No Brexit eventually?!

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

They can debate and argue about Brexit in general all they like as they do with the issues surrounding any Bill that goes through Parliament. But ultimately they'll have to vote on what's on the face of the Bill. If the Bill is a simple Article 50 Bill that basically says the Government will trigger Article 50 after it is passed, if all attempted amendments to the Bill (and they would obviously be numerous) which attempt to place caveats on the triggering of Article 50, are voted down then in the end MPs would be faced with voting to trigger Article 50 or not. Any MP that votes against such a Bill would be voting against the will of a majority of the people who voted expressed through the advisory referendum.

Oh so now they are discussing it. Or is a debate not a discussion?

Well you know, starting the legal challenge against the government was a challenge to the will of the people in the first place. All the government was doing was what the people dictated in the referendum.

But as I said earlier, look up "Parliamentary Democracy". Basically, it's the elected reps in Parliament who decide and not the people and that's the problem!

But going back to my first post in this thread, if MPs are going to challenge the Brexit referendum then they also must challenge the Scottish referendum and decide that in Parliament too. Conversely if MPs accept the Scottish referendum then they must also accept the Brexit referendum.

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

Oh so now they are discussing it. Or is a debate not a discussion?

Well you know, starting the legal challenge against the government was a challenge to the will of the people in the first place. All the government was doing was what the people dictated in the referendum.

But as I said earlier, look up "Parliamentary Democracy". Basically, it's the elected reps in Parliament who decide and not the people and that's the problem!

But going back to my first post in this thread, if MPs are going to challenge the Brexit referendum then they also must challenge the Scottish referendum and decide that in Parliament too. Conversely if MPs accept the Scottish referendum then they must also accept the Brexit referendum.

I never said they weren't discussing it. They just won't be voting on the terms of the negotiations in the first instance.

If Parliament give the go ahead for Article 50 (which they'll obviously have to after the referendum, otherwise chaos ensues), Government then have 2 years to negotiate with the EU and at the end of that we're out (unless all 27 EU members allow an extension). If we have a deal at that point then great. If we don't then we're on WTO rules until we do. As it stands, Parliament won't get a vote on the end deal, there won't be a referendum on the end deal, the deal will be done. That might change if Parliament forces caveats onto the Bill allowing the triggering of Article 50.

System

What relevance has an English court case to a referendum held in Scotland?
The court only has jurisdiction in England & Wales.

Anthorn wrote: »

But going back to my first post in this thread, if MPs are going to challenge the Brexit referendum then they also must challenge the Scottish referendum and decide that in Parliament too. Conversely if MPs accept the Scottish referendum then they must also accept the Brexit referendum.

CLAPTON

Heng_Leng wrote: »

What relevance has an English court case to a referendum held in Scotland?
The court only has jurisdiction in England & Wales.

a scottish referendum on independence only has legal validity if the UK parliament and UK law courts agree

Ben8282

It may well be that an Act of Parliament is required; I don't feel qualified to comment on this one way or the other.
What however is important is that during any such vote Parliament accepts the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and does not attempt to thwart it. Such a vote should really only be a 'rubber stamp' vote to legitimise the action to be taken as a result of the referendum.
Certainly any attempt by any political party to order its MP's to vote against the referendum result would be totally unacceptable.

System

Since the UK was created by international treaty, it can dissolved like any other treaty - unlike in England, the Scottish people are sovereign (in both Scots and International law) therefore Westminster approval is only a courtesy.

There are no 'UK law courts' - the UK has three legal systems.

CLAPTON wrote: »

a scottish referendum on independence only has legal validity if the UK parliament and UK law courts agree

Anthorn

Heng_Leng wrote: »

What relevance has an English court case to a referendum held in Scotland?
The court only has jurisdiction in England & Wales.

Hey very nice splitting of hairs. Where did I say that the English courts have jurisdiction in Scotland? Quote and link please.

Here we are discussing government and the effect of the court decision on Brexit on the government. Do try to keep up.

My point was that MPs accepted the result of Scottish referendum as binding and did not challenge the government in not instituting Scottish independence but did not accept the result of the Brexit referendum and did challenge the government in instituting Brexit. That's inconsistent.

What is at stake is whether the result of a national referendum is binding on the government or not. If not it's a waste of time having referendums. In my view it brings into question the whole of our electoral system. i.e. was the result of the last general election actually a mistake because the electorate were ill informed?

steve65e

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Since the UK was created by international treaty, it can dissolved like any other treaty - unlike in England, the Scottish people are sovereign (in both Scots and International law) therefore Westminster approval is only a courtesy.

There are no 'UK law courts' - the UK has three legal systems.

Is constituional law a civil matter? If so the supreme court has juridiction over the whole UK.

steve65e

https://www.supremecourt.uk/

Looks like it does

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

What is at stake is whether the result of a national referendum is binding on the government or not. If not it's a waste of time having referendums. In my view it brings into question the whole of our electoral system. i.e. was the result of the last general election actually a mistake because the electorate were ill informed?

A referendum result is only legally binding if it's been clearly stated in the Act that allowed the referendum in the first place what happens next. Otherwise, it's only advisory and Parliament have to agree to what happens next after the referendum.