Britain's Brexit plans unlikely to be slowed by Article 50 defeat

[snoop1130]

Britain's Brexit plans unlikely to be slowed by Article 50 defeat

By Michael Holden and William James

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May's plans to start the process of Britain leaving the European Union by the end of March are unlikely to be hindered or slowed by Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling the government must seek parliamentary approval.

 

In the ruling, judges on Britain's top judicial body upheld an earlier High Court decision that lawmakers had to give their assent before May can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which formally starts two-years of divorce talks.

 

However, the legal defeat, while an inconvenience and embarrassment for the government, is not expected to delay its Brexit timetable or, as some investors and pro-EU supporters hope, make it possible to stop Britain leaving the bloc.

 

Part of this is because the opposition is divided.

 

"We will not block Article 50," Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the main opposition Labour Party which campaigned against Brexit, said last week. "All Labour MPs (members of parliament) will be asked to vote in that direction next week, or whenever the vote comes up."

 

Not all Corbyn's colleagues may go along, but May can get the votes she needs for overall passage.

 

However, what the decision could do is give an opportunity for Labour and other lawmakers who oppose a "hard Brexit" - an agreement with the EU that puts immigration curbs above access to the single market - to have a greater influence on what the final deal should look like.

 

Senior ministers in May's Conservative government, which had been expecting to lose the case, have already drawn up a series of options, including a short, tight bill which will quickly be put before parliament's lower chamber, the House of Commons.

 

Although before June's referendum the vast majority of MPs in the Commons backed staying in the EU, most now say they would back Brexit, especially those in England and Wales whose constituents had strongly backed leaving the bloc.

 

MPs voted overwhelmingly to support the timetable of May's Conservative government for invoking Article 50 before April in a non-binding vote in December.

 

Sources from both May's ruling Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party have told Reuters there was scope for a bill to be accelerated through parliament, without restricting debate, to ensure it could pass before the end of March.

 

Labour, though, faces a particular problem as many of its traditional working class supporters voted to leave the bloc and have been wooed in recent years by the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP).

 

Whilst not blocking Brexit, Corbyn, who himself was an EU critic for many years, has said he would fight for Britain to have full access to the single market "with reasonable management of migration".

 

Labour could try to amend any bill to ensure this, attracting support from some Conservative MPs, who oppose a "hard Brexit", and other smaller parties such as the Scottish Nationalists and Liberal Democrats.

 

The greatest potential threat to May comes from parliament's unelected upper chamber, the House of Lords, where many peers remained strongly opposed to Brexit and do not have voters to worry about.

 

If the Lords were to vote against approving the triggering of Article 50, the Brexit timetable could be severely delayed.

 

However, the government is confident the bill will pass through the Lords because there would be a constitutional crisis if unelected peers were to thwart the will of the people expressed both through the referendum and from their representatives in the Commons.

 

(editing by Guy Faulconbridge/Jermey Gaunt)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-1-24

[7by7]

I don't know what Miller and her associates hoped to gain when starting this action, or feel they have gained now that they have won. Brexit will happen, like it or not.

 

The people were asked, and they voted for Brexit. Whilst I still firmly believe that was the wrong choice, I also firmly believe in democracy and that the government should have been allowed to get on with implementing the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.

 

Hopefully the government will now introduce a simple Bill to give them the authority to trigger Article 50 and that members of both Houses believe enough in democracy to get that Bill through with the minimum of delay.

 

All this talk from Miller and her associates that only Parliament can remove the rights granted British citizens due to EU membership may be true; but irrelevant to triggering Article 50. Those rights were enshrined in UK law by various Acts of Parliament. Triggering Article 50, even leaving the EU with hardest of hard Brexits, will not remove those rights; they will still be part of UK law whatever happens. Parliament granted those rights, only Parliament can remove them.

