Article 50 ruling due now

[anonymous-user]

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

Mail and the Express behaving in their usual predictable way.

They're not backing the will of the people Not liking the law of the land are they? Tut tut.

FTFY.

[fatboy18]

audidoody said:

Is it OK for me to now organise a "not in my name" march and smash up public property?

Only if you respect the democratic process

[Collectingbrass]

Oceanic said:

55palfers said:

How much has this pointless charade cost us? We pay Gina's costs too now I guess?

Surely no MP can vote against in Parliament, the public voted for Brexit - bloody well get on with it!

Surely an MP is bound to represent the views of their local constituents first?

That's also MPs who have access to validated & balanced civil service information and a duty to consider what is best for the country as a whole as well as the whole of their own constituency, rather than "the people" voting on the basis of emotional rhetoric founded on selective data and their own narrow self interest - on both sides.

Don't get me wrong, the referendum is a powerful instrument but to my eyes the result is not clear cut enough for parliament just to "get on with it" without further consideration. The loss of EU funding will set the peace process back 30 years in Northern Ireland, we will likely loose merchant banking passporting from London and Scotland voted yes to force another devolution vote. There are massive opportunities in being able to set our own trade deals and we do need manage our own trade deals but regardless of your views on Brexit these have massive implications for the United Kingdom and are not things we should set in train without oversight, scrutiny and a lot of thought.

[Guybrush]

Greg66 said:

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

Mail and the Express behaving in their usual predictable way.

They're not backing the will of the people Not liking the law of the land are they? Tut tut.

FTFY.

It's not that clearcut. (Plus, the vote wasn't unanimous.)

[TTwiggy]

Guybrush said:

When it comes to the parliament vote, it would be interesting to see names published of those MPs who voted against the democratic decision.

Are you having fantasies involving rope and lampposts then?

[Amateurish]

The Government can't unilaterally repeal an Act of Parliament in Constitutional Law 101 shocker.

[PurpleMoonlight]

May should resign for trying to act unlawfully.

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

Guybrush said:

When it comes to the parliament vote, it would be interesting to see names published of those MPs who voted against the democratic decision.

Are you having fantasies involving rope and lampposts then?

VBRJ shirley

[turbobloke]

PurpleMoonlight said:

May should resign for trying to act unlawfully.

It wasn't known at the time therefore not guilty.

What's the penalty for wishful thinking ... disappointment.

[anonymous-user]

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

Mail and the Express behaving in their usual predictable way.

They're not backing the will of the people Not liking the law of the land are they? Tut tut.

FTFY.

It's not that clearcut. (Plus, the vote wasn't unanimous.)

(1) It is.
(2) So what?

[Biker 1]

I doubt the ruling makes much difference, but I still don't see what Jeeana Miller's role in all of this is about. Seems an unlikely figure....

[fatboy18]

The sad part about all this is that the anti leave campain will try and drag this out forever

[Atomic12C]

Oceanic said:

Guybrush said:

The people knew what they were voting for.

I think that is highly disingenuous, yes some, many yes did have a good idea what they were getting into, but many also did not!

Just adding that this applies to BOTH sides of the yes/no voting populus.

So its sort of a moot point.

What has to be taken as fact are the figures of the result of the referendum.

[speedy_thrills]

55palfers said:

Surely no MP can vote against in Parliament, the public voted for Brexit - bloody well get on with it!

Even those in pro-EU constituencies?

It'll be down to MPs to consult with their constituents and consider the issues from all angles.

...Or tow the party line and damn the constituents if thats the way this plays out of course. In many ways however I'd expect parties would feel forcing the issue one way or another would be a no-win and would rather risk a diversity of opinion. Although not the outcome I desire I'd expect a slight majority would end up voting in favour of invoking article 50.

[Andy Zarse]

turbobloke said:

Andy Zarse said:

Gargamel said:

I think it is the Lords that will be the tricky part

I thought too, but apparently not. Firstly the Article 50 motion is supported by both Lords front benches so it will pass. In the event of a filibuster or wrecking amendments by atti-Brexit peers, the Govt can use the rarely used procedure of "closure" which allows debates to be curtailed and peers to go straight to a vote. This is contained in House standing orders and any member may now move "that the question now be put" and the Chair must read a set statement and the matter is "put" to a vote without further debate.

All of which apparently means the Supreme Court case was completely pointless.

H/T John Rentoul of The Independent, in an article published on Facebook.

There must be some people thinking that this ruling will in effect reverse the Brexit vote. There's more entertainment ahead, that's for sure.

If so then I do not understand their point of view. Yes the case was originally brought to try to frustrate Brexit, because Miller et al believed a bien pensant Labour would oppose the Article 50 motion and it would buy some time for Europhile parliamentary troops to be marshalled. However, as time went by it became clear the case was in reality about due process, not legitimacy, and the delay only served to allow Labour to get its act together sufficiently to decide it won't frustrate Article 50.

So now a motion will be put before the House, it will pass with ease, there can then be no question about Article 50 legitimacy and the folk who brought the case have hilariously shot themselves in the foot. My how we will all laugh.

It has been an object lesson in reminding us of the imperative for the legislature's requirement to abide by the rule of law. In my view all these silly shenannigans serve to show the sysytem is working beautifully.

[VolvoT5]

Well the Lib Dems are already calling for a second referendum on the final deal and the SNP are going to hold a vote in the Scottish parliament too....

But my instinct is that this will make very little difference to the Brexit process - this was the expected outcome of the case after all and MPs would be foolish to block A50 being triggered.

[roachcoach]

speedy_thrills said:

55palfers said:

Surely no MP can vote against in Parliament, the public voted for Brexit - bloody well get on with it!

Even those in pro-EU constituencies?

It'll be down to MPs to consult with their constituents and consider the issues from all angles.

...Or tow the party line and damn the constituents if thats the way this plays out of course. In many ways however I'd expect parties would feel forcing the issue one way or another would be a no-win and would rather risk a diversity of opinion. Although not the outcome I desire I'd expect a slight majority would end up voting in favour of invoking article 50.

Yup, there's going to be a lot of MPs cursing this decision.

[dandarez]

PurpleMoonlight said:

May should resign for trying to act unlawfully.

Ha ha ha.

Christ alive, that has to be the most hilarious statement of the day.

And still will be at the end of the day.

Here, have jjlynn trademark.

To be honest, the outcome was predictable and in a strange sort of way I'm rather pleased. 

Two boring by-elections coming up where turnout would have been predictably low, may now turn into more voting and letting Miller and her cronies know exactly what the people voted for, what they think, and want.

I'm predicting Labour losing both seats now, one probably by some margin.

[CrutyRammers]

Andy Zarse said:

It has been an object lesson in reminding us of the imperative for the legislature's requirement to abide by the rule of law. In my view all these silly shenannigans serve to show the sysytem is working beautifully.

Very much that.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Oceanic said:

Guybrush said:

The people knew what they were voting for.

I think that is highly disingenuous, yes some, many yes did have a good idea what they were getting into, but many also did not!

That would be entirely true for both sides of the remain - leave campaigns.