Government loses article 50 court fight
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mimir
The Law cannot, and should not, interfere with politics. All the judiciary is doing here is mediating between two sides of a political squabble.
I doubt the same ruling will come from the Supreme Court, this is a unique circumstance, it is to simply follow the will of the people. There is no precedent. I think this is the angle the Appellants will take and ultimately be successful given how the people have in effect voted, without the need for their elected representatives to do so, for Article 50 to be invoked.
The Law cannot, and should not, interfere with politics. All the judiciary is doing here is mediating between two sides of a political squabble.
I doubt the same ruling will come from the Supreme Court, this is a unique circumstance, it is to simply follow the will of the people. There is no precedent. I think this is the angle the Appellants will take and ultimately be successful given how the people have in effect voted, without the need for their elected representatives to do so, for Article 50 to be invoked.
In what way is the Court mediating a political discussion? The question is one of process - the Court is saying that Parliament should get to decide on this matter, not the Executive (and not the Court itself). The Court isn't interfering to any greater extent than requiring the Government to comply with constitutional law.
Given the rest of your post I'm sure you understand this, so I'm a bit confused by what you've said above.
Original post by MrMackyTv
I wanted leave, not necessarily upset but I have my doubts of course. If it requires legislation to invoke Article 50 then Theresa May's target to leave will be delayed, since they are sovereign, if they really wanted to they could delay it for as long as they want. But I am confident that most MPs would vote for it and not against it. They may be sovereign but they are representing their people - therefore they need to listen and respect the vote of the people. Unfortunately... that's too hard for some MPs to understand.
Constituents don't necessarily feel the same as they did a few months ago, considering all that has happened since. It's also worth pointing out that not all constituents voted, and those that did won by a small margin.
I think the MPs are going to be more concerned by what is going on within their own parties than what the people think.
Original post by Iridocyclitis
Can you support Parliamentary Sovereignty in general but not support it overriding the will of the majority of the people?
First of all you do not have a majority of the people. You have a majority of those who took part in a referendum on a particular day. We don't really know what the public think today. The few post-referendum opinion polls have been looking for voters' remorse (do you regret the way you voted) rather than a re-run (if there was a second referendum tomorrow, how would you vote).
The problem is that there are issues which aren't knife edge issues, where there is a solid majority opposed to government policy. There is always a large majority for spending more money on virtually every area of government policy. There is always a large majority for increasing sentences for virtually all crimes. Are we saying these should be put to a referendum?
The public votes without responsibility for implementing a decision. The public can, as the Californian public frequently does, vote for lower taxes and higher spending. Undoubtedly those pro-Brexit voters who wanted the unattainable "no free movement of people" but "remain within single market" because they did not consider it to be unattainable (and various Brexit campaigners said it was attainable) exceeded the Leave majority.
Really, the challenge to Parliamentary sovereignty is result driven special pleading for a particular cause the challengers favour.
Original post by Crassy
I have far more respect for Barry then some self important post grad, at least Barry's existence is generative and productive and not parasitical and sterile.
Indeed, it's very clear that you think this. Since you seem to show utter contempt towards people who actually know what they're talking about. When you start considering the experts as your enemy, that's probably a good indicator that you need to re-evaluate your perspectives.
Original post by Iridocyclitis
You are saying that a handful of people who have been delegated the job of representing millions of people (for practical reasons) should be able to turn around and supersede the will of those millions of people because of the archaic idea that Parliamentary Sovereignty is somehow divinely above everything else, including the will of the entire electorate. That sounds like something a royalist would have said about the Divine Right of Kings during the civil war.
You're confusing the referendum vote with an actual plan for what should happen. It's like if we both had a chat about the need for reform of the prison system and both agreed we should vote for reform.
Then I decided that we were going to extend the death penalty to ALL crimes. If you disagree about the nature of the reform, believing that for instance a parking ticket does not merit capital execution, I point out that it was the will of the people because we both voted for it. <--- this is what you are saying.
If you voted Leave you have absolutely no idea what you voted for, so you can't actually come out with all this 'will of the people' stuff. Did you vote for a 100% death penalty? Did you vote for murderers being set free? Did you vote for every cell to have an ice cream dispenser? Because right now you're saying that you voted for 4 people to take every single big decision on the behalf of 60 million of us with no say and no scrutiny, even though you have absolutely no idea what those decisions will be. Bearing in mind these are not even 4 people with the national interest in mind, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson are class A self-serving idiots who genuinely appear to know nothing about the EU and how it works.
