EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

Actually, I think it is a coincidence! It's a typical retailer's use of 'Up to x%....'. All reports have it as roughly 10% across the board, so about the same as proposed to Tesco.

It's 10-19% in Ireland, depending on the product.

 

[northwichcat]

The government has lost the court case over Brexit

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the Brexit referendum and ministerial powers mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners argue this is unconstitutional.
The government is expected to appeal.
The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March. This follows the UK's decision to back Brexit in June's referendum by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.
The EU's other 27 members have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.
BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision is not overturned, there could be "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles ahead.
The government is expected to appeal against the decision, with a further hearing to be held in the Supreme Court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

 

[ainsworth74]

Next twist in the ongoing tale of Brexit:

Government loses Article 50 court fight

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the European Union, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal discussions with the EU - on its own.

Theresa May says the Brexit referendum and ministerial powers mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners argue this is unconstitutional.

The government is expected to appeal.

The prime minister has said she will activate Article 50, formally notifying the EU of the UK's intention to leave, by the end of next March. This follows the UK's decision to back Brexit in June's referendum by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%.

The EU's other 27 members have said negotiations about the terms of the UK's exit - due to last two years - cannot begin until Article 50 has been invoked.

BBC assistant political editor Norman Smith said, if the court's decision is not overturned, there could be "months and months" of parliamentary hurdles ahead.

The government is expected to appeal against the decision, with a further hearing to be held in the Supreme Court.

Source

Fun and games continue!

Did anyone ever get a poll of MPs and how they voted? I seem to get the feeling that a majority of MPs are 'Remain'?

 

[ExRes]

British democracy at its finest, the electorate vote to leave the EU but they can then be ignored by the very people they employ to 'represent' them

I wonder if the vote had been to remain, that those who will now be cheering would accept that decision being at risk of being overturned, I somehow doubt it

 

[northwichcat]

British democracy at its finest, the electorate vote to leave the EU but they can then be ignored by the very people they employ to 'represent' them

I wonder if the vote had been to remain, that those who will now be cheering would accept that decision being at risk of being overturned, I somehow doubt it

Remember Brexit will give a lot more control to our MPs. If you don't trust them to vote in the public's best interests on this matter, how can you trust them to ensure we keep worker's rights or anti-discrimination rights which are currently protected by EU legislation?

I very much doubt a 'Remain' win would have meant no third referendum (don't forget there had already been one even if it pre-dated when most of us could vote.) The question would be how soon would be the next referendum not whether there would be one.

 

[ainsworth74]

British democracy at its finest, the electorate vote to leave the EU but they can then be ignored by the very people they employ to 'represent' them

I thought one of the key points of Brexit was to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament? Surely this judgement does exactly that? Or have I missed something?

At this point I'm wondering if we're going to get an early election prior to Article 50 being activated.

 

[burneside]

If MPs go against the wishes of the electorate and strike down A50 being enacted then a general election is guaranteed. On present polling the Tories will walk it with a huge majority and A50 would then proceed.

 

[Steveman]

If MPs go against the wishes of the electorate and strike down A50 being enacted then a general election is guaranteed. On present polling the Tories will walk it with a huge majority and A50 would then proceed.

You need to remember Theresa May has shown no willingness whatsoever to exit Europe and is a firm Remainer.
This judgement if it isn't turned over will be an absolute Godsend for her.
What an embarrassment for her to be defeated by some woman from Guyana and a Brazilian hairdresser.

 

[Tetchytyke]

British democracy at its finest, the electorate vote to leave the EU but they can then be ignored by the very people they employ to 'represent' them

It's not about the decision, it is about the principle of the matter.

The government should not and, it seems, cannot use Royal Prerogative to force through policy issues that do not have the full support of the legislature. I really don't see an issue with this at all. Whilst the referendum asked if we wanted to leave the European Union, it did not ask how we want to leave the European Union.

The terms of our exit are something that should be decided in Parliamentary debate, not in the use of Royal Prerogative to avoid awkward questions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At this point I'm wondering if we're going to get an early election prior to Article 50 being activated.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets out exactly when an early general election can be called. The only two ways an early general election can be called are if there is a vote of No Confidence in the government and that vote is not overturned within 14 days, or if two-thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election.

