It’s all very surreal, this Brexit business. The people who don’t want Parliament to be sovereign and instead be part of the EU and therefore subordinate to their Parliament are now delighted because the (unelected) courts have said Parliament is sovereign and MPs should now have a say over Article 50, assuming, despite the fact that pretty much everywhere in the country other than Scotland, London and North Herts voted to leave, that their elected representatives will overturn the referendum result and we can remain in the EU. Which is more democratic. Or something. As a reluctant reminder I’m not sure where this leaves me.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Neil Jung says
I’ve lost interest in the sovereignty arguments. I’m fervently hoping common sense prevails and the whole thing is somehow called off. Even if there are riots.
Fin59 says
We need informed commentary from Niscness or Ianscum.
retropath2 says
(I say, that’s rather clever)
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
On the other hand, the people who were adamant that UK courts and Parliament should hold sway are outraged because, err…..
Uncle Wheaty says
Cameron has a lot to answer for.
Twang says
The vast majority of MPs voted to have it, not just Cameron. Miliband supported it.
dai says
Not just the places you mentioned voted remain also cities like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Bristol and many others adding up to 48.1% of the vote. Hardly a landslide.
As for MPs voting on it, I very much doubt that would go against the result of the referendum , but maybe the terms of Brexit will be discussed and modified.
Sitheref2409 says
Well, for Parliament to vote on it, they’ll need a concrete set of proposals.
That gives them the “out” they need – ‘well, if I’d known that….’.
The judgment also gives the Government a very polite kicking.
Twang says
Well I voted remain but I find the whole intellectual thrashing interesting…had it gone the other way would you be arguing that as 48% or people wanted to leave we should rethink remaining? I suspect not.
dai says
Where did I say that? But if the vote had gone the other way. by same margin there would likely still be more discussion
Twang says
You imply because there wasn’t a landslide that puts the decision in question. But I wish we hadn’t had the bloody referendum at all.
dai says
No. You were implying it was a landslide to leave, I corrected you.
Twang says
We you said landslide but at the end of the day a simple majority is enough. I have a lot of sympathy for the system where it has to be more like 70% in favour. Same for the Scottish referendum, and I’m sure Alex Salmond wouldn’t have held back in declaring independent even with a majority of only a few thousand. I doubt he’d have spent long worrying about the people who voted against him. Referendums are a crap way of deciding anything.
Arthur Cowslip says
Referendae?
ganglesprocket says
When I saw the news today, the first thing that went through my head was…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The second thing thing was this gives me hope. Frankly if bare faced lies and appealing to the basest instincts of dreadful people wins a referendum but the law prevents it from being actually implemented, then I have more faith in out actual institutions than I thought I had. Good government does two things; it protects people from the rapacious depredations of the powerful, and it also protects them from their own total fucking stupidity. I do not think for a second that the current government is good, but if law and institutions prevent them from fucking us completely, then this is good.
The last thing I thought was “I hope Boris Johnson, Ian Duncan Smith, Nigel Farage, et al have a very fucking bad time. For the rest of their miserable lives.”
Twang says
So you think people are too stupid to be allowed to vote? Best to leave it to clever people like politicians and lawyers then? Much better.
Bingo Little says
Well, either we decide to leave it to clever people like politicians and lawyers, or we’re going to need a second referendum on the precise terms of the Brexit deal.
ganglesprocket says
Nope. I think that when a campaign is predicated on complete lies, the future of the country should not be held to a vote taken by people too damn ill informed to spot them, or too racist to care. The margin of victory was not large enough for me to be convinced that both of these factors were not major ones in getting the victory in the first place.
Twang says
I think the result had far more to do with ranks of rich people insisting this is the best thing for everyone (I.e. themselves) and that economic disaster would result if we leave. And millions of not rich people did precisely the opposite. Which I find highly amusing in a dark way.
But I agree, both campaigns were a disgrace. It’s not that hard to work out what people who voted to leave wanted, is it? I’d guess (to varying degrees):
– end freedom of movement
– control immigration
– access to single market
– not subject to EU law
– some non specific national independence thing
– money not going to EU to be spent here
That’s about it isn’t it?
Bingo Little says
The only thing we know with certainty about the “will of the people” (as people keep describing it) is that a narrow majority voted to leave the EU.
All the rest of it – control of borders, willingness to leave the single market, the rest of the Hard Brexit package, is an interpretation of the result.
An interpretation of the result of a referendum which goes beyond the central terms of said referendum is exactly the sort of thing that should be put before parliament, rather than left to a handful of individuals.
If Theresa May wants to leave the EU and remain in the single market then I’d imagine she’ll have no problem doing so, but that’s the current extent of her mandate from where I’m sat.
Vulpes Vulpes says
I thought that the purpose of the parliamentary system was to create a sufficient decoupling of the arithmetic simplicity (aka stupidity) of the plebiscite and the eventual change of law by means of the intervention of a two-chamber system that undertakes repeated readings for the purposes of reaching a nuanced, well-informed, intelligent and considered outcome.
We have not yet had such a process for this proposed change, ergo it is not (yet) a democratically well-formed change.
bricameron says
We have a winner!
Junior Wells says
Can someone explain this to me ? Surely it was assumed,all along, that the Parliament would need to pass enabling legislation.
