Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 04 2016, @05:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-government-is-"appealing"? dept.

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.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @10:30AM

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @10:30AM (#422430)

    Actually the fear is that democracy is going to be (or has been) overruled by judiciary and sovereignty, which is exactly the same complaint many had about the EU in the first place, so the reaction is not unsurprising.

    Democracy has not been upheld yet, and there is now the possibility that parliamentary democracy will overrule direct democracy, which is uncharted territory. Maybe we should have a referendum on whether or not we want to decide things by referendum or have parliament decide for us, parliament can then ignore the result if it is wrong...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @11:15AM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @11:15AM (#422440) Journal

    Referendums are unconstitutional in this country (UK). They have no legal weight. Parliament is sovereign. We need to either change our constitution or forget about referendums.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:16PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:16PM (#422476)

      Referendums are unconstitutional in this country (UK).

      You mean referenda are explicitly prohibited in the constitution?

      They have no legal weight.

      Then what's the problem?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @02:37PM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @02:37PM (#422483) Journal

        The former PM made a "pledge."

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:58PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:58PM (#422486)

          Was it in writing and notarized? Legally binding?

          "How can you tell a politician is lying?" :P

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @06:58PM

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @06:58PM (#422562) Journal

            No, he said it and had it printed on a pamphlet. For it to be legally binding, it would need to have been written into law. The only way that can happen is by Act of Parliament, ie debated by and voted for our elected representatives in the House of Commons, scrutinised by the Peers in the House of Lord's and amended and re-considered if necessary and then given Royal Ascent, ie signed by Her Majesty the Queen. Anything less is just bluster.
            The morons are angry because this High Court judgement confirns that, so for Brexit to happen, it has to be by Act of Parliament, otherwise it's null and void. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, riding high on a wave of fascist populism, wanted to short-circuit the constitutional procedure for various nefarious reasons, ostensibly to keep her negotiating hand secret from the rest of the EU.
            The morons are now very worried that it won't get through Parliament, and that it's a foreign/elite conspiracy to go against "the will of the people."
            All because the Conservative Party was getting split by defections to UKIP in recent years...

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:00PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:00PM (#422488)

          While that is a problem, it's not really the one the GP is talking about (at least, I don't think it is...I'm not entirely sure what his complaint it). If the referendum isn't legally binding, Parliament could just pass a law themselves.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @08:22PM

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @08:22PM (#422603) Journal

            There are four countries in the UK, three of which have devolved governments (regional assemblies) with varying powers. At least two of them voted to Remain. Gibraltar also voted to Remain by 94%. There are about a couple of million of UK citizens living and working in EU countries (Freedom of Movement and all that) who didn't get a vote because they've been out of the country for too long (several years).
            The tabloid press (particularly the Daily Mail and Daily Express) have a lot to answer for, whipping up xenophobia amongst their readership, a constant campaign of outright lies regarding the EU, British democracy and sovereignty, "the Liberal Left" etc.
            And let's not forget Farage. If I had a bonfire, I'd be burning his effigy upon it tomorrow.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:00PM (#422549)

          I may be able to sum this all up with a short anecdote
          .
          I ran a 8 year experiment back in the 80s when one of the politicians was singing the praises of their Brexit referendums. Tacked a couple to the sunny side of a shed, and staked a couple more on the ground. Ten years later my wife took them down and threw them in the recycle when we moved out of that house.

          Statute of limitations on false advertising had already expired.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by theluggage on Friday November 04 2016, @11:47AM

    by theluggage (1797) on Friday November 04 2016, @11:47AM (#422444)

    Actually the fear is that democracy is going to be (or has been) overruled by judiciary and sovereignty, which is exactly the same complaint many had about the EU in the first place, so the reaction is not unsurprising.

    Er, no, what the judiciary has done is defended our system of parliamentary democracy - the exact same 500-year-old tradition that so many people were so keen to rescue from the Brussels bureaucrats - over "sovereignty" - i.e. Theresa May (who may have been elected MP but has no democratic mandate as PM and is several notches to the right of Cameron) misusing her "Royal prerogative" intended for peace treaties etc. to change UK law without consulting parliament.