Given the Conservatives have a very narrow majority, and given that Labour's parliamentary party know they'll suffer a heavy loss with an election now, I wouldn't bank on getting a 66% vote in favour of a general election.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets out exactly when an early general election can be called. The only two ways an early general election can be called are if there is a vote of No Confidence in the government and that vote is not overturned within 14 days, or if two-thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election.

Given the Conservatives have a very narrow majority, and given that Labour's parliamentary party know they'll suffer a heavy loss with an election now, I wouldn't bank on getting a 66% vote in favour of a general election.

Yes indeed that is true but at this point in time I wouldn't rule anything out!

 

[Senex]

I thought one of the key points of Brexit was to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament? Surely this judgement does exactly that? Or have I missed something?

It certainly seem so to me. The alternative is to argue that in the modern British democracy ultimate authority rests not in the people but in the powers of an absolute monarchy exercised by the government (not the political parties) in charge for the time being.

I wonder if things might have proceeded more smoothly if the Brexiteers and their Tory champions had not been so anxious to be totally triumphalist in their approach to things and so anxious to ignore totally the interests of the 48% of voters who didn't agree with them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's not about the decision, it is about the principle of the matter.

The government should not and, it seems, cannot use Royal Prerogative to force through policy issues that do not have the full support of the legislature. I really don't see an issue with this at all. Whilst the referendum asked if we wanted to leave the European Union, it did not ask how we want to leave the European Union.

The terms of our exit are something that should be decided in Parliamentary debate, not in the use of Royal Prerogative to avoid awkward questions.

Absolutely!

 

[northwichcat]

If MPs go against the wishes of the electorate and strike down A50 being enacted then a general election is guaranteed. On present polling the Tories will walk it with a huge majority and A50 would then proceed.

On polling before the last election it was neck and neck between the Conservatives and Labour with neither party expected to get enough MPs to form a majority government without the support of the smaller parties.

A general election in the next 6 months would be very interesting as a number of people who voted Conservative last year did not back Brexit and some of the voters who did back Brexit feel that people like Boris Johnson have let them down by promising things which couldn't be delivered e.g. diverting money to the NHS.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder if things might have proceeded more smoothly if the Brexiteers and their Tory champions had not been so anxious to be totally triumphalist in their approach to things and so anxious to ignore totally the interests of the 48% of voters who didn't agree with them.

I completely agree.

A big part of the problem is that the referendum offered us two choices: should we stay or should we go. It didn't explain why staying would look like (keep the status quo or go "hard remain" and take on the Euro, Schengen, metric and driving on the right) and it didn't explain what leave would look like.

The Leave camp attempting to force Hard Brexit through by Royal Prerogative is completely unconstitutional and completely undemocratic. We voted to Leave: the debate is now what that means and what that looks like. And even Leave campaigners can't agree on that: Daniel Hannan says it was never about immigration, yet 1850s throwback Nigel Farage tells us to send the buggers back.

The decision on how we Leave has to be made by Parliament. There's no other way, without ignoring the whole of the democratic process. And that's a very slippery slope: should a party be able to force a manifesto promise through by Royal Prerogative? Of course not.

 

[meridian2]

I wonder if those that voted 'Remain' would pander to the minority of voters if they had won.

This was a decision by Theresa May to go it alone without Parliament. As someone who voted 'out', I fully expected months of filibustering and voting before A50 is invoked. I was surprised when she suddenly grew some balls with an audacious statement to invoke the 'sovereign' powers.

 

[burneside]

You need to remember Theresa May has shown no willingness whatsoever to exit Europe and is a firm Remainer.
This judgement if it isn't turned over will be an absolute Godsend for her.
What an embarrassment for her to be defeated by some woman from Guyana and a Portuguese hairdresser.

BIB
I beg your pardon? Her speeches on the subject since being elected Tory leader would indicate otherwise. Have you not been listening?

 

[Steveman]

BIB
I beg your pardon? Her speeches on the subject since being elected Tory leader would indicate otherwise. Have you not been listening?

If you think Theresa May deep down want's to leave the EU you're mad, she was a remainer and nothing she's done since makes me think she's not still one.

 

[Domh245]

If you think Theresa May deep down want's to leave the EU you're mad, she was a remainer and nothing she's done since makes me think she's not still one.

