Supreme Court Verdict

[-:Undertaker:-]

Supreme Court Verdict

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/sites/www.open.edu.openlearn/files/ole_images/the_uk_supreme_court_6449810459_1.jpg

Within minutes the UK Supreme Court is due to deliver its verdict on the triggering of Article 50.
Key points to look out for are:



Can the PM use the Royal Prerogative to trigger Article 50 or must both Houses of Parliament?
Must the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolved assemblies also consent?

823799506412195841

823808429106008064

823826246740168704

The Government is expected to lose the first point but not the second. Sources have stated that the government has prepared pieces of legislation already to put immediately to the House of Commons in the event of defeat.

Awaiting the court verdict right now...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Government loses first point (as expected) and wins second in regards to devolved parliaments involvement.


823827471665655809


823828167668314113


I actually agree with both decisions and that is how I would have ruled with my limited constitutional knowledge. The judgement if anything strengths Parliamentary sovereignty and reaffirms it (which is why I wanted out of the EU in the first place) and on the second point it is totally in line with our constitution (and the first judgement) that the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies do not have the power to 'veto' Westminster. A ruling the other way would have caused a constitutional crisis and has no basis in British law.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is certain that the House of Commons will vote to trigger Article 50. However, the House of Lords is currently the unknown. But there's a way around that which was considered back in 1911: overwhelm by creating hundreds of new peers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911

823838563171258370

[dbgtz]

Yes, let's devalue the HoL by putting in a bunch of yes-men.
Democracy in action.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, let's devalue the HoL by putting in a bunch of yes-men.
Democracy in action.

Yes, let's devalue democracy and voting by potentially ignoring the biggest vote and democratic mandate in our history.

Convention is that the House of Lords gives way to popular/parliamentary sovereignty. If not, it signs its own death warrant.

Edit:

823865970594893825

[dbgtz]

Yes, let's devalue democracy and voting by potentially ignoring the biggest vote and democratic mandate in our history.

Convention is that the House of Lords gives way to popular/parliamentary sovereignty. If not, it signs its own death warrant.

Edit:

823865970594893825

When you say "our" history, do you mean the last ~20 years or UK as a whole? Because both I could easily poke holes through to be honest. Ultimately, there are other ways around the Lords. Filling it up with a bunch of people to just make yet another chamber who can be whipped into what the government wants is far more harmful to the country.

Also, convention is all referendums are non binding.
Also the HoL is part of Parliament so wtf you mean by it gives way to "Parliamentary sovereignty" god knows.

[FlyingJesus]

There are already too many members of the House of Lords, we don't need to make it worse :P can't see them outright blocking it anyway, too many of them rely on their cushy bench jobs to avoid having to actually do anything and won't want to risk either being ousted or having to take a real public stance on something

[dbgtz]

There are already too many members of the House of Lords, we don't need to make it worse :P can't see them outright blocking it anyway, too many of them rely on their cushy bench jobs to avoid having to actually do anything and won't want to risk either being ousted or having to take a real public stance on something

Tbh it's pretty hard to get removed from the Lords afaik and a lot of them do take action on quite a bit so I don't really get where all of that is coming from. More trustworthy than most of those in the Commons tbh.
They also can't outright block anything, only delay it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

823872716222726144

824018478826852352

A big thanks to Gina Miller and Charlie Mullins for bringing about Brexit sooner. :)


When you say "our" history, do you mean the last ~20 years or UK as a whole?

The box called 'Leave' received more votes than anything else in British history ever.


Because both I could easily poke holes through to be honest. Ultimately, there are other ways around the Lords. Filling it up with a bunch of people to just make yet another chamber who can be whipped into what the government wants is far more harmful to the country.

What's the other way around the Lords then if they decide to attempt to block or frustrate?


Also, convention is all referendums are non binding.

Technically in our system, nothing is binding due to parliamentary sovereignty. Politically however everybody accepts that referendum results are not to be bloked by the Houses of Parliament - otherwise why would we have them?

Parliament asked us, we gave an answer... and that's that. As David Davies MP has said, there is no way back.


Also the HoL is part of Parliament so wtf you mean by it gives way to "Parliamentary sovereignty" god knows.

I should have made clearer, I mean the supremacy of the House of Commons.

[dbgtz]

The box called 'Leave' received more votes than anything else in British history ever.


Sure, if you look at raw numbers but that's completely illogical to do. As a %age of voters it's significantly less than the 67.9 % who voted against AV and the 67.23% who voted to remain in the EEC.



What's the other way around the Lords then if they decide to attempt to block or frustrate?


Parliament Act 1949.



Technically in our system, nothing is binding due to parliamentary sovereignty. Politically however everybody accepts that referendum results are not to be bloked by the Houses of Parliament - otherwise why would we have them?

