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.
Related Stories
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:17AM
The Union shall be indivisible! Launch nukes.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Friday November 04 2016, @07:31AM
That would be interesting. The only EU-"countries" with nuclear weapons are france and uk, and they have roughly the same number of nuclear weapons as well.
And no - first strike will not settle a darn thing since both countries have the habit of having a couple of nuclear armed submarines in service and out of port at all times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:28PM
Also we are close enough that we probably irradiate each other. Proper MAD.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday November 04 2016, @06:18AM
The UK's unwritten constitution leaves power in the hands of Parliament, not the people. Whether that's wise or not, any other decision by the court would have been a radical change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:54AM
Fascinating, but irrelevant. The issue in question is whether the government (which in this context is what Americans would call "the administration") can exit the EU without consulting Parliament (what Americans would call "the Congress"). If the context were American, Imperial President Theresa May would follow the tradition of President Tyrant Lincoln by simply issuing Executive Orders, ignoring her own Cabinet, ignoring the Congress, and doing whatever the fuck she wants. Theresa May should just declare herself Queen and dissolve Parliament. Now that would be unconstitutional and entertaining as hell.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Saturday November 05 2016, @08:10AM
Theresa May should just declare herself Queen...
In this instance, she was trying to go it alone without Parliament by using the Queen's Royal Prerogative, which is always executed by the Government in these modern days of democracy.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM
The UK constitution is not unwritten, it is just written all over several centuries of case law. Sometimes I am surprised the US didn't do it this way because it seems that it ought to inherently make more money for lawyers, on the other hand they seem to make plenty (more) in the US anyway so what do I know.
The issue is _what_ power it places it the hands of parliament, and what is with the crown (HMG). Treaty making has always been with HMG, law making with parliament. A notification under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty would appear to be the preserve of HMG, and there are parts of other EU treaties where parliament has passed laws that explicitly bind HMG to come back to parliament before acting under the treaty - why would that be necessary if HMG didn't have the authority to act on a treaty without parliamentary approval anyway?
They key to the ruling is the assumption that article 50 is irrevocable and inevitably alters UK law (therefore requiring parliament) or not - and even the guy who wrote it says it is not, but the government chose not to argue that and therefore lost in court, possibly intentionally. Maybe the ECJ will settle that point.
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:34PM
The UK constitution is not unwritten, it is just written all over several centuries of case law
The technical term that you'll find in a politics textbook is 'written but not codified'.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 04 2016, @12:55PM
Is that why Britain refers to its people as "subjects," as in, "objects," rather than "citizens?"
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by smallfries on Friday November 04 2016, @04:39PM
That is more of a pre-EU leftover. Subjects of the crown have privileges awarded to them. Citizens have rights that cannot be revoked.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @03:29AM
Try to keep up. People born in the UK or to a parent with UK citizenship are UK citizens and have been since 1949. People born in a Commonwealth country such as Canada or Australia were citizens of their country and British subjects up till 1982 (and still can move to the UK and have the same rights as a UK citizen). Currently the only British subjects are a few Irish who don't have Irish citizenship and a few people born in former colonies (mostly India and Pakistan) who have no citizenship.
Even when subjects did exist, they were still freer then American citizens who have to do all kinds of BS as subjects of the American system. Things like swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth or piece of paper and then not following the rules laid out on that piece of paper.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:45AM
It has become beyond doubt that, at least in the US, UK, and to a lesser degree Australia - that democracy is a charade. When the people vote along the lines that those in power like then it's simply the people expressing their will enabling the politicians to exempt themselves from any personal responsibility. But when they vote a way that goes against how those in power would like, then it's time to go to every conceivable ends to nullify that vote. And they have at their disposal a practically infinite number of possible means to disregard democracy. And again they exempt themselves from responsibility from this action. They're not undermining democracy, they're simply ensuring proper "procedure" is followed. "Proper" of course being contingent on their desired outcome.
As initially disconcerting as it may be, I think it's time to begin phasing away republics and politicians in general and aim for more direct democratic representation. The centralization of power in our current systems simply lends itself up to far too much abuse. And in the age of the internet republics really don't make any sense anyhow. The whole point of representatives was to be representative of their constituents - but that was an idea from a time before the constituents themselves could simultaneously speak in an organized fashion from thousands of miles away - instantly.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:58AM
I think it's time to begin phasing away republics and politicians in general and aim for more direct democratic representation.