 

Except, of course, the freedom of movement rights currently enjoyed by British nationals in other EEA member states. It is up to an individual state what rights they grant foreigners to enter, live, study, work in their own state; nothing to do with a foreign government unless negotiated by international treaty; which the freedom of movement directive is. The UK Parliament cannot demand that the remaining EEA members allow British nationals to continue to enjoy those rights post Brexit; that is something which will have to be negotiated. Of course, we are not going to retain the freedom of movement within the EEA for British nationals unless we grant the same freedom of movement to the UK for EEA nationals!

 

So, as I've said all along, let the government trigger Article 50 and negotiate the best possible deal with the remaining 27; then put that deal to Parliament for it's approval.

 

Which is what should have happened, would have happened if Miller and her associates had not tried to delay the whole process. I still wonder why she did. To get her name in the papers?

 

 

[Khun Han]

It's a hollow victory.

 

Who knows why Miller brought the court action? She's certainly a drama queen and attention seeker.

[Thongkorn]

 WE accept Foreign People into the UK, Feed them protect them, then they do this to us, its says a lot about Multiculturalism, It  Doesn't work,  

[Basil B]

8 to 3... When 11 judges can not agree, clearly this was not cut and dry and the arguing will continue.

 

If it can be argued that MP's and the Lords have to vote on it, by the same argument should not the Citizens of the UK have the right to vote on it?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Basil B

[daveAustin]

Waste of time and the lords will not put up a fight lest they want to become obsolete. Talking of obsolete, I see Sturgeon is bleating on about independence again. Yawn, please do.

[JB300]

8 to 3... When 11 judges can not agree, clearly this was not cut and dry and the arguing will continue.

 

If it can be argued that MP's and the Lords have to vote on it, by the same argument should not the Citizens of the UK have the right to vote on it?

 

 

 

Good possibility we will as if Parliament doesn't ratify whatever deal the UK/EU comes up with it would probably trigger a vote of no-confidence in May & an early election.

Of course by then the EU might be very different than it is today (most European Countries want more sovereignty returning to them) & be more like a trading union than a federal state.

Lots more twists & turns left in this plot I think...

[dunroaming]

This was never meant to block or delay brexit.  It isn't rocket science. It was meant to allow MPs to have a say in the terms and conditions of the proposed negotiations.  Apart from a few dyed in the wool remainers the majority will not in any way try to stop brexit.  We have burnt our bridges with the EU and have to leave.  To try to remain now would be futile as we have created massive divisions with other members.

 

What is hard to understand is why the Brexiteers are so up in arms over this.  These are you're MPs who are there to represent you!  Surely even the brexit supporters wouldn't want agreements made without checks and balances!

[7by7]

18 hours ago, Thongkorn said:

 WE accept Foreign People into the UK, Feed them protect them, then they do this to us, its says a lot about Multiculturalism, It  Doesn't work,  

 What are you blathering on about?

 

Gina Miller is not, as you try to paint her, someone who turned up in the UK expecting the state to see to her every need.

 

She was born in Guyana when it was still British Guiana.

 

She came to the UK as a child with her father, Doodnauth Singh, an eminent lawyer who went on to become attorney general of Guyana, and was educated at the independent, private, fee paying Moira House Girls School.

 

Post university she had a varied career, e.g. self employed business owner, marketing executive for BMW, before entering the financial services sector.

 

She is married to the multi millionaire Alan Miller.

 

I think her legal challenge had more to do with self publicity than anything else, it's certainly got her and the investment company she and her husband own into the media; but your comments are totally unfounded and unnecessary.

[7by7]

16 hours ago, Basil B said:

8 to 3... When 11 judges can not agree, clearly this was not cut and dry and the arguing will continue.

 

If it can be argued that MP's and the Lords have to vote on it, by the same argument should not the Citizens of the UK have the right to vote on it?

Err, we did!

 

On June 23rd 2016.

 

Did you miss it?

 

It was in all the papers, TV etc. for months beforehand and ever since.

