No Brexit eventually?!

veryintrigued

who'd have thunk we had so many referendum experts 6 months ago?

Is there an O.U. course for it?

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

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.

Pre-legislative yes. But that wasn't the parameter under which PM David Cameron took us into the referendum. We were to decide whether we would stay in the EU or leave the EU. We decided to leave and Auntie May said preparations were to be made to start Article 50. Good enough I'd say.

However I do think you and others are to an extent confusing a referendum with a petition.

Anthorn

veryintrigued wrote: »

who'd have thunk we had so many referendum experts 6 months ago?

Is there an O.U. course for it?

It's actually very simple: We were to be given the opportunity to decide, we decided but those who disagree with the democratic decision of the majority of the people challenged it and were supported by the court. That's basically it.

Not over yet though. In fact it hasn't even started.

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

Pre-legislative yes. But that wasn't the parameter under which PM David Cameron took us into the referendum. We were to decide whether we would stay in the EU or leave the EU. We decided to leave and Auntie May said preparations were to be made to start Article 50. Good enough I'd say.

However I do think you and others are to an extent confusing a referendum with a petition.

You're confusing the Government with Parliament. The Government can't decide what happens next by itself in the case of a referendum result which takes away rights already put into law by Parliament (in this case rights in the European Communities Act 1972). Article 50 would take those rights away in 2 years. So Theresa May can say what she wants, but she can't implement Article 50 without Parliament's say so as otherwise she'd be effectively repealing European laws (in primary legislation) by herself - Governments can't do that. And nor should they be able to. Only Parliament can make laws and only Parliament can change laws.

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

You're confusing the Government with Parliament. The Government can't decide what happens next by itself in the case of a referendum result which takes away rights already put into law by Parliament (in this case rights in the European Communities Act 1972). Article 50 would take those rights away in 2 years. So Theresa May can say what she wants, but she can't implement Article 50 without Parliament's say so as otherwise she'd be effectively repealing European laws (in primary legislation) by herself - Governments can't do that. And nor should they be able to. Only Parliament can make laws and only Parliament can change laws.

So is Auntie May commencing Article 50 in response to the wishes of the people legislation and is that legislation done in Parliament or not?

I have already referred to Parliamentary Democracy in my previous post but the question is whether in this case Parliamentary Democracy applies or not. That's why it was taken to court! But as I said, it's not over, it hasn't even started and already you are predicting the future. Perhaps you can PM me tonight's winning Lotto numbers?

There is still Auntie May's government saying they will appeal and that appeal could be successful. But even if not successful who is to say that Parliament will not vote in favour of Auntie May given that the Conservative Party has a majority albeit a small one.

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

So is Auntie May commencing Article 50 in response to the wishes of the people legislation and is that legislation done in Parliament or not?

I have already referred to Parliamentary Democracy in my previous post but the question is whether in this case Parliamentary Democracy applies or not. That's why it was taken to court! But as I said, it's not over, it hasn't even started and already you are predicting the future. Perhaps you can PM me tonight's winning Lotto numbers?

There is still Auntie May's government saying they will appeal and that appeal could be successful. But even if not successful who is to say that Parliament will not vote in favour of Auntie May given that the Conservative Party has a majority albeit a small one.

I fully expect Parliament to vote in favour of triggering Article 50 - anything else would be completely unacceptable.

The reason the Government can't proceed on its own is because the EU referendum was advisory in that the legislation (available here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted) did not say it wasn't advisory. If Parliament had already agreed to implement the result of the referendum when that Act of Parliament was brought into law, the Government could proceed on its own. But there was nothing in the legislation to say what happens next - that's Cameron's fault!

Anthorn

Ed-1 wrote: »

I fully expect Parliament to vote in favour of triggering Article 50 - anything else would be completely unacceptable.

The reason the Government can't proceed on its own is because the EU referendum was advisory in that the legislation (available here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted) did not say it wasn't advisory. If Parliament had already agreed to implement the result of the referendum when that Act of Parliament was brought into law, the Government could proceed on its own. But there was nothing in the legislation to say what happens next - that's Cameron's fault!

Yet again you are assuming and looking into the future. You are saying the government "can't proceed on its own." Who says so? The decision is not done. Government appeal in the Supreme Court to come yet. Unless of course you're listening to Jeremy Corbin?

But there is more not least of which is the question of the independence of the judiciary and whether they are subverting the will of the people. And yet more whether the judiciary has the right to decide what should happen in Parliament.

As I said, it's not over, it hasn't even started yet.

Zanderman

Anthorn wrote: »

It's actually very simple: We were to be given the opportunity to decide, we decided but those who disagree with the democratic decision of the majority of the people challenged it and were supported by the court. That's basically it.

Er, no, that's not it at all. In fact it's complete nonsense...

We were given the opportunity to say whether we wanted to stay in or leave the EU.That was the only question asked. We said we wanted to leave.That was the only democratic decision we made, or were asked to make. That has not changed.

The High Court decision was about how we legislate to leave, how the decisions and bargaining is made, and whether ministers alone or Parliament should have the upper hand in that process.

It was initiated by people who were worried that Parliament was being side-stepped - which is wrong in our democracy.

The court decision was nothing to do with altering the referendum result. It was not about it at all. It was about how we implement the referendum result.

If people (including half the newspapers) can't grasp this simple fact I lose hope for us all!

Yes, there is, in theory, a chance for Parliament to say it won't honour the result. But that is very very very very unlikely. The main issue, which we should be pleased about, is the Parliament has been re-affirmed as the legislative body - and that Parliament decides how we should leave - which will require a huge amount of complex legislation.

This principle (being in charge of our own laws) is the very thing the Brexit camp wanted to uphold, so i don't understand why so many people are crying foul. This is undeniably the proper route.

Ed-1

Anthorn wrote: »

Yet again you are assuming and looking into the future. You are saying the government "can't proceed on its own." Who says so? The decision is not done. Government appeal in the Supreme Court to come yet. Unless of course you're listening to Jeremy Corbin?

But there is more not least of which is the question of the independence of the judiciary and whether they are subverting the will of the people. And yet more whether the judiciary has the right to decide what should happen in Parliament.

As I said, it's not over, it hasn't even started yet.

The law says the Government can't proceed on its own. Otherwise every Government we vote in could make whatever laws they want with no obstruction. The High Court has simply confirmed due process and unless I'm missing something about the referendum legislation, the Supreme Court will simply do the same. I'm shocked Theresa May said she was confident of winning the appeal.

The people have voted to leave in the referendum; Parliament now has to approve that decision before handing over full power to the Government to take us out and secure a deal with the EU. Rightly, Parliament should have the opportunity to determine how we leave and that will involve scrutinising and no doubt trying to amend the legislation Government brings forward to take us out, starting with triggering Article 50.

System

It's an appeal (from the High Court of England and Wales) relating to the question of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

In England, Parliament is considered Sovereign but in Scotland Sovereignty rests with the (Scottish) people.

steve65e wrote: »

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