Yes, yes, OH GOD YES. MOD UP FOR FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!!!!!!!! Let's replace all forms of government with ONLINE MODERATION!
(Score: 1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Friday November 04 2016, @07:11AM
Yes, yes, OH GOD YES. MOD UP FOR FUCKING BRILLIANCE!!!!!!!!!! Let's replace all forms of government with ONLINE MODERATION!
I am sorry, but I have no choice but to mod you down. You lack brilliance, and have no understanding of politics. Or Brits. But then, who does? Mad dogs and Englishmen, out in the noonday sun. Online moderation is the way of the future! It is a serious of tubes, it is not a truck.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @07:13AM
Do you not see that's what we have right? Online moderation is analogous to representative systems in which one or a handful of people ostensibly from the general population are selected to work on behalf of them. It works as well for large countries as it does for large message boards. Which is to say - it doesn't.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by moondrake on Friday November 04 2016, @08:53AM
You seem to think a direct democracy is a good thing. I don't. At least not on a country level. I think most people simply lack the intelligence to decide on the faith of a country. You are right about the abuse thing, but I rather be governed by a politician that tries to enrich him/herself in the process (knowing that he cannot go to far or he'll be axed), than by a horde of morons who have no idea what they are doing (and have no accountability either).
Luckily, the UK is not a direct democracy, and disregarding the referendum would be completely within the power and rules of a representative democracy.
Also, the UK is no republic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @09:10AM
I think there are two major responses to this.
The first is that what you're saying is what everybody thinks because of a typical phenomena that everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot. In most polls of perceived intelligence in the US you'll find a ballpark of 90% of people thinking they're smarter than 50% of people and 50% of people think they're smarter than 90% of people. Look at the polls on actual policy issues. By and large the populace gets it right, quite often when politicians get it wrong. People are certainly subject to propaganda and advertising, but so are politicians, and it's easier to fool a few hundreds of people than a few hundreds of millions of people.
The second point is that politicians don't know what they're doing. I used to be somewhat conspiratorial in that I thought politicians were mostly acting stupid for rhetorical purposes - US popular culture is trending against intelligence and so acting a fool or at least, shall we say 'colloquially', was just a self marketing deception. But now that we have the sort of real access to politicians discussions and plannings that they expected to be held in confidence, it's clear that it's not an act. Our leaders are no better than the mean in terms of intelligence and worldview. In many ways I think their general trends of narcissism likely puts them slightly below the mean as narcissism tends to make objective considerations all but impossible. Even if I don't think highly of the public I'd take 300 million idiots coming to a decision over 300 idiots coming to a decision anytime. It removes the essence of personal corruption and transforms it onto a national in which case we can at least finally truly be held accountable for own actions as they actually would be our actions.
And as a final aside, there needn't be any reason we keep the current majority, let alone plurality, pass systems. Require 70% approval for anything to be passed and it ensure that only things that the vast majority of society, with all of its diversity of opinion and thought, supports would pass.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @10:35AM
Competent people are always a minority, except in the few things where incompetence prevents survival. And the nanny state ensures that those things are ever fewer. The populace's total incompetence is a crop that is carefully raised and nurtured.
To argue for simple democracy in our day, is simple. And representative of majority. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @10:41AM
And as a final aside, there needn't be any reason we keep the current majority, let alone plurality, pass systems. Require 70% approval for anything to be passed and it ensure that only things that the vast majority of society, with all of its diversity of opinion and thought, supports would pass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:28PM
Which is better, being ruled by a bunch of people flying by the seat of their pants and not knowing what they're doing, or being ruled by a group of very competent people who are in it just for themselves?
Pretty much the root question in this election, 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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 05 2016, @07:11AM
Again, read the emails. Hillary's own staff bemoan her ineptitude. One referencing her "not knowing which planet she's living in" in regards to her general disconnect with reality and lack of practical knowledge. Countless other emails make similar allusions. And Trump also isn't exactly mensa material either. And aside from their own staff finding them incompetent, their positions are far from nuanced or based on what they find objectively best. It all comes down to the fact that you're basing your opinion of them based on the one and only thing they're skilled at - image crafting.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:39PM
I think most people simply lack the intelligence to decide on the faith of a country
I'm going to assume you meant fate there. I agree that direct democracy is a bad idea, but not for that reason. Direct democracy can far too easily descend into mob rule. The results from the Brexit referendum were a couple of percent apart. If 50%+1 of the population decide to disenfranchise 30%, that's fine in an unchecked direct democracy. You need some checks. If you require larger majorities, say 60%, then you can still be vulnerable to this but you're also vulnerable to whoever writes the question posing them in the way that the answer they want only needs 40%, the one that they don't needs 60%.
