UK's Brexit Cannot Pass Without Parliament Approval (aljazeera.com)

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court ruled on Thursday. This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty -- beginning formal exit-negotiations with the EU on its own. An anonymous reader shares a report on AlJazeera: The UK's High Court has ruled that Theresa May's administration is not allowed to trigger the country's exit from the European Union, or Brexit, without approval from parliament. Three senior judges ruled on Thursday 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. The government plans to appeal the ruling before the Supreme Court. Plans for Brexit are being challenged in a case with major constitutional implications, hinging on the balance of power between parliament and the government. May has said she will launch exit negotiations with the EU by March 31.

Comments

Doesn't Matter

[ExecutorElassus]

If the Tories want to keep their jobs and not get swept out by UKIP, they're still going to have to pass Brexit. I very much suspect Theresa May would be sacked if she doesn't invoke Article 50 when she says she will: UKIP and its neo-fascist voters seem willing to insist on showing how much they disdain immigrants above all other considerations, the dire warnings of nearly every reputable economist notwithstanding.

The funny part is where the Brits seem to think they have a choice on whether they get a "hard" or "soft" Brexit: As Al Jazeera's commentator argues, the EU is going into negotiations with such a hilariously imbalanced advantage -- the negotiations are likely going to be conducted in French -- that the UK really should consider itself lucky if they can manage to walk away with any agreement at all (instead of the entirely possible scenario of them being booted from the EU and concomitantly the WTO and having to renegotiate all their agreements with everybody).

So long, Brits! You decided to enact the geopolitical equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face in the most ridiculously exaggerated way possible, all to prove how much you despise foreigners, and now it's going to bite you in the ass! Enjoy sleeping in the bed you shit your very own self, because we sure will.

Re:Doesn't Matter

[Zocalo]

I agree; the "Hard" vs "Soft" exit thing is a complete sham as it's pretty clear that the choice is going to come down to "Hard" or "None", albeit by default. The EU (as a whole, apart from the UK) has made it abundantly clear that free travel is non-negotiable if the UK wants access to the EEA, and several countries within the EU - notably the V4 group - have stated they will veto any agreement that does not include this. Since all nations must agree on any deal, without exception, the only possible deal that will get that unanamous vote is not to exit - or something so soft that it's as good as - and without that agreement it's a default to a hard exit.

And therein lies the rub. 48% wanted to stay in the EU, 52% to leave, but that 52% is further divided between those that genuinely want a hard exit, and those that want some form of soft exit - whether to fix a single issue (immigration, EU regulation, EU funding, just sticking it to "elites", or whatever), or some combination of issues. Whether their understanding of the way the EU actually operates or not is correct being mostly immaterial to that, since it was pretty clear during the campaign that there were plenty of voters that were not prepared to listen to any facts that might contradict their opinion. So, once the final deal is reached, regardless of what it is, the majority of the public are almost certainly not going to be happy with the outcome; it'll either only satisfy the leave voters that still want a hard exit (non zero, but certainly much less than 52%), or it'll only satisfy those that still favour Remain - bearing in mind that the UK will have had two years of economic fallout (good and/or bad) by this point. There is one possible wildcard result though; if by some miracle the UK does get some form of Soft Exit then it'll only satisfy those that got all of their particular itch(es) scratched in the Leave camp, but will also appeal to those who are content with the trade-offs in the Remain camp, which might actually be a majority.

They really should approve though

[Chrisq]

I am against Brexit, but in the interest of democracy it would be wrong for parliament to reverse a vote on the exact same question as was put to parliament. I agree that it should go to parliament, we can do without ancient devices like the PM using royal prerogative to bypass parliament, but the only reasonable direction for the English, Welsh, and Northern Irish MPs would be to vote in favour.

However after an agreement is reached there should be another vote. People voting for and against Brexit did so for different reasons, sometimes contradictory. For example I know some people who wanted reduction of all immigration to very low figures, and others who though that a level playing-field with the same level of immigration would mean that they could bring in curry chefs from Mumbai rather than having to take on and train Polish chefs. Once there is a concrete proposal then MPs should be able to vote for or against it, or maybe even have a second referendum. After all if most people would disagree with a proposal then it's diffcult to argue that pushing it through is the most democratic course of action.

Re:POWAR TO THE PEOPLE!

[dunkelfalke]

Hear hear. I visit Zuerich every now and then for work and usually stay for a while using my free time. I like the Swiss, they are very relaxed and friendly. If only they could speak decent German... ;-)

Re:Where have I heard that before

[grahamtriggs]

And the UK has a majority government with only a third of the votes cast, only a quarter of the total electorate.

The thing with governments, prime ministers and presidents though is that you have to have someone doing the job. There are some checks and balances to potentially limit what they can do, and you have to have another vote on them in a few years.

Leaving the EU isn't like that. Theoretically we could choose to reapply after we have left, but the terms would be different, and there is no guarantee that we would be welcomed. There is no fixed term to say we will re-evaluate it in four years, or four years after that, etc. It's not an absolutely permanent position, but it's a fundamentally more rigid.

Common Sense and Democracy

[bdwoolman]

I completely agree with you. My read is that the polls caused complacency on the part of the stay crowd. I think now that the Torries are paying lip service to Brexit, but are slowboating the process until they can get another referendum or, as we see here, a vote in Parliament that allows the party in power to say, "Oh dear! Those lefties tied our hands. We cannot leave."

The referendum was not binding after all. It was a sop to the right that backfired. The Brexiters are a needed if despised constituency by the Conservative Establishment (as is our far right here in the US) but the Conservatives dare not alienate them. Let us remember that Parliament is 70% against an exit anyway.

Let me go on record by saying that Brexit will not happen. There will be smoke and more smoke signaling Brexit. Smoke, but no fire, just a smoke machine. The EU has made it clear it will not give the UK a soft landing. And why should it? An easy out for the UK would only embolden other restive members. The conservatives will lose every young person in the country forever if they let Brexit go through. And let us not forget Scotland.

But they won't let it happen. How can the UK leave the Common Market that has fed prosperity (on and off) since the end of WWII? Cannot and won't. Wait and see.