Reality Check: Could High Court ruling on Article 50 scupper Brexit?

[Chippy_Tea]

Please note this thread is not about your views on whether we should stay or go (that has already been discussed at length) it is about the ruling and your reaction to it.




[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kweFGcrmXHs[/ame]





Reality Check: Could High Court ruling on Article 50 scupper Brexit?

The claim: The High Court ruling that the government cannot use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 could scupper Brexit.

Reality check verdict: The process of obtaining parliamentary approval may delay or complicate the process but it is hard to imagine that Parliament could ignore the outcome of the referendum.

The High Court has ruled that the government does not have the power to trigger Article 50 - to start formal exit negotiations with the EU - without the approval of Parliament.

The ruling was made by two of the UK's two most senior judges, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and another experienced colleague Lord Justice Sales. The government is appealing to the Supreme Court, which will hear the case in early December.

Dominic Raab, a Conservative MP who sits on the Committee on exiting the European Union, told BBC News: "A lot of people... will be shocked to see a very small group of people go to court and effectively seek the form of redress, which could end up scuppering a referendum."

He later went on to say that he did not think the ruling would stop Brexit happening.

The government currently plans to trigger Article 50 in March 2017 and this timetable may be threatened.

If the Supreme Court rules in late December or January that the approval of Parliament is needed then it would be more difficult for that to happen in time for March.

But prominent Leave campaigner Iain Duncan Smith told BBC News: "I don't think this affects the timetable at all."

However, he did warn that it opened the possibility of Parliament voting against Article 50 being triggered, causing a constitutional crisis.

Legal challenges

One of the key questions is what form Parliament's approval needs to take, because the High Court did not specify.

There could be full legislation or a resolution, either of the House of Commons or of both houses.

Full legislation would be more complicated and time-consuming because it would require there to be debates in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, allowing there to be amendments tabled that could, for example, limit the government's freedom in negotiations about the UK's future relationship with the EU.

A resolution could be quicker and simpler, allowing the government, for example, to seek a very narrow resolution from MPs that grants approval for the triggering of Article 50. But using a narrow resolution could also be challenged in the courts, whereas full legislation should be watertight.

A resolution of only the House of Commons would prevent the government having to go to the Lords, where it does not have a majority and getting approval could be more difficult.
It is a resolution of the House of Commons that is by convention used to approve the deployment of UK troops for active service, which is then enforced by royal prerogative.
It is possible that either of these paths could delay the triggering of Article 50 beyond March, but could it scupper Brexit altogether?

If all the MPs voted in the way that they campaigned in the referendum then there would be a Commons majority for staying in the EU, but it is enormously unlikely that they would decide to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

Labour's Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Keir Starmer was very clear in telling BBC News: "We accept and respect the outcome of the referendum."

But he added that the court ruling should force the government to set out the outline principles on which it would be negotiating.

BBC News.

 

[Godsdog]

Bottom line is over 17 million folk voted for brexit so how can the final decision be handed back to around 630 MPs with their noses in the money trough,there will be riots and violence like never seen before if the people are denied

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Bottom line is over 17 million folk voted for brexit so how can the final decision be handed back to around 630 MPs with their noses in the money trough,there will be riots and violence like never seen before if the people are denied

You would think they wouldn't be stupid enough to try but knowing them the way we do do you think they will roll over and say "O.K the majority voted to leave we will leave it there" not a chance, there may be trouble ahead.


.

 

[geetee]

Bottom line is over 17 million folk voted for brexit so how can the final decision be handed back to around 630 MPs with their noses in the money trough,there will be riots and violence like never seen before if the people are denied

The bottom line here is that the UK is a Parliamentary democracy, this means that all rules and laws have to be approved by Parliament who are elected by the people (that's the democratic bit). All that the judges have done here is to confirm in law that this is in fact the position. They did not make this law, they are not fixed, bent, being told what to say simply stating the facts, which some people from the start though was blindingly obvious

Whatever the relative merits of remain or leave (which I will not go into here) the concept of getting our sovereignty back ALWAYS meant returning the decision making to the UK parliament and not to people in the street! So the vote in the referendum still has to be approved by Parliament to become enshrined in Law.
It may be that MPs will not disrespect the people's out decision but may use today's ruling to determine the conditions under which we leave! However it is well within their remit to vote No to activating Clause 50 if they so wish and democracy dictates that you will have an opportunity to remove them but not until the next election.