More importantly though, it's not about intelligence it's about time. Governing a modern country is hard. Ensuring that you're well informed on the relevant issues is a full-time job. It's debatable that our current representatives do a particularly good job at this, but they stand a far better chance than someone who is also working a full-time job.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:25PM
From my reading "faith" would also work: e.g. if the country in question switches over to direct democracy and the people start immediately throwing out treaties because "the fuck is this? this doesn't help us at all! get rid of it!" as I'm sure would happen.
"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 moondrake on Friday November 04 2016, @05:27PM
heh yes, sorry, meant fate. Though faith works somehow as tango says:)
I also guess that you formulated exactly what I meant much better. Perhaps it is frustration, or laziness on my part to equate intelligence with being informed of the situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:31PM
You're not insightful, you're cynical. The general populace is perfectly capable of deciding a LOT of things, in fact we basically do so already every election cycle. I follow the 90/10 rule which says that 90% of human beings are generally decent good people, and 10% are liars and cheats. I would much prefer to bank on the 90% of good people than the politicians who end up almost exclusively in the 10% bucket after corruption settles in.
The US is big on self-determination, but apparently the will of the people makes no dent in actual US policy. Multiple wars the general populace doesn't like? Too bad, lets shoot some college protesters. People want us out of the middle east and to close gitmo? TOO BAD!
Yeah, fuck your idea of politicians being better, they are not held accountable and they steal the ability for our country to be one of conscience. This discussion pairs well with the recent trend in promoting dictatorships, not that I'm accusing you of doing so. There is a very real media campaign to disenfranchise people of their power, to make us feel dependent on government and corporations to keep us safe. Cheran is doing alright http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37612083 [bbc.com]
I'm not a fan of 100% direct democracy for every little thing, but we need to move closer that direction instead of back towards oligarchy. Again, I'll take the mistakes of the general populace (which could be easily rolled back by another vote if things aren't working out) over the deliberate destruction / selling-out done by the usual politicians.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday November 04 2016, @09:11PM
You're... looking at the proposed system from the wrong angle. Direct Democracy necessarily calls for the end of "countries" as we know them and the return to power of city-states and counties as the political backbone. Doing away with federalism and representative democracy means that decisions are made at the local level, not the "national" level, which would no longer have any real meaning. Also, most people are intelligent enough to decide most things for themselves, and the other questions aren't really a matter of intelligence but long-term thinking which is a cultural trait more than a personal one, and must be cultivated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @03:05PM
Let the people decide things they have no idea about, what could possibly go wrong...
Well half of them could vote for brexit, but then not even understand what they wanted, or know what that even means. Hard/soft/somethingelse, Keep the EU rules/or not Free movement of people/or not.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday November 04 2016, @06:48AM
The biggest problem that the UK faces with Brexit isn't leaving the EU. It's the uncertainty of what the terms will be. Uncertainly id deadly for a country's economy, because business will not invest until they know what the future holds. So, will the parliament:
a) Try to use this as an opportunity to annul the referendum?
b) Follow the referendum and keep the period of uncertainty to a minimum, by triggering article 50 as soon as possible?
c) Extend the period of uncertainty for years through political squabbling?
In most countries, the answer would be (c). I don't know UK politics well enough: any chance of them making another choice?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @07:30AM
I think it will most likely be A. Establishment politicians want to stay within the EU and as this is making increasingly clear - the votes of the people don't matter when they don't vote as expected.
The irony here is that I was leaning against Brexit, but I'm more in support of democracy. You don't promote and organize a vote only to then work to annul its results when it doesn't turn out as predicted. It undermines the entire system for the sake of one victory. Regardless of how relevant that victory may be, this cannot be allowed. Without trust and faith in the system you will promote radicalism and further the disenfranchisement that led to the success of the Brexit side in the first place.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by pTamok on Friday November 04 2016, @08:06AM
The 23 June 2016 Referendum was appallingly badly constructed, though. I think most people would agree that deciding whether to continue with EU membership or not was rather important. In most cases, topics of such importance need a super-majority ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority [wikipedia.org] ) to make a decision, not just a plain simple majority of those who voted.