[dunroaming]

If Gina Miller was running brexit rather than the useless shower in charge then I would feel far more confident than I do today.  I can understand why some of the Brexiteers hate her so much.  She is intelligent, well educated and very successful in her chosen careers, but more importantly, it is all those things and the fact that she is not white! 

Edited January 25, 2017 by dunroaming

[Baerboxer]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I don't know what Miller and her associates hoped to gain when starting this action, or feel they have gained now that they have won. Brexit will happen, like it or not.

 

The people were asked, and they voted for Brexit. Whilst I still firmly believe that was the wrong choice, I also firmly believe in democracy and that the government should have been allowed to get on with implementing the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.

 

Hopefully the government will now introduce a simple Bill to give them the authority to trigger Article 50 and that members of both Houses believe enough in democracy to get that Bill through with the minimum of delay.

 

All this talk from Miller and her associates that only Parliament can remove the rights granted British citizens due to EU membership may be true; but irrelevant to triggering Article 50. Those rights were enshrined in UK law by various Acts of Parliament. Triggering Article 50, even leaving the EU with hardest of hard Brexits, will not remove those rights; they will still be part of UK law whatever happens. Parliament granted those rights, only Parliament can remove them.

 

Except, of course, the freedom of movement rights currently enjoyed by British nationals in other EEA member states. It is up to an individual state what rights they grant foreigners to enter, live, study, work in their own state; nothing to do with a foreign government unless negotiated by international treaty; which the freedom of movement directive is. The UK Parliament cannot demand that the remaining EEA members allow British nationals to continue to enjoy those rights post Brexit; that is something which will have to be negotiated. Of course, we are not going to retain the freedom of movement within the EEA for British nationals unless we grant the same freedom of movement to the UK for EEA nationals!

 

So, as I've said all along, let the government trigger Article 50 and negotiate the best possible deal with the remaining 27; then put that deal to Parliament for it's approval.

 

Which is what should have happened, would have happened if Miller and her associates had not tried to delay the whole process. I still wonder why she did. To get her name in the papers?

 

 

The point is that the Supreme Court has upheld, as they interpret it, the UK Constitution, law and parliamentary process. Not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit and whether we should leave or remain. This was about a PM and her cabinet trying to use the Royal Prerogative to by-pass parliament and parliamentary process. Had they been allowed to do this, a precedent, a very dangerous precedent for the UK system, would be established.

PM's and their cabinet are not above or beyond laws and cannot ignore them as they please. Of course she would have had an easier life using the RP, as would her party.

 

Please remember that the Act of Parliament necessary to create the referendum clearly stated it was "advisory". Now, as parliament will have the chance to debate that and vote on it. MP's can certainly take the referendum result, the into account the advisory referendum result, take into account the views expressed by their constituents who they represent and of course party instructions and whips.

 

This is a result for real democracy by ensuring government must follow the law, constitution, and due process, and not try to short circuit it for their convenience.

 

There were a number of petitions lodged with the court and the court selected Miller to be representative. What motivated Mrs. Miller and why she was selected can only be speculated on. 

 

[Baerboxer]

16 hours ago, Basil B said:

8 to 3... When 11 judges can not agree, clearly this was not cut and dry and the arguing will continue.

 

If it can be argued that MP's and the Lords have to vote on it, by the same argument should not the Citizens of the UK have the right to vote on it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 to 3 - looks like a very large majority. Unlike Brexit where the winning margin was small and a considerable number didn't vote. I think you'll find quite a lot of legal issues are based on majority decisions.

 

The referendum Act clearly stated it was advisory. If did not state it over ruled the constitution or parliamentary process. 

 

The UK is a representative democracy. MP's are elected to represent constituencies. They must do their jobs and fully debate and vote.

Corbyn, a well known anti-EU supporter, who failed miserable to provide much opposition during the Brexit campaign is already trying to force his MPs to vote with the Tory Brexiters. The Liberals (hardly relevant), SNP and others will vote against. It