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: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:38PM
Honestly, it's hard to say. There does seem to be an undercurrent of "buyer's remorse" that followed the referendum results. Depending on the extent of that (or the MP's' estimates of that), they may vote stay, or just leave the issue to fade away without comment. If I understand it correctly, they can kill the whole thing by taking no action.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:01PM
Frankly though, with May talking about a clean break from the EU and some countries saying they'll veto any deal that doesn't include free travel (which May can't/won't accept) and/or won't approve any extensions, I think we're most likely headed for a hard exit in a little over 2.5 years time - whether there is a deal in place or not. Barring some seriously obvious public regret or a considerable amount of painful economic/industry/trade upheaval in the meantime, I'm not sure whether enough MPs will vote against it given they'd almost certainly lose their next re-election, the Lords is more questionable, but as a veto without grounds/public support would likely end the Lords as it currently stands I can't really see it either.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 26 2017, @12:55PM
It also boils down to constituency votes in a lot of places. Here, around 75% voted remain, so our MP would be committing political suicide to vote to invoke Article 50 - his majority is quite slim and he'd lose it instantly if he did. Other places, such as Cornwall, have had a really crappy deal from Westminster for decades and a moderately good deal from the EU. Their MPs have to weigh up voting against their constituents interests or voting against their wishes. That's not an easy call, especially if you expect your opponent in the next election to point to all of the jobs and funding lost in the region as a direct result of invoking Article 50.
That said, the buyers' remorse is somewhat overrated. Anyone who reads the Daily Mail or Daily Express will have the firm belief that Brexit is wonderful for the economy. A lot of people in poorer areas of the country still regard the vote as a way of sticking it to the political establishment (though quite why they think London politicians would be upset by a vote to give more power to them and remove several of the checks on their authority I didn't quite understand) and still believe that this is worthwhile. Worse, the UK has such a large economic imbalance at the moment (really not helped by the fact that Westminster keeps forgetting that 80% of the country exists) that a lot of leave voters honestly believe things can't get any worse than they are (though when food prices go up and unemployment benefit goes down, they might change their mind).
sudo mod me up