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

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

that makes no sense

once article 50 is invoked what matters is whether the EU27 consider it is revocable and not what the UK thinks

MobileSaver

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Even more amusing is the effort some people put into "proving" that the "majority of the country" voted to Leave.

It's almost as if they know they won the vote by a very small margin, based on blatant lies that have now been outed, and that they know if the same question was asked today the result would be very different.

LHW99

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

So presumably the Government could put a motion to the House that "Article 50 should be triggered on 31st March 2017, in order to enact the majority referendum result"
That could be discussed and voted on, possibly as a guillotine, and things proceed as planned once passed?

Castle

LHW99 wrote: »

So presumably the Government could put a motion to the House that "Article 50 should be triggered on 31st March 2017, in order to enact the majority referendum result"
That could be discussed and voted on, possibly as a guillotine, and things proceed as planned once passed?

It would also have to clear the House of Lords.

CLAPTON

LHW99 wrote: »

So presumably the Government could put a motion to the House that "Article 50 should be triggered on 31st March 2017, in order to enact the majority referendum result"
That could be discussed and voted on, possibly as a guillotine, and things proceed as planned once passed?

this would seem to satisfy the court judgement to me

however how the MPs would vote is another matter

StevieJ

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.

ts.

Does that mean we could have a 2nd referendum once the terms of Brexit are agreed? That seems like the way to go

katejo

BobQ wrote: »

I suspect May-be is probably breathing a sigh of relief and hoping that the appeal is turned down. This decision will leave a pro-Brexit majority in the Commons able to delay and frustrate the aspirations for a Hard Brexit and lead to a soft one.

There will not be an election as there will not be a a large enough majority in the Commons to vote for it under the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This will suit May-be very nicely.

The appeal should be rejected because the Gov lawyers are unlikely to produce satisfactory evidence to contest it. The case wasn't about Brexit as such. It was to clarify a point of law. The judges are not enemies of Europe either. For the European Communities Act of 1973 to be repealed, a decision in parliament is needed because such a decision would remove rights from UK citizens.

datlex

There is a certain irony about those who voted for Brexit on the grounds that they wanted Parliament to be sovereign rejecting that sovereignty when the courts insist upon it. Either we have democracy by parliament or democracy by referendum.

Castle

datlex wrote: »

There is a certain irony about those who voted for Brexit on the grounds that they wanted Parliament to be sovereign rejecting that sovereignty when the courts insist upon it. Either we have democracy by parliament or democracy by referendum.

Maybe we should have a referendum as too what sort of democracy we want:)

setmefree2

theEnd wrote: »

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

Analysis found that when the referendum result is replicated using the 2015 general election boundaries, “Leave” would win 421 seats and “Remain” would win just 229.

Analysis suggests that 150 of Labour's current seats voted to leave while 82 backed staying inside the union, the party's official position.
For the Conservatives 258 constituencies voted to leave, while just 72 backed remain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/04/ministers-preparing-for-early-general-election-after-tory-mp-qui/