before electing a Corbyn government propped up by the SNP.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.
  • Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Your view is incorrect, the decision was not delegated, the referendum was advisory.
    The 'voice of the people' was not unequivocal.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,526

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
    That wasn't a manifesto, that was an official leaflet from HMG.
    So it's worth even less. If should be well understood that everything claimed by either side in a referendum campaign is a lie.
    The government was lying when it said it would implement the decision of the people?
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
    That wasn't a manifesto, that was an official leaflet from HMG.
    So it's worth even less. If should be well understood that everything claimed by either side in a referendum campaign is a lie.
    That wasn't part of the Remain campaign. If it was, they would have breached their spending limits.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.

    Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.

    My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.

    Sure - but once we leave the customs union the EU has a right to impose duty on goods moving to and from the UK into the single market (and vice versa, of course). That will impose additional time and monetary costs on British businesses. The best way to avoid them is, as much as possible, to ensure that you continue to do your EU-related business from inside an EU member state.

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.

    That's all part of our ancient democracy.

  • Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Your view is incorrect, the decision was not delegated, the referendum was advisory.
    The 'voice of the people' was not unequivocal.
    52 > 48.

    As for "advisory", see David Herdson's post at 4:28am. It was nothing of the sort.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It is undoubtedly true, as Alastair points out, that the role of the Royal Prerogative has been diminished in recent times and the supremacy of Parliament has been asserted. The most obvious example of that was the Syrian debates, in particular the one that Cameron lost in the previous Parliament. In the 1960s we fought a fairly significant war in Malaysia/Indonesia without troubling Parliament about it at all. And it is still accepted that the Prerogative is available to PMs in respect of emergencies, the deployment of special forces and in the intelligence field.

    But this is different. In this case Parliament approved a referendum by primary legislation. It decided to ask the people whether or not the government should trigger article 50 and the people said yes (just). It would be an outrage if the Courts now sought to impose additional hurdles on the implementation of that decision.

    It is also worth noting that decisions of this nature, even when they are put to Parliament, are put to the Commons. The Lords have no say in this. They will be involved in the repeal of legislation such as the European Communities Act but if there is any vote it will be in the Commons. I do not believe that there is any majority in the Commons to remain in defiance of the referendum.

    This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we?

    Parliament is sovereign. It passed the legislation to allow the referendum to take place. It could not have taken place without it. It has the ability to dismiss the government of the day by a no confidence vote. But, until it does so, it is the duty of government to govern within the rules that Parliament has set. And in this case that involves the implementation of the Article 50 procedure at the appropriate time.

    Yep - the appropriate time being when Parliament has given the green light :-)

  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.

    That's all part of our ancient democracy.

    Look, there are two things that can happen.

    Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.

    May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    It is undoubtedly true, as Alastair points out, that the role of the Royal Prerogative has been diminished in recent times and the supremacy of Parliament has been asserted. The most obvious example of that was the Syrian debates, in particular the one that Cameron lost in the previous Parliament. In the 1960s we fought a fairly significant war in Malaysia/Indonesia without troubling Parliament about it at all. And it is still accepted that the Prerogative is available to PMs in respect of emergencies, the deployment of special forces and in the intelligence field.

    But this is different. In this case Parliament approved a referendum by primary legislation. It decided to ask the people whether or not the government should trigger article 50 and the people said yes (just). It would be an outrage if the Courts now sought to impose additional hurdles on the implementation of that decision.

    It is also worth noting that decisions of this nature, even when they are put to Parliament, are put to the Commons. The Lords have no say in this. They will be involved in the repeal of legislation such as the European Communities Act but if there is any vote it will be in the Commons. I do not believe that there is any majority in the Commons to remain in defiance of the referendum.

    This would be a precedential decision. Surely we want a precedent that makes absolutely clear that Parliament is sovereign. Otherwise, the power of the executive will only increase - especially given the reduction in the number of MPs. We voted to bring back sovereignty from Brussels to Parliament, didn't we?

    Parliament is sovereign. It passed the legislation to allow the referendum to take place. It could not have taken place without it. It has the ability to dismiss the government of the day by a no confidence vote. But, until it does so, it is the duty of government to govern within the rules that Parliament has set. And in this case that involves the implementation of the Article 50 procedure at the appropriate time.

    Yep - the appropriate time being when Parliament has given the green light :-)

    It already has.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 5,507
    Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.

    The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).

    The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.

    The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.

    So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.

    Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.

    My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.

