Slashdot Mirror
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.
Unless they don't come the conclusion that we want them to, then it's OK to just ignore what they say.
I'm sure that literally every poster who thinks this is wonderful would have also been OK with an elite ruling counsel deciding to overturn.. oh I dunno... Obama's election to be president. Or maybe Obamacare.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So apparently the PM isn't allowed to unilaterally overturn legislation without a parliamentary vote. Weird.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
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.
The court has ruled that, according to UK law (as legislated by the elected government), the decision must come from the elected government.
Not exactly seeing this as a major setback for democracy.
All referendums in the UK are not legally binding and, as such, merely advisory.
It depends on what the enabling legislation for the referendum says. The vote a few years ago to change the electoral system WAS binding because the bill that set up the referendum expressly said it was. The legislation for the EU referendum did not, it said that the referendum was merely advisory and the result certainly not binding.
Fucking moron.
Hey why bother to have the slightest clue. We're in a post factual age and given your attitude it's no wonder you're a rabid Brexit supporter.
This ruling has literally nothing to do with your mindless blithering. But whatever, it didn't stop you having a very loud, very misinformed and very deeply held opinion on it.
This ruling means the PM has no legal power to unilaterally overturn laws just because she really really REALLY wants to. A change in the law has to go through parliament and be voted on by the MPs like oh I don't know, every other law ever.
No. Fucking. Shit.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win. [...] It was not advisory, it was not mandatory, it was a referendum. The fact you can play tricks and delay the will of the people is your lot being toss pots.
Go look up the definition of "non legally binding referendum", and then you will be qualified to continue in this conversation. Now elected officials have been informed that a slight majority of the population want to enact a major change to their country's economy and international relations, and have access to exit polls and other demographic data to get a sense of why people voted the way they did and what type of Brexit they wanted. The UK doesn't have a direct democracy for a reason, so now the professionals will take over.
This was not legally binding for the same reason you would let random citizens perform a surgery by committee.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
No the court has ruled that only Parliament can overturn an Act of Parliament. As triggering Article 50 would over turn the 1973 EEC Act then Parliament and *ONLY* Parliament can give the authority to trigger Article 50.
This is UK constitutional law 101 and anyone who thought otherwise is simply ignorant of the law. Blame Cameron for not making the referendum result legally binding.
"That is why we should use secure, networked electronic voting machines"
-- Oscar Wilde
I also love seeing the comments "The will of the people." Let's keep in mind that leave was 52% to 48%. Although it is an outcome to leave by the measure of democracy, it's hardly a decisive result. Furthermore, if you care to look up the most common Google search term in the UK on the Friday after the Brexit vote, you'll find it's "What is the EU?".
If the plebiscite was run again, it is likely to be a completely different result again. Right now, London, Scotland and Ireland seem to strongly want to remain.
I can understand why the Brexiteers are running another large campaign now showing "how good the economy is" and don't succumb to "project fear".
Are you really sure the plebiscite was a reflection of the will of the people, or the fear of the people?
Never underestimate the power of Xenophobia to control a populace.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
If the people's voice is just "advisory" then you've already failed the democracy test.
The people's voice is almost always advisory. The UK isn't a democracy except in a somewhat useless generic sense. It is a Constitutional Monarchy. Similarly the USA is not a democracy either. It is a republic. These are not trivial or pedantic distinctions. The law making bodies and governments are generally under no legal obligation to make laws in accordance with the will of the majority of the citizens.
That said, lawmakers and rulers ignore the voice of the people at their peril. Vox Populi, Vox Dei and all that.
I'll try to explain (as an ordinary citizen - not a constituional expert).
The UK has a representative democracy which elects members to the House of Commons and a non-elected second chamber (House of Lords) which is supposed to act as a review/checking body. Many people do not like the non-elected part of this, but it is what it is. Both houses notionally advise the monarch who makes the law; these days it is a nicety and she basically rubber stamps everything but she is supposed to be a non-party-political figurehead.
