Post-Brexit Thread

[ianch99]

Nigel was upset about the vote:

I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.

I like the reply from this dude:

@Nigel_Farage It is a british court applying british law serving justice to british people. Isnt that right up your alley?

[Tarantella]

If it stands the ramifications of the court decision go deeper than just Brexit.

Nothing wrong with the primacy of Parliament over the incumbent government.

Just need to roll everything back 20 years or so.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The country voted for leave. It didn't decide when it would happen. It didn't decide the terms of the departure so there is nothing to water down/thicken up in the first place. Brexit means Brexit. Theresa May has said she's sticking to her timetable so I can't see what leavers have to worry about.

l voted to remain in but we are going out and that is that but l am certainly glad that there is going to Parliamentiary oversight over it.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

l voted to remain in but we are going out and that is that but l am certainly glad that there is going to Parliamentiary oversight over it.

Not if the govt. can help it it, they want to appeal and rush it through. This is massive for the country and is going to affect generations to come. It's important to take time and get it right. Stuff the Ice Queens 'timetable'.

The papers are pretty hysterical this morning. They don't seem to understand the purpose of a independent judicially.

It's all heat and very little light from both sides. Outraged brexiteers on one hand and smug Remainers on the other, who seem genuinely to think this is the beginning of the end of Brexit.

I'm pretty darned sure whatever happens between now and 2020, the uk is going to stop being a member of the EU.

Originally Posted by Chris

It's all heat and very little light from both sides. Outraged brexiteers on one hand and smug Remainers on the other, who seem genuinely to think this is the beginning of the end of Brexit.

I'm pretty darned sure whatever happens between now and 2020, the uk is going to stop being a member of the EU.

What he said...

When did 'unelected' judges become a thing anyway? They're always unelected.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by nomadking

If Scotland had voted Yes in their referendum, would anyone seriously be saying that Parliament had to still to ratify it and would say no?

Good point.

[Pierre]

exactly what has to go before parliament though?

Originally Posted by nomadking

If Scotland had voted Yes in their referendum, would anyone seriously be saying that Parliament had to still to ratify it and would say no?

I believe that was also not legally binding so would have had to go for a vote in Parliament although I imagine that would also have had a lot of legal and constitutional issues as you tried to dissociate two nations.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

exactly what has to go before parliament though?

Presumably a bill giving the government the authority to issue Article 50.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Pierre

exactly what has to go before parliament though?

This is the whole point of the case though. Nothing will be done without Parlimentary approval. i.e. a Yes or No vote at present.

The result of the court case (pending appeal) now will involve the House of Lords after the House of Commons has debated and passed (or put amendments forward).

The HoL may pass it back unchanged OR pass it back with their amendments. It will then have to be debated yet again by the HoC.

Personaqlly I think this whole fiasco was caused by Cameron. He stated that whatever the result of the referendum he would implement the will of the People, instead he resigned. What a good guy.

Where Terasa May slipped up (IMHO) was not immediately on her first day as Leader was asking Parliament to agree to implement the result of the referendum thereby enacting the will of the people with Parlimentary approval.

It may be that she was advised that lilly livered David had already promised that so there was no need but in hindsight ( a wonderful thing) the court case would never (possibly) have happened or failed.

Originally Posted by Pierre

exactly what has to go before parliament though?

An Act of primary legislation sufficient to authorise the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972.

The court case hinged on whether the government could use its ancient powers of royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The government argued that invoking A50 did not impinge upon the sovereignty of Parliament because the act of invocation did not create or repeal any law. The High Court has ruled that, because A50 sets out a timetable that leads inevitably to the UK leaving the EU, the act of invocation effectively does put the government in the position of repealing a law passed by parliament. The government cannot do that; a long and bloody civil war was fought in these islands in the 17th century over that issue. Parliament is sovereign. Only it can make and repeal laws.

While they are preparing their appeal to the Supreme Court, they will also now be trying to work out just how little they can get away with. They won't want to put their Great Repeal Act forward yet, it will take many months to draft it. May says she still wants to invoke A50 by the end of March. I suspect she will go for a bare-bones Act which enshrines the referendum result in law (can't help wondering whether Cameron's failure to do that was a cunning little trap door, just in case), grants executive power to repeal the ECA 1972 and compels the government to put something in its place by a certain date.

A Tory MP, Stephen Philips, has resigned his seat 'with immediate effect' over the Government's policy of not involving Parliament in Brexit:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/s...00768111923200

Yet another by-election.

Bizarre.