Article 50 ruling due now

[Camoradi]

Oceanic said:

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

Only when it suits them, based on the last 300 years of Parliamentary votes

[Andy Zarse]

PurpleMoonlight said:

May should resign for trying to act unlawfully.

Err... except for the small fact that nobody knew if it was legal or not until the judges had ruled upon the matter.

Yeesh.

[TTwiggy]

Camoradi said:

Oceanic said:

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

Only when it suits them, based on the last 300 years of Parliamentary votes

I imagine the majority of London MPs (particularly the blue ones) will be ruing this.

[55palfers]

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.

The Referendum was a UK wide majority vote not constituency based.

[Guybrush]

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?

Hmmmm...er no. It would be useful information though if one's local MP were to be of a mind to go against the democratic vote set up by the then Prime Minister complete with a promise of follow through on the outcome.

[Guybrush]

Greg66 said:

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?

'The Law' in this case cannot be clearcut if the decision this morning was not unanimous.

[FN2TypeR]

VolvoT5 said:

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.

Look, we voted against it and they didn't listen to us.

[Andy Zarse]

Guybrush said:

'The Law' in this case cannot be clearcut if the decision this morning was not unanimous.

Sorry but that's why we have Courts sitting with multiple judges. Would you prefer just one judge?

[anonymous-user]

[quote=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....[/quote

Wealthy, arrogant woman who thinks her opinion and vote are worth more than most other peoples', especially when her own vested interests are taken into account.

Not even British.

[anonymous-user]

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

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?

'The Law' in this case cannot be clearcut if the decision this morning was not unanimous.

Well, let's park the point that you're flat out wrong on that one.

On your approach, the decision in the referendum cannot be clearcut as it was not unanimous.

Happy with that? Or happy with the double standard? You choose.

[TTwiggy]

Guybrush said:

Hmmmm...er no. It would be useful information though if one's local MP were to be of a mind to go against the democratic vote set up by the then Prime Minister complete with a promise of follow through on the outcome.

One might counter that by pointing out it could also be useful to know if one's local MP were to vote against the majority view and best interest of his or her local electorate, just to toe the party line.

[BlackLabel]

May and Corbyn will whip the vote - sure there will be rebels + the entire SNP/Lib Dems but it's still not enough to block article 50.

[Gargamel]

Don't think anyone will be blocking this. It will all be about the amendments

E.G. Lib Dems want the "final" position to be re voted on in two years time - either by referendum (ideal for them) or back in Parliament - waste of time

Labour will push for Social Chapter to be preserve, ECHR, Working Time, possibly even free movement...


They don't want to stop it, just twist it to play to the galleries.

[paulrockliffe]

55palfers said:

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.

The Referendum was a UK wide majority vote not constituency based.

I appreciate there are other interpretations, but I'd expect if it went before the Sureme Court they would find 8-3 in favour of this one; MPs voted that the decision should be put to a national vote to steer the decision. If an MP wanted a constituency vote instead, they should have voted against a national poll and made that known at the time.

I can understand an MP in a remain constituency that voted against the referendum Bill voting against A50, but anyone that voted to delegate the decision to the nation is bound to follow the result of the nation. Not the constituency. Taking account the preferences of the constituents should have been done at the Referendum Bill stage, but that was voted on personal or party lines, so there's no recourse to constituency now.

[Collectingbrass]

Guybrush said:

Greg66 said:

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?

'The Law' in this case cannot be clearcut if the decision this morning was not unanimous.

How can the Brexit decision be a clear cut vote to "leave" at 52/48 but the legal decision isn't at 73/27 (=8/3) ?

[Gargamel]

My view is that the legal process is one thing...

Stepping back, would it not be a little strange if a fundamental decision affect the UK democracy was made without ANY discussion in Parliament or a vote ?

Given that one of the reasons I voted leave was to restore decision making to Parliament, it would be odd for me to now say they shouldn't have a debate and vote...

Theresa can't lose here, if it blocked (big if) then its GE time and JC and others will be smashed, and possibly even the Lords will have a final reckoning thrown in too.

[vonuber]

REALIST123 said:

Wealthy, arrogant woman who thinks her opinion and vote are worth more than most other peoples', especially when her own vested interests are taken into account.

Not even British.

The Queen?

[alfie2244]

What a mess.

[Andy Zarse]

Gargamel said:

Don't think anyone will be blocking this. It will all be about the amendments

E.G. Lib Dems want the "final" position to be re voted on in two years time - either by referendum (ideal for them) or back in Parliament - waste of time

Labour will push for Social Chapter to be preserve, ECHR, Working Time, possibly even free movement...


They don't want to stop it, just twist it to play to the galleries.

Did you see my reply on Page 2 of this thread to your original query? There will be no filibuster possible. Maybe one Labour amendment moved, but it won't succeed.

[rohrl]

REALIST123 said:

Biker 1 said:

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....

Wealthy, arrogant woman who thinks her opinion and vote are worth more than most other peoples', especially when her own vested interests are taken into account.

Not even British.

Is Gina Miller not British? I know she was born in Guyana but as I understand it she is a British citizen. Do you have a link you could supply showing otherwise?