She was quite canny really. She didn't say much about the referendum during the campaigns at all, so I suspect her support for the EU was more toeing the government line than personal opinion. Its played out quite well for her as she didn't have much baggage from campaigning and allowed her to swoop in to number 10. Can you give examples of her actions that lead you to think she's still a secret remainer, I can't think of any.

 

[northwichcat]

Her speeches on the subject since being elected Tory leader would indicate otherwise.

Mrs May's speeches and what she does don't always correspond. When she gave her maiden PM speech she talked about creating a new unifying government for everyone, not just the well off but then within hours of that speech she appointed some of the least unifying MPs to her cabinet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

She was quite canny really. She didn't say much about the referendum during the campaigns at all

She's been ill on a few occasions when big issues have arisen, including the EU referendum campaigning. Apparently some of her peers have given her the nickname of 'The Submarine' because of it.

 

[Trog]

The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets out exactly when an early general election can be called. The only two ways an early general election can be called are if there is a vote of No Confidence in the government and that vote is not overturned within 14 days, or if two-thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election.

Given the Conservatives have a very narrow majority, and given that Labour's parliamentary party know they'll suffer a heavy loss with an election now, I wouldn't bank on getting a 66% vote in favour of a general election.

How about repealing or amending the Fix Term Parliament Act with a 50%+ majority then calling a General Election?

Or simply state that the vote to trigger article 50 is a matter of confidence, and that should MP's vote no, there will be a General Election in which the Government will appeal to the people for a mandate to carry out their already expressed wish for Brexit. Which is currently being denied by the machinations of the opposition and disloyal MP's who will not be reselected.

 

[Howardh]

Next twist in the ongoing tale of Brexit:



Source

Fun and games continue!

Did anyone ever get a poll of MPs and how they voted? I seem to get the feeling that a majority of MPs are 'Remain'?

They are, but - apart from the SNP and a few others, they would go with Brexit to back the public - even if by then a majority are against Brexit when A50 is triggered.

Thing is, without a Parliamentary vote MP's were off the hook if Brexit is a disaster, not their fault, guv, the country voted for it; now they (may - subject to appeal) arguably have to be more accountable as they will have to vote for themselves in Parliament.

But technically this rule won't change much. I'd rather let May get on with it, carry the can and have another referendum on the results of the negotiations when things (from Gibraltar to the Irish Border to Scotland to travel visas to ECHC cards to how many EU's we let in etc etc) are much clearer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Or simply state that the vote to trigger article 50 is a matter of confidence, and that should MP's vote no, there will be a General Election in which the Government will appeal to the people for a mandate to carry out their already expressed wish for Brexit. Which is currently being denied by the machinations of the opposition and disloyal MP's who will not be reselected.

First point is a real possibility.
Second point - by the Parliamentary vote (if there is one) what are the chances that 50%+ of the popularion STILL want Brexit?
Thirdly - think it's a bit optimistic hoping disloyal MP's will be kicked out. Don't think the rest of the country are bothered enough about Brexit to kick out their MP and vote for a party which isn't their first choice, and there may be a few like me who will vote against our own MP because he supported Brexit.

As someone pointed out on TV today, "it's a mess"!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Second point - by the Parliamentary vote (if there is one) what are the chances that 50%+ of the popularion STILL want Brexit?

It's only 35% of the population who voted to leave the European Union. About a third wanted to stay and about a third expressed no opinion either way. It's something people continue to forget. It impacts on whether Brexit or Remain would have a majority of MPs. I, for instance, would specifically vote for an MP prepared to vote against Brexit.

It'll be an interesting political game. Leave can't agree on what sort of leave they want, and the people who voted for Leave don't agree on what sort of leave they want. If you propose soft Brexit then that doesn't kick the Poles out, which is a huge source of the anger in places like Sunderland and Bradford. If you propose hard Brexit then that alienates everyone who wants the trading partnership without the bureaucracy. Meanwhile will Remain supporting MPs vote for soft Brexit, for hard Brexit, or no Brexit at all?

 

[Steveman]

Can you give examples of her actions that lead you to think she's still a secret remainer, I can't think of any.

Putting off article 50 till who knows when might give you a little clue, Cameron at least was going to enact it the very next day, if May had really wanted to get things moving she would have done likewise.