Twang says
To initiate leaving the EU a government simply needs to instigate a process called Article 50. This argument is about whether the govt can do this without agreement from MPs in advance. It tried to do this using an ancient right of the govt to make decisions called Royal Prerogative which allows action without prior agreement, but the court decided this isn’t applicable.
bricameron says
Consulting your ancient elders in law. I love it.
mikethep says
Do keep up, Junior 🙂
Junior Wells says
Funnily enough us non poms are less enthralled but as it happens you could have come to me rather the expense of the courts … yep Parliament needs to stick their oar in in Mr Thep. 😉😉
mikethep says
My point exactly…only joking, Mr TheW.
garyjohn says
All explained here, JW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
Junior Wells says
Wiki then GJ 😄
Blue Boy says
The tone of comments on tomorrow’s front pages, and tonight’s Question Time is beyond depressing. The Courts have not made a political decision, and they haven’t tried to stop Brexit and the ‘will of the people’. They have simply made a legal and constitutional judgment that the government can’t invoke Article 50 without it going to Parliament.
The real issue is with the politicians. If they vote to refuse to invoke Article 50 then they will be putting themselves in the position of choosing to ignore the narrow majority of those who voted in the referendum. And that simply wouldn’t be tenable.
Meantime we have a level of public discourse which is uglier and less rational than I can ever remember it being. We live in a world in which the most sensible and reasonable comments appear to be coming from an ex footballer’s tweets….
ganglesprocket says
And in the US, Donald Trump. What a time it is to be alive…
Moose the Mooche says
…for however long we’ve got.
Ah, Mr Putin, fancy seeing you here!
-TRANSMISSION ENDS-
mikethep says
What’s absolutely amusing is that the, er, commentariat on Dailies Mail and Express are now beginning to see Putin as being hard done by and wondering if he might do a better job of running the country than the present shower, or any other shower that might have a go.
Moose the Mooche says
“I for one welcome our new heavily-botoxed overlord”
DogFacedBoy says
Sewer Robot says
Ha! Now I get it. “Scrotox” was originally just the name of the sh*t Botox that they gave to unsavoury individuals. The fact that it works on yer nads was an unexpected bonus…
bricameron says
As Spock would no doubt say… Fascinating!
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
I couldn’t agree more. The High Court didn’t leap in of their own volition. They were required to make a judgement based on the law. They have done this. What is lacking in the Mail, Telegraph or Express is any attempt to propose exactly where the judges got it wrong legally in terms of their judgement. Instead they seem to suggest that the judiciary should make decisions based on ‘popular’ opinion.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Bring back the cat! Hang ’em high! Send ’em to Australia! Get up that chimney you idle little waster!
paulwright says
In reality the Mail, Telegraph and Express think that judges (and politicians) should make decisions based on what their proprietors and editors wish to happen. Today’s headlines are covered by freedom of speech but are generally anti-democratic to the point of treachery, and are a deliberate attempt to undermine the rule of law. Incredible behaviour from people who like to drape themselves in the flag.
mikethep says
Just a note to headline writers passim: the British public is not outraged. 52% of 70% of the British public is outraged, 48% of 70% is not outraged. Nobody knows what the other 30% thinks. Huh?, possibly.
Black Celebration says
I am convinced that the only way forward is this:
Allocate the June 2016 referendum vote to the parliamentary constituencies.
Each MP then knows what their own voters decided.
MPs then take a free vote to ratify their own constituency voters’ decision, or otherwise.
Most MPs will vote along the lines suggested by the electorate. If I knew that my own constituency voted to leave by (say) 60% – I would feel compelled to go through the “Leave” door.
But – if was an MP for a borderline seat where it was more like 51% to leave (and there will be plenty of those…) I think I would make the decision based on what’s best for my local area. If I thought that the Nissan plant employing 5,000 people would be in jeopardy if we left Europe, I might well vote to Remain despite the referendum vote going the other way.
If there is a tie, then the PM makes the decision.
What is the problem with doing this?
Hannah says
I live in an area that voted over 60% remain (I was one of them), however my MP is a hard-line Brexiter who still plans to vote leave.
Black Celebration says
That would be a highly-noticed and defiant move if the MP wanted to be elected again next time. The MP would be safer to go with the 60% and say that the vote was a reflection of the wishes of the electorate.
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
Not necessarily. If, for example, you lived in Kensington and Chelsea and the MP voted differently in Brexit, there is no way on earth it would ever vote anything but Tory. And there are plenty of northern Labour seats where even though there might be a swing to UKIP they will will still elect a Labour MP. And there are other areas where people might well vote differently in the event of a re-run.
Bingo Little says
The other wild card no one has mentioned is the 2.8 million people who voted in the referendum who don’t normally vote in elections.
These folks are assumed to have almost entirely voted “Leave”. If that’s the case, then of the people who actually vote to elect MPs a majority are in favour of “Remain” – MPs will need to consider whether in the event they scupper or neuter Brexit the 2.8 million will bother to turn out to boot them out of office. I rather doubt it, personally.
johnw says
I can confirm that assumption is not 100% valid. I’ve never voted at a general election – I really don’t have any party based views and think any of the main parties ( except UKIP! ) will do pretty much the same job. I did, however vote to remain.
