Supreme Court Verdict

[-:Undertaker:-]

Supreme Court Verdict

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?

#SupremeCourt to announce #Brexit judgement https://t.co/paTq1d4Mak pic.twitter.com/RZ2zizLoXo

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) January 24, 2017

54% of people think the Prime Minister, not Parliament, should have the final say on activating Article 50 - Supreme Court ruling due later pic.twitter.com/00Y1RZtsB4

— YouGov (@YouGov) January 24, 2017

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.

UKSC confirms (by majority of 8:3) that an Act of Parliament is needed before Article 50 can be triggered 1/2 https://t.co/QUny4FUZIr

— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) January 24, 2017

Sewel Convention is not a legal obligation and devolved legislatures do not have power to veto Article 50 2/2 https://t.co/J2bkZwGWwm

— UK Supreme Court (@UKSupremeCourt) January 24, 2017

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

Ukips @DouglasCarswell tells @adamboultonSKY that if lords blocks A50 then "800 Lords" could be created, if Commons, then general election

— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) January 24, 2017

[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:

Sources suggest govt might try to push Article 50 thro Commons within a fortnight, expectation at moment is for Bill tomorrow

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) January 24, 2017

[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:

Sources suggest govt might try to push Article 50 thro Commons within a fortnight, expectation at moment is for Bill tomorrow

— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) January 24, 2017

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 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 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:-]

Brexit Secretary David Davis says the Government will introduce legislation "within days" to begin the formal process of leaving the EU

— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) January 24, 2017

Theresa May will bring Brexit forward by two weeks in change to Article 50 timetable https://t.co/8tp5VkYkPG

— Telegraph Breaking News (@TelegraphNews) January 24, 2017

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
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:


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.