    Sure - but once we leave the customs union the EU has a right to impose duty on goods moving to and from the UK into the single market (and vice versa, of course). That will impose additional time and monetary costs on British businesses. The best way to avoid them is, as much as possible, to ensure that you continue to do your EU-related business from inside an EU member state.

    But if you are looking to import goods into that single market you will always have to deal with the customs union of the EU. Whether you deal with that by goods imported directly from Japan for example or goods from the UK makes no difference.

    The only complicating factor arises if the UK has special access to the EU such as no tariff deal. If that is the case then exports from the UK will need to show they were genuinely produced here and not just imported from Japan to avoid the tariffs that Japan pays. If we ended up on WTO rules, for example, this simply would not arise. If we have a free trade agreement it will but as Open Europe pointed out it is not a particularly big deal.
  • Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Your view is incorrect, the decision was not delegated, the referendum was advisory.
    The 'voice of the people' was not unequivocal.
    52 > 48.

    As for "advisory", see David Herdson's post at 4:28am. It was nothing of the sort.
    That's correct less than 4% between the Leave and Remain vote. That is quite close and can't be described as unequivocal.
    As a matter of fact - the referendum was advisory.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Is this the Remainer Straw Clutching Thread?

    It looks like it. We voted Leave with the biggest mass participation in years/ever, the HMG leaflet said the result would be implemented, the HoC voted for the Referendum Act.

    Trying to nitpick/overturn the vote looks exactly like the EU's attitude to democracy.

    Have a word with yourselves.
  • RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

    Speak for yourself.

    The Queen is the people and the people are the Queen.

    The Queen rules with the people's consent. End of.

    I think you will find that both statements amount to the same thing, other than mine implies that the Queen is a last resort against a capricious parliament which is why royal prerogatives have to be maintained
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.

    That's all part of our ancient democracy.

    Look, there are two things that can happen.

    Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.

    May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.

    The courts are not being asked to overturn the referendum result and have no power to do so unless a law was broken, which it wasn't. They are being asked to decide whether Parliament should decide on when to invoke A50, or whether that is in the power of the government.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.

    That's all part of our ancient democracy.

    Look, there are two things that can happen.

    Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.

    May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.
    The delay in invoking A50 is getting farcical, and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous it gets.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Is this the Remainer Straw Clutching Thread?

    It looks like it. We voted Leave with the biggest mass participation in years/ever, the HMG leaflet said the result would be implemented, the HoC voted for the Referendum Act.

    Trying to nitpick/overturn the vote looks exactly like the EU's attitude to democracy.

    Have a word with yourselves.

    Ha, ha :-D

  • PlatoSaid said:

    Is this the Remainer Straw Clutching Thread?

    It looks like it. We voted Leave with the biggest mass participation in years/ever, the HMG leaflet said the result would be implemented, the HoC voted for the Referendum Act.

    Trying to nitpick/overturn the vote looks exactly like the EU's attitude to democracy.

    Have a word with yourselves.

    It's more like pointing out the facts to Leavers.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take the view that the referendum upturned the settled British constitution and that from here we should start from the principle that what it meant was returning sovereignty to the British people. That sovereignty should be exercised through Parliament, not through the executive. Thus, in my view a vote in Parliament should be required to formally trigger Article 50, but anything other than a vote to do so would be a constitutional outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.
    They said they were going to balance the budget as well. Welcome to the new reality, Cameron is gone and the manifesto doesn't matter any more.
    That wasn't a manifesto, that was an official leaflet from HMG.
    So it's worth even less. If should be well understood that everything claimed by either side in a referendum campaign is a lie.
    The government was lying when it said it would implement the decision of the people?
    Possibly, that remains to be seen. The Prime Minister said he'd pull the lever the day after the referendum and he was definitely lying about that.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    CD13 said:

    Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.

    The funniest part was the testimony of art 'experts' defending this bollocks. You were supposed to look at them and meditate about the meaning of life, A little like a Yoga master can concentrate on the word Ommmmm. Funnily enough, the original bricks had been taken back to the makers and the artist had got his money back (no fool him).

    The experts, of course, knew best and they were scathing about the philistines who didn't understand. I then had a pretentious moment myself. It would serve as an allegory for the EU. The bricks didn't matter, it was an excuse to feel good about yourself at the expense of the plebs, the thickos.

    The EU is an art object. It has no real value - that resides in its power to divide you from the unwashed hordes who have no appreciation of true art. A pile of bricks, an unmade bed, a turd (tinned turd to be exact) or whatever. It tells you that you're special, you can appreciate things that others can't. You're better than them. You can wallow in self-satisfaction. In the case of the EU, you have higher ideals.