    The judges haven't voted down Brexit - they're doing their job by ensuring that the government follows the constitution (yes, the UK has a constitution - its just not neatly summarised in a single document). What the PM needs to do now is what her party should have done months ago after her pillock of a predecessor walked out on his responsibilities: heed the result of the advisory referendum, publish their detailed policy on how to implement it and call a general election with that as a central policy.

    If our elected MPs ignore the referendum result and block Brexit then we get the chance to vote them out - that's how it's meant to work.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM (#422447) Journal

      This is the Intertubes. You're not supposed to talk sense. :-)

    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @12:15PM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @12:15PM (#422451)

      The "Royal prerogative" is intended for all treaties, not just peace. The EU treaties themselves effectively delegate law making to the royal prerogative - which was precisely Tony Benn's argument against it in his renowned speech on Maastricht. The key is whether invoking article 50 falls under law making or treaty making.

      What the PM needs to do now is what her party should have done months ago after her pillock of a predecessor walked out on his responsibilities: heed the result of the advisory referendum, publish their detailed policy on how to implement it and call a general election with that as a central policy.
      If our elected MPs ignore the referendum result and block Brexit then we get the chance to vote them out - that's how it's meant to work.

      The pillock of a predecessor said he would trigger article 50 the morning after, interesting to speculate what would have happened if he had.

      And yes, that is how it is meant to work, BUT it works that way no longer, due to the fixed term parliaments act which means May cannot just "call a general election". I reckon she would love to have one, probably end up with a landslide if she's the only party with a manifesto of honouring the referendum result (given UKIP are good as dead), but somehow she'd have to look like she was forced into it. Putting stuff before parliament that you know you are going to lose wouldn't count, being forced to put stuff before parliament... Oh look what's just happened, oopsie...

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @08:30PM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @08:30PM (#422610) Journal

        There really should be another general election now, morally speaking, because the Conservative Party has completely changed tack from the manifesto upon which it won the 2015 general election. In the last couple of weeks, two Conservative MPs have resigned from the government. By my reckoning, that makes their majority down to 11 now. If a few more rebel over Theresa May's authoritarian anti-democratic stance, there could be a vote of no confidence in the government and a general election.

        Don't forget that the Liberal Democrats are poised to make a come back, even though Labour is perceived as being weak, so a Tory landslide is not a certainty. The Liberal Democrats, of the three main parties, are the ones who are explicitly anti-Brexit. Their policy is not to leave the EU. Labour are confused. Corbyn comes across as indecisive.

        Interesting times indeed.

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @06:05AM

        by dry (223) on Saturday November 05 2016, @06:05AM (#422751) Journal

        The fixed elections act can be simply repealed or amended to allow an election. At the worst she can call it a confidence vote.
        I hate it when we (Canada) get a new PM or (Provincial) Premier and they don't call an election. We've also had fixed election legislation for a long time. The government hardly ever follows it, if only due to no confidence votes, but they're as easily repealed as passed. In Canada the parties are quite whipped so, assuming a majority, what the government wants, Parliament passes. Not sure how it is in the UK, and of course if the backbenchers are pissed of at the leadership, no amount of whipping will help.
        As for invoking article 50, it means that legislation has to be passed, so Parliament has to be involved. Here, a treaty can be agreed to by the government, but eventually it has to be OKed by Parliament and if Parliament doesn't OK it, well the treaty fails. Article 50 is different as the government can't say "we're invoking article 50, but if Parliament doesn't go along, well then we have to pretend we didn't invoke it"

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:13PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:13PM (#422475)

      heed the result of the advisory referendum, publish their detailed policy on how to implement it and call a general election with that as a central policy.

      What is it with you Brits and calling an election whenever something interesting happens? Why can't the guys who are already elected just vote on it?

      I suppose in theory it means that the resulting vote on this one single issue more closely approximates the will of the people, but...seems like a rather expensive one-off.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:00PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:00PM (#422487)

        UK (probably most countries ) elections are quick and cheap compared to the years long thing you seem to have in America. It's not really a big deal.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:17PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:17PM (#422492)

          Being able to call the election whenever you think is most advantageous for your own party seems rather scuzzy, though.

          Do you guys have such a crippling problem with gerrymandering, too? :P

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @08:41PM

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @08:41PM (#422618) Journal

            Ah, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, brought in by the 2010 Coalition Government... Not such a great idea in hindsight. The Conservative Party is currently under investigation for electoral fraud [channel4.com] (something to do with misuse of funds during the campaign).

