Legal action launched re Article 50

kinger101

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

The referendum is not legally binding. It is advisory only. There has to be a debate and vote

These two statements are distinct. The referendum may not be legally binding, but that doesn't necessarily mean it requires a vote in parliament. That's the whole point on royal prerogative rlc is referring to.

I guess if it was that straigtforward, it wouldn't be a matter for the courts.

rlc22

kinger101 wrote: »

So his academic and "profe$$ional" opinion seem to be different.

I guess his "profe$$ional" (as you put it) opinion is a more solid assertion of his academic one.

Perhaps he's become more definite over his position over the last couple of days. After all, the recent trend for everyone seems to be that they can change their mind on things at the drop of a hat and arguably his view is a minor change compared to some un-named politicians.

wotsthat

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl

Worth a listen for some thoughtful views on the legalities.

Argument put forward that parliament would need to be involved but the triggering of article 50 was a job for government.

Unlikely a court would be keen to intervene to risk the opinion of parliament overriding that of a properly conducted referendum.

The decision has been made. We should be concentrating on the what next.

HornetSaver

wotsthat wrote: »

Unlikely a court would be keen to intervene to risk the opinion of parliament overriding that of a properly conducted referendum.

Surely that's a problem for Parliament? I don't see why that would sway a court either way.

FWIW I suspect that this legal action will succeed. Legally speaking the referendum was advisory, and therefore to take specific constitutional action would require an Act of Parliament.

That said I don't see what it would achieve. If a Prime Minister lost a vote allowing them to act upon the referendum, having stood on the basis of implementing its result, they would either need to win a general election setting out their plan for the negotiation process (foregone conclusion unless other parties sort themselves out), win an election on the basis of Remaining in the EU (ask the Lib Dems how their last attempt at that went), or resign. The argument that there should be a second referendum would also trigger a constitutional situation serious enough as to require a general election - there's no way a second referendum bill would pass, and there's no way a PM could do anything other than call an election or resign if it failed.

So in short, a victory in court would force Parliament to either rally around Theresa May (I'm not saying she is definitely going to win the Tory contest, but that she is the only one I believe would be able to win that vote), or to knowingly dissolve itself.

kinger101

rlc22 wrote: »

I guess his "profe$$ional" (as you put it) opinion is a more solid assertion of his academic one.

Perhaps he's become more definite over his position over the last couple of days. After all, the recent trend for everyone seems to be that they can change their mind on things at the drop of a hat and arguably his view is a minor change compared to some un-named politicians.

I mis-read your original post. I thought you were saying the author of the article I was posting said it required an act of parliament.

kinger101

HornetSaver wrote: »

Surely that's a problem for Parliament? I don't see why that would sway a court either way.

FWIW I suspect that this legal action will succeed. Legally speaking the referendum was advisory, and therefore to take specific constitutional action would require an Act of Parliament.

The government does not require consent of parliament for matters of foreign affairs.

HornetSaver

kinger101 wrote: »

The government does not require consent of parliament for matters of foreign affairs.

Is that written down in the constitution?

Indeed, are you seriously trying to have a single person, on either side of the vote, to believe that the referendum was fought, inside or outside Parliament, on the basis that the EU does not impact upon domestic policy?

Samsonite1

It makes sense for this to go through parliament, whatever the outcome of that is. I strongly believe that the general public is in no way qualified to actually make decisions like this and know what the consequences are or what is actually best for the country. In theory, parliament is a lot more qualified to consider the action of leaving and make sure it is not going to seriously hamper us in comparison to remaining in the EU. I am not pushing for one way or another at this point, I just feel the public is not equipped to make this decision and judging by feedback from voters, they just prove my point on a daily basis!

CLAPTON

Samsonite1 wrote: »

It makes sense for this to go through parliament, whatever the outcome of that is. I strongly believe that the general public is in no way qualified to actually make decisions like this and know what the consequences are or what is actually best for the country. In theory, parliament is a lot more qualified to consider the action of leaving and make sure it is not going to seriously hamper us in comparison to remaining in the EU. I am not pushing for one way or another at this point, I just feel the public is not equipped to make this decision and judging by feedback from voters, they just prove my point on a daily basis!

MPs prove the same point on a daily basis

Samsonite1

CLAPTON wrote: »

MPs prove the same point on a daily basis

Very true, but sadly I find MPs bad, average person on the street really bad. I wish it was different.