    So, to all you Remainers, I've got a pile of dog poo you can buy for £10,000. Or rather, I can collect some if you want. You will be suffering from withdrawal symptoms when we leave the EU.

    The pile of bricks in the Tate looks like the Night Watch compared to the bollox churned out by the Turner Prize.

    I recall an episode of That's Life where they'd a variety of small children and animals wandering about on canvases to produce 'modern art'. Then asked experts to critique them. With predictable Pseuds Corner results.
  • RobD said:


    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    Power resides in the Crown, surely?

    We did not vote to leave the EU to transfer power back to the Crown. We are a democracy and in a democracy the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. The monarch reigns with its (our) consent.

    Speak for yourself.

    The Queen is the people and the people are the Queen.

    The Queen rules with the people's consent. End of.

    I think you will find that both statements amount to the same thing, other than mine implies that the Queen is a last resort against a capricious parliament which is why royal prerogatives have to be maintained

    Surely Parliament should demonstrate its capriciousness before we decide it is capricious.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    SeanT said:

    Does Mr Meeks really believe this fatuous counterfactual bullshit: that Cameron could have won his referendum, but THEN been forced to resign by angry Tory MPs, and consequently the new prime minister Leadsom (I'm trying not to laugh here) would have forced Britain out of the EU anyhow, by ignoring the IN vote and relying on her MPs to vote LEAVE?

    If he does believe this Meeks has a cognitive problem. But he doesn't believe this. He is lying.

    Brexit means, yes, Brexit.

    Well Meeks' argument is that she could just decide on day 1 to leave the EU without consulting Parliament. I'd suggest she'd face a vote of no confidence as soon as the Speaker could arrange a meeting of the Commons!

    That is not Alastair's argument, it is what allowing the exercise of the royal prerogative in this situation means. It gives the executive full and sole decision making over all treaties the UK enters into. So, for example, a Corbyn government - elected on FPTP by 35% of voters - could take us out of NATO without any Parliamentary vote with the support of the SNP and in defiance of a large number of its own MPs. Is that really what we want?
    Which is why people will think twice before electing a Corbyn government propped up by the SNP.
    It's the definition of an Alien Predator HMG.
  • Martin Wolf in yesterday's FT:

    Continued membership of the customs union or the single market, from outside the EU, would deprive the UK of legislative autonomy. The former would mean it could not adopt its own trade policy. The latter would mean accepting all regulations relating to the single market, without possessing any say on them, continuing with free movement of labour, and, probably, paying budget contributions. A country that has rejected membership is not going to accept so humiliating an alternative. It would be a state of dependence far worse than continued EU membership.

    The only reasonable alternative to hard Brexit would be to stay inside the EU. Parliament is constitutionally entitled to ignore the vote result. The people could also be asked if they wanted to change their minds. But the Conservatives would surely follow Labour into ruin if they tried to reverse the outcome.


    https://www.ft.com/content/3328547a-7e3d-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198

    That is bollocks. Outside the EU we have more influence on the single market regulations.

    This is because most of them are EU badged international standards.

    At the moment we are represented by the EU at the international bodies that set those standards. If we leave, we will (like Norway) have our own seat.

    In my own field, if we stayed part of the single market we would be obliged to implement all EU law relating to intellectual property that affected the single market, but we would have no say in how it was formulated or any representation in the courts that interpreted it. There would be no international body for us to join.

    Overall more influence outside dosent mean there wont be losers alas - primarily in areas like your own where the EU makes the rules without reference toninternational rules and standards.

    Although I think even here Norway in some ways have more influence. I will see if I can find the Barkworth article on it later. Going underground now.
  • Sandpit said:

    Morning. I'm of the view that Parliament passed the legislation for the referendum, so delegating the decision on EU membership to the people.

    What's concerning is that the people wanting Parliament to have have a say now, wish to do so only so Parliament - particularly the Lords - can overturn the voice of the People.

    Your view is incorrect, the decision was not delegated, the referendum was advisory.
    The 'voice of the people' was not unequivocal.
    52 > 48.

    As for "advisory", see David Herdson's post at 4:28am. It was nothing of the sort.
    That's correct less than 4% between the Leave and Remain vote. That is quite close and can't be described as unequivocal.
    As a matter of fact - the referendum was advisory.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-legally-binding-brexit-lisbon-cameron-sovereign-parliament
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6
    The vote was in or out, no "maybe" or "Parliament might overturn your decision".

