Turn on thread page Beta

Breaking news- mp demands to vote on brexit upheld by high court! watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I disagree with the decision but don't believe it will be a threat or even meaningful (parliament can't force May to negotiate a certain deal and if they don't agree to ratify it afterward, we get WTO rules).

    May should call the vote soon and loudly. If she puts a 3 line whip on the Tories and loudly paints Labour as getting in the way then thanks to our FPTP electoral system, Labour MP's who don't fall in line will be slaughtered like cattle.

    Only pick the battles you know you can win.
    Corbyn has said that Labour will vote to leave the EU.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    It is moronic to allow our mandate-less prime minister to dictate one of the most important foreign policy situations of our generation with no oversight by our elected representatives. Parliament must debate and vote on the terms of Brexit.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    At the end of the day they're going to be debating and voting on the final terms of Brexit. I'm all for that. People were misinformed during this Brexit campaign, on both sides, and so it would only be fair to have another vote on whether or not the terms are favourable and in the countries interest.

    Parliament is sovereign after all; MPs are elected based on local constituencies, and so they will end up having a say hopefully.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Corbyn has said that Labour will vote to leave the EU.
    Saw that thread after i posted this although that does make making a fuss almost entirely pointless.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Saw that thread after i posted this although that does make making a fuss almost entirely pointless.
    It's not about whether or not we leave, it's about the whole process. Parliament should have a say in the terms. Tbh I used to think May was ideologically unsatisfactory but competent. I'm starting to seriously doubt her ability to get anything done.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I disagree with the decision but don't believe it will be a threat or even meaningful (parliament can't force May to negotiate a certain deal and if they don't agree to ratify it afterward, we get WTO rules).

    May should call the vote soon and loudly. If she puts a 3 line whip on the Tories and loudly paints Labour as getting in the way then thanks to our FPTP electoral system, Labour MP's who don't fall in line will be slaughtered like cattle.

    Only pick the battles you know you can win.
    What's the legal basis for you disagreeing? This was a legal decision not a political one and according to British constitutional law, the government cannot use its prerogative to override an act of parliament (Article 50 would have overridden the ECA 1972).

    The referendum while politically binding is not legally binding and thus has no legal effect on the legal requirements for withdrawing from the EU.

    Why do you think this was the wrong legal decision?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It's not about whether or not we leave, it's about the whole process. Parliament should have a say in the terms. Tbh I used to think May was ideologically unsatisfactory but competent. I'm starting to seriously doubt her ability to get anything done.
    Yes but that's the point, parliament still has no say on the terms.

    Parliament can tell May to go get a French baguette all they want but they have no real power to stop her asking for a British cows milk and if parliament does not like milk then in 2 years they get nothing.

    Parliament is not the one negotiating, the executive is. Ergo, parliament has no way to enforce anything they want from these negotiations short of electoral pressure and that so far has not occurred.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What's the legal basis for you disagreeing? This was a legal decision not a political one and according to British constitutional law, the government cannot use its prerogative to override an act of parliament (Article 50 would have overridden the ECA 1972).

    The referendum while politically binding is not legally binding and thus has no legal effect on the legal requirements for withdrawing from the EU.

    Why do you think this was the wrong legal decision?
    I'd have argued that all article 50 does is begin a negotiation. Only direct repeal of the 72 act overrides an act of parliament.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)



    I'd have argued that all article 50 does is begin a negotiation. Only direct repeal of the 72 act overrides an act of parliament.
    The judges dismissed that.
    Article 50 is irrevocable and thus if no agreement is reached within two years, it would in effect override ECA 1972.

    The government cannot use its prerogative powers to override or overrule an act of parliament, either directly or indirectly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's laughable and pathetic that people are questioning the judge's credibility and impartiality because they simply disagree with the decision.
    I thought people loved British judges and Parliamentary Sovereignty?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The judges dismissed that.
    Article 50 is irrevocable and thus if no agreement is reached within two years, it would in effect override ECA 1972.
    .
    The Claimants and the government agreed that activating 50 is irrevocable. There is only one problem. The EU and Lord Kerr, the man who drafted it, disagree.

    Today's decision rests in large part on the activating Article 50 altering vested individual rights. If activation is revocable, it is a lot easier to say that activation is merely a preliminary step that doesn't of itself alter legal rights.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The Claimants and the government agreed that activating 50 is irrevocable. There is only one problem. The EU and Lord Kerr, the man who drafted it, disagree.

    Today's decision rests in large part on the activating Article 50 altering vested individual rights. If activation is revocable, it is a lot easier to say that activation is merely a preliminary step that doesn't of itself alter legal rights.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If it is irrevocable do you accept the courts deciison that this would in effect override the ECA 1972 and therefore run contrary to Parliamentary Soveriegnty?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)

    The government cannot use its prerogative powers to override or overrule an act of parliament, either directly or indirectly.
    But section 2(2) of the European Communities Act expressly authorises the Crown to give an Article 50 notice.

