No Brexit eventually?!

Zanderman

jumperabv3 wrote: »

I started this mini-monster thread about a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5537269

Now looks like Brexit has been ruled out by the high court in the UK - some people call it the "death of democracy" - what's going to happen now?!

:eek:

I know others have already pointed this out but it should be shouted VERY loud:

The ruling yesterday was nothing to do with Brexit not happening. It was a ruling about the process for triggering Brexit. On who makes the decisions about it.

And far from being the death of democracy it was a ruling ensuring Parliament (elected) makes the decisions, not just a few ministers (chosen not by us but by the Prime Minister, who we didn't chose either). Giving power to Parliament was what Brexit was all about - the ruling ensures democracy prevails in a way that Brexit-voters wanted. It ensures democracy.

Your thread is based on two completely incorrect allegations! And suggests a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation.

I don't normally comment on political threads but this one is just so wrong!!

Kim_13

Zanderman wrote: »

I know others have already pointed this out but it should be shouted VERY loud:

The ruling yesterday was nothing to do with Brexit not happening. It was a ruling about the process for triggering Brexit. On who makes the decisions about it.

And far from being the death of democracy it was a ruling ensuring Parliament (elected) makes the decisions, not just a few ministers (chosen not by us but by the Prime Minister, who we didn't chose either). Giving power to Parliament was what Brexit was all about - the ruling ensures democracy prevails in a way that Brexit-voters wanted. It ensures democracy.

Your thread is based on two completely incorrect allegations! And suggests a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation.

I don't normally comment on political threads but this one is just so wrong!!

It does make Brexit less likely, as May would need a majority in the House of Commons to do it. With some of her own party wanting to stay in, and 50 odd SNP MP's who will oppose, chances are slim without another election. Do that and there's no guarantee that the Conservatives would win it or that the new House of Commons would return a majority for Brexit either.

It does seem like the Death of Democracy to me; far more people voted leave in the referendum than voted in the MP's that will now be deciding whether May gets to trigger Article 50 or not. Some of those MP's are probably sitting in the commons because people vote tactically in General Elections; the referendum was a simple leave or remain and should more closely represent the will of the country.

Zanderman

Kim_13 wrote: »

It does make Brexit less likely, as May would need a majority in the House of Commons to do it. With some of her own party wanting to stay in, and 50 odd SNP MP's who will oppose, chances are slim without another election. Do that and there's no guarantee that the Conservatives would win it or that the new House of Commons would return a majority for Brexit either.

It does seem like the Death of Democracy to me; far more people voted leave in the referendum than voted in the MP's that will now be deciding whether May gets to trigger Article 50 or not. Some of those MP's are probably sitting in the commons because people vote tactically in General Elections; the referendum was a simple leave or remain and should more closely represent the will of the country.

It is extremely unlikely Parliament will oppose the outcome of the referendum. The key point is here is not to get distracted by that issue - which is unlikely to be an issue. The people spoke and gave their answer - to leave the EU. It would be a very stupid Parliament to try to change that.

The issue is what form does Brexit take? And that wasn't what we were asked. And it is hideously complicated, with loads of issue to consider. That is what Parliament, who are our only elected representatives, should be deciding.

It's not the 'death of democracy'. It's the triumph of democracy. Parliament, who decide our laws, working out how to legislate to leave the EU.
(If it was just left to Mrs May and her ministers then that would be the death of democracy.)

teddysmum

One does wonder whether the three judges were actually impartial, as they are supposed to be. All three are remainers and one has vested (business) interest in not leaving.


Apparently (before the shaming of Gove) these three actually booed him over supporting Brexit.

Ed-1

eset12345 wrote: »

that's simply not going to happen, we won't get anywhere near the next general election without lodging article 50.

this rulimg may add 6 month to a year on top of the time frame, but it's still going ahead.

anybody that is deluded enough to think out MPs and the lords can go against the majority of the country should be placed in to broadmoor

Indeed. It'd have been very interesting had David Cameron held the referendum towards the end of 2017 as he had stated he might (the manifesto said they'd hold a referendum by the end of 2017). Then it'd have been even more uncertain as Article 50 talks would have probably straddled the May 2020 election.

I still see the Government getting their way and being able to trigger Article 50 by the end of March even if they need to go to Parliament to do it. They'll find a way.

MABLE

jumperabv3 wrote: »

I started this mini-monster thread about a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5537269

Now looks like Brexit has been ruled out by the high court in the UK - some people call it the "death of democracy" - what's going to happen now?!

:eek:

You may have ruled it out but we Brexiteers have not. :rotfl:

eskbanker

teddysmum wrote: »

One does wonder whether the three judges were actually impartial, as they are supposed to be. All three are remainers and one has vested (business) interest in not leaving.


Apparently (before the shaming of Gove) these three actually booed him over supporting Brexit.

I've seen reference to this in another thread too, do you have any credible sources for these comments please?

System

I find the Little Englanders response to this whole EWHC incident Bizzare.
English Laws for English Courts, is that not what you/they were after?

teddysmum wrote: »

One does wonder whether the three judges were actually impartial, as they are supposed to be. All three are remainers and one has vested (business) interest in not leaving.


Apparently (before the shaming of Gove) these three actually booed him over supporting Brexit.

Anthorn

jumperabv3 wrote: »

I started this mini-monster thread about a month ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5537269

Now looks like Brexit has been ruled out by the high court in the UK - some people call it the "death of democracy" - what's going to happen now?!

:eek:

Brexit hasn't been ruled out at all. How has it been ruled out.

Our understanding of what is happening or what is going to happen depends on what we're watching and who we're listening to: A lot like the referendum in fact.

As I understand it the House Of Commons is not going to decide on whether there is a Brexit but what form Brexit is to take and when Brexit is to happen. The end result may not be "Brexit means Brexit" that Auntie May wants.

In any even the Scottish referendum is already affected: If we are to debate Brexit in Parliament which the people have already decided then it's almost certain that the same thing will happen over Scotland. If not then it's racism and xenophobia!

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

As I understand it the House Of Commons is not going to decide on whether there is a Brexit

As it stands after that Court judgment, the House of Commons and House of Lords have to decide to vote through Brexit as their approval is still not in legislation (as the referendum was advisory). Article 50 (the start of Brexit) can't be triggered until they do.