    This whole "advisory" nonsense was only brought up by bad losers after they lost.

    We have, at Parliament's request, decided to leave and Parliament and the courts would be wrong to overturn that decision - and silly to waste time and money upholding it.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Parliament should vote on whether to trigger Article 50. But Parliament should vote to trigger Article 50. To do otherwise would be outrageous.

    From here, we have to ensure that Parliament has primacy over the executive. The British people voted to take power back from Brussels. Our power does not reside in the government, it resides in Parliament. The courts need to clarify that.

    1. Parliament should have primacy over the government but the electorate at large should have primacy over both. A vote in parliament would be contrary to that principle.

    2. Parliament has already had a vote when it passed the legislation authorising the referendum, unless you take the view that the referendum was an irrelevance.

    I take outrage.

    But why? The people's will to leave the EU has been expressed, there is no need for the input of the representatives of the people on this matter.

    It was an advisory referendum. It was Parliament being advised, not the executive.

    That's not what the government said: "The Government will implement what you decide"

    http://wisermonkeys.uk/images/govt-eu-leaflet-promise.jpg

    Sounds like it was the government that was receiving the advice, not Parliament.

    It was Parliament that approved the referendum, though.

    Indeed. They asked us what to do, and we said what to do. The government must now do it.

    Frankly, anyone taking refuge in the phrase "advisory referendum" can safely be ignored.

    Well, that is up to the courts to decide, isn't it?

    It shouldn't be.

    That's all part of our ancient democracy.

    Look, there are two things that can happen.

    Either the courts and Parliament uphold the referendum result, which would be a huge waste of time and money, or one of them overturns it, which would be a democratic disgrace.

    May should shortcut the situation and just invoke A50 now.

    The courts are not being asked to overturn the referendum result and have no power to do so unless a law was broken, which it wasn't. They are being asked to decide whether Parliament should decide on when to invoke A50, or whether that is in the power of the government.

    Same difference.

  • The delay in invoking A50 is getting farcical, and the longer it goes on the more ridiculous it gets.

    This is true, but at the same time people get numbed to the ridiculousness of the situation.
  • DavidL said:

    I understand Philip Hammond is open-minded on staying in the customs union. But, to do this and technically leave the EU's political institutions, would probably be worse than leaving, and render the whole of Liam Fox's department pointless.

    It's a no-brainer: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/post-brexit-leaving-customs-union-no-brainer/

    I don't see this as hard Brexit, it's the most basic of Brexits.

    Yep, a lot of companies are going to be moving operations into the single market and a lot of investment and many jobs will move too.

    My post referred to the customs union, not the single market.

    Sure - but once we leave the customs union the EU has a right to impose duty on goods moving to and from the UK into the single market (and vice versa, of course). That will impose additional time and monetary costs on British businesses. The best way to avoid them is, as much as possible, to ensure that you continue to do your EU-related business from inside an EU member state.

    But if you are looking to import goods into that single market you will always have to deal with the customs union of the EU. Whether you deal with that by goods imported directly from Japan for example or goods from the UK makes no difference.

    The only complicating factor arises if the UK has special access to the EU such as no tariff deal. If that is the case then exports from the UK will need to show they were genuinely produced here and not just imported from Japan to avoid the tariffs that Japan pays. If we ended up on WTO rules, for example, this simply would not arise. If we have a free trade agreement it will but as Open Europe pointed out it is not a particularly big deal.

    If you create the goods in the single market then you are in the single market and there is no problem. That was my original point. Investments and jobs that would have been created in a UK that was part of the single market will no longer occur in the UK, but in the EU.

  • PlatoSaid said:

    Is this the Remainer Straw Clutching Thread?

    It looks like it. We voted Leave with the biggest mass participation in years/ever, the HMG leaflet said the result would be implemented, the HoC voted for the Referendum Act.

    Trying to nitpick/overturn the vote looks exactly like the EU's attitude to democracy.

    Have a word with yourselves.

    It's more like pointing out the facts to Leavers.
    The facts are:

    (1) Parliament asked the people if we should leave
    (2) The people voted to leave
    (3) The government must now leave.
    (4) Er, that's it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 46,486
    CD13 said:

    Unusually for me, I spent an hour watching a BBC4 programme last night about a pile of bricks. It was hilarious. In the 1970s, the Tate Gallery spent £25k in today's money acquiring a pile of 120 bricks because it was conceptual art.

    I have a vague memory of being taken to see that as a child, but as the exhibition was "on tour" I don't think it was the original bricks...
This discussion has been closed.