I live in a democracy and not the autocratic state of Theresa May and her three Brexit ministers. The idea that the nature of Brexit, which genuinely has the potential to completely ditch this entire country if done badly, should be decided for every single one of us by just four individual people (also unelected for this position) who won't tell anybody what their 'top secret Brexit plans' are* despite the huge implications for all of us - as opposed to with input from the actual people we voted to represent us - is completely undemocratic. Unless 'taking back control' means out entire country being run by about 4 people who have indeed taken control, it's also massively hypocritical for many people who made arguments about the EU being undemocratic in the first place!
*unless you're the CEO of Nissan or other companies which we will need to grovel to to attempt to prevent huge job losses
(edited 7 years ago)
It infuriates me that yesterday's court ruling (which frankly had nothing to do with Brexit itself, it was just a point of law) is being hijacked and deliberately misinterpreted by the alt-right to fuel anger and resentment against one of our best institutions. I lost count how many times Dominic Raab said "unelected judges" yesterday, as though that is a bad thing - how could the judiciary possibly remain independent if they were elected? 
I just think it's hilarious how so many brexitors think whether or not the exit is hard or soft is in our control lmao.
In reality it's us who will have to be begging the EU for decent terms. We 100% won't get anything near what the leave campaign promised.
In reality it's us who will have to be begging the EU for decent terms. We 100% won't get anything near what the leave campaign promised.
Original post by Snufkin
It infuriates me that yesterday's court ruling (which frankly had nothing to do with Brexit itself, it was just a point of law) is being hijacked and deliberately misinterpreted by the alt-right to fuel anger and resentment against one of our best institutions. I lost count how many times Dominic Raab said "unelected judges" yesterday, as though that is a bad thing - how could the judiciary possibly remain independent if they were elected?
Particularly amazing given that the ruling was that our elected MPs should have a say on this, rather than a handful of cabinet ministers nobody voted for.
Original post by Maker
Conversly, the better off will be less sympatheic to the poor and less likely to want to help them or allow their taxes to pay for them. It makes the country more divided and less generous.
So you're saying what exactly? That the poor should have learnt their place and voted the way their betters wanted them to?
Original post by Snufkin
It infuriates me that yesterday's court ruling (which frankly had nothing to do with Brexit itself, it was just a point of law) is being hijacked and deliberately misinterpreted by the alt-right to fuel anger and resentment against one of our best institutions. I lost count how many times Dominic Raab said "unelected judges" yesterday, as though that is a bad thing - how could the judiciary possibly remain independent if they were elected?
Its been hijacked by Remainers as well. Nick Clegg was on Radio 4 this morning implying that this desicion was made so that MPs can scrutinise any deal in specifics.
As I understand the ruling isnone of pure process, that it pertains to Brexit is irrelevant. The Executive cannot change the law without the permission of Parliament. Are we all going to sit here and say that that is a bad thing?
I find the leading Brexiters to be infuriatingly hard to pin down these days. One day they want Parliament to be of upmost sovreignty, the next they wont the government to do what they like regardless od Parliament. They wanted more democratic proccess but largely oppose PR and HoL reform, until something doesnt go their way and suddenly its wful that the uneelected HoL can influence policy.
I can't believe all the Brexiters complaining that this is somehow an affront to democracy, It's really quite the opposite.
As Gina Miller, the woman in charge of the case, so aptly stated: "you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it."
Many Brexiters voted to Leave on the basis that we would give more power to our own parliament and restore our national democracy. Yet, many of those same people now want to bypass our parliament and our national democracy just because it suits them.
And people should stop worrying that Parliament will block article 50 now. There's no way that the majority of ministers would be willing to put their reputations on the line again to block a people's vote.(not long after a lot of them already put their jobs on the chopping block in the referendum debates) They know that Brexit means Brexit, and now they just need to get the best deal they can.
However, article 50 MIGHT be delayed; but that's fine. I'm sure you'd rather have a short delay than have the economy crash because they rush the decision without considering all the factors involved.
As Gina Miller, the woman in charge of the case, so aptly stated: "you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it."
Many Brexiters voted to Leave on the basis that we would give more power to our own parliament and restore our national democracy. Yet, many of those same people now want to bypass our parliament and our national democracy just because it suits them.
And people should stop worrying that Parliament will block article 50 now. There's no way that the majority of ministers would be willing to put their reputations on the line again to block a people's vote.(not long after a lot of them already put their jobs on the chopping block in the referendum debates) They know that Brexit means Brexit, and now they just need to get the best deal they can.
