High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50

[I'm With Stupid]

Cobblers.
You were fundamentally wrong in your first assertion that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market and now you equate access to a market with tariff free access.
I can do this all day because you are the one having trouble with semantics. As for grace well I will leave that for the viewers to decide xx

I found you an example of a Brexit leader promising both things. Boris Johnson promised continued single market access and Michael Gove promised continued free trade with the EU. So whatever your semantic assertions, I've shown that high-profile Brexit campaigners did indeed promise what you claimed they didn't.

The idea that promising continued access to the single market doesn't constitute promising tariff-free access is laughable. We know what they were promising and so do they.

 

[SWP's back]

Technically both. The EU referendum was not binding, so it always required the vote of MPs.

So why bother with the referendum in the first place?

Complete waste of time, effort and money.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Brexiteers who believe Boris Johnson and the other two stooges should be trusted to do what's best for the country are deluded.

Manchester and lots of other northern regions rely on European funding for major projects, I want to know now (before article 50 is activated) that we won't get screwed over by the Torys and we get our fair share of money.
Let's be honest, they will want to look after there own Tory heartland and we get the scraps.

There is so much wrong with this post that it probably belongs in another thread.

 

[InMyLifetime-BaconChops]

Whilst the Conservative and Labour parties have both stated they don't agree with the decision, some of the MPs that represent those parties will be jumping for joy.

If Brexit doesn't happen, it sets a very dangerous precedent over whether the people actually have a voice. And what follows will be a total shit storm. Large demonstrations could be looming

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Here we go.

National Front type organisations get outraged and kick off, targeting non british in the streets thus taking matters into their own hands, further fueled by the images of bus loads of refugees coming over from Calais.

I foresee riots at some point in time.

What was the point of a democratic referendum if its not legally binding?

I hope there is riots, I'm fucked off with this country. We're a laughing stock.

 

[kaz7]

Brexit is still happening but the speed and the terms should not be left to half a dozen people including a non elected prime minister,this is for parliment to discuss and vote on to make sure we get the best deal.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Don't promise things you can't deliver seems to be the lesson here. But the Brexiters have already learned that one many times over.

I think this is the issue. There is an assumption the MP's will fall in line and vote in line with the referendum. However, the referendum was a complete joke with both side making jumped up claims. Brexit is far far far harder to actually deliver than anyone has ever let on. The tory led attempt at a managed process of leaving will be a failure, I can guarantee that. The only deliverable form is to leave without any from or agreement or certainty as to our future and that is a complete unknown future, a unquestionably sovereign state with less immigration – maybe but at what cost. My take and I would think many MPs would agree is the risks are huge and the prospect of massive economic damage are very real. Calling that view project fear is just a form of denial. It will be very difficult for the majority of MPs to vote for it.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

I think this is the issue. There is an assumption the MP's will fall in line and vote in line with the referendum. However, the referendum was a complete joke with both side making jumped up claims. Brexit is far far far harder to actually deliver than anyone has ever let on. The tory led attempt at a managed process of leaving will be a failure, I can guarantee that. The only deliverable form is to leave without any from or agreement or certainty as to our future and that is a complete unknown future, a unquestionably sovereign state with less immigration – maybe but at what cost. My take and I would think many MPs would agree is the risks are huge and the prospect of massive economic damage are very real. Calling that view project fear is just a form of denial. It will be very difficult for the majority of MPs to vote for it.

So is a blind assumption that everything will be terrible if we leave the eu and everything will be brilliant if we remain.

That does not take into account and ignores a basic fact that

some countries outside the eu do very well; and

Some countries in the eu are fucked and I include France in that!

 

[bonespost]

 

[Chris in London]

Whilst the Conservative and Labour parties have both stated they don't agree with the decision, some of the MPs that represent those parties will be jumping for joy.

If Brexit doesn't happen, it sets a very dangerous precedent over whether the people actually have a voice. And what follows will be a total shit storm. Large demonstrations could be looming

No it doesn't.

The UK constitution has one overriding principle: Parliament is supreme. Whatever Parliament decides in the UK is the law. An Act of Parliament cannot be undone other than by an Act of Parliament specifically undoing it. The people's voice, under our constitution, is heard by electing MPs to Parliament at a general election. This has been the basis of UK law for over three hundred years.

The supremacy of Parliament means that when in 1972 Parliament decided EU law would become part of the UK's domestic law, it also by definition decided that EU law would continue to apply within the UK unless and until parliament decided otherwise. What the government proposes, on the back of the referendum, is to withdraw from the EU, with the effect of removing EU law from the UK's domestic law. So the government proposes to subvert a decision specifically taken by Parliament in 1972.

The court has held that the government cannot undermine the will of Parliament in 1972 in this way: this is why notice under Article 50 cannot lawfully be given without Parliamentary approval. This decision has nothing to do with whether we should actually leave: it is purely concerned with whether the government's proposed triggering of Artcile 50 by exercise of its prerogative powers is lawful. And it isn't.

The Scottish referendum was different: under the terms of the Act that provided for a referendum in Scotland, the result was to be binding, so that without more Scotland would leave the UK. For whatever reason, the Brexit referendum was not drafted in the same way. The effect of that is that the government does not have Parliamentary authority to remove EU law from our domestic law. Only Parliament has the power to do that.

Far from deny the people a voice, the court has simply upheld the constitution.