Parliament asked us, we gave an answer... and that's that. As David Davies MP has said, there is no way back.


Why have them? Well in David Cameron's case to try and ease the rift in the Conservative party :P
But when the electorate is misinformed with false claims and promises from both sides, why shouldn't they be able to block it? Especially when polling looked like this:
https://d18lkz4dllo6v2.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/entry/15778/Final%20poll.jpg?w=660

I do understand your POV, but it's just too easy to whip those in the Commons for a vote there to actually mean anything.

Also to be honest, whilst I'm not advocating this as such, there is a way back and that is through a general election.



I should have made clearer, I mean the supremacy of the House of Commons.

If the Lords just gives way to everything the Commons wants then it's function is pointless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sure, if you look at raw numbers but that's completely illogical to do. As a %age of voters it's significantly less than the 67.9 % who voted against AV and the 67.23% who voted to remain in the EEC.

Interesting argument, so had turnout been 20% but 90% voted Leave you'd consider that more legitimate?


Parliament Act 1949.

As far as I know that Act is mainly for financial bills and there's the manifesto convention element to it all.

The Government does appear to be ready to use the 1911 threat that Carswell mentioned...

824008777737179136


Why have them? Well in David Cameron's case to try and ease the rift in the Conservative party :P

Why have them? To settle a major constitutional rift that has been poisoning British politics for over 40 years.


https://d18lkz4dllo6v2.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/entry/15778/Final%20poll.jpg?w=660

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-03-11/EU%20referendum.png


But when the electorate is misinformed with false claims and promises from both sides, why shouldn't they be able to block it? Especially when polling looked like this:

Are you advocating the Houses of Parliament ignore the referendum result on the 23rd of June 2016?


I do understand your POV, but it's just too easy to whip those in the Commons for a vote there to actually mean anything.

I understand and have long defended the House of Lords as superior to the House of Commons in terms of independence and quality. This scenario however is unique and is no normal piece of legislation: to frustrate or block it will cause a constitutional crisis. Parliament asked and it got an answer: time to implement that answer.


If the Lords just gives way to everything the Commons wants then it's function is pointless.

Ah, but that's my point. Both Houses of Parliament do not want Brexit.

[dbgtz]

Interesting argument, so had turnout been 20% but 90% voted Leave you'd consider that more legitimate?


I assume this is more referring to the AV referendum since the EEC had 42.96% of the electorate vote to remain compared to the 37.44% who voted to leave in the recent referendum.

As a hypothetical though, hard to say really. In a sense, yes, but I think it very much depends on the circumstances.



As far as I know that Act is mainly for financial bills and there's the manifesto convention element to it all.

The Government does appear to be ready to use the 1911 threat that Carswell mentioned...


Fairly certain any type of bill can bypass the HoL after a year.



Why have them? To settle a major constitutional rift that has been poisoning British politics for over 40 years.


If politicians really cared about that it would've happened a long time ago.



http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2014-03-11/EU%20referendum.png


If anything you've just supported my point. People's opinions change too rapidly to allow such a massive change with such a small majority, and yes it is small.



Are you advocating the Houses of Parliament ignore the referendum result on the 23rd of June 2016?


I'm advocating for them to do their job, and be pressured to do what they need to simply to get re-elected or a potential cabinet seat.
For some, an MP's job is to put the interests of their constituents first even if it isn't what they particularly want. For others, an MP's job is to simply act as a delegate.
Basically I just don't like the whip system.



I understand and have long defended the House of Lords as superior to the House of Commons in terms of independence and quality. This scenario however is unique and is no normal piece of legislation: to frustrate or block it will cause a constitutional crisis. Parliament asked and it got an answer: time to implement that answer.


Fair enough.



Ah, but that's my point. Both Houses of Parliament do not want Brexit.

Does that fact not perhaps suggest anything to you? That maybe the people paid to work with this kind of thing on a daily basis do not think this is a good idea?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I assume this is more referring to the AV referendum since the EEC had 42.96% of the electorate vote to remain compared to the 37.44% who voted to leave in the recent referendum.

And? That was 40+ years ago and on the EEC.


As a hypothetical though, hard to say really. In a sense, yes, but I think it very much depends on the circumstances.

Depends on the circumstances... like whether you agree with the result?


If politicians really cared about that it would've happened a long time ago.

It only hadn't happened until now because the narrow liberal cliques in control of the two major parties were in agreement over the EU and conspired against any referendum or renegotiation of EU membership. It was only via the pressure and electoral success of Ukip that the Tory backbenchers were able to finally strong arm the party leadership into a renegotiation followed by an in/out referendum. I'd said for years on here that my faction didn't need to win a General Election in order to achieve our aims.

I always said and Enoch Powell said along the same lines that it was a certainty that we would one day leave. It's written in the runes. It was just the politics of that fact had to catch up, and finally in 2016 they did.

