SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we've-always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on and approve of invoking Article 50 which triggers arrangements for leaving the European Union:
The Supreme Court has dismissed the government's appeal in a landmark case about Brexit, meaning Parliament will be required to give its approval before official talks on leaving the EU can begin. The ruling is a significant, although not totally unexpected, setback for Theresa May.
[...] The highest court in England and Wales has dismissed the government's argument that it has the power to begin official Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU without Parliament's prior agreement. By a margin of eight to three, the 11 justices upheld November's High Court ruling which stated that it would be unlawful for the government to rely on executive powers known as the royal prerogative to implement the outcome of last year's referendum.
Also at NYT, WSJ, and The Guardian.
Previously: Brexit Court Defeat for UK Government
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday January 25 2017, @05:56PM
Because the referendum was explicitly NOT an authorization to leave the EU. It was only an advisory. It was never binding on the government.
Really, it was obvious, once you know this that the courts would rule this way. All the hand-wringing about the possibility of this outcome in editorials published in places like the Daily Telegraph merely show the intellectual dishonesty that is endemic in some quarters today.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:39PM
Or just plain, simple ignorance. I would suspect that your regular UK citizen has a better handle on the the relative powers between Parliament, judicial, and executive than they do of the legal relationship between the UK and the EU. I think when the former PM came out and said "we are going to put this to an up or down vote", he (and the very public referendum campaign that followed) sure made it sound like the referendum outcome was going to be a done deal. Perhaps the "stay" side would have done well to point out during that campaign that the vote outcome was not going to decide the issue, but I suspect that even they didn't really think it through that far.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:33PM
Sure, but the PM and party leaders have no excuses. They knew damned well they were playing political games. Perhaps some were even hoping the courts would save their backsides at the last moment after they have already benefited from the political mud wrestling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:26PM
Having been through school in the UK up to PhD, I can confidently say I had no clue about the difference between Parliament, government and courts until I went to the USA and learned the US system. Then I could translate it back into UK term and realize that we have much less separation of powers. I.e. in the UK the Executive is a subset of Congress.
99% of the UK had less school that I did - in my schoo about 75% left at age 16. So I can guaran-fucking-tee it that the low-info voters that took us out of EU had absolutely no fucking idea about the UK let alone differences between UK/EU.
Take back control, $350B/wk, WW2, fox hunting for all, ra ra ra!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:07AM
I thought you were joking at first. But if that is your belief then YOU are part of the reason a majority voted to leave.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:15PM
No it wasn't. The Prime Minister's Party was reelected on a platform of offering the voters a chance to vote on the question of remaining in the EU. Parliament then voted to hold the vote and everyone campaigned on the assumption the vote would settle the issue, that Parliament was kicking the can on the question to the People. When the 'wrong side' won they decided to change the rules. This is a classic tactic, keep moving the point of decision until you get the answer you are looking for; then stop and declare all further debate out of order.
The Establishment, everywhere in the West it seems, appears intent on goading their People into hanging them all from lamp posts. They may get their wish.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:44PM
The Prime Minister's Party was reelected on a platform of offering the voters a chance to vote on the question of remaining in the EU. Parliament then voted to hold the vote and everyone campaigned on the assumption the vote would settle the issue, that Parliament was kicking the can on the question to the People. When the 'wrong side' won they decided to change the rules.
Well, that's the sort of thing that happens when expectations meet the law. The latter usually wins. It's worth noting here that the Brexit "leave" vote as a bare majority (of those who voted) didn't have a strong mandate. So it's reasonable to get more of a mandate anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 25 2017, @10:51PM
A bunch of the most senior judges in the UK just said that you are wrong.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:31PM
“I think people in this country,” declared Vote Leave’s Michael Gove, “have had enough of experts.”
Judges? Pfft, bunch of experts. Fuck 'em.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:31PM
More importantly, the referendum asked a very narrow and specific question. It didn't cover most of the things they are now trying to do, like leaving the single market and customs union. The goals of the negotiation and the final offering must be put to parliament, that's a long settled argument in our democracy and naturally the court upheld it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)