SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.
The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.
- Rolling reaction to Article 50 court ruling
- Kuenssberg: Will this mean early election?
- The High Court's judgement in full
- Brexit: All you need to know
A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".
Plebiscites only count when plebes vote the way they're told.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday November 04 2016, @06:18AM
The UK's unwritten constitution leaves power in the hands of Parliament, not the people. Whether that's wise or not, any other decision by the court would have been a radical change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:54AM
Fascinating, but irrelevant. The issue in question is whether the government (which in this context is what Americans would call "the administration") can exit the EU without consulting Parliament (what Americans would call "the Congress"). If the context were American, Imperial President Theresa May would follow the tradition of President Tyrant Lincoln by simply issuing Executive Orders, ignoring her own Cabinet, ignoring the Congress, and doing whatever the fuck she wants. Theresa May should just declare herself Queen and dissolve Parliament. Now that would be unconstitutional and entertaining as hell.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday November 05 2016, @08:10AM
Theresa May should just declare herself Queen...
In this instance, she was trying to go it alone without Parliament by using the Queen's Royal Prerogative, which is always executed by the Government in these modern days of democracy.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM
The UK constitution is not unwritten, it is just written all over several centuries of case law. Sometimes I am surprised the US didn't do it this way because it seems that it ought to inherently make more money for lawyers, on the other hand they seem to make plenty (more) in the US anyway so what do I know.
The issue is _what_ power it places it the hands of parliament, and what is with the crown (HMG). Treaty making has always been with HMG, law making with parliament. A notification under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty would appear to be the preserve of HMG, and there are parts of other EU treaties where parliament has passed laws that explicitly bind HMG to come back to parliament before acting under the treaty - why would that be necessary if HMG didn't have the authority to act on a treaty without parliamentary approval anyway?
They key to the ruling is the assumption that article 50 is irrevocable and inevitably alters UK law (therefore requiring parliament) or not - and even the guy who wrote it says it is not, but the government chose not to argue that and therefore lost in court, possibly intentionally. Maybe the ECJ will settle that point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:34PM
The UK constitution is not unwritten, it is just written all over several centuries of case law
The technical term that you'll find in a politics textbook is 'written but not codified'.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 04 2016, @12:55PM
Is that why Britain refers to its people as "subjects," as in, "objects," rather than "citizens?"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by smallfries on Friday November 04 2016, @04:39PM
That is more of a pre-EU leftover. Subjects of the crown have privileges awarded to them. Citizens have rights that cannot be revoked.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @03:29AM
Try to keep up. People born in the UK or to a parent with UK citizenship are UK citizens and have been since 1949. People born in a Commonwealth country such as Canada or Australia were citizens of their country and British subjects up till 1982 (and still can move to the UK and have the same rights as a UK citizen). Currently the only British subjects are a few Irish who don't have Irish citizenship and a few people born in former colonies (mostly India and Pakistan) who have no citizenship.
Even when subjects did exist, they were still freer then American citizens who have to do all kinds of BS as subjects of the American system. Things like swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth or piece of paper and then not following the rules laid out on that piece of paper.