For the record I think there should be more referendums but they should be treated as opinion polls so that is known exactly how people feel. Voting for a single party in a general election doesn’t give us this ( the split in the Conservative party on Brexit shows this) and we know that commercial opinion polls are no longer an indicator.
Black Celebration says
We have the first past the post system so the safety of a safe seat remains the same. A conservative MP voting to leave against the wishes of the constituents will probably be OK in Kensington and Chelsea. That’s how things work now. I think there will be dozens where the vote was 50/50 and the MP’s position is not necessarily a done deal.
paulwright says
And of course Zac Goldsmith is a Brexiter representing a Remain constituency, who has resigned his party to stand as an “independent” and is still expected to get back in. Party first, country second is the Tory motto.
bricameron says
Outstanding discussion of intellect here. Bravo y’all.
JQW says
As the referendum vote was carried out at the local authority level, we actually don’t know how the vote turned out on a constituency by constituency basis, as their boundaries are not the same.
In the case of my constituency, it’s roughly split between portions of two local authorities, one which voted ‘leave’ and the other ‘remain’.
Black Celebration says
The Government stats people can realign the numbers quite easily, I’d have thought. Not sure what to do about Gibraltar though. I think they need to be involved in some way because they were involved in the referendum. Perhaps their vote can be delivered by their Governor General equivalent.
JQW says
How can they tinker and be totally accurate, without re-counting every ballot paper after looking up their serial numbers?
Black Celebration says
I don’t think you’d have to do that. We know how many people voted in the referendum and what area they are from. We also know which parliamentary constituency they’re in. If the local authority ward crosses over two parliamentary constituencies, then the relevant %ages are allocated proportionately to both.
Mike_H says
As I understand it, this is to do with transparency.
The referendum result says we should leave the EU. We are legally obliged invoke Article 50 of the Treaty On European Union in order to leave.
The Government say they’ll negotiate the best terms they can for the UK to leave the EU (which it is their duty to do) and then they’ll invoke Article 50.
They claimed that they did not need parliamentary consent to invoke Article 50 but The Law Lords have just ruled that in fact they do.
If they invoke Article 50 without going to Parliament, they can avoid debate on the negotiated terms. It appears that, despite the Government having a parliamentary majority, they do not trust their MPs to vote in Article 50 after an open debate.
I did not vote leave, personally, but I would have thought that the vote having gone that way and the Law Lords having ruled that Parliament must have a say, our MPs are obliged to follow the wishes of the voters and vote Article 50 in, as long as the terms of separation are compatible with Britain’s interests. Without the transparency of a debate in open Parliament, we cannot see whether the terms are suitable or not.
metal mickey says
Ah, there’s the rub… your line “as long as the terms of separation are compatible with Britain’s interests” is the theoretical “get out of jail free” card in this whole argument.
The referendum reduced a very nuaunced argument to a simple yes/no answer. OK, so the voters narrowly chose to leave the EU, but with no indication of acceptable circumstances and conditions. It’s like putting your house on the market and saying “I’ll accept the best offer I’ve had by 31st March, however bad it is”. Maybe there are circumstances in which that might be acceptable, but I’d suggest that withdrawing from the EU isn’t one of them…
Twang says
That’s not how I understand it at all. Negotiation doesn’t even start until Article 50 is issued. So I assume the process now is parliamentary agreement on negotiating objectives or something, which could go on and on, and hardly smart to declare your objectives before you start, but that seems to be what needs to happen. Pass bill, declare Article 50. Then do the negotiation, and I guess if the objectives are not met (which they won’t be, since no one comes out of a negotiation with everything they wanted) it goes back to Parliament to decide what to do next. Iterate interminably. It will take years, quite possibly up to the next election.
Bingo Little says
Just to note, there’s no legal obligation to trigger Article 50 before negotiations commence. It’s simply the case that the EU member states are refusing to negotiate until we do so – because they know that Article 50, once triggered, destroys our negotiating position.
Twang says
Comes to the same thing though. Talking directly to heads of state rather than the Commission seems a better route anyway in the initial stage. There’s no obligation to leave having triggered A50 either as I understand it – you might be better informed – so a final decision on the negotiated position would be possible.
Bingo Little says
There’s an academic debate as to whether a country can be forced to leave the EU, but looking at the face of Article 50 it states, quite clearly, that the EU treaties would cease to apply to the triggering nation (ie they would effectively leave the EU) either upon conclusion of a withdrawal agreement or two years following the date of trigger, whichever is the sooner.
Obviously, the parties could agree to vary this, but it’s a state of affairs that leaves us largely in the hands of the other member states. It’s certainly not a negotiating platform I would ever wish to work from.
It probably mischaracterises the issue to say there’s no “obligation” to leave once Article 50 is triggered. The important thing is that our ability to change our minds and remain will effectively be out of our hands, from a legal perspective.
paulwright says
Just a thought – I wonder if the other 27 nations could all trigger Article 50 to get rid of us, and then reconstitute the EU 2.0?
Moose the Mooche says
What, like Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman & Howe?
Black Celebration says
Yes.
Freddy Steady says
Oho!
Very good!
molesworth says
I don’t know if this works constitutionally, but to me, it’s pretty much common sense what should happen now.