            They are also having the constituency boundaries changed which will eliminate some Labour seats, so it goes.

            It's all fun and games.

            Labour are in big trouble since the whole of Scotland is SNP at the moment, except for three constituencies, one Conservative, one Labour and one Liberal Democrat. Usually Labour gets a lot of support in Scotland.

            UKIP are hoovering up some Labour votes in the poorest and most neglected parts of England and Wales. Austerity and the ever increasing gap between rich and poor, combined with poisonous rhetoric from the gutter press has turned many in the "working class" against foreigners and the weak instead of addressing the real problems.

            It's the Weimar Republic, and Farage is the Man of the People. He's had one referedum so far. He can't find anyone else to lead his party (UKIP).

            Dear oh dear oh dear. What has become of us?

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @07:09AM

            by dry (223) on Saturday November 05 2016, @07:09AM (#422761) Journal

            It is scuzzy and many Parliamentary systems have enacted fixed election terms through legislation, being legislation it can always be changed and should be changed when the leader of the government changes. They really should have a mandate from the people.
            There's also no confidence votes, including money bills. The government is the group who has control of Parliament, if Parliament doesn't support the government, there's 2 choices, an election or another group getting support from Parliament.
            In some ways it's a better system as the government has to pass a budget and elections can be redone when circumstances change or there is no clear winner.

      • (Score: 2) by quacking duck on Friday November 04 2016, @03:13PM

        by quacking duck (1395) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:13PM (#422490)

        I suppose in theory it means that the resulting vote on this one single issue more closely approximates the will of the people, but...seems like a rather expensive one-off.

        As opposed to the *billions* that are spent on each US election cycle? Never mind the presidential races, just the congressional ones, so that's billions spent *every two years*.

        Not to mention every two years Americans are bombarded with election rhetoric and divisiveness for a solid year or more.

        I'll take a not-previously-scheduled, month-long election campaign any day.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:21PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:21PM (#422497)

          It leaves you with an interesting conundrum if there's a party you generally agree with except for the one specific issue which is the reason the election is being called. Guess then you have to weigh how much you care about the one issue.

          I'm sure the U.S. equivalent would be your normal party calling an election before a vote on abortion.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM (#422448) Journal

    Maybe we should have a referendum on whether or not we want to decide things by referendum or have parliament decide for us, parliament can then ignore the result if it is wrong...

    You already do: elections.

  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:46PM

    by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 04 2016, @12:46PM (#422458) Journal
    It's very hard to take people seriously when they simultaneously argue for democracy and sovereignty and against the democratically elected MPs in the sovereign parliament being able to debate a major constitutional change.
    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @01:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @01:28PM (#422466)

      It's very hard to take people seriously when they simultaneously argue for democracy and sovereignty and against the democratically elected MPs in the sovereign parliament being able to debate a major constitutional change.

      The ruling is self-defeating nonsense. [lawyersforbritain.org] The majority of EU legislation takes effect in the UK under Royal Prerogative without being ratified by Parliament. If Royal Prerogative cannot impact domestic law (as this ruling claimed) then the imported EU laws could never have been applicable or enforceable in the UK to begin with.

    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @01:42PM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @01:42PM (#422469)

      The democratically elected MPs in the sovereign parliament already did debate it, and voted to put the issue to the people to decide in a referendum. The issue is whether or not they should now get another go (and then maybe we get another go and so on and so forth).

      It doesn't matter which way I voted or whether I want to remain or leave, I did NOT vote in a referendum that was billed as "A once in a generation decision" only to find out that I was merely voting for parliament to decide for us - parliament could have done that anyway and saved us all the bother.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @03:18PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:18PM (#422493) Journal

        The democratically elected MPs in the sovereign parliament already did debate it, and voted to put the issue to the people to decide in a referendum.

        However, they did not put anything in the legislation to invoke Article 50 in the event that Leave won (largely because they didn't expect Leave to win). Contrast this with the electoral reform referendum, where the legislation explicitly included the law that would come into effect if AV had won.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @04:40PM

          by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 04 2016, @04:40PM (#422525)

          The only reason for doing that would be if the government thought that legislation would not be necessary to invoke article 50... oh wait that is what they did believe. Many people seem to have forgotten that Cameron was going to invoke Article 50 on the morning after the vote, that was the expectation, including from other EU leaders and the european parliament. It was widely stated, and I believe that includes _before_ parliament voted on the referendum, yet no one objected then, no one said "hang on are you sure you can do that".

