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 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"