The government negotiates the terms of exit.
Once that’s done, these terms are put to a second in/out referendum. So that we can actually have one where both sides are putting forward concrete proposals rather than the last one which was keeping things as they are versus it might be good, it might be bad, we don’t know.
I can’t see how anybody can rationally object to that.
Black Celebration says
It’s a desperate negotiating position though, isn’t it? Negotiating on an unknown possible future position, rather than a clear and decisive stance.
molesworth says
Seeing as how we voted on an unknown future position, backed up by a pack of clear and decisive lies – hello extra money for the NHS, whoops sorry there wasn’t any – I can’t see the difference.
Twang says
I agree but we have to invoke Article 50 which we now can’t until Parliament agrees, err, something.
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
A depreasing listen to vox pops on the Today programme this morning in Barnsley. A bus driver so enraged he was pushing away the reporter whilst he was still I mid rant. And a bloke in a chip shop who was puzzled as he thought that we had already left the EU following the referendum.
chiz says
I think it’s rather wonderful that the great institutions of state, the Lords and the courts, are saving us from the consequences of our bad choices.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Up!
Dave Ross says
I give up to be honest, I now live in a country where courts and government can make a decision that goes against the will of a democratic vote. Is this Russia? Just as an aside, do those who claim “we” were lied to in the run up to the vote seriously believe it was ever different in any election / referendum ever? It’s incredible the hypocrisy and bullshit coming out the mouths of intelligent people who basically just want their ball back
chiz says
You’re right, politicians have always lied (or failed to fulfil their promises) in order to win. There were lies on both sides, but the NHS pledge and ‘take back control’ really upped the ante on deliberately misleading the electorate. Seems absolutely right to me that someone, either parliament or the electorate, should be able to compare the plate against the menu and say I’m sorry, this is not what you said we’d get.
Dave Ross says
Where’s the precedent for this? Equally isn’t it setting a very dangerous one going forward? It screams of the modern view that I can have whatever I want despite whatever anyone says. I promise you if this vote is overturned it will be a dreadful moment in our history looked back on with deep regret. On top of everything else we’ve done, to be the generation that decides that a democratic vote doesn’t necessarily have to stand goes against hundreds of years of history spent ensuring everyone’s vote does count. There was no “evidence” on either side, the vote was made, remain lost, beyond that what else is there to discuss, we voted to leave the EU, so let’s get on with it, leave and show the world why Britain was called Great in the first place.
chiz says
If Trump wins next week, will you say the same? Democracy is undermined already if decisions are made on false information. There’s a massive difference between lack of evidence and deliberate lies.
BTW I have a lot of sympathy with Leavers who think Britain can form trading relationships with the rest of the world that will make us better off than we are now. I mean, I don’t agree with them, but I respect their view. And the EU could easily fall apart, which would make us remainers look super foolish. But I don’t think that’s why the majority of Leavers voted the way they did. They wanted something they’re not going to get.
As for precedent, we give governments five years max to live up to their promises. If they don’t we can throw them out. Same with MPs. When apart from this do we have a 50/50 choice that we can’t challenge?
Dave Ross says
I will say the same, or where does that leave democracy? I think the better Trump comparison is if he loses and refuses to accept it, what will you say then?
50/50? It wasn’t was it?
Bingo Little says
Is the US Presidential election now an advisory affair?
chiz says
If Trump loses narrowly, he will probably ask a judge to rule on whether the decision should be binding
Dave Ross says
And you’ll be ok with that? maybe I need to review my simple understanding of democracy
Jeff says
With respect Dave, on the matter of decision-making around the colossally-complex issues raised by the nature and outcome of the Referendum, I think too many people’s understanding of democracy is simplistic rather than simple.
dai says
Why was it called Great? It’s a purely geographical term based on the size of the main island in the British Isles. Do you think it was an award we won or something?
Gatz says
I was about to make the same point – The reason ‘Britain was called Great in the first place’ was not as a token of admiration, or even self esteem. It’s just that ‘Great’ Britain is larger than ‘Lesser’ Britain (Brittany). If they’re bothered enough to look the rest of the world can probably see that for themselves, regardless of political or legal arguments.
Sewer Robot says
This is shocking news to me. Next you’ll be telling me it’s actually quite warm in Chile, the King of Bahrain is not a sheep, not everyone is tone deaf in Singapore and the men have regular sized penises in Hong Kong..
Vulpes Vulpes says
Sorry Dave, but it simply isn’t a case of deciding “that a democratic vote doesn’t necessarily have to stand”. It was a banal plebiscite, but we have a parliamentary system of democracy.
Bingo Little says
Which aspects of the judgement do you think are legally incorrect, Dave?
Or were the judges supposed to simply ignore the law?
Dave Ross says
Come on Bingo, you know I don’t have the legal knowledge to answer that, low blow, high tackle. I’m sticking to the referendum, remain lost, let’s move on. I suspect if a leave voter could be arsed there’s a legal loophole somewhere that they could get the high court to invoke stating that the result of a referendum must stand.
Bingo Little says
If you don’t have the legal knowledge to make an assessment, why criticise the judgement with such force? You seem to think an injustice is being perpetrated here, but I’m at a loss as to what you think should have been done differently.
