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 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?"