In many ways you could say it was fait accompli especially when we had rejected adopting the Euro.


If anything you've just supported my point. People's opinions change too rapidly to allow such a massive change with such a small majority, and yes it is small.

Hence the referendum and months of debate (actually years of debate if you track this all the way). A majority on this is a majority, it's clear from other polling anyway that Britons by an overwhelming majority do not want any more powers going to Brussels and do not want a federal European Union. This was going to happen. So like I always say, why not be glad that we've finally lanced the boil and put to bed an issue that wasn't going to go away given the direction of the EU and our own concept of nationhood?


I'm advocating for them to do their job, and be pressured to do what they need to simply to get re-elected or a potential cabinet seat.
For some, an MP's job is to put the interests of their constituents first even if it isn't what they particularly want. For others, an MP's job is to simply act as a delegate.
Basically I just don't like the whip system.

Most of these MPs were chosen via the whip system, rubber stamped by the two main political parties who have a very narrow world view. So why the sudden belief in the competence of our MPs? As the referendum proved beyond doubt, they're totally out of touch with the country on such a key issue. How so when it is their job to represent us?


Does that fact not perhaps suggest anything to you? That maybe the people paid to work with this kind of thing on a daily basis do not think this is a good idea?

It suggests to me that a majority of our MPs are totally out of touch with the people they're supposed to represent.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Government has just put the bill to the House of Commons.

Short and sweet.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3GKFEjWgAEKI0H.jpg

[scottish]

just get it over with already.

[dbgtz]

And? That was 40+ years ago and on the EEC.


You were talking about the biggest votes in British history...



Depends on the circumstances... like whether you agree with the result?


Putting words in my mouth, excellent.
No it depends on, say, if people are rioting against the idea.



It only hadn't happened until now because the narrow liberal cliques in control of the two major parties were in agreement over the EU and conspired against any referendum or renegotiation of EU membership. It was only via the pressure and electoral success of Ukip that the Tory backbenchers were able to finally strong arm the party leadership into a renegotiation followed by an in/out referendum. I'd said for years on here that my faction didn't need to win a General Election in order to achieve our aims.

I always said and Enoch Powell said along the same lines that it was a certainty that we would one day leave. It's written in the runes. It was just the politics of that fact had to catch up, and finally in 2016 they did.

In many ways you could say it was fait accompli especially when we had rejected adopting the Euro.


I'm sure most of the parties offered some kind of EU referendum but never actually followed through.



Hence the referendum and months of debate (actually years of debate if you track this all the way). A majority on this is a majority, it's clear from other polling anyway that Britons by an overwhelming majority do not want any more powers going to Brussels and do not want a federal European Union. This was going to happen. So like I always say, why not be glad that we've finally lanced the boil and put to bed an issue that wasn't going to go away given the direction of the EU and our own concept of nationhood?


I wouldn't call the few months prior to the referendum much of a debate to be honest, but I get your point.
Unfortunately it just sounds like what we should've had is a referendum when new treaties were being produced more than anything else.



Most of these MPs were chosen via the whip system, rubber stamped by the two main political parties who have a very narrow world view. So why the sudden belief in the competence of our MPs? As the referendum proved beyond doubt, they're totally out of touch with the country on such a key issue. How so when it is their job to represent us?


If there was no whip system then MPs would be more likely to represent their constituents properly, whatever they deem that to be.



It suggests to me that a majority of our MPs are totally out of touch with the people they're supposed to represent.

Is populism a good thing?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You were talking about the biggest votes in British history...

?


Putting words in my mouth, excellent.
No it depends on, say, if people are rioting against the idea.

A democratic result cannot be allowed to be overturned by rioting, no.


I'm sure most of the parties offered some kind of EU referendum but never actually followed through.

Indeed, because they knew what the answer would be.


I wouldn't call the few months prior to the referendum much of a debate to be honest, but I get your point.
Unfortunately it just sounds like what we should've had is a referendum when new treaties were being produced more than anything else.

Too late for that. Had we had referendums and voted yes on each treaty beforehand which brought us to this point of integration then you would have had a point. But given we've arrived at this extraordinary transfer of sovereignty without referendums on each transfer it was in many ways illegitimate especially given how in the 1975 referendum we were told it would just be about trading. It was a pressure cooker that the political class built themselves.


If there was no whip system then MPs would be more likely to represent their constituents properly, whatever they deem that to be.

No whipping also leads to dysfunctional government. Has to be give & take.


Is populism a good thing?

Yes.

Ukip/Leave in Britain.
Trump in America.
Le Pen in France.
Wilders in the Netherlands.
Hofer in Austria.
Grillo/Lega Nord in Italy.
AFD in Germany.

All represent widely held opinions which have been ignored by the political class for years.