Its not a parliamentary vote to overturn the result - but to have a vote on the exit negotiations. The status quo is not an option they'll be voting on
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Its not a parliamentary vote to overturn the result - but to have a vote on the exit negotiations. The status quo is not an option they'll be voting on
The decision is purely a legal one and not political. Don't go all "Trumpist" on us.
Laws made by Parliament can only be overturned by Parliament. It needs a vote, otherwise some people will say it wasn't done right and is illegal. Voting will avoid that. This is also true for laws currently coming from the EU - Parliament passed a law saying we'd let the EU have control in certain areas of UK law.
When the vote takes place I expect it to be passed. MPs aren't brave or principled enough to do anything else. Fret not, Brexiters, it will happen.
From memory, some MPs thought it was a waste of time and money to just tell us what we already knew. They (and me) were wrong.
Here are the possible grounds on which the UK government will appeal, set out by UKIP London MEP Gerard Batten:
Treaties are merely agreements between governments. The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament.
All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first.
Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.
This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgement clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty.
Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction.
Treaties are merely agreements between governments. The courts cannot rule on them until they become part of domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament.
All previous treaties have been entered into and signed by British governments using the Royal Prerogative without a vote in Parliament first.
Only when parts are incorporated into law by Act of Parliament does Parliament become involved, and the courts have jurisdiction over their application.
This argument is clearly set out in a judgement of the House of Lords in the case of Rayner v Department of Trade and Industry (1990) 2 AC 418. This judgement clearly states that the Government may repudiate or terminate a Treaty.
Triggering Article 50 may indeed inevitably affect domestic law but until it does the courts have no jurisdiction.
May not be a joke. Is she loses before the Supreme Court, the multi-millionaire fund manager may appeal to the European Court. I imagine the British Government would ignore any judgement affecting British sovereignty.
But that's even worse, because when the government slinks back from Brussels with a deal, Parliament can reject it, either whole or bits of it, thus requiring more negotiations, unless the EU say 'stop taking the piss'. All EU treaties require Parliamentary scrutiny, and any treaty requires parliamentary ratification under the Ponsonby Rule. It makes sense to ensure that the government negotiators have not exceeded their authority and that we are actually prepared to abide by every word of the treaty. See:
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p14.pdf
I don't get why those who went on and on about 'taking back control' don't like this. It will not reverse the referendum result.
£ surges on the court ruling news.
Nothing could be worse than debating the UK government's intentions re the EU in open forum before it goes into critical negotiations with Juncker and his henchmen, who would love to dump on this country from a great height to deter other states.
I imagine Theresa May has in mind coming back with a compromise from the EU and putting it to Parliament, and at the same time, calling an election and making the that compromise the central part of her manifesto
I suspect the UK government would argue the issue was ultra vires, and beyond the European's Court's competence
Interesting. Just to check my understanding of what you're suggesting...
The government can agree a treaty with another government and then goes to Parliament for a vote to approve what has been agreed. A vote for the treaty may well include new Acts which become UK law.
Therefore, a government can break a treaty with another government and then goes to Parliament for approval, etc., as above. With that belief, the government can trigger Article 50 and negotiate exit terms without discussing anything with Parliament until they've finished negotiating and then they take that to Parliament for approval.
Do I understand correctly?
What if Parliament doesn't approve?
Self interest for the wealthy people who brought this case to court is behind it.
Most judges are liberal politically correct lefties and these judges are no different.
The institutionally left wing BBC is wetting itself over this ruling.
As above [HASHTAG]#7049[/HASHTAG]:
"I imagine Theresa May has in mind coming back with a compromise from the EU and putting it to Parliament, and at the same time, calling an election and making the that compromise the central part of her manifesto."
I'm not sure how much leeway Remain and Soft Brexit Parliamentarians will have if May gets a decent majority
Yr sentence one - possibly, but so what? If the government is bypassing the law then it should be challenged. If not, the appeal will win. Even if they lose they will win the Parliamentary vote.
Yr sentence two - even if you were correct, which I doubt, it doesn't matter. They interpret the law and explain their judgement in legal terms. Have you read the judgement?
Yr sentence three - I've no idea, but more fool them if they are.
If she goes to the country on a platform of Hard Brexit she won't get an overall majority.
I don't imagine Theresa May has anything in mind at all, but an election is a very good idea. Perhaps on the terms of exit rather than what she comes back with. She would probably win, and then at least we would know what we were negotiating for, because if she didn't include it in her manifesto she would be a laughing stock.
Your paranoia about the EU side is odd. By keeping our intentions super double secret does it make it anymore difficult for the other side to say 'No, non, nein' when they are finally revealed? How damaging would it be to say:
- we intend to stay in the Single Market if certain provisos are met; or
- we are leaving entirely and the discussions are about how we extract ourselves from commitments and institutions; or
- we will seek sector by sector agreements
So the operation of good old British Common Law and the sovereignty of Parliament to decide our 'destiny' aren't part of your desire to 'take back control'?
Eat the rich!
If she goes into the EU negotiations seeking a hard Brexit, it gives the UK the best chance of a decent compromise eg single market access and free movement of skilled labour. Remember Cameron's experience. The less you ask for, the less you get.