If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...

Backbiter

By the time we leave the EU (1st April 2019 at the earliest), a lot of those who voted to leave will be no longer with us, and a lot of young people (who are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining) will have become eligible to vote. So the 2016 result will then no longer be representative of the 'will of the people'. I mean, it may well be, but we won't know without asking them.
As listening to the will of the people on Europe is the be all and end all (as the press have reminded us to day), what possible reason can there be to deny the people a voice as to whether we should leave or remain once the terms of Brexit have been made clear? Especially as they weren't clear at the time of this year's referendum, and still are unknown nearly 5 months later.
EDIT: And maybe the 2019 referendum could be a proper, binding one, not just an advisory one like the 2016 one.

CLAPTON

Backbiter wrote: »

By the time we leave the EU (1st April 2019 at the earliest), a lot of those who voted to leave will be no longer with us, and a lot of young people (who are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining) will have become eligible to vote. So the 2016 result will then no longer be representative of the 'will of the people'. I mean, it may well be, but we won't know without asking them..

of course 10 years later (2029) we know that those young people of 2019, will have developed sense and some maturity and will become grown up and so support brexit.

Daniel54

BobQ wrote: »

The revocability of Article 50 is not in dispute and so is not an issue.

The issue is explained in the full judgement. Constitutionally we have never allowed an Act of Parliament to be changed by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That is the issue. All sides agree that invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative will
change the law. Ergo the Govrnment cannot use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50.

The full judgement's final paragraph says all there is to be said....(I summarise) ..... for the reasons set out the SoS does not have the power under Royal Perogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50.

That is the Government can invoke Article 50 provided Parliament votes to do so.

The hysterical reaction of some Brexit campaigners is frankly absurd. There is little doubt, that unless they win an appeal, they will need to present an Act and that it will be passed. As has been said, few MPs will vote against the will of the people.

If the Government does not win an appeal it is yet further evidence of how ill prepared the Government is months after the vote. The Court held this was a fundamental principle of the UK's constitution. The fact that May thought she could ride roughshod over it is evidence of the confusion reigning in Government.

Parliament may well amend a Bill to ensure that it gets a further opportunity to vote on the terms of Brexit, but it will not stop Article 50 notice being given.

I agree with you Bob and have folllowed the case carefully,having also been updated regularly by Bindmans as I made a modest contribution to the crowdjustice initial funding and now to the appeal target,which has reached in excess of £100k since yesterday.

The decision was most certainly to establish the supremacy of Parliament over the Executive which is something one would hope should be welcomed by most in a Parliamentary democracy.Particularly as the Executive has no mandate for what Brexit might look like which makes Parliamentary oversight all the more important

The DM headline is a disgrace and underlines the damage the referendum has done to this country.Nigel Farage on the front page of the DT is less of a surprise considering Theresa May was moving into Ukip territory at the Tory conference ( which prompted a further decline in sterling)

During the course of the hearing the Attorney General said it was "very likely' that Parliament would need to vote on the outcome of Article 50 negotiations and I would epect this to be formalised.At the point of that final vote,,the issue of revocability will be extremely germane.

Having read the full judgement I am strugging to understand why the PM thinks it is wise to say that she is confident the Supreme Court will overturn the decision of some of the UK's most senior judges.Let's wait and see.

posh*spice

movilogo wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how long a Remain MP can remain an MP after s/he decides to block Brexit in parliament - especially when his/her constituency favoured Brexit.

Referendum result was 52:48. The MPs themselsves voted for 25:75.

(source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946)

This proves how detached MPs are from common public. Rather than serving public they serve their own interests, big business and Eurocrats. If they block Brexit, it will be proven MPs don't represent interest of their constituencies at all.

Top post my friend :T:T:T

posh*spice

Conrad wrote: »

So both sides will disagree on the shape of Brexit, and so endless debate ensues, this will mean Brexit cannot proceed.