As for the referendum, if we leave the EU tomorrow but remain in the single market and retain free movement of people (a settlement which would, strictly, meet the description of what was voted for at the referendum) would you be happy? If the answer is “no” then, clearly, there’s going to need to be some sort of public discussion as to how much further we go and what trade offs we’re willing to make.
I’m not saying all of this to be a dick. I have full respect for those who voted Leave, and if you could demonstrate with any certainty that we could leave the EU without material economic cost, I’d be on your side of the fence.
All I want is for us to make decisions in a sensible, adult way, with proper recourse to the institutions of state, and a willingness during the process to entertain the possibility we may be wrong, and adjust accordingly. If we abandon these principles I really, truly fear for us, regardless of which faction wins the shouting match.
The tone of the debate is forcing us all to choose sides and adhere to them rigidly, like supporters at a football match. It’s a great way to make some potentially terrible decisions. I suggest we each take our prejudices for a long walk and give them the once over.
Twang says
So did the court make clear what the parliamentary approval should look like? It appears all they have done is derail the current plan. Is full legislation required? I agree with you, BTW, that it should be clear and fair and in line with the law. But it looks like half an answer to me.
Bingo Little says
The court answered the legal question they were asked. Which is what courts are there to do.
The judgement is pretty clear – parliament needs to approve Article 50 being triggered. How that approval is to be packaged is a matter for politicians.
paulwright says
The courts upheld the law – which is what they are there to do. They do not follow the public will, otherwise the Birmingham 6 would have hung.
Not withstanding their innocence.
The court knows nothing of public opinion but that which is enshrined in an Act of Parliament.
The point is that PM Theresa May (unwittingly) broke the law by claiming prerogative – the courts pointed out she could not do that. Her fault. She could have gone about it differently and we wouldn’t be here. Now she can go about it differently, and get Parliamentary support for triggering Art 50, which surely is what the referendum result says she must. Her job is to ensure it passes. A normal political problem and accidental constitutional crisis, being fermented by the press into a full call for Fascism.
Kernow says
Up!
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
You could read the written judgement that sets out clearly why the judges came to the conclusion they did. You will also see that they have focused simply on whether the Prime Minister can move forward using the process she intended, or whether she has to use a different process. For some reason people are choosing to interpret this as the Judge’s in some way making a decision to preempt the referendum. If senior (largely, but not exclusively) Tory politicians really believe this then I fear for the outcome of Brexit negotiations if that is the level of intellectual firepower we have at our disposal. More optimistically, perhaps they are just lying.
Sitheref2409 says
Sorry Dave, but that’s about as far off track as you can get.
The Courts are subverting the will of the people? Can I ask if you actually read the judgment? Freely available, try judiciary.gov.uk.
It’s a thoroughly reasoned judgment that mentions 1688, the constitution, the role of Parliament. It also makes it quite clear that the judges are there to settle legal arguments and to be oblivious to the will of the people.
They didn’t subvert it – they ignored it, as they properly should do.
And if you can tell me how this stops Brexit, I’d be grateful. All they did was clarify the procedural hoops that the Government have to go through. They didn’t stop Brexit, they didn’t declare the referendum null and void.
They said that Article 50 can onl;y happen after a vote in Parliament. Why is that such a thing? Parliament being sovereign? I thought part of Brexit was restoring the primacy of Parliament from unelected officials (*cough* who elected Theresa May PM?)
Fin59 says
@daveamitri. The Leave vote was about “Taking back control”.
Control by the UK’s elected government, in other words parliament, and not by a supra-national unelected entity.
That is precisely what yesterday’s ruling delivered.
No, we are not Russia. Even though Farage and his mate Trump seem to like Putin.
It is because we are, precisely, not Russia, that we have an independent judiciary that can give a ruling that can serve the will of the people, by an act of parliament elected by the people.
Mike Hull says
@Sitheref2409 – The strident tones of debate on here and the shameful tabloid headlines suggest hardly anyone has bothered to actually read the judgement. It’s a lesson in consitutional law and like you say a judgement on procedure, not on Brexit itself.
Sitheref2409 says
Indeed Mike. That doesn’t fill newspaper inches though or generate clickbait…
Lando Cakes says
Wait – there was a popular vote that Parliament should be deprived of its right to decide on invoking Article 50? When did that happen?
Dave Ross says
Once again a lone voice, in previous Brexit threads I’ve had Niscum alongside me, maybe that should tell me something but then again someone else referred to “Fuzzie Wuzzies” as if that’s an argument against my basic point. Of course that’s why a majority voted leave. Take the piss out my my misuse of the word Great to make a point. Tell me to go away a read some legal jargon. Pat Dav on the head and say “bless”. I never have a problem saying I don’t understand something, so I have looked back at the question and it was simple, “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” so we voted one way or the other. No mention of taking back control, just a simple question. I have looked up the definition of referendum and I agree that it does not have to be legally binding (I don’t remember that being at the forefront of either sides pre vote lies). You can all blah, blah on about this and that and legality or not and in the end it won’t make much of a difference to my day. My basic issue remains that a certain type of person voted leave, not racist, bigoted, stupid just people who needed to see a change and genuinely feel that being governed from Europe is a bad thing, a majority of people. A point of view strong enough to panic Cameron into offering a referendum. A certain type of person voted remain, they show great distaste for the leavers, the demean them at every turn suggest they are simple and didn’t understand the question or what it meant. They are also among those who bemoaned the state of this country for the last 20 years, many of them here. They stamp their feet and cry foul, one of them, a lady so rich from the fat cats table that she can spend her own money to force this high court judgement because she wants it stopped. You can accept this if you want, your conscience can be buried among a sea of denial, but my conscience is clear knowing that while I may not have a talent for clearly expressing my views in the written word in my head and my heart I know what is going on post a democratic vote is wrong. I also think that it has dreadful long term implications far beyond whether we belong in the EU or not.
