Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[HAND]

It didn't have to be raised at all. It's rather that May's government was so intent on rushing this through without recourse to Parliament that they decided to appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't think that this will stop Brexit at all, but I find it morbidly hilarious that people whose alleged intent is to restore Parliamentary sovereignty tried so hard to avoid Parliamentary oversight altogether.

It obviously didn't help that Cameron said he would trigger Article 50 on the June 24th in the event of a Leave vote win, since it perpetuated the idea he was legally entitled to do so.. although the split result in the supreme court does imply using the Royal prerogative was ambiguous legally in Cameron's defence.

 

[Takhisis]

Finally, people were told that, if May is offered a bad Brexit deal by the EU, she has threatened to retaliate by cutting business taxes to encourage businesses to move to the UK, or changing “the basis of Britain’s economic model” as she puts it.

How would that change the basis of the British economic model?

Speaking of propaganda, I have noticed commercials on TV here praising the EU - paid for by the EU. You know a bureaucracy is on deep trouble whet it has to start buying advertising for itself...

That is a bad sign indeed, but I wouldn't overestimate it as a sign of total chaos just yet.

The real battle now will be for Corbyn and the direction of the Labour party. If Article 50 gets voted through, then we are looking at Corbyn being blamed again by the liberal left/remain camp and the possibility of the Labour party splintering.

The Tories already have an absolute majority of the parliamentary vote by themselves.

 

[HAND]

The Tories already have an absolute majority of the parliamentary vote by themselves.

Yes, but I doubt that'll inhibit a few eager Blairites, if there are any left by then! Don't forget Tory rebels such as Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry will possibly rebel maybe a joined by a couple of others.

 

[Takhisis]

They'd first have to find out what they are rebelling against.

 

[Ferocitus]

They'd first have to find out what they are rebelling against.

The outrageous price of caviar at the Eton College cafeteria?
Thanks, Putin!

 

[innonimatu]

Quite the opposite really. Fillon met with Merkel this weekend to strengthen the ties, Macron is a classic liberal who will probably have no problem with Europe and the socialists eliminated their least europhile candidate on sunday. The only europhobe candidates will be the extreme ones (Le Pen and Melenchon) and they're not going to win

That was not what I understood from the statements made after that meeting, but I may well be wrong. French is not a language I use much, and french politics seem chaotic.

 

[Takhisis]

They don't just seem to be chaotic. They are chaotic.

 

[Ferocitus]

Any guesses on how the hysterical press is going to spin this entirely expected result?

Depends on which press. I'm guessing it could be something like:
The Sun, page 3:
Sophie, 18, from Salford thinks Brest is nice at this time of year.

 

[AdrienIer]

That was not what I understood from the statements made after that meeting, but I may well be wrong. French is not a language I use much, and french politics seem chaotic.

Fillon said he wouldn't take any more refugees, but beyond that and strengthening ties with Russia he doesn't want to destroy the EU.

 

[Oerdin]

Honestly, it is a pretty bad ruling all in all. Parliament passed the appropriate treaties already including the one which contained article 50 which describes the legal eay to withdraw. THAT was alreafy Parliament getting its vote an approving. Invpking part of an approved treaty is following the approved treaty.

Like I said, a terrible ruling.

 

[Lillefix]

Honestly, it is a pretty bad ruling all in all. Parliament passed the appropriate treaties already including the one which contained article 50 which describes the legal eay to withdraw. THAT was alreafy Parliament getting its vote an approving. Invpking part of an approved treaty is following the approved treaty.

Like I said, a terrible ruling.

8 out of 11 supreme court judges seem to disagree.

 

[aelf]

Leavers are tired of experts, and that includes judges.

 

[AdrienIer]

Some leavers are also apparently tired of the british parliament trying to do its job.

 

[Arakhor]

Honestly, it is a pretty bad ruling all in all. Parliament passed the appropriate treaties already including the one which contained article 50 which describes the legal eay to withdraw. THAT was alreafy Parliament getting its vote an approving. Invpking part of an approved treaty is following the approved treaty.

That's not how case law works, but thanks for keeping up.

 

[Flying Pig]

Honestly, it is a pretty bad ruling all in all. Parliament passed the appropriate treaties already including the one which contained article 50 which describes the legal eay to withdraw. THAT was alreafy Parliament getting its vote an approving. Invpking part of an approved treaty is following the approved treaty.

Like I said, a terrible ruling.

By the by, it doesn't. The relevant bit of the text reads:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The problem was that nobody had said, in law, what Britain's 'constitutional requirements' were. The referendum bill didn't say that the referendum would give the government the right to trigger Article 50, and the Supreme Court ruled that if it meant to do that, it would have said so. Anything short of that does not count as parliamentary approval. Parliamentary approval is essential to change or strike off laws - that's a basic part of the separation of powers - and they considered that the EU treaties are a source of law, and therefore the executive branch cannot revoke them without parliamentary consent, just as the Prime Minister can't unilaterally make or repeal ordinary laws.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe "if it meant that, it should (not "would") have said so", but that the referendum was obviously and beyond doubt linked to triggering article 50 if Leave won is clear, i mean even Cameron and his pig said they would trigger article 50 the next day. So the public was told it tied to that with no other strings attached, which is another issue from a legal interpretation.

 

[Ferocitus]

^Maybe "if it meant that, it should (not "would") have said so", but that the referendum was obviously and beyond doubt linked to triggering article 50 if Leave won is clear, i mean even Cameron and his pig said they would trigger article 50 the next day. So the public was told it tied to that with no other strings attached, which is another issue from a legal interpretation.

I'm not clear about what you are trying to say, K.
But a politician, even the PM, promising something in the media doesn't often carry
much legal weight, especially in constitutional matters.
I doubt that any public promises made before, during or after the referendum would
have even been considered by the judges. (Happy to be corrected, of course!)

 

[JohannaK]

Well, for starters the referendum was non-binding (although to not heed it would have spelled doom for any government, of course), and secondly it was never in the papers that the PM exclusively would have the power to trigger article 50. I suppose the courts decided that, thus lacking parliamentary sanction to act upon such matter, the decision lies necessarily in the hands of Parliament.

 

[Arakhor]

The public was told a hell of a lot of things, so that hasn't exactly stopped a whole tonne of people believing exactly what they want.

 

[Ferocitus]

Well, for starters the referendum was non-binding (although to not heed it would have spelled doom for any government, of course)

Not so fast with the "of course"!
I'd add the proviso...
Unless Government MPs are split on the issue, (as they are),
and unless Opposition MPs are divided, or tepidly support one
side or the other, as seems to be the case.