Who Rules This Country, The Government On The People's Behalf, The Government Who Make The Laws Or The Judges Who's Job It Is To Enforce The Law?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3898716/D-Day-Brexit-Britain-s-exit-EU-DELAYED-landmark-court-case-rules-Theresa-start-EU-talks-without-MPs-vote.html

[fiction-factory]

I thought it had always been known, even before the refendum, that some form of parliamentary approval/vote would be needed

[Old_Geezer]

According to the DM article, judges seem to have simply ruled that Brexit can not be triggered without permission from parliament. The article mentions nothing of debate regarding negotiations, which makes little sense since negotiations (about the post-Brexit situationi) happen AFTER Article 50 is triggered. The EU are being very insistent about that.

[mikey4444]

OG...yes, you are right....some of our correspondents on here today should read the ruling properly.

[naomi24]

Jim, //like many others you just lost sight of the fact that this was an advisory referendum, ie not legally binding.//

I truly cannot remember ever hearing before the vote that this was an 'advisory referendum'. That news seemed to come to light only after the shock of the referendum result was felt. That said, if it was an 'advisory referendum', then the people have 'advised' and their wishes should be complied with.

[jim360]

"I truly cannot remember ever hearing before the vote that this was an 'advisory referendum'. "

Nevertheless, it was true. Like most facts about the referendum, though, I suspect it was lost sight of because, of course, very few people expected that the result would be what it was. As you say, the advice should be heeded. I am not going to argue with that. Still, it's up to Parliament and not just May, Davis and maybe three other people. That's all that has changed today.

[fiction-factory]

Well don't know where I heard it- but i'm sure if the vote had been for Remain some Leave campaigners would have remembered it was only ever advisory

[naomi24]

Jim, //Still, it's up to Parliament and not just May, Davis and maybe three other people.//

I disagree. As I understand it the court ruled today that parliament must agree to give permission to trigger Article 50. If you say the advice of the people should be heeded, why must parliament give permission? That's a complete contradiction. The people have 'advised'. That should be sufficient.

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, as I said, the first time I heard it was 'advisory' was after the votes were counted. How convenient.

[fiction-factory]

Well it's not going to happen that way naomi- although i'm sure the governmentand even Labour whips will ensure it is approved by parliament. I suspect the House of lords could be an issue though

[jim360]

Because it's non-binding advice. That's how advice works. It's not an instruction that requires no further consent. Parliament, having received the advice, must now decide whether or not to act on it.

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, //Well it's not going to happen that way Naomi//

You're telling me nothing I didn't already know. The moment the news that the referendum was only advisory was sprung upon us that became crystal clear.

[Old_Geezer]

"● For the reasons we have set out, we hold that the secretary of state does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the UK to withdraw from the EU."

What should be is a matter of opinion. I don't believe further permission should be sought as it is a formality if we are in a democracy (regardless of the legal status of the referendum). Unfortunately the ruling is that we have to go through this permission nonsense. Which brings us back to the point made in other threads today, that laws are not always drafted ideally.

[Old_Geezer]

I have to say I knew that the referendum wasn't legally binding well before it was held. I do not doubt that it is morally binding though. And the practical consequences of parliament treating the opinion of the electorate with disdain doesn't bear thinking about.

[jim360]

The news that the referendum was advisory was "sprung on us" the moment the act that made it possible was passed. No provision was made for it to be legally binding. Therefore, it was not legally binding, ie advisory. This is also in accordance with the usual rules on Referenda, such as they are, in this country. No-one's pulled a sleight of hand by saying it is now advisory. It always was. For sure, it's the people who don't like the advice who are drawing most attention to that fact, but it remains a fact all the same.

[naomi24]

The words 'stitch up' aren't far from my lips.

[fiction-factory]

Naomi, you asked:
"why must parliament give permission? That's a complete contradiction. The people have 'advised'. That should be sufficient."
Yet when I answered your question you said "You're telling me nothing I didn't already know."

And it was said plenty of times before the election that the vote was advisory so i'm not sure why such surprise is being expressed now. But I know it's hard to be an expert at everything

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, // But I know it's hard to be an expert at everything //

Snide comments have no affect on me, but if doing it makes you feel better carry on.

As far as I can see you didn't answer my question. You simply said "Well it's not going to happen that way" - and that, as I said, I'm aware of and have been since I first heard after the referendum that it was only 'advisory'.

[fiction-factory]

Okay, i'll try to expand. It's not going to happen that way (saying T"he people have 'advised'. That should be sufficient" because that was never the intention- the intention always was that the vote was advisory. But idf parliament has any sense it will rubber stamp it.
I'm sorry I don't know how you missed the fact before the referendum that it was advisory, but it doesn't matter because that's how it is so we just have to hope/push for for the right outcome. I'm pretty sure SNP will vote against Brexit

[Old_Geezer]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728376/Brexit-MP-High-Court-Parliament-Article-50-triggered-IMMEDIATELY

Rees-Mogg makes a point. Parliament has already been involved and decided.

It looks as if Sturgeon may be trying to affect things over which she has no power again.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728461/Sturgeon-threatens-stop-appeal-High-Court-Brexit-ruling

Personally I don't see why either lot is bothering. As mentioned elsewhere, they could get this over and done with quickly enough. And make a note to pass legislation to avoid the nonsense in the future.

[fiction-factory]

As for being an expert Naomi, you are the one who reminds me that you know far more about Islam than I do so your view is more valid than mine. In this case I knew more about the process