The vote was 51.9% in favour of leaving, 48.1% in favour of staying, with a turnout of 72.2%.
The electorate was 46,501,241 of a UK population of approximately 65,000,00 in 2016 ( The last census, in 2011 puts the population as 63,181,775 )
On that basis the 51.9% of those who voted in favour of leaving the EU were 37.4% of the electorate, and roughly 27% of the population. That's hardly a stunning mandate.
To be fair the Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014 was constructed along the same lines, only requiring a simple majority if the votes cast. A major difference was that the result of the Scottish referendum was legally binding - an item omitted in the law passed to enable the UK EU continuing membership referendum to be carried out, which legally only has advisory status.
The argument now is over whether the government (administration) needs to pass another law in order to actually leave the EU. A lower court decision is that a new law is required, and it is by no means clear that there is sufficient support among politicians in both houses of Parliament (House of Commons, roughly equivalent to Congress, and House of Lords, roughly equivalent to the Senate) to pass such a law. It is a complete mess. The government (administration) lost this court case, so the current intention is that it will be appealed, bypassing one layer of appeals, up to the UK Supreme Court, with all 12 judges sitting on the case (in USA parlance en banc, I think) - so the lower courts decision could still be overturned by the UK Supreme Court. There is a slight issue - the UK Supreme Court might decide that it requires advice from the European Court of Justice, which is the final arbiter of European Law - see here ( http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.no/2016/11/brexit-can-ecj-get-involved.html [blogspot.no] )for details. This could delay things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @09:19AM
You don't retroactively change the rules of an vote because you don't like the topic. This is obvious stuff. And apply the same math to nearly any election results on any topic and you'll find that 27% of the population is an absolutely enormous mandate by the standards of modern democracies without coerced voting. The 2008 US election was the most hotly contested and highest turnout election ever in a modern democracy. Obama won with 69.5 million votes or less than 23% of the population at the time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 04 2016, @11:51AM
You don't retroactively change the rules of an vote because you don't like the topic.
No rules were changed. A non-binding referendum is non-binding. Parliament has to approve or Brexit doesn't happen. Elections are a way to ensure that the public gets what it wants.
The 2008 US election was the most hotly contested and highest turnout election ever in a modern democracy.
Not even close. For example, it was similar turnout to the US in the 1950s and 1960s. Second, Australia with its mandatory voting has achieved turnout of 94%.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @08:41PM
"of modern democracies without coerced voting"
Australia is coerced voting. He did leave it off in the second sentence though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @10:19AM
A major difference was that the result of the Scottish referendum was legally binding
NO it was not, it was simply _assumed_ to be that way, as with the EU referendum. In fact there is a difference between "a legal obligation to abide by the result and a political commitment" (in that a political commitment isn't worth the paper, or the bus, it is written on). There is actually nothing in the Scottish referendum legislation to make it binding. it was only "politically" binding in that all political parties agreed that they would implement the result, legislation in (both UK and Scottish) parliament would still have been required (see e.g. committee proceedings here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/542/54204.htm [parliament.uk] ).
The AV (alternative vote) referendum is a good example of an _in effect_ binding referendum in the UK, parliament passed all the legislation, every little detail, that would put AV into effect, but stated that it would only come into effect if the referendum was won (which it wasn't). A cursory examination of the run up to the Scottish referendum shows that this sort of process was not followed - none of the legal details of independence were in place or even agreed.
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Friday November 04 2016, @09:31PM
You are quite right. mea culpa.
I got my referendums (form of plural deliberately chosen) mixed up. Yes, the AV Referendum was the binding one.
It still demonstrates the EU Referendum Act could have been drafted better.
(Score: 3, Touché) by bradley13 on Friday November 04 2016, @08:35AM
"You don't promote and organize a vote only to then work to annul its results when it doesn't turn out as predicted."
After the Uprising on June 17th
The Secretary of the Authors' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Which said that the people
Had forfeited the government's confidence
And could only win it back
By redoubled labour. Wouldn't it
Be simpler in that case if the government
Dissolved the people and
Elected another?
Bertholt Brecht
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Friday November 04 2016, @09:25AM
If you all remember, that the first days after the vote a gaggle of Euro officials stood up and denounced the result threatening "to make things very difficult for the UK".
At the time, I remember thinking "Not a single one of those people was elected, being the appointed cronies of the commission".
And this is the issue - the EU is in deep trouble and Brexit is a distraction.