 

[geetee]

Bottom line is over 17 million folk voted for brexit so how can the final decision be handed back to around 630 MPs with their noses in the money trough,there will be riots and violence like never seen before if the people are denied

Also remember that the decision will have to be ratified by the UNELECTED House of Lords who have no fears of losing their seats. This in itself could force a constitutional crisis if they vote no against the will of the Commons. The law would have to be changed to minimise their power (and not before time)

 

[IainM]

The reality of the situation is still that the vote was advisory, not binding, a quarter of the people who could've voted didn't, and of those who did about half voted remain and half leave. Those who didn't vote were about 2:1 in favour of remain and many didn't vote because they falsely assumed remain would win, as indeed did Farage when he prematurely conceded. Brexit was not the will of the people and nor was remain - the people were divided. MPs should decide based on their constituents, not only the people who voted in the referendum - they are different things and the difference in this case could make all the difference.

Of course, ignoring the narrow Brexit referendum win would enrage a lot of people and have repercussions, and now that remain has gone out of fashion in the Conservative party there is a clear majority for Brexit in the commons. Still, the legal wrangling may delay things, with further delays likely from the Lords if the high court ruling is upheld, at which point inflation may have set in and Brexit might fall back out of fashion.

 

[MyQul]

I dont think they'll be violence/rioting (As long as people can watch Bake Off on their 52" screens, they cant be arsed to go out into the cold to throw bricks at coppers) but I do think this will be a problem for May and the Conservatives. They've been recently pandering to the UKIP vote to get them back into the fold and if they cant deliver on the referendum they my well see thousands of votes going to UKIP at the next election

I'll be getting on to the comments section of some newspapers later to read the carnage

 

[MarkBowie]

Now we have got to this point (I don't want to be pessimistic but.....) I don't see a positive way out. If we argue for the so called "soft Brexit" we will have to concede ground to be able to stay in the single market. If we go all out the pound plummets until trade negotiations are finished and we'all be negotiating new trade from a weakened position without the manufacturing or production to go it alone. Unless someone can enlighten me with a different view point??!

 

[trueblue]

Bottom line................a total f*ck up, the rest of the world must be laughing their b*llocks off. And that is the same world we want to do business with, a great start.

 

[HebridesRob]

This ruling was about MPs, as our representatives, having a say on how the country is governed rather than the executive (May) acting as a dictatorship. It isn't a ruling about whether Brexit happens or otherwise.

A c&p off someone I know that puts it well...
1. We don't elect judges because we believe in an independent, non-politicised judiciary and strong separation of powers: judiciary, legislature, executive.
2. The Court decision doesn't change the referendum result, nor can the judges prevent Brexit.
3. Voting out is a vote to put more power into the hands of Britain's judges, not less.
4. The whole point of the decision is that it prevents our unelected Prime Minister from taking away citizen's rights, unless she has the consent of our elected MPs (i.e. you!). This decision gives power to the people!

Louise Mensch (remember her?) on twitter:
"the court's judgement is not about #Brexit but about PM vs Parliament. Viewed correctly it is FOR the sovereignty of the people of the UK."

 

[zippy40]

I do think that there will be violence if the referendum result is ignored, otherwise people would think whats the point of a referendum?

However, I do think the judges were right that Parliament should debate brexit before the triggering of article 50. And I do think that Parliament should be given the right to debate the final terms, if/when it happens.

 

[geetee]

This ruling was about MPs, as our representatives, having a say on how the country is governed rather than the executive (May) acting as a dictatorship. It isn't a ruling about whether Brexit happens or otherwise.

A c&p off someone I know that puts it well...
1. We don't elect judges because we believe in an independent, non-politicised judiciary and strong separation of powers: judiciary, legislature, executive.
2. The Court decision doesn't change the referendum result, nor can the judges prevent Brexit.
3. Voting out is a vote to put more power into the hands of Britain's judges, not less.
4. The whole point of the decision is that it prevents our unelected Prime Minister from taking away citizen's rights, unless she has the consent of our elected MPs (i.e. you!). This decision gives power to the people!

