Brexit question for Ishbel

[razz]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot move to leave the EU without approval from Parliament.
That adds a substantial layer of complications to the situation. Thoughts or comments from onsite perceptions?

http://http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/brexit-article-50-ruling-1.3834191
​​Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by March 31. She is relying on a power called the royal prerogative that lets the government withdraw from international treaties.

Claimants argue that leaving the EU will remove rights, including free movement within the bloc, and say that can't be done without Parliament's approval.

Three senior judges ruled that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative" to start EU exit talks.

The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation.

[greenclaire]

I'm not Ishbel but I do live over here too. I think it's the correct decision, a referendum here is not a legally binding vote and is merely a glorified opinion poll. The public decided (albeit very narrowly) to leave the EU but the public also vote for their representatives to make decisions on their behalf, that's the whole point of our democracy. So I do think the final say should be a vote in parliament. How they'll actually vote will be interesting and it will also be interesting to see if it'll be a whipped or free vote. I think it's going to drag on a while......

[razz]

Thanks, greenclaire. I was not aware of either the 'royal prerogative' or the fact that a referendum is non-binding. That changes the picture a lot.

[LDAHL]

If the referendum was merely advisory in nature and not binding, it wasn't clear to me during the run-up to the vote.

Now I'm seeing a lot of commentary that the pro-Brexit voters were ignorant or duped, and that some version of do-over is justified.

Without arguing the merits of the case for or against, I could see how the majority might feel insulted or disregarded by their elites. Especially if Parliament were to now vote to remain.

[IshbelRobertson]

I took a straw poll and most of the Brexiteers i know had not understood the referendum was NOT binding (despite this being stated when the referendum was proposed).

One way out may be for Mrs May to call an election to obtain a clear mandate that, as she has stated 'Brexit means Brexit'. However, Indoubt she would take this action.

I am still a Leave believer.

[Tybee]

A leaveliever?

[LDAHL]

This is very interesting.

So was it the case that Cameron's promise to hold the referendum was to get a sense of public sentiment so the government would take action under "royal prerogative"? And now the high court is saying that, unlike other treaties, a vote of Parliament is needed to invoke Article 50? Was the vote on Scottish independence covered by s different legal framework?

[IshbelRobertson]

David Cameron was a weasel. He swithered in the wind of public opinion as shown by incorrect polls. The debacle of our Independence referendum can be laid squarely at his door.

Now we have Nicola Sturgeon pushing for another independence referendum because Scotland voted STAY in the EU referendum. And, God forbid, you add Jeremy Cornyn's Labour into the mix... How many times can we hold referenda just because the losing side didn't get the result they wanted?

The (admittedly, small) majority voted LEAVE. It would be nice if MPs bowed to that wish. Me? I don't trust any of them!

[LDAHL]

I'm going to have to find an excuse to use "swither" in casual conversation. Your posts are a lexicological treasure trove. My poor hardworking spellchecker can't keep up.

I'm wondering if the situations with the EU and Scotland (and perhaps the earlier Irish troubles) might be considered in light of whether it's better or worse to have a formal, written constitution versus an unwritten body of tradition and legal precedent. I could see how the first approach might lead to endless legal quibbles; but I could also see how the second might force you to make decisions on the fly in the case of unusual and infrequent events.

[IshbelRobertson]

Auld Scots and Lallans are rich seams to mine for words that are much more expressive than Standard English.

Just a few...

Shoogly
Outwith
Glaikit
Numpty
Teuchter (this one is Gaelic in origin and 'borrowed')
Gallus
Stotious


Re Brexit. Mrs May seems to have come out fighting. We'll see. The only certainty seems to be that you cannot trust politicians, of any stripe!

[LDAHL]

The only certainty seems to be that you cannot trust politicians, of any stripe!

The US Constitution is predicated on that premise, and is full of checks and balances aimed at pitting factions against one another to prevent any one group from exercising too much power for too long. Some people look at that as inefficient. I look at it as a bulwark against tyranny.

[IshbelRobertson]

I suspect whichever system is familiar to you, means you inherently feel 'your' system is the better.

[LDAHL]

I suspect whichever system is familiar to you, means you inherently feel 'your' system is the better.

I would only say "better" in the sense that it places relatively little reliance on the virtue and goodwill of either the political class or the general public. It is almost certainly inferior to some other systems in the speed and unanimity with which it can respond to external pressures or changing social sentiment. Churchill famously remarked that America could always be counted on to do the right thing after having exhausted every other possibility.

We were slow, for instance, in ending chattel slavery or responding to the threat of Fascism. On the other hand, there have been no American Cromwells, Stalins or Robespierres.

Being myself of a fairly cautious and conservative temperament, I confess a preference for "do-nothing" government over "do-something-stupid" government. I could see how a reasonable person could disagree.

[Alan]

This is very interesting.

So was it the case that Cameron's promise to hold the referendum was to get a sense of public sentiment so the government would take action under "royal prerogative"? And now the high court is saying that, unlike other treaties, a vote of Parliament is needed to invoke Article 50?
This is why people don't trust governments. Didn't Parliament previously decide that the issue should be decided by the voters, thus the referendum? Now the High Court says the will of the people be damned and that Parliament must approve. Didn't they essentially do that already?

[IshbelRobertson]

weasely Cameron never thought for one minute that the referendum result would be LEAVE. IMO He made the promise of a referendum precisely for that reason.

Theresa May, previously stated her Pro-REMAIN beliefs, but after the referendum has stated that Leave Means Leave... We'll see! She is in India to explore post Brexit trading opportunities.

The Supreme Court judgement should be interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/high-court-to-rule-on-brexit-legal-battle-and-theresa-mays-decis/

[LDAHL]

weasely Cameron never thought for one minute that the referendum result would be LEAVE. IMO He made the promise of a referendum precisely for that reason.

Theresa May, previously stated her Pro-REMAIN beliefs, but after the referendum has stated that Leave Means Leave... We'll see! She is in India to explore post Brexit trading opportunities.

The Supreme Court judgement should be interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/high-court-to-rule-on-brexit-legal-battle-and-theresa-mays-decis/

There's an old lawyer's adage that seems to apply here: "Don't ask the question if you don't already know the answer."

May is in a tough spot, but you have to admire the way she's working to honor the will of the people even though it doesn't reflect her own views or apparent political interests. We could use a little more of that kind of integrity over here.

[IshbelRobertson]

Yes. I have never voted Tory, but if she calls a snap election because of this issue, I will change the habit of a lifetime.