Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Wednesday January 25 2017, @05:31PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:31PM

    by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:31PM (#458571)
    It'll almost certainly be the same in the UK, which is what is so particularly baffling about the FUD being thrown around by some of the Leave supporters over this. Sure, the Liberals, SNP, and a few others will vote against, along with some rebels in the other parties who go against their constituent's opinion in the referendum, but ultimately it'll most likely move the position from a 52:48 non-binding referendum advistory result to a legally binding majority to leave. Of course, given that the UK media is largely spinning it to give Gina Miller (pro-Remain) all the responsibility for the case and pitching it as a challenge to the referenrum result and ignoring the facts that Gina has a co-plaintiff who is pro-Leave and the purpose of the challenge was over the extent of the Royal Pergorative and legal procedure rather then the result, that's probably not too surprising.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:38PM

    by sjames (2882) on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:38PM (#458612) Journal

    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

      by zocalo (302) on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:01PM (#458650)
      Maybe, but I'm honestly expecting to see fairly minimal dissent from the two main parties and it's essentially going to be rubber stamped, even if takes a while to get there. If there is going to be any serious attempt to halt the process the best time for that will be when it goes to the promissed approval votes on the final deal (or default) in ~2 years time; any swing in public opinion, in either direction, will be much more apparent. If someone feels the deal can be plausibly argued to be not in the nation's best interest then they'd have a justification for bouncing it, and hoping enough do the same to avoid being singled out for any major fallout - especially with the Lords vote as there is less opportunity for public comeback against the contrary voters. Alternatively, if the MPs planning to table amendments to the legislation that is now required can drag the process out we may not get a deal before the next general election, in which case we'd almost certainly get Referendum 2 by default.

      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

      by TheRaven (270) on Thursday January 26 2017, @12:55PM (#458888) Journal

      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
  • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:35PM

    by mojo chan (266) on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:35PM (#458903)

    Politicians advocating to remain is a reasonable position. 48% of people who voted wanted that, and their views should be represented. It's reasonable to stand for election on that platform, and to do everything they can to soften the impact of leaving by e.g. trying to remain in the single market.

    Europe has always split the Tory party, and now it looks like it will split the UK too. Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland will try to go a different way to England and Wales, and Gibraltar... Will probably end up being half Spanish.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)