    "..Her Majesty may by Order in Council...make provision...for the purpose of...enabling any rights enjoyed...under the Treaties to be exercised"

    The right to leave the EU is a right enjoyed by the UK under the Treaties.

    Why did neither side argue this?

    Because by Schedule 2 to the European Communities Act an Order in Council is a statutory instrument capable of being annulled if voted down in a straight up and down vote by either House of Parliament.

    The Claimant was arguing that an Act of Parliament was needed to activate Article 50 rather than a vote on what is called a prayer disapproving a statutory instrument. The government didn't want to concede even this limited involvement to Parliament.

    It was the answer neither side wanted.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    there's no way in hell a parliamentary party would vote *against* a democratic referendum decision.
    I mean...who do they think they are, the EU? they wish
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    This amuses me as if it's going to be some massive thing.

    No terms will be agreed before triggering within the chamber it will be a vote to trigger article 50 only and it will get a majority.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    This amuses me as if it's going to be some massive thing.

    No terms will be agreed before triggering within the chamber it will be a vote to trigger article 50 only and it will get a majority.

    On the basis of the High Court decision, this cannot be a single Parliamentary vote, it has to be an Act of Parliament. I don't think the decision is correct, but subject to any appeal, it is the law.

    Let's look at a Parliamentary timetable.

    It would be unthinkable that the Bill is not introduced in the Commons.

    First reading is a formality

    Second Reading is on the principles of the Bill. The government will get a handsome majority. I suspect only the SNP and mavericks on the Labour/Conservative side will oppose. Liberals will abstain.

    Constitutional measures are always taken in Committee of the Whole House for detailed scrutiny. To get a Timetable motion through, the government will have to be extremely generous with time and that will derail virtually other Parliamentary business.

    The key question will be what amendments are ruled "in order" for debate. We do not know what amendments will pass and whether any of these will be wrecking amendments or will be perceived by government as wrecking amendments.

    As the Committee stage was taken on the floor of the House, Report Stage is the opportunity for the government to try and reverse amendments it does not like and to tidy up the drafting.

    Third Reading is the crunch. If by this point the Bill has amendments the government won't accept (perhaps which amount to Parliamentary control of the whole negotiating process or red lines which government cannot negotiate away), the government has to abandon the Bill. The Government has won the only vote on the principle of the legislation but yet the legislation is lost.

    Assume the government defeats any wrecking amendments. The Bill will pass third reading probably without a division.

    It will then go to the Lords. Again first reading is formal. By convention the Lords give a second reading to any Bill that has passed the Commons. Committee stage is on the floor of the House. There is a greater chance of wrecking amendments being passed and a greater chance of then surviving the Report Stage, because there are very few Brexiteers in the Lords.

    If the Bill survives third reading there will be ping-pong between the Houses but there is a real risk that it will be defeated on third reading. The Salisbury Convention, that the Lords do not defeat the manifesto commitments of the government, won't apply.

    If the Bill doesn't pass the Lords in a form acceptable to the Commons there will be a year's delay before the government can invoke the Parliament Act.

    If the government has got this far, is it worth a general election? It is more likely May would try and have an election if the Bill hits trouble at Committee stage in the Commons. However she may find Corbyn less willing than he has said he would be to facilitate an early election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is this will lead to a soft brexit as labour will lodge a lot of amendments
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Leave voters:

    'We want Parliament to be sovereign and take back control'

    High Court: 'Parliament is sovereign'

    Leave voters :

    'Disgrace! Treachery! The judges are enemies of the people!'
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sdotd)
    The problem is this will lead to a soft brexit as labour will lodge a lot of amendments
    You say this is a problem but if there had been two questions on the referendum paper:-

    Hard Brexit v Remain

    Soft Brexit v Remain

    Remain would probably have won both.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If parliament voted against Brexit something I am skeptical would happen then Theresa May's move would be clear remove the Whip from the Tory MPs that did so, de select them as Tory candidates and call a snap election allowing only candidates who commit to voting out as MPs.

    May appears to understand peoples concerns and is determined to respect the voter.

    She is tough Cookie.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    If parliament voted against Brexit something I am skeptical would happen then Theresa May's move would be clear remove the Whip from the Tory MPs that did so, de select them as Tory candidates and call a snap election allowing only candidates who commit to voting out as MPs.

    May appears to understand peoples concerns and is determined to respect the voter.

    She is tough Cookie.
    She can remove the whip.

    She has very limited power over local Conservative Associations.

    One practical problem is that most non-Conservative seats have no candidate in place.

    She could have a "coupon election" where she ignores party affiliation and gives a personal endorsement only to the candidates she backs. However, when Lloyd George did that in 1919 the result was that the Liberals lost power for almost a century.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,131

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.