However, article 50 MIGHT be delayed; but that's fine. I'm sure you'd rather have a short delay than have the economy crash because they rush the decision without considering all the factors involved.
Original post by mojojojo101
Its been hijacked by Remainers as well. Nick Clegg was on Radio 4 this morning implying that this desicion was made so that MPs can scrutinise any deal in specifics.
As I understand the ruling isnone of pure process, that it pertains to Brexit is irrelevant. The Executive cannot change the law without the permission of Parliament. Are we all going to sit here and say that that is a bad thing?
I find the leading Brexiters to be infuriatingly hard to pin down these days. One day they want Parliament to be of upmost sovreignty, the next they wont the government to do what they like regardless od Parliament. They wanted more democratic proccess but largely oppose PR and HoL reform, until something doesnt go their way and suddenly its wful that the uneelected HoL can influence policy.
As I understand the ruling isnone of pure process, that it pertains to Brexit is irrelevant. The Executive cannot change the law without the permission of Parliament. Are we all going to sit here and say that that is a bad thing?
I find the leading Brexiters to be infuriatingly hard to pin down these days. One day they want Parliament to be of upmost sovreignty, the next they wont the government to do what they like regardless od Parliament. They wanted more democratic proccess but largely oppose PR and HoL reform, until something doesnt go their way and suddenly its wful that the uneelected HoL can influence policy.
It's all *******s. What they dislike is 'red tape' (read: rules constraining their whims).
Original post by tazarooni89
Nobody specifically wants to "reduce the power and influence of our parliament". People didn't vote to Remain because they thought "We'd be able to make our own rules if we leave, I'm not having that!".
The point is, that's exactly what happen when we remain in the EU. It is a simple fact that European Parliaments and laws supersedes those of the UK's.
It's the same logic that some people who voted Leave expected short term negative effects to the economy, doesn't mean they wish it to happen.
Original post by NickLCFC
Parliament voted 544 to 53 to hold the referendum in the first place.
I don't have a problem with Parliament voting on invoking article 50 but if they ignore the will of the British people then there will probably be violence.
I don't have a problem with Parliament voting on invoking article 50 but if they ignore the will of the British people then there will probably be violence.
Oh...
Think of it like a family where you have the children demanding chips and ice cream for brexit, sorry breakfast, and the parent gently telling them that it's not in their best interests and giving them porridge. Of course the children aren't happy, but should they be allowed chips and ice cream for breakfast just because they want it?
Some decisions are best left to grown-ups.
Original post by CherishFreedom
Just simple cause and effect, if you let the European Parliament make our laws for us, our parliament loses its power and influence.
Newsflash - every law in place in the UK was passed by Parliament in Westminster, and there were no measures in place to change that.
So, now that you know that the reason you voted Leave (if you are old enough) was just made up rubbish, are you going to change your position?
Original post by The Epicurean
But that was not the reasoning behind peoples votes to remain the EU.
As I said that's exactly what happen when we remain in the EU. It is a simple fact that European Parliaments and laws supersedes those of the UK's.
It was expected and within the consideration of people who voted to remain, therefore it formed part of their action to withhold this system.
Original post by The Epicurean
I am talking beyond my social group. I am talking newspapers, forums, the internet etc... Certain arguments played a major role in this campaigns on both sides. One of the major arguments being used throughout all mediums among Brexiters was the desire to "take back our country". However, among Remainers, the desire to "reduce the power and influence of our parliament" was not a major argument that played a role in the remain camp.
I am talking beyond my social group. I am talking newspapers, forums, the internet etc... Certain arguments played a major role in this campaigns on both sides. One of the major arguments being used throughout all mediums among Brexiters was the desire to "take back our country". However, among Remainers, the desire to "reduce the power and influence of our parliament" was not a major argument that played a role in the remain camp.
That means almost nothing in a political debate. It is natural that you may be surrounding yourself with friends who are of similar political beliefs, and you may be reading from outlets which you only agree with.
As I have mentioned above, it was understood that that would form part of the outcome if we voted to remain. Therefore their action in effect voted in agreement with it.
Also, the referendum was the biggest democratic exercise in 40 years. Everyone was eligible to vote and everybody's vote had the same weighting, unlike FPTP in general elections. MPs in parliament are representatives of which their powers are leveraged to them by voters. It is only natural that a referendum forms a more direct and accurate mandate to the government.