Louise Mensch (remember her?) on twitter:
"the court's judgement is not about #Brexit but about PM vs Parliament. Viewed correctly it is FOR the sovereignty of the people of the UK."

Spot on mate, it's about putting the control back in the hands of the UK Parliament, not the bloke down the road who voted OUT. I truly believe that a lot of people who voted Out thought and still think that this result has given them a direct say in ALL decisions from now on and feel empowered to attack anyone who says differently
I think they will be sadly disappointed and find that the Politicians who have messed up whilst we were in the EU are quite capable of doing it all over again on their own!

 

[chimpo]

IT is so hard to know whats right or wrong, my own belief is that the result was almost 50/50 vote, so nearly half of the UK population will be ignored.
No matter what way this current court decision pans out near 50% of the UK population will be gone against and that cannot be a good thing.

 

[dad_of_jon]

it's all getting a bit too complicated....

time for a beer! :grin:

 

[HebridesRob]

Spot on mate, it's about putting the control back in the hands of the UK Parliament, not the bloke down the road who voted OUT. I truly believe that a lot of people who voted Out thought and still think that this result has given them a direct say in ALL decisions from now on and feel empowered to attack anyone who says differently
I think they will be sadly disappointed and find that the Politicians who have messed up whilst we were in the EU are quite capable of doing it all over again on their own!

I have no faith at all in MPs any more. More nad more, they are career politicians who have come through the ranks by brown nosing in order to get nominated to constituencies. They have little experience of life outside of politics and they are only interested in their political careers. If this is what democracy is going to look like in the future we desperately need to find another way.

 

[Covrich]

the rest of the world must be laughing their b*llocks off. A

Thankkfully we have the US presidential election to take up the mantle

 

[Doglaner]

It is all a bit of a muddle.

I'm more concerned at comments like "the will of the people says..." and "the people have given us a clear signal..." and being branded a "remainder" if one has a strongly held view that remaining was the best option.

Firstly, and as eloquently discussed above, it was the will of just over half the people who actually voted. Not all of the people. Also it was a vote which was not binding, although it doesn't hurt to base a subsequent course of action on a majority of views.

I do like being able to express an opinion without fear of being persecuted, even if it is right at the fringe of what is acceptable. In many countries this would be repressed and people have been killed for far less. I don't like being stigmatised for having that opinion, and would expect that those with opposing opinions to mine would not like it either. It is a slippery slope none of us want to go down.

I really think that as a nation we should calm down, have a proper think (over a pint or two), and then make some measured decisions about what to do next. Doing this in the context of a full parliamentary debate, albeit with the usual caveats about career politicians and nosebags, might not be such a bad idea. At least we'd learn more about what the direction of travel might be.

As I said. A muddle.

Mind you, at least we've held on to the pint. Imagine if we'd been controlled by loads of laws made in Brussels, eh! We'd all be drinking dirty rotten litres of foreign Belgian beer. Ugh!

Dog.

 

[AdrianTrace]

Is it just me? One of the main arguments for Brexit was to return sovereignty to the UK courts and UK parliament from the EU. Now there's a fuss that the UK courts have judged that Parliament should decide...:lol: It would be funny...

 

[HebridesRob]

Now we have got to this point (I don't want to be pessimistic but.....) I don't see a positive way out. If we argue for the so called "soft Brexit" we will have to concede ground to be able to stay in the single market. If we go all out the pound plummets until trade negotiations are finished and we'all be negotiating new trade from a weakened position without the manufacturing or production to go it alone. Unless someone can enlighten me with a different view point??!

Unfortunately, things could get much, much more interesting...
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4019430-trade-tragedy-global-economy-grinding-halt

 

[Russ146]

This is a Democracy which means that the people choose.

The People chose out and out it is. Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant, thats how Democracy works. You cant change the results of a general election just because you dont like who has been voted in!

Anything other than this result is called a Dictatorship and look at any African Country to see how that turns out. Poverty and violence, while the Dictators revel in opulence and luxury. The Ousted President of Egypt had amassed a personal fortune of ��£26,000,000,000 in the Bank while the people didnt even have clean water.

A Dictatorship is a very bad thing where the People have no say in anything. Which Britain will become if the Out Vote is over turned.

We are talking principals of Democracy here and the result should be upheld regardless unless you wont no control whatsoever in the Future.