Parliament = House of Commons + House of Lords. In other words all elected members of parliament [in the commons] and all memebers of the lords IRRESPECTIVE OF PARTY
Government = Ruling party (or coalition) - effectively whoever has the most seats in the commons.
The Government proposes laws but they have to be approved by Parliament as a whole; this puts a first level of check in the system unless one party has an overwhelming majority as there has to be appeal not only to the opposition but also moderate members of the ruling party.
For a few, specific cases the Queen can act without parliamentary sanction -- in reality this means that the Prime Minister (leader of the government/ruling party) can act without putting it to a parliamentary vote. After the recent wars in Iraq, Libya ... there is a groundswell of opinion to limit this prerogative.
Now what's happened with Brexit is that there was a referendum. Under UK constitution a referendum is only advisory and there to inform parliament (though in reality it directs action as going against the will of the people is not a good idea). In this case the margin was very close and there have been people calling foul (esp. as one of the campaign promises, widely advertised was reneged upon the day after the count).
David Cameron, the Prime Minister at the time, said he would stand by the result; he's since cut and run. We now have a PM that nobody has voted for (and who is introducing things not in the election manifesto). This is seen as a democratic deficit by many.
Many MPs are remainers, many people are having second thoughts and a lot of people are complaining that the terms of the exit were never spelt out before the vote.
The exit terms are to be negotiated. The current government do not want parliament to have a vote. This has been challenged in court.
One of the big ironies was that a key feature in the debate was to move from "unelected rule and lack of parliamentary sovereignty" -- and now the same people are fighting against these principles in court.
In short - it's a typical British cock-up. We lead the world in muddle and confusion; meanwhile the economy is going down the pan through all of the uncertainty.
âoeThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.â â Winston S. Churchill
My understanding is that the House of Lords would have heard this case in the past, before there was a high court. Welcome to the world of appointed judges who legislate from the bench, Great Britain. Fun times - you'll just love it.
You understand incorrectly. In the past the law lords were ex officio members of the House of Lords but they were only 12 out of several hundred members. Separating them off into a Supreme Court (which isn't the High Court, btw) to make a clearer distinction between legislature and judiciary was a positive move IMHO.
Secondly, I am amazed that so many Americans, in particular, support the idea that executive fiat should override a law passed in Parliament. Taking the Lord Chief Justice's ruling, which includes the words, "“the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign” as judicial activism is really misguided.
I'm not presuming to talk for everybody, but personally, if that's what the constitution demands, then yes.
We do not have a constitution in the UK just laws and tradition. Since we entered the EU by parliament passing laws it takes parliament to repeal those same laws. It is just common sense. The reason the brexiteers are so paniced by this is because the majority for brexit was very slim and they are worried that any other referendum or vote will show that people have changed their mind.
This is why major changes to the fabric of a country are usually required to pass a far higher hurdle than merely 50% of the voters. You need a convincing margin to persuade those voting for the status quo to accept that the will of the people really has changed and that this is not a statistical blip fed by lies. Nobody is at all convinced that a second referendum, even at 50/50, would yield the same result now that the horrendous lies the leave campaign made have been exposed for what they were which happened within hours of the win.
Even worse was the fact that 2 million British citizens living abroad were excluded from the vote and many of them were enjoying the benefits of EU membership and so extremely likely to vote for remain. So the first vote was not even democratic since it excluded many of the citizens who are most directly affected by the results of the decision and since the victory margin was only 1.4 million this could easily have reversed the decision.
Technically, he got 52.9% out of 58.2% turnout in the popular vote, or roughly 1/4 of eligible voters. He got 67% of the electoral college votes. USA voter turnout hasn't gone over 60% since the late 1960s.
So you'll accept the result of the vote.... just as long as you win.
To put it in a US election context would you accept the results of the US election if 10 million US citizens in a demographic group who were very likely to vote in support of your favourite candidate were excluded from having a vote and the victory margin of the winner was 6 million votes? (although I know the actual number of votes is not actually relevant in the US system).