John Oliver said it best (paraphrased) "If the UK had just waited a few months, the EU would have fallen apart and they wouldn't be blamed for the mess...."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @09:46AM
Ah, an Express reader. Or is it the Torygraph?
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 04 2016, @12:44PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @07:50PM
Is that the same John Oliver that called all of the brits on the side of leaving racist then went and had a 5 min bigoted song and dance?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @08:45PM
You must have seen Farage's soliloquy to the European Parliament where he ranted and raved like an inebriated lunatic after the referendum? He couldn't have been more insulting and ungracious. The only things missing were the half-smoked cigarette dangling precariously from his flapping mouth and a can of Special Brew.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @10:05AM
The tabloid newspapers are going mad today [theguardian.com] defaming the High Court judges who made the ruling. It's like something out of a dystopian nightmare. Those who crowed loudest about "democracy" and "sovereignty" are now incandescent when democracy and sovereignty - and the rule of law - are reaffirmed and upheld.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Touché) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @10:30AM
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...
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday November 04 2016, @11:15AM
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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:16PM
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
The former PM made a "pledge."
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @02:58PM
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
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...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:00PM
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
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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @06:00PM
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
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
This is the Intertubes. You're not supposed to talk sense. :-)
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday November 04 2016, @12:15PM
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
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.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 05 2016, @06:05AM
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
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?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 04 2016, @11:56AM
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
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @01:28PM
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
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
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
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
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
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 04 2016, @03:25PM
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
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
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
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
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
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?"
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 04 2016, @01:26PM
That Guardian article you linked to is absolutely hilarious!
Sometimes you just have to LOL..
If I can stomach it, I'll surf to the Daily Mail today, they say the commentary there is even worse than on the BBC News. Interesting for purposes of cultural anthropology though.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 04 2016, @02:04PM
sample of a comment from The Guardian: (16 upvotes)
Article from the Daily Mail:
Enemies of the people: Fury over 'out of touch' judges who have 'declared war on democracy' by defying 17.4m Brexit voters and who could trigger constitutional crisis
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3903436/Enemies-people-Fury-touch-judges-defied-17-4m-Brexit-voters-trigger-constitutional-crisis.html [dailymail.co.uk]
I must say I'm pleasantly surprised by the comments on the Daily Mail site (haven't read all 6000 of them), there's no "lynch the judges!!" comment to be found, the highest upvoted comments are all quite calm and reasonable.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Friday November 04 2016, @10:14PM
They did change one of the headlines though, the original of which was along the lines of "Oh noes! One judge is teh pooftah!".
If every single Daily Fail reader was abducted by aliens, nothing of value would be lost. Except, perhaps, the chance of the aliens coming back to see what the normal people are like.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fritsd on Friday November 04 2016, @10:39AM
From the side of the UK: the issue is, that for the past 40 years, brits have been living under laws some of which were influenced by EU law; especially w.r.t. working hours, environmental issues, work environment etc.
To change these laws all in one go (Brexit) and turn the UK into the Tory wet dream of a cheap-labour country with few workers' rights, is beyond the power of just the executive government. The parliament has to have a vote in it.
The parliament signed those things into law, the parliament has to scratch them out of the law books as well.
From the side of the EU: in 2019 the next EU budget will have to be made, and they'd find it a much cleaner break if the UK is already out by that time, because the budget is going to shrink significantly. If article 50 is invoked soon, then it is guaranteed that the whole circus will be over by early 2019, because the "divorce" has a deadline of max. 2 years. This also minimizes the length of time that companies in the EU have uncertainty over what's going to happen.
It could be that marh 2017 article 50 is invoked, which just means "the government of the UK officially says to the EU that they're leaving", and that there's a so-called "hard Brexit" a month later, that it's all done & dusted by april 2017. The 2 years is a maximum length of time.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 04 2016, @05:03PM
What happens if Theresa May ignores this court finding?
My understanding is that based on the Treaty of Lisbon, Article 50 is invoked whenever the British PM formally notifies the EU it is being invoked. It doesn't matter if such a notification is "constitutional" or "legal" or what have you; the mere fact the PM announced it makes it de jure (and de facto) invoked.
So if Theresa May goes ahead and invokes Article 50, what happens then? The bell can't really be un-rung, after all.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday November 05 2016, @11:12AM
Is that within her powers? Wouldn't she have to persuade the Queen to sign the paperwork?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].