Fin59 says
Dave – you make your case articulately and passionately and there is no intention to patronise you or any other Leave voter in my response to your piece.
For what it’s worth, I am no fan of the self-perpetuating, bloated and conflicted EU legislature. For all that I voted Remain.
This debate was always likely to have been ended in the courts as there are serious constitutional issues at stake.
The ruling does not contradict the “will of the people” or overturn the outcome of the referendum.
The judgement underlines not undermines the sovereignty of the UK parliament. Not only is that an outcome which both camps should welcome but also a wholly good thing.
Bingo Little says
Clearly, it’s a total waste of time trying to discuss this issue. Everyone already “knows” everything.
All that’s left is a little game where we all try to smear the other lot as comprehensively as possible, while complaining that they’re mischaracterising our side of the debate.
Sitheref2409 says
Read. The. Judgment.
It’s in Plain English, not mumbo jumbo jargon (although it does descend there upon necessity)
And to clarify: it wasn’t a majority of people who voted to leave. It was a majority – and a slim one at that – of those who voted.
It was, technically, a minority of the population who took GB over this particular cliff.
deramdaze says
I’ve decided to not give a shit. You’ve made your bed, now f—– lie in it.
And anyway, if I can manage to not give a monkey’s about popular culture since 31/12/69, this complete fiasco will be a piece of piss.
It really is the only way to go.
Fin59 says
The judgement has reinforced the sovereignty of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Nothing more. Nothing less. That is a good thing.
Twang says
Interesting discussion. My conclusion is we should agree, in Parliament, to immediately trigger A50 and get on with the negotiation on the completion of which it should be put to the electorate in a second referendum of “stay in, or out on these terms”. Which means we’ll probably do the opposite.
Bingo Little says
I’m wary of a second referendum. How would it work in practice?
What would happen if the public rejects the Brexit terms?
Do we then abandon Brexit entirely, or is the government to go back to Brussels and try again?
If it’s the latter, how do we avoid the tension between what the British public demands, and what the government is actually able to procure? What’s to stop us being locked into a perpetual cycle of negotiation and ancillary referendums?
Given how much confusion and discord the first referendum has created, it would certainly be a brave PM to go back to the polls in similar fashion any time soon. I think a General Election is more likely.
Dodger Lane says
To my mind, it should be simple.
We trigger article 50, we start the negotiations and hope that this govt has worked out a viable position on what we want and then when the whole process is over, this goes to parliament and they have the option of saying yes or no. There should not be a 2nd referendum. It is now for the government and parliament to decide what happens. If the agreement is rejected, the government will have to re-start negotiations. We can’t keep going back to the people and asking them what they think. It’s been done once and I take the increasingly old fashioned view that every 5 years we elect a government to govern and they should get on with it.
I was and still am a remainer, not out of love for the EC as presently constituted but because leaving means taking a step back, and into the unknown plus I’m a boring sod and value stability. The people who “want their country back” will have to realise that even with Brexit, we will not be going back to a 1950s Brief Encounter Britain where fuzzy wuzzies were still talked about in school classrooms.
I think the government should realise that we are probably in quite a strong position for all the tough talk coming out of Brussels. The Germans in particular don’t want England out and just have to be dealing with a bankrupt and increasingly unstable France. They don’t want the EC to be based around the casino economies of Southern Europe. We are in quite a strong position so long as the government knows what it’s doing………….
paulwright says
Could be wrong but I think that once we have triggered Art 50 that is a one time deal. If we have a referendum and decide to stay we are still on the way out unless all 27 other nations agree to let us stay – their choice not ours.
And I really do not think we are in a strong position. French friends of friends last week were telling us that Britain is effectively an un-person in France now. They have stopped listening to anything we might say.
Remember the Germans have a veto – but so do 26 other nations. This is Spain’s best chance in 200 years to regain Gibraltar. What is that worth to them? And what are the issues for the other countries?
Mike_H says
Those who “Want Their Country Back” need to get their heads around the fact that the country they think to get back is long gone, if it ever existed at all except in their dreams.
They’re going to get something completely different. Let’s hope they’ll be happy with it.
mikethep says
Call me shallow, but I want the country back that we had before the people who “Want Their Country Back” got going.
Twang says
Well I guess it would be the best package of options. I don’t like it either.
rotherhithe hack says
Maybe we could sort this out by acknowledging the UK has become two different countries: about half the population are outward looking, believe we should work closely with our European neighbours and happy to mix freely; the other half want a more homogeneous society that reflects what they believe was the better world of the 1950s.
