So, the legal profession has thrown a spanner in the works and said the government needs a vote in Parliament to trigger article 50.
Personally, I'm disgusted. The referendum question was clear, do we we leave the EU or stay. Leave won - that's it! It wasn't vague, it was made perfectly clear it was in or out.
There will be an appeal. Which ever way the ruling went, there would be an appeal.
Knocks the Brexit on it's head. If it came to a vote which it will do Brexit would most likely to be cancelled.
lets hope the appeal is successful.
Will just have to wait and see what the final verdict is and whether the house of commons will uphold what the uk has voted for or not.
Not sure if Brexit still means Brexit or whether and the question would still be what kind of Brexit if any.
"Surely, before such a momentous decision is instigated, there has to be an opportunity for our Parliament to give it's views on the actual terms to be put forward in Article50."
As I understand it, we don't have any say on the terms, we get what we're offered take it or leave it.
What this means is that Parliament is sovereign, the government cannot make law by using the royal prerogative. I should imagine this has implications for a lot of other things as well!
This does not mean we will not now be Brexiting, but i do think it could mean the difference between a hard or a soft Brexit. The government are appealing to the supreme court and all eleven supreme court judges will hear the appeal which is unprecedented.
It will inevitably delay the implementation of article 50 and could conceivably mean the prime minister calling an early general election to give herself a mandate for implementation of article 50 thus circumventing the court decision.
Exciting times we are living through!
spider9~2 All year I've been reading that once A50 is invoked we have very little say in the final terms of secession.
This is the right decision in my opinion. Can't have the executive simply making arbitrary decisions. It is parliamentary democracy at work and it's a process which needs to be followed constitutionally.It will make Brexit more legitimate at the end of the day. No one is trying to turn the vote as some hell-bent Brexiters are screaming about.
"Knocks the Brexit on it's head. If it came to a vote which it will do Brexit would most likely to be cancelled."
It doesn't knock Brexit on the head, and neither will there be any vote in parliament that can 'cancel' Brexit.
The court ruling relates to the negotiated terms on which we leave the EU. It says that parliament has the right to vote on those. The government will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
In my view it is right to challenge the ruling. The government asked us a question, and a majority of us voted to leave the EU. A promise was made that the government would abide by the result of the referendum, and it has been publicly stated by the Prime Minister that our decision will be acted upon.
We gave government a mandate to facilitate our exit, and I do not see how a court can interpret British law to allow for a process that amends that mandate in any way. The will of the people was clear. Our government must be allowed to see it through without any qualifying terms.
This isn't a party political issue, it's a matter of allowing a democratic process to function without interference.
FORMAL Negotiations cannot begin until Article 50 has been raised and will have carry on until the end of that two year period, possibly with an extension.
That doesn't mean that both Sides cannotstart sounding eeach other out,in the meantime.
"That doesn't mean that both Sides cannot start sounding each other out,in the meantime."
Which is precisely what is happening. Given a fair wind, it will mean that both sides have a good idea of the conditions under which we'll exit before we send our article 50 notification to Brussels. It will greatly assist the formal negotiating phase.
What we don't want is a process by which various factions in Parliament can introduce politically motivated delaying tactics, designed to slow the whole procedure down. I think the people (the majority, let's remember) who voted for exit in the referendum would be pretty angry if that happened.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.