          If he had done it before resigning, as he promised, instead of just cutting and running, would we still be arguing about whether he could do it while the rest of the EU sits waiting at the table while the clock runs down?

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:20PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @02:20PM (#422477)

      Here we go again with terminology problems.

      It's very hard to take people seriously when they simultaneously argue for democracy and sovereignty and against the democratically elected MPs in the sovereign parliament being able to debate a major constitutional change.

      It's quite consistent for pro-democracy people to not want representatives. It would be irrational for pro-republic people to take the same stance.

      Democracy = direct democracy = no representatives
      Republic = representatives

         
      I'm not sufficiently informed to comment on the sovereignty point (or even know exactly what dropping that word is supposed to mean) but I imagine they argue that they shouldn't be bound by the rules of a bunch of people from other countries claiming to represent them, without real accountability.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @03:16PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:16PM (#422491) Journal
        Ah, I see, you're redefining words to mean something other than their accepted meanings. Representative democracy and direct democracy are both forms of democracy. Republic is a completely orthogonal term, which means that the head of state is not selected by the hereditary principle. The UK is not a republic, because the head of state is the Queen. It was briefly a republic after we cut the head off Charles I, but it didn't end well, so we also chopped the head off the Lord Protector.
        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:25PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Friday November 04 2016, @03:25PM (#422498)

          No, I'm not redefining terms. You chose to pick the one of the two definitions of "democracy" that made the argument not make any sense, and I pointed out the one that does.

          Representative democracy and direct democracy are both forms of democracy.

          While perhaps technically correct, I kind of wish people would stop using the term "representative democracy" altogether.

          Why don't you do a survey and we'll find out what the layperson thinks "republic" and "democracy" mean. I'm sure the results would be pretty interesting.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @05:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @05:43PM (#422544)

            While perhaps technically correct, I kind of wish people would stop using the term "representative democracy" altogether.

            Why? Too many syllables? I can assure you, most people to the east of the Atlantic have no problems understanding those terms -- and if they didn't, you wouldn't want to have a discussion with them about it anyway, so why do you choose definitions that are completely irrelevant to your audience? Regardless of what your wishes are, the GP is correct: China, Russia, Turkey and Cuba are all republics. That says nothing about how they're actually governed. Similarly, the UK, Spain, Netherlands and Thailand are monarchies instead of republics. Again, that says nothing about the impact and availability of ballot boxes in those countries.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:54AM

            by dry (223) on Tuesday November 08 2016, @03:54AM (#423915) Journal

            Why don't you do a survey and we'll find out what the layperson thinks "republic" and "democracy" mean. I'm sure the results would be pretty interesting.

            I was taught in school that republic means non-hereditary head of State, basically the opposite of monarchy, often authoritarian, some times hides it by basically giving the people a choice between Pepsi and Coke.
            Democracy usually means representative democracy, where the people vote for representatives who govern. It can also mean a direct democracy or even an elected monarchy.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday November 08 2016, @02:29PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday November 08 2016, @02:29PM (#424072)

              If democracy can mean monarchy, basically everything can mean everything else :P

              Silly me, assuming words actually had set meanings.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:12AM

                by dry (223) on Wednesday November 09 2016, @04:12AM (#424340) Journal

                At one time it was common for monarchs to be elected, mostly in the Germanic tribes. The monarch had to be a member of the right family and the electors were the aristocracy. The last example was the Roman Holy Empire, where the King of the Romans was elected by an electoral collage consisting of half a dozen or so important Princes (the ruling type, not the children type), Bishops and such.
                More recently a few countries in the early 20th century voted who would be their King. Indonesia, I believe, still elects their supreme monarch with the 7 monarchs being the electoral collage. Another example was the Americans who wanted to elect George Washington as King. He refused.

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:33AM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday November 09 2016, @06:33AM (#424370)

                  When you're talking a dozen or fewer people voting, it's no longer a democracy. I don't know what it is, but it isn't that :P Oligocracy?

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"