Parliament must vote to trigger Article 50

[nxjen]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/24/supreme-court-article-50-judgement-announces-its-article-50-judgment-politics-live

[keano77]

Not only has the law been clarified from a constitutional point of view this is also a sensible judgement. Many Brexiters voted out so as to preserve the sovereignty of the UK parliament.

The irony for the remainers is they've correctly asserted the sovereignty of Parliament but would like to give a large area of it away and dance to the EU tune.

[TheCat]

As a leaver, I personally welcome this decision, as once parliament pass the vote to trigger Article 50, we should no longer have to hear anymore bleating about the fact that the referendum was only 'advisory'....

[Earl Aelfheah]

In practice it makes little difference, but the principle is absolutely the right one. It's a shame May wasted so much taxpayer's money fighting a point that was obviously and easily conceded.

[keano77]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In practice it makes little difference, but the

> principle is absolutely the right one. It's a

> shame May wasted so much taxpayer's money fighting

> a point that was obviously and easily conceded.

In fairness it was a grey area of law. The right of a government to withdraw from treaties under the perogative is well established. If I understand this ruling correctly it has clarified that where Parliament votes to enter into treaties Parliament has to assent before the government can amend or exit a treaty

[JohnL]

I'd hoped the devolved governments would get a say :( Can they take it to the European Court

SNP saying they will introduce 50 amendments and cause trouble.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/article-50-latest-news-brexit-supreme-court-ruling-snp-amendments-a7543056.html

[Loz]

Tis very good news, especially as parliament seems to have to ratify the final deal. If it is looking like a terrible deal and banks and other major industries start looking like they'll move, then MPs might find themselves under pressure to not go ahead.

Also, it leaves much room for the House of Lords to cause quite a bit of slowing down of the process. May does not want to go into the 2020 election with Brexit coming to a bitter crescendo. Even the amendments being proposed by the otherwise-useless Corbyn might help to slow it down.

[JohnL]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a leaver, I personally welcome this decision,

> as once parliament pass the vote to trigger

> Article 50, we should no longer have to hear

> anymore bleating about the fact that the

> referendum was only 'advisory'....

That'll go on for the rest of our lifetimes :)

Blame Cameron if you want. As Sky said this morning

no thought was given to what would happen if Leave

won.

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tis very good news, especially as parliament seems

> to have to ratify the final deal. If it is

> looking like a terrible deal and banks and other

> major industries start looking like they'll move,

> then MPs might find themselves under pressure to

> not go ahead.

>

> Also, it leaves much room for the House of Lords

> to cause quite a bit of slowing down of the

> process. May does not want to go into the 2020

> election with Brexit coming to a bitter crescendo.

> Even the amendments being proposed by the

> otherwise-useless Corbyn might help to slow it

> down.

I still await David Milliband to come home (he doesn't

want to live in Trumpland) and take over UK Labour.

Maybe too tainted by Blair though ?

[DulwichFox]

So if after the next General Election a group of people do not like the result...

... will Parliament decide who wins.. and becomes prime minister.

As for companies moving out of the UK. Well Donald Trump has the right idea..

He has told U.S. Car manufactorers if they want to sell cars in the U.S. they have to make them in the U.S.

If Banks want to operate in the U.K. Then they should stay in the U.K. and employ U.K. residents.

DulwichFox

[Loz]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So if after the next General Election a group of

> people do not like the result...

> ... will Parliament decide who wins.. and

> becomes prime minister.

In a word: yes.

Foxy, I hate to break it to you, but you don't actually elect who becomes PM. The current PM being a case in point.

The PM (and, thus, the government) is merely the leader of the party who can command a majority of the HoC, so Parliament does in a way decide who is PM. Should parliament carry a vote of no confidence in the government, then it will fall and fresh elections held OR if another government can be formed, it will be allowed to do so. If, as an example, there are 251 Tories and 250 Labour MPs elected, then a Tory will be PM. Should one of those Tories defect to Labour, there could be a change of PM and government, no election required.

Because the heart of the UK democracy is the House of Commons. Its what you voted for when you voted for Brexit, or didn't you realise that?

[JohnL]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Banks want to operate in the U.K. Then they

> should stay in the U.K. and employ U.K.

> residents.

>

> DulwichFox

They want to operate in Europe mainly :(

[red devil]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichFox Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > So if after the next General Election a group

> of

> > people do not like the result...

> > ... will Parliament decide who wins.. and

> > becomes prime minister.

>

> In a word: yes.

>

> Foxy, I hate to break it to you, but you don't

> actually elect who becomes PM. The current PM

> being a case in point.

>

> The PM (and, thus, the government) is merely the

> leader of the party who can command a majority of

> the HoC, so Parliament does in a way decide who is

> PM. Should parliament carry a vote of no

> confidence in the government, then it will fall

> and fresh elections held OR if another government

> can be formed, it will be allowed to do so. If, as

> an example, there are 251 Tories and 250 Labour

> MPs elected, then a Tory will be PM. Should one

> of those Tories defect to Labour, there could be a

> change of PM and government, no election required.

>

>

> Because the heart of the UK democracy is the House

> of Commons. Its what you voted for when you voted

> for Brexit, or didn't you realise that?

Loving the delicious irony of someone who wasn't born here explaining to a Brexiteer how our democratic constitution works..:)

[Jeremy]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If Banks want to operate in the U.K. Then they

> should stay in the U.K. and employ U.K. residents.