 

[ExRes]

It's only 35% of the population who voted to leave the European Union. About a third wanted to stay and about a third expressed no opinion either way. It's something people continue to forget.

As usual you are one of those who 'continue to forget' that barely a third of the population voted to remain in the European Union, that I presume doesn't actually mean anything though

 

[YorkshireBear]

BIB
I beg your pardon? Her speeches on the subject since being elected Tory leader would indicate otherwise. Have you not been listening?

Politicians, one of life's most trustworthy jobs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wonder if those that voted 'Remain' would pander to the minority of voters if they had won.

This was a decision by Theresa May to go it alone without Parliament. As someone who voted 'out', I fully expected months of filibustering and voting before A50 is invoked. I was surprised when she suddenly grew some balls with an audacious statement to invoke the 'sovereign' powers.

As a remainer i would happily accept this....

Infact i argued that less than 55% either way and it should not stand.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Putting off article 50 till who knows when might give you a little clue, Cameron at least was going to enact it the very next day, if May had really wanted to get things moving she would have done likewise.

You mean following the rule of law by letting the courts rule on it? If you're going to bleat on about democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, at least pretend you believe in them when those things don't give you what you want.

This ruling means that a real compromise can be reached, rather than Brexiteer fanatics pushing through the hardest of hard Brexits under the completely false assumption that that is what the majority of Brits want.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As usual you are one of those who 'continue to forget' that barely a third of the population voted to remain in the European Union, that I presume doesn't actually mean anything though

Not at all. It means the result was indecisive, and not a mandate to push through some 1950s fantasy that the Daily Express would have you believe is possible.

 

[Domh245]

Putting off article 50 till who knows when might give you a little clue, Cameron at least was going to enact it the very next day, if May had really wanted to get things moving she would have done likewise.

Fair enough. I'd have suggested that the initial delays were fair enough whilst she sorted the house out knowing that once she starts she has 2 years to hammer out the deal and every day is going to be precious in ensuring that we get the best deal possible, so she wouldn't have start the clock without the people in place. But yes the delays since are rather unexplained - is she still trying to get everything in place or is there some kind of latent europhilia at play, perhaps if she'd already triggered article 50 this court case might have been even more interesting (going to the EU to say that we are revoking our article 50 notice until we've sorted this matter out).

Also not sure how you are able to take Cameron's suggestion of triggering article 50 immediately seriously! He said that he'd do it immediately whilst it looked whilst he was going to win comfortably, and as results started to come in and it looked like leave were going to win, you had prominent leave figures (Johnson and Gove) calling on him to stay, only for him to promptly bugger off on the morning of the 24th. He clearly had no intention of triggering article 50 if leave won - if he did, he'd have done it!

 

[ExRes]

Not at all. It means the result was indecisive, and not a mandate to push through some 1950s fantasy that the Daily Express would have you believe is possible.

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

I'm very sorry, but I have no idea what a 1950s Daily Express fantasy is so I have no idea how correct you are on that point

 

[meridian2]

By all means go for the compromise and let's use democracy for it's fuller meaning, ie extending to Parliament as well. I'll reiterate: only the hardest of Brexiteers wanted today's ruling to go the other way.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As usual you are one of those who 'continue to forget' that barely a third of the population voted to remain in the European Union

Nope, I said it right there, right in the bit you just quoted.

My point is that it is a very dangerous game to argue that a government should force through policy using Royal Prerogative as "the will of the people", when two-thirds of people did not express it as their will.

And that's even before we consider that, whilst people have voted to leave the EU, they haven't had any opportunity to say exactly how they want to leave the EU.

So, for that reason, I see no problem in allowing Parliament to debate how and when we leave the EU.

For those who think Royal Prerogative should be used to force this through, how would you feel about a government using Royal Prerogative to force through an election manifesto promise?

 

[Domh245]

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

Flipping that point on it's head though, you have only one third who voted to leave, and two thirds of the electorate who didn't express any will to leave the EU, so what is the correct way to extrapolate votes for non-voters. I'd suggest that the best way to do it would be to assuming that each constituency was representative and to scale that up to a 100% turnout, it'd be interesting to see how that'd change the overall vote if at all (although there is an argument that leave voters were more likely to vote in terms of demographics and their desire for change)