This is exactly what happen with the referendum: 2 million British citizens (which if you scale the from a population of 60M to 300M is equivalent to 10 million US citizens) were denied a vote because they live abroad. Many of them live in the EU enjoying the benefits of membership and so were extremely likely to vote remain.
If 10 million US republicans (or 10M democrats) were denied a vote would you happily sit by and accept the results of the election? I very much doubt it so why should we accept it in the UK? It might have been legal but it was certainly not democratic.
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome.
That is not actually correct...but in a way which supports the decision of the court even more strongly. Parliament can choose whether or not to make the result of a referendum binding. The proportional vote referendum was indeed binding because parliament passed it that way.
This means that parliament deliberately chose NOT to make the EU referendum binding which implies that they wanted a chance to deliberate on the outcome and not blindly charge into Article 50. Hence the court's decision is absolutely correct: parliament made a deliberate choice to ensure that whatever the result the final decision on how to deal with the referendum rested with them.
I don't know what was required for entry but the 1975 referendum on EEC membership (which became the EU) had a 67.23% 'yes' vote which is over a two thirds majority in favour of joining that is typical for major changes.
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.
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.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Britain isn't raping the world of its resources anymore so it has nothing.
It is very likely that the UK economy will suffer in the short and probably medium term due to Brexit-related changes and the uncertainty while those changes are worked out. In the long term, the economic implications aren't so clear and could be more favourable.
However, the idea that Britain has nothing of value to offer in its own right is just silly. It's a nation with more than 60 million relatively wealthy and relatively well-educated people. It has world class academic and research institutions. It is a global business and finance hub with geographic and linguistic advantages. It has several major industries contributing to its economy beyond the high profile ones like financial services. It is completely implausible that all of this will be catastrophically undermined, even if it takes a long time post-Brexit to sort out new international agreements.
After all, the UK also trades with other nations outside the EU, accepts people from and sends people to other nations around the world, and so on. It already does more trade with non-EU partners than EU ones, and the gap is widening. If the adults sort out the post-Brexit arrangements between the UK and EU, there will still be some form of mutually beneficial trading relationships there, even if they are on somewhat different terms. If the petulant children who seem to have been running the show lately on both sides of the Channel get to call the shots, we will probably wind up with some sort of very hard Brexit. In that case, it seems more likely that the UK will start to rebalance its economy and diplomacy in favour of more trade with non-EU partners, but there is a lot of room to manoeuvre there if you're free of the EU customs union and the like, so that will probably also work out OK in the long term though it may be a much rougher ride for a few years first.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I mean, this claim I'm making is fucking quantifiable.
It's also irrelevant. Those 60+ million people buy products and services from sources outside the EU today, and they still will tomorrow. For that matter, they'll still be able to buy from sources inside the EU too, even if it's a hard Brexit with no immediate trade deal.
If you want to talk about quantifiable, the UK has roughly as many people in its market as the smallest half of the other EU member states combined, and those in the UK have on average a lot more money to spend.
As for the likelihood of a UK-EU trade deal that overcomes the potential trade barriers raised by Brexit, the EU just spent huge amounts of time and resources setting up a trade deal with Canada, which is roughly half the size of the UK in population and quite similar in most cultural and development respects. The EU has a deal with EFTA, which was essentially founded to represent states who didn't want to be full members of the then-EEC but did want some integration for mutual benefit, and EFTA's members combined have about a quarter of the population of the population of the UK and again broadly similar cultural standards and development. For all the doom and gloom from some quarters, the UK is and will surely remain a huge market for many other EU member states, including some of the most influential ones, and sooner or later some sensible deal will be done even if the doom-sayers and politicos on either or both sides screw up Brexit itself and we get a complete break at first.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If Parliament decides to go against the referendum, and the people as a whole really do want Brexit, they can express that in the next election. That's where the will of the people overrules everything else.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you have British citizenship you should have the right to vote. That is what democracy means otherwise why not have an intelligence test? or how about requiring a certain amount of money to be invested in the UK? etc. Excluding citizens from voting is just wrong and undemocratic. If you don't want certain people to vote don't give them British citizenship.