Given 68.8% of the counting areas voted leave, but only 25% of parliamentarians so did, I would imagine the people would look very dimly on Parliament for denying the will of the people and something truly fundamental would come to pass.

Probably rioting in the streets, more aggression - Remainiacs think on - you are unleashing something truly awful on the British people if you try to ignore the pubilcs wishes - you will win the battle but not the war. Dear God save us from the Remainiacs.

Masomnia

Daniel54 wrote: »

During the course of the hearing the Attorney General said it was "very likely' that Parliament would need to vote on the outcome of Article 50 negotiations and I would epect this to be formalised.At the point of that final vote,,the issue of revocability will be extremely germane.

Having read the full judgement I am strugging to understand why the PM thinks it is wise to say that she is confident the Supreme Court will overturn the decision of some of the UK's most senior judges.Let's wait and see.

I suspect that the government will have a change of heart re the 'revocability' of Article 50, and potentially win the appeal on that basis. If article 50 can be revoked then, as I understand it, Parliament won't be bound to withdraw any rights and thus their approval won't be necessary.

In any event Parliament will need to be consulted at the end of the process to repeal the European Communities Act. As I understand it, even if the government wins the appeal they will still need to go to Parliament to repeal that Act and put in place the new arrangements.

Backbiter

posh*spice wrote: »

Probably rioting in the streets, more aggression - Remainiacs think on - you are unleashing something truly awful on the British people if you try to ignore the pubilcs wishes - you will win the battle but not the war. Dear God save us from the Remainiacs.

Calm down. And don't ignore the fact that 45million or so Brits did not vote to leave.
Democracy is a complicated business. Clarifying points of law - which is all the High Court has done - is not for one second undermining democracy.
The reaction of some of the leave voters - and the tabloid press - is genuinely scary. Death threats, threats of rioting...all because of a judgement they haven't bothered to read or haven't understood.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Masomnia wrote: »

I suspect that the government will have a change of heart re the 'revocability' of Article 50, and potentially win the appeal on that basis. If article 50 can be revoked then, as I understand it, Parliament won't be bound to withdraw any rights and thus their approval won't be necessary.

In any event Parliament will need to be consulted at the end of the process to repeal the European Communities Act. As I understand it, even if the government wins the appeal they will still need to go to Parliament to repeal that Act and put in place the new arrangements.

That's a very dangerous road for the govt to go down.

If Article 50 is irrevocable then they'll likely lose the appeal and have to take Parliamentary input as to the terms of leaving now.

But any final deal subsequently negotiated will really have to be accepted as-is, or rejected by Parliament at the risk of leaving with no deal at all.

If the govt now claims Article 50 is revocable then they may win the appeal now - but Parliament can then choose to decide a final deal presented in the future is not good enough and vote to revoke article 50 - in effect cancelling Brexit and forcing the govt to start from scratch with a new Article 50 negotiation.

Either way this runaway train is rapidly being brought to a halt - and democratic oversight is being restored.

gazapc

theEnd wrote: »

Anyone calculated how it would go if each MP voted based on the majority in their constituency?

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.aklfzy7u8

It it was first past the post then the result would have lead to a big majority.

antrobus

Backbiter wrote: »

By the time we leave the EU (1st April 2019 at the earliest), a lot of those who voted to leave will be no longer with us, and a lot of young people (who are overwhelmingly in favour of remaining) will have become eligible to vote. So the 2016 result will then no longer be representative of the 'will of the people'. I mean, it may well be, but we won't know without asking them....

You could say the same thing about any electoral process.

Backbiter wrote: »

Calm down. And don't ignore the fact that 45million or so Brits did not vote to leave. ..

On that same basis 46.3 million or so Brits did not vote to stay.

It still makes leave the winner.

Backbiter wrote: »

...Democracy is a complicated business.....

No it isn't. It's very straightforward; it involves the simple arithmetic of counting votes.

It's amusing the effort some people put into the task of arguing that the referendum result is something that can be conveniently ignored on the basis that they didn't like it.:)