When people said they wish to 'take back control', it means that they want to have complete control on laws and how the country is ran. A referendum does exactly that, and more in terms of the accuracy and clarity of mandate compared to parliamentary representative. It is therefore within the logic, that parliament in this instance is not needed and should not intervene with the referendum's mandate - to leave the EU. It is however suitable that the government must consult parliament on the final Brexit terms before invoking Article 50, something which the government had indicated that there will be a vote in parliament.
Simply saying that they don't want UK parliament to gain powers despite calling for it is not correct. I think you are taking their statement way too literally and ignoring the underlying message that their intention is to allow British people to have complete control and say over laws and legislation.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Jazzyboy
I can't believe all the Brexiters complaining that this is somehow an affront to democracy, It's really quite the opposite.
As Gina Miller, the woman in charge of the case, so aptly stated: "you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it."
Many Brexiters voted to Leave on the basis that we would give more power to our own parliament and restore our national democracy. Yet, many of those same people now want to bypass our parliament and our national democracy just because it suits them.
And people should stop worrying that Parliament will block article 50 now. There's no way that the majority of ministers would be willing to put their reputations on the line again to block a people's vote.(not long after a lot of them already put their jobs on the chopping block in the referendum debates) They know that Brexit means Brexit, and now they just need to get the best deal they can.
However, article 50 MIGHT be delayed; but that's fine. I'm sure you'd rather have a short delay than have the economy crash because they rush the decision without considering all the factors involved.
As Gina Miller, the woman in charge of the case, so aptly stated: "you can't have it both ways. You can't talk about getting back a sovereign Parliament and being in control but at the same time then bypass it."
Many Brexiters voted to Leave on the basis that we would give more power to our own parliament and restore our national democracy. Yet, many of those same people now want to bypass our parliament and our national democracy just because it suits them.
And people should stop worrying that Parliament will block article 50 now. There's no way that the majority of ministers would be willing to put their reputations on the line again to block a people's vote.(not long after a lot of them already put their jobs on the chopping block in the referendum debates) They know that Brexit means Brexit, and now they just need to get the best deal they can.
However, article 50 MIGHT be delayed; but that's fine. I'm sure you'd rather have a short delay than have the economy crash because they rush the decision without considering all the factors involved.
I was giving it "Who do these f'ing judges think they are?" yesterday but you make very good points.
Original post by QE2
Ah, I get it now. The particular lie that you fell for was the one about Brussels making our laws for us.
Newsflash - every law in place in the UK was passed by Parliament in Westminster, and there were no measures in place to change that.
So, now that you know that the reason you voted Leave (if you are old enough) was just made up rubbish, are you going to change your position?
Newsflash - every law in place in the UK was passed by Parliament in Westminster, and there were no measures in place to change that.
So, now that you know that the reason you voted Leave (if you are old enough) was just made up rubbish, are you going to change your position?
You are incorrect. European regulations (which forms part of EU laws) supersedes those of the UK, and impose a minimum in which the UK government must apply to their own laws. Any violation will result in fines and penalty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105
'It is safe to say that EU law does have a very significant presence and effect in UK law.'
You can keep trying to divert away from the facts. It is simply ludicrous to anyone, that EU does not have a major control over our laws.
Original post by Dodgypirate
From oligarchy to democracy, welcome to the United Kingdom.
You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?
I will personally be up in arms if MPs vote against Brexit and the triggering of Article 50. They're supposed to work for us. Bunch of *****.
Original post by QE2
There, fixed that for ya.
You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?
So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?
You do realise that the HC ruling simply tells the government that they cannot make constitutional changes without first consulting Parliament. Or in other words, they must follow the established, democratic process. A referendum is not part of that, it is merely a consultative process that is in no way legally binding. It showed that there was a will to leave the EU. Now Parliament must debate how that happens, not leave it to a few individuals. It's exactly the kind of "Taking Our Country Back" and "Sovereignty Of Parliament" that Brexiteers have been banging on about.
Or maybe it really was just about blaming Johnny Foreigner after all?
So, have you always been "up in arms" every time Parliament votes in a way that conflicts with your personal position?
You are correct
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OCR A level History
- Petition to STOP student loans going down
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- Terrorist NHS worker planned to bomb hospital
- Evaluate the interpretations
- do you still have to pay back ALL of maintenance loan if you don't use all of it?
- UK government loses Rwanda scheme appeal in the Supreme Court
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Should digital media spreading venomous hatred be regulated?
- What do you think will happen to Donald the dump Trump?
- Is Israel winning
- Top Army Chief Warns of Britons Facing Draft in Potential UK-Russia Conflict
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Help with Edexcel AS level politics question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
