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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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?"