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.
Oh fuck off.
It's a legal issue. The referendum was advisory which means that the law which gave rise to the referendum did not give it any legal power. Therefore to have legal power, new laws based on the result of it still have to go through the normal parliamentary process.
In other news, laws have to go through parliament no matter how much anyone wants them.
Duhhh.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome. Referendums in the UK are *not* legally binding and the parliament can ignore them as much as it wants.
Yes power to the people to decide matters through the parliament and democratic process. This is far better than a non binding glorified opinion poll giving a government the power to ignore the limits set by the constitution.
The "ruling counsel" (also known as the Congress) can most certainly overturn Obamacare, they are the ones that passed it in the first place.
They can also under certain circumstances impeach the President. That's the purpose of having an elected representative body.
"Direct democracy" is a failed concept, in particular in a current memory-challenged meme-driven social environment. Democracy based on elected parliament seeks to create a balance between current and fluid public opinion and the need to maintain a meaningful course in governing.
IMHO, referendum is not a valid political tool and should not ever be used.
You mean unilaterally overturn legislation that the populous voted that they want overturned?
Yes. That's sort of the point of a legal system. You can't just shit over the laws simply because you really really really want to.
"The people" apparently want it and now it has to go through parliament just like any other law "the people" really really really want.
On the plus side this means the PM might have to awnser tricky questions like, oh I don't know, "what's your plan", and you know hold things up until a plan. The brexit vote simply means as we are told, brexit. It doesn't mean exit instantly with no plan at all.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Bullshit. This was the only possible outcome. The British constitution (which is a complicated written but not codified body of things from the Magna Carta onwards) is very clear that Parliament is sovereign. Nothing overrides that. People complaining that it's undemocratic seem to have forgotten several things:
Given the demographics of the voters in the referendum, I would expect that most MPs will vote to invoke Article 50, but it would set a very dangerous precedent if the Prime Minister could do so without their vote.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
[1] Literally, 'the city', which in the case of the UK is a bit more true than we'd like: has far too much power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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