Article 50 ruling due now

[Andy Zarse]

alfie2244 said:

What a mess.

How so? The ruling provides crystal clear direction to government.

[anonymous-user]

Andy Zarse said:

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.

I don't think that (blocking A50 altogether) was ever the end game. I suspect that this has always been about getting the decision before Parliament in the hope that Parliament might impose conditions on the terms on which A50 can be be exercised.

That would be why May has (pre-emptively) said in her speech we are out of the single market - that was a genuine "rider" that the pro-Remain MPs might have tried to impose; and why the Govt has said it will if need be introduce a one line bill (nothing to amend).

Although the case has been disposed of extremely rapidly, events outside court have moved faster, and my feeling is that the scope for getting enough support in the Commons to impose conditions on the exercise of A50 notice has diminished very considerably since the case was hatched.

[p1stonhead]

Obvious outcome but I dont suspect it means much. Parliament wont go against it.

But this will probably play havok with the markets for a while.

[TTwiggy]

rohrl said:

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?

She may be British, but is she – doffs cap, thumps chest, shouts out the first verse of Land of Hope & Glory, casts tearful eye towards picture of Beryl – BRITISH?

[p1stonhead]

Collectingbrass said:

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) ?

Quite.

[Hosenbugler]

Whilst the referendum was not a GE, its interesting to note that of the constituencies , 404 voted leave 246 voted remain, pro remain MP's trying to vote Brexit down in parliament would almost certainly be committing political suicide.

If May has problems she will very likely go to the country , the electorate will wreak havoc on obstructive remainers in leave constituencies.

[andymadmak]

vonuber said:

The Queen?

was born in London.

[Andy Zarse]

Greg66 said:

Andy Zarse said:

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.

I don't think that (blocking A50 altogether) was ever the end game. I suspect that this has always been about getting the decision before Parliament in the hope that Parliament might impose conditions on the terms on which A50 can be be exercised.

That would be why May has (pre-emptively) said in her speech we are out of the single market - that was a genuine "rider" that the pro-Remain MPs might have tried to impose; and why the Govt has said it will if need be introduce a one line bill (nothing to amend).

Although the case has been disposed of extremely rapidly, events outside court have moved faster, and my feeling is that the scope for getting enough support in the Commons to impose conditions on the exercise of A50 notice has diminished very considerably since the case was hatched.

Yes I would agree with your (nuanced) point; I think the Petitioners ideally would have liked to prevent A50 altogether, but making life as difficult as possible for Mrs May was a more realistic ambition. That, and trying to open up some loopholes to pick at later.

As it happens, they have made Theresa's life much easier, both in the short term and the long.

[Gargamel]

Andy Zarse said:

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.

Well we will see what tactics are used, whilst you are probably right that other Parliamentary procedures could be used. There are some fairly died hard remainers in both chambers who won't let go of this particular bone.

Probably a lot of hot air and "debate" but little real resistance or substance.

[TTwiggy]

Hosenbugler said:

pro remain MP's trying to vote Brexit down in parliament would almost certainly be committing political suicide.

What about an MP in a pro-remain constituency who won his or her seat from a LibDem candidate in the last election? It would seem a lose-lose for them surely.

[Zod]

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.)

A judgment of the Supreme Court is law, unless and until it overrules itself or Parliament legislated to change the law.

[alfie2244]

Andy Zarse said:

alfie2244 said:

What a mess.

How so? The ruling provides crystal clear direction to government.

Should have been sorted when the MPs originally decided to pass the back and give the electorate a referendum.

[bitchstewie]

I thought in her speech last week May said there would be a parliamentary vote regardless.

What has changed with the ruling?

[anonymous-user]

Has Nicky popped up yet ? What about that tt from the Lib Dems ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Surely this is just what the Brexiteers wanted, decisions concerning Britain being made in British courts by British judges. Without any interference from those Johnny Foreigner types.

What are they moaning about?

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

I thought in her speech last week May said there would be a parliamentary vote regardless.

What has changed with the ruling?

I can't remember whether she did or didn't.

But prior to the CA hearing she said she was confident she'd win. So no Parliamentary vote. Ditto after the CA ruling.

After the hearing in the SC the Govt started putting out the message that they'd thought they'd lose. So then she says - between the hearing and the judgment - there will be a Parliamentary vote.

Roundabout way of saying that she would never have said that in her speech had she not thought the SC was going to tell her to go to the Commons.

[GroundEffect]

1) Those pro brexit folks wanting sovereignty of our Constitution are getting exactly what they wished for

2) The whole thing is a farce and someone should have asked this question a year ago

[p1stonhead]

Its laughable that an external citizen actually had to bring this case.

Why didnt the government know that this was needed?

What a fking waste of money. All that happened was some lawyers got richer.

[Norfolkit]

Bit confused here (from BBC).



What precisely is Mr Weber meaning by "European Parliament will have the final say"

[Jazzy Jag]

I fear that this is all just delaying tactics.

Drag it out long enough that brexit isn't complete by the next General election.

All the main parties will campaign on a manifesto including the UK remaining in the EU.
One of the main parties will win and brexit will vanish quicker than a cheetah from a salad bar.

/tinfoil hat.