So we create two new countries either side of a line from Bristol to the Wash. All in favour of staying in the EU can live to the south where they will be physically, not just politically, closer to Europe; all against can go north and build a society that would make their racist grannies proud – with Boris Johnson as president for life. I expect Northern Ireland could sort out an accommodation with the Republic, but suspect the Scots will declare independence and build a wall to keep out the riff raff from south of the border.
And we all live happily ever after.
Bingo Little says
Didn’t they already make a movie about this?
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
Only snag is that the South West wants nowt to do with Europe bar the odd bit of Bristol and Exeter. It’s a similar deal in East Anglia. Mind you, with them gone what was left would be even richer.
paulwright says
I think we need a new country. As well as independence for Scotland (and Wales and NI if they want it) I think London would benefit from being a city state of 10 million people. The rest of England could be divided into two or more self-governing regions. I don’t think any of them would want to join the EU, but Bradford has very little in common with London, or the South East. So, Independence for The (vaguely defined) North.
And Freedom for Tooting.
Vulpes Vulpes says
Can we tip the M25 on its edge, forming a great big fuck-off wall, so that no-one is allowed to ever leave London to buy a second home somewhere pretty, where the locals are so impoverished they can’t afford a house and they’ve become desperate enough to believe what Boris Johnson says?
Moose the Mooche says
I am not moving.
I will happily live next door to people of any nationality on earth. But southerners? Nope. I’ll take my chances in Donald McGill-land.
‘Appen.
Fin59 says
An election may regenerate a life form believed to be extinct – the Liberal Democrats.
Gatz says
May can’t just call an election though, can she? Fixed term parliaments are now law so a snap election can only be triggered by a vote of no confidence or a majority of MPs demanding it (60% sticks in my head but might be wrong, in any case the government has a very slim majority and you can guarantee that the opposition parties would do what they could to cause them maximum frustration).
paulwright says
Its the electoral calculation – which opposition party would be brave enough to say “no, you carry on”. Might be odd to have a ruling party file a motion of no confidence in itself…
Likewise which opposition party would be foolhardy enough to vote against the Brexit referendum result (ok, its the Lib Dems and SNP- but would Labour?)?
Dogbyte says
It’s hard to be exact because of the different boundaries used for the referendum but it looks like around 70 percent of Labour-held constituencies voted for Brexit. Translated into a general election that would give Labour around 15 more seats than the SNP. If Ukip were to get its act together it could end up being the official opposition.
Fin59 says
Why is there so much mystery attached to the government “negotiating position”?
IDS and Davis and Rees-Mogg et al seem to want to zealously guard some masterly gambit.
Given those three are, collectively, unlikely to be able to outwit a coffee table, I fear the worst.
ip33 says
I’m all for a second referendum, as long as there is a box to mark for ‘I was wrong we should stay in after all, I’m really really sorry’
ernietothecentreoftheearth says
In other news, the newly created Department for Brexit is sending out begging letters to try and recruit people with experience of putting through legislation. They have 300, but that isn’t enough. One would have thought that people would have been falling over themselves to volunteer to work in this pivotal area, but apparently not. Can’t think why.
Lodestone of Wrongness says
The internet opens for a few minutes in North Norfolk – just time for me to post this so that some of you dimwits can understand what went on yesterday.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/brexit-high-court-ruling-james-obrien-unleashes-tirade-theresa-may-article-50-a7395466.html
I simply could not believe it when I walked into the local supermarket this morning – I stood with mouth open, shaking with anger at the newspaper headlines. Nobody can make this shit up….
Blue Boy says
Again, the judges have done nothing to subvert Brexit. They have given legal advice. The referendum technically is advisory, and it is for our democratically elected government to actually make the decision. That seems to me to be self evidently right.
Now if parliament were to vote not to proceed with the process to leave the EU, ie trigger Article 50, that could legitimately be viewed as our elected representatives deliberately going against ‘The Will of the People’ (notwithstanding that the aforesaid is actually 52% of 70% so hardly a landslide). And that, as I said above, would be untenable. Whatever their personal views I don’t see how the MPs could do that, and if they did the Mail Express etc would (for once) have some justification for their apoplectic bespittled rage.
Truth is we are in a hopeless position. So I think May and co just need to go to Parliament with an outline of what they would be seeking in a negotiation, the Commons and Lords need to vote to invoke Article 50 on that basis and then we need to get the best we can with a very bad hand.
Mike_H says
⇑
Uppity upwardness. Mr. @Blue_Boy
Lodestone of Wrongness says
An up indeed but unfortunately missing the point – The judges have not given legal advice , they have stated categorically that Article 50 cannot, repeat cannot, be implemented without the full approval ie a vote in Parliament. Nobody , well hardly anybody, is suggesting that Parliament will overturn the referendum just that Parliament and the People need to agree the terms of our withdrawal from Europe before May & Co sign the final paper. That’s what our Constitution says despite what the Daily Mail and the rest of those fuckwits say.
Blue Boy says
Agreed – my use of the word ‘advice’ wa probably, well, ill advised. They have indeed made a ruling. My point was that this is a quite proper legal process, not some political matter of opinion. And that the outrage expressed about their ruling is ludicrous.
Black Celebration says
It’s a shame that it takes a fund manager to challenge the actions of a Government, rather than the opposition party – who get state funding to do precisely that. Before anyone piles on Corbyn…Milliband and Brown in opposition would have handled it the same way. Their hands-off approach was a mistake. If they were more aggressive over the entire process, more savage about the Leave campaign’s fictitious claims, they could have made a great deal of progress.
It’s not too late – they can still take a decisive Remain position because we are seeing how messy and shambolic Brexit is. The PM has said Brexit means Brexit. Sophistry aside, that’s a pretty clear position. With Labour, we’re still not sure. Labour needs to be the leading party of Opposition, not the SNP.
Dogbyte says
Labour is in an impossible position. 67% of its voters opted for remain but 70% of its parliamentary seats returned majorities – in some cases massive majorities – for Brexit. Added to which it has a leader who has been broadly Eurosceptic throughout his career.
If it adopts a pro-Europe position it will lose seats in the north to Ukip. If it adopts a pro-Brexit position it will lose seats in the cities to a resurgent Lib Dems. Either way it loses.
Black Celebration says
I feel that they are deserting their post as the official opposition party by being so vague on the issue. I smile when opposition party leaders are criticised for always having a go at the ruling party. They are *meant* to! If Theresa May personally sends everyone 50 quid for Christmas from her own bank account – Labour’s job is to find some reason why this is actually a total disgrace.
The Government is a shambles on Europe. Labour currently appears as part of the problem. While Labour may lose votes to UKIP with a decisive Remain position, they would attract more of the centre vote. I don’t want to support a party that laughs falsely at Bernard Manning jokes to keep things sweet with the nutters.
BigJimBob says
I am with Matthew Parris on this. In today’s Times, his op ed piece begins with:
“This is hideous. The attacks by various newspapers on judges yesterday morning smelt like Berlin in the 1930s – except, of course, that at the time Fleet Street and most of its readers were on the side of appeasement.”
Hurray for the blackshirts.
bricameron says
I think the opposite. I think that this is the first chance that an under represented voice of the electorate has had a chance of being heard in the Twenty first century.You may not like it or agree with it, but you better hear it. See also, everywhere, but especially obviously The U.S.A.
Remember remember the eighth of November.
Junglejim says
The unrepresented parts of the USA are the voters who have historically consistently had their path to voting obstructed, been intimidated & refused registration on tye most spurious of grounds ( it’s far easier to buy a gun than register to vote as a black citizen even today in a number of states, which tend to be in the south)
Trump’s succeeded in galvanising swathes of Americans – the vast majority being white – who use to have it basically handed to them on a plate in the world’s biggest economy where they actually made stuff – the world has moved on but they haven’t & now they have to ‘put up with’ hispanics, blacks, gays & women who also want stuff in the modern world & they do NOT like it, cos this new world frightens them. A demagogue appeals to them , hence Trump.
Over here , I think the ‘ unrepresented’ charge is more legit. The EU has evolved/ mutated into someting nobody was ever led to believe it would , is undemocratic & unaccountable – add to that genuinely huge numbers of eastern & central Europeans arriving in the last 10 years & the sight of migrants queuing up in Calais, drawn by the promise of golden pavements which the poulation here never see & you have all the ingedients for what happened in the referendum. It also whipped up the xenophobes – ably aided by our charming non- dom owned media – & dark forces started to emerge from under their rocks.
There are parallels with the US & UK but very important differences also.
bricameron says
Indeed but the underlying issues are global. The human race is on trial.
Leedsboy says
I’m late to this but I don’t understand why anyone was surprised by this decision. The referendum was advisory. It was to inform Parliament in how the country wanted them to proceed. It was not a legally binding decision (I mean that purely in the context that the result would enact the legal change or provide an absolute mandate to do so).
If the government didn’t realise this was the case, they are , at best, very ill informed.
The simplest answer would be to have a referendum that is legally binding and detail the timetable that will relate to it.
But that would let common sense, democracy and the correct legal implementation get in the way of politics and power.
NigelT says
I’m even later to this particular shindig, but the following occurred to me:
1. The leave camp are whinging about the Article 50 palaver being delayed, but May dithered and delayed before announcing we will pull the trigger in March. Why? Presumably so we could all have a big think and decide what we want…which seems sensible amongst this shambles, but when anyone else suggests it might be a good idea then it is a delaying tactic and flies in the face of democracy.
2. They could easily pass a bill now in Parliament as the legal judgement requires. The Government are potentially delaying all this by appealing and not getting on with it. Why don’t they? Beats me. Just seems that they want to avoid any discussion or debate…can’t think why that might be!?
3. They keep talking about the ‘best deal for Britain’…but no-one is challenging them to say what this means. It implies there is an ideal …er…deal in mind, but I suspect a best deal for one sector may be very different than for another.
4. The Nissan deal has been welcomed, but are we really going to discuss this with every company or business sector individually? And no-one seems to be bothered that the Government shares its plans with a Japanese company but not the UK Parliament!
5. The legal challenge about telling ‘lies’ is quite specific and has been largely misrepresented because, hey, we are lied to all the time in elections. This is actually all about verifiable ‘facts’, in this case, for instance, the claim that £350 million goes to the EU every week. It won’t overturn the referendum, but may get those into trouble who peddled it.
Oh, and David Davies annoys me.