Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May loses her battle to be able to invoke Article 50 w
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May loses her battle to be able to invoke Article 50 without an Act of Parliament
So now TMay will have to get a bill through the commons & Lord to trigger Article 50https://t.co/viGKHORRZm pic.twitter.com/EVq1lWLfsE
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How many hitherto leavers will suddenly flip their stance on the Lords if it mucks around with the bill ?
How many remainers will suddenly become fans if the Lords does the same ?
Edit: I'm expecting papers to be released showing that Corbyn was actually a Conservative sleeper agent, placed into position by Thatcher to destroy her opponents. McDonnell was another.
Abbott failed to qualify to be an agent, and is just a useful idiot ...
Rather intemperate post about my knowledge that drivers licenses act as a defacto state ID in the US.
Yes, I do know that. @edmundintokyo was concerned that having to go to the DMV (which was horrible the one time I've been, but no worse than a UK passport office) was an effective barrier to voters obtaining voting rights.
I pointed out that it was possible in CA (but I don't know about WI) to get a driver's license by post.
So I'm not quite sure what you are concerned about...
'Already has', surely?
So we will trigger Article 50. We are leaving the EU, either on an acceptable deal with the EU or else on WTO terms if they want to press on with the "punishment beatings".
The Remainers at that point either fold up their tents and accept we have a new relationship with Europe - or become Rejoiners - on whatever terms the EU requires of joiners, including Schengen, the EU, a European Army et al. The appetite for that in the UK? Tiny.
Yet again the elite show their contempt for Brexit voters! Supreme Court rules Theresa May CANNOT trigger Britain's departure from the EU without MPs' approval
Labour, having just been told in no uncertain terms that Parliament is sovereign, are going to seek to frustrate future parliaments' sovereignty over labour laws. Good luck with that!
If I were Mrs May, I would be delighted. The court case has done her all manner of favours.
It has shot the devolved assemblies' collective fox, put Labour back on the political cross, allowed time for tempers to cool, reinforced the UK's attractiveness as a law-abiding polity and allowed her to present her opposition with a virtual fait accomplis.
It's an ill wind etc.
decision of the English and Welsh Divisional Court, (ii) we invite the parties to the
reference from the Northern Irish Court of Appeal to agree or, failing agreement, to
make written submissions as to the order to be made on the appeal from that Court,
and (iii) we answer the second and fifth questions referred by the courts of Northern
Ireland as indicated respectively in paras 150 and 134 above, and we do not answer
the first, third and fourth questions as they have been superseded.
It must be impossible now for any politician to survive if they attempt to delay or stop the process and that includes the HOL.
A good day at the office for her
"Beginning later this week, I'm excited to announce that we're going to have four what we call 'Skype seats,' live here in the briefing room," Spicer said during Monday's briefing.
He said that the purpose was to "open up" the briefings to "a diverse group of journalists from around the country who may not have the convenience or funding to travel to Washington."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-to-include-skype-seats-in-press-briefing-room/article/2612700
When we were heading for soft Brexit a further referendum would have given the Moggsters a chance to impose hard Brexit by vetoing the deal.
But now we are heading for a hard Brexit anyway the extra referendum becomes moot
*cough*
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/09/21/in-safe-hands-whose-finger-is-on-the-article-50-button/
"What of the referendum? Well, not much. It was in legal terms an advisory referendum and the government – formally at least – is free to ignore it. Indeed, it is easy to construct an alternative history where the referendum went the other way but David Cameron was ousted in favour of a Brexiteering Prime Minister. Would Prime Minister Leadsom really have been legally entitled to disregard popular opinion and, without seeking the sanction of Parliament, take Britain out of the EU anyway? Logically the scope of the royal prerogative cannot be determined by the result of a non-binding referendum. Either Parliament has a say in this or it doesn’t."
“I welcome today's judgement. But this court case was never about legal arguments, it was about giving the people a voice, a say, in what happens next.
“This Tory Brexit government are keen to laud the democratic process when it suits them, but will not give the people a voice over the final deal. They seem happy to start with democracy and end in a stitch up.
“The Liberal Democrats are clear, we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for Article 50.”
No amendment will pass.
....And have zero impact on Britain as a whole.
As I said, timewasters.
"4. Some of the most important issues of law which judges have to decide concern questions relating to the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. These proceedings raise such issues. As already indicated, this is not because they concern the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union; it is because they concern (i) the extent of ministers’ power to effect changes in domestic law through exercise of their prerogative powers at the international level, and (ii) the relationship between the UK government and Parliament on the one hand and the devolved legislatures and administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the other."
This situation must never be allowed to happen again.
Corbo's statement actually has the words 'bargain basement' in it.
What a hopeless leader.
OK, fine.
Nor should it be legally. If it could be retractable, that would encourage the EU to enter into bad faith negotiations/no negotiations. Article 50 only works if it is certain the party using it will leave in 2 years.
Sadly those who lost are not that willing to cede it; not being used to losing, etc.
Two in five people still don't know where Labour stands on #Brexit, while another 15% think it wants Britain to remain in the EU https://t.co/88dxhTPX3Q
The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly did not have a legal veto on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. Nor in our view has the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We need a constitutional convention post Brexit, but I doubt we'll get one.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/01/out-campaign
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say. "
Labour demands a plan from the government, accountability to Parliament throughout negotiations and a meaningful vote on the final deal.
Err No Jeremey, negotiations don't work that way.
Remainers rightly have left them well alone.
Yes they should become binding. If they remain winner-takes-all a threshold should be introduced too, such as 60/40% or 67/33%.
If the 1975 vote had been binding, we wouldn't be going through all this. Yes won by 67/33%.
It's the gaping chasm between how both the UK and the EU see the future that both led to the vote, and to the pursuit of a clean break.
That the Supreme Court were able to deliver a judgment that flew in the face of what the Govt. might have WANTED it to give is a very healthy thing. And not a resigning issue.
Big win for Theresa May in my view irrespective of whether it was planned in this way. Supreme Court gives her clarity and puts the issue to bed. She can now bat away any SNP complaints and the vote through parliament should be a formality. The Lords is the only remaining obstacle.