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: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:13PM
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
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
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
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?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @07:09AM
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
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
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?"