Supreme Court upholds High Court ruling that a vote is necessary to trigger Article 50

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
No great surprise there, then.

While many will lambast the courts, the essence of the matter was that leaving the EU does affect the rights of UK citizens (e.g. rights to move, work and reside in the EU) and thus could not be done under Crown Prerogative (essentially a Prime Minister's whim). I am happy to live in a country where this challenge was possible and where it was upheld.

I am less than happy that:
1) The drafting of the Referendum Act was so slack as to miss this fundamental point. I do not think that CS and Parliamentary draftsmen would have missed it, so who ruled it out.
2) The Attorney General fought the case in the High Court and then appealed - the outcome was, IMVHO, inevitable given the poor drafting.
3) The government did not preempt the situation (in terms of Article 50 process)by holding a vote back in September.​

The results of this fiasco are:
A. UK subjects' rights upheld. A good thing.
B. Initiation of the exit process delayed. A bad thing.
C. Exit uncertainty increased (in terms of time). A bad thing.
D. Big legal bills for the taxpayer. A bad thing, even given (A).​

In terms of Brexit, the stark reality remains that any MP who votes against the wishes of their constituents is electoral toast next time round. And indeed, if the government manages to lose the vote it is toast too - and possibly losing the vote would trigger a no confidence vote.

We are about the hear (again) from SNP, Fallon and other assorted Remainers that we need to accommodate EU to remain in single market blah blah blah, when the facts are that the EU has no interest in requiring anything other than a hard Brexit.

Some may wibble that those who voted out thought that they were voting for soft Brexit, although of course there is no credible data on that. I anticipated hard Brexit, and as far as I know so did those whom I know who voted out.

My questions:

a). When is Mrs May going to sack her Attorney General? (And he should be sacked, not allowed to resign as his advice has been wrong and he has so far lost 2 from 2)?
b) Who is going to explain why the issue was not addressed in the Referendum Act, and who decided to ignore it? (My guess is Cameron).
c) How much longer is it going to take the House of Commons to accede to the outcome of the Referendum and do the simple thing of triggering Article 50?
d) When is the public's patience with the institutional ineptitude currently on display run out?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I am not that sure that the process has been delayed that much. Neither UK not EU were ready for Brexit, and probably still are not fully prepared, do nothing would really be happening anyway.

It is amusing the way the Lib Dems think they will make any difference for their constant calls for the referendum rerun.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
In reply to your questions

a). When is Mrs May going to sack her Attorney General? (And he should be sacked, not allowed to resign as his advice has been wrong and he has so far lost 2 from 2)? I don't think she is that fussed. He lost the appeal but IMO it was a relatively half hearted one
b) Who is going to explain why the issue was not addressed in the Referendum Act, and who decided to ignore it? (My guess is Cameron). No way is Cameron going to take the blame for anything - a la Tony B.
c) How much longer is it going to take the House of Commons to accede to the outcome of the Referendum and do the simple thing of triggering Article 50? When Mrs May is ready.
d) When is the public's patience with the institutional ineptitude currently on display run out? I think that happened in June 2016.
 
Personally I think this whole court ruling is a load of tosh. The people of Britain as a whole (not as England, Scotland etc) said what they wanted in the referendum. Somehow this decision of the people of Britain has ended up in court with a ruling that Parliament needs to vote on triggering article 50. Correct me if I am wrong, but Parliament represents the people of Britain, so how/why doe Parliament need to vote on whether to start something that the British people have already voted on and said lets get out. Surely this ruling is illegal.

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
 
Tim Farron: "The Lib Dems are clear - we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for Article 50".
What planet is this deluded excuse for a politician on? When I cast my vote last June, I was pretty clear what I was asking our Politicians to do on our behalf and certainly didn't expect to vote again on any sort of 'final deal'.
Do one Farron and take your pathetic rump of MP's with you (especially Cleggie)!
 
Personally I think this whole court ruling is a load of tosh. The people of Britain as a whole (not as England, Scotland etc) said what they wanted in the referendum. Somehow this decision of the people of Britain has ended up in court with a ruling that Parliament needs to vote on triggering article 50. Correct me if I am wrong, but Parliament represents the people of Britain, so how/why doe Parliament need to vote on whether to start something that the British people have already voted on and said lets get out. Surely this ruling is illegal.

Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick?
You are getting the wrong end of the stick. The job of the Judges is the Law. Not popular feeling.
 

tgo

Old-Salt
It beats me too, considering that Parliament already voted on whether or not to have a referendum in the first place...
 
You are getting the wrong end of the stick. The job of the Judges is the Law. Not popular feeling.
Its not popular feeling it was a referendum not top of the pops. A referendum which was put to the public by the government/Parliament as the politicians felt that they could not make such a decision and as such the outcome would be legally binding as it is the will of the people.
 
Its not popular feeling it was a referendum not top of the pops. A referendum which was put to the public by the government/Parliament as the politicians felt that they could not make such a decision and as such the outcome would be legally binding as it is the will of the people.
Just because it is the will of the people doesn't make it binding. The majority of the people would hang murderers, terrorists etc but we can't - it's illegal. BTW I am on your side - I wish the Supreme Court had gone the other way but they interpreted the law in the way they did.
 
Just my view, Cabana, but the whole central issue of the referendum was about the sovereignty & supremacy of the UK Parliament. That was my principal reason for voting 'out'. The other factors are subsidiary to that. So, I can't find any fault with Parliament getting the final shout on this. It's in the bag anyway.
 
Last edited:
Do one Farron and take your pathetic rump of MP's with you (especially Cleggie)!
In spite of their paltry showing of 9 MPs in the Commons, there are 102 Lib Dem peers in the unelected chamber. Which tells you just about all you need to know about the House of Lords.
 
Just because it is the will of the people doesn't make it binding. The majority of the people would hang murderers, terrorists etc but we can't - it's illegal. BTW I am on your side - I wish the Supreme Court had gone the other way but they interpreted the law in the way they did.
On that you are correct for sure, however if there was a referendum to bring back the death penalty and the result was in favour of that then of course it would be brought in. As such this court action/judgement makes the referendum (and as such the fact that Parliament represent the British people) meaningless surely.

I am not being an argumentative bugger, I am just trying to understand how and why a referendum that was sanctioned by the government/Parliament now has to have the result voted on by Parliament.
 
Last edited:
am not being an argumentative bugger, I am just trying to understand how and why a referendum that was sanctioned by the government/Parliament now has to have the result voted on by Parliament.
Because the referendum result was not the one they so confidently anticipated! Go to the bottom of the class.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Neither UK not EU were ready for Brexit, and probably still are not fully prepared, do nothing would really be happening anyway.
Perhaps, although now the reality of hard Brexit is clear there is little political stuff to be done.

Mrs "Brexit means Brexit" seems to me to be neither leading this, nor driving it through. It is this lassitude which is giving the likes of Fallon and the BBC room to obfuscate and delay.
 
Just my view, Cabana, but the whole central issue of the referendum was about the sovereignty & supremacy of the UK Parliament. That was my principle reason for voting 'out'. The other factors are subsidiary to that. So, I can't find any fault with Parliament getting the final shout on this. It's in the bag anyway.
I can sort of understand what you are trying to say, however as you have pointed out the referendum encompassed a whole load of factors and all the factors were (or should have been) made known about and taken inot consideration. As the referendum was sanctioned by the government/Parliament that should be the end of it. Parliament asked the people of Britain and the people of Britain gave them their answer and Parliament should honour that answer and get on with it instead of pussy footing around wasting time and tax payers money.
 
D

Deleted 145301

Guest
Tim Farron: "The Lib Dems are clear - we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for Article 50".
What planet is this deluded excuse for a politician on? When I cast my vote last June, I was pretty clear what I was asking our Politicians to do on our behalf and certainly didn't expect to vote again on any sort of 'final deal'.
Do one Farron and take your pathetic rump of MP's with you (especially Cleggie)!
You fail to realise that Farron is playing at hoovering up disatisfied remain voters.

Doesn't matter what the chances of it happening are. A significant minority are not happy and one can only imagine that taking such a stance will increase the very low popularity of the Lib Dems
 

Farage

Old-Salt
I see it quite simply:

MPs voted to hold a referendum whether to Remain in or Leave the EU
The UK voted to Leave the EU:thumleft:
Why now does it have to go back to Parliament ? When the will of the people was clear!
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top