But why would they want to stay in the UK? If we lose access to EU markets, then what's the benefit of staying in London? UK is small fry in comparison. And by moving to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, they'd have access to the best talent from across the EU.

[Jeremy]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They want to operate in Europe mainly

Yes I guess that's a more succinct way of putting it...

[jaywalker]

DulwichFox Wrote:

> As for companies moving out of the UK. Well

> Donald Trump has the right idea..

> He has told U.S. Car manufactorers if they want

> to sell cars in the U.S. they have to make them in

> the U.S.

>

> If Banks want to operate in the U.K. Then they

> should stay in the U.K. and employ U.K.

> residents.

>

> DulwichFox

IF this is meant to be an economic argument THEN it begs a question about optimal trade zones. A trade zone can be too small - if confined to my back garden, or to East Dulwich for that matter. It MIGHT be that there are arguments for containing trade zones to less than the maximum possible: but if so we need to hear the criteria. An arbitrary judgement that this is best achieved on the basis of the nation state is aporetic: some nations (e.g. the UK) are very much smaller than others (the USA).

But perhaps the anchor of 'nation' here is the only value that is meant (so, as with May, the economics really don't matter at all).

IF it is an economic argument then it is based on mercantilist metaphors of containment (Lakoff and Johnson is the obvious reference). We must defend what we have and recognise: to allow flows out to other countries is obviously a loss: like having a leak in one's water cistern. Unfortunately, the poverty of this metaphor was established convincingly by Keynes in the 1930s (when its pernicious effects were all too real).

Cheese makers, if they want to sell cheese in East Dulwich then they have to make it in East Dulwich and only employ people born in East Dulwich (that way we will get better off and know who we really are).

[JohnL]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Cheese makers, if they want to sell cheese in East

> Dulwich then they have to make it in East Dulwich

> and only employ people born in East Dulwich (that

> way we will get better off and know who we really

> are).

But when they grow (because they're good at making cheese

and want to employ more workers and sell cheese to Peckham

and Camberwell. Should they then be prevented from doing so,

or should they have to set up cheese factories in Peckham and

Camberwell employing local people (and thus having no economies

of scale).

[Rook]

Hi All, just providing a (hopefully clear) summary on all this...

Supreme Court Judge Neuberger delivered a clear and short statement that settles the legal case regarding the involvement of the parliament. By a majority of 8 to 3, the Supreme Court ruled that an ?Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union?.

Regarding the devolution issues, the view of the majority of justices is that ?the devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK?s decision to withdraw from the EU?, cutting short the possibility that a devolved administration could veto Brexit. This means there is no chance for example that Scotland could block the triggering of Article 50 which would have been a huge thorn in the side of the government and would likely have delayed their timetable for Brexit.

Overall, the ruling turned out to be a non-event for markets. After the clear ruling by the High Court last year requiring the involvement of parliament, it was widely expected that the Supreme Court would uphold that judgment. Furthermore, removing scenarios involving devolved parliaments seems to be a balanced outcome as it delivers market-positive (clarity) among currently market-negative (Brexit) content.

Speaking after the ruling, David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, said that the government will seek to submit relevant legislation ?within days?. He added that the government will aim for the bill to be ?as straightforward as possible?, suggesting that he is planning to submit a short single-clause ?Article 50? bill in parliament.

The sole purpose of the bill would be to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and ask parliament to grant the government the authority to trigger Article 50.

The bill would follow the usual ?5-steps? (first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, third reading) as well as travel through both chambers, go through the so-called amendment phase (iteration between both chambers) before qualifying for Royal Assent. Parliament will also be in recess between 9-20 February.

It is now widely accepted that parliament will not stand in the way and allow the government to respect its March deadline. For that to happen before its self-imposed March deadline, the government has cleared parliament?s agenda and under a best-case ?fast track? scenario, could get Royal Assent (the last stage of the legal process) by mid-March.

While the reluctance of some MPs to support such a three-line bill without concessions or amendments by the opposition might delay the process, MPs have not expressed their collective intention to block Brexit. Hence, this whole power struggle between government and parliament will not derail the withdrawal process and Brexit remains the widely held working assumption, and to the governments previously stated timetable.

Just FYI - along the way, other court cases might lead to some headlines: in early February, the High Court is expected to rule regarding Article 127 (does leaving EU automatically mean leaving the European Economic Area?), while in Ireland, a case has been brought to the High Court in Dublin and could find its way up to the European Court of Justice (is Article 50 reversible?). None of these two cases, however, has the teeth to block the first stage of withdrawal, which is the triggering of Article 50.

[JohnL]

And now there is to be a White Paper (good)

but poor Corbyn totally wrong footed at PMQs (he was obviously going to ask for one)

... but it is another back down by May because of revolts

[TheArtfulDogger]

Why was Corybn panting on about bargain bucket Britain in PMQ ... Where did that expression come from ?

[red devil]

BOGOF Britain would've been more apt...

[rendelharris]

Truly shite performance from the Corbster - Government performs a massive U-turn on something you've been asking for and they've been refusing to give and it ends up making you look stupid? Despair.

[titch juicy]

She tore strips off him today.

I wish Angus Robertson was Labour leader- if only for PMQs.

[JohnL]

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why was Corybn panting on about bargain bucket

> Britain in PMQ ... Where did that expression come

> from ?

It's Burns night so at least the Mirror brings Scotland into it and

Ally Macleod and the dog (which is apparently true)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyns-burns-night-pmqs-9689771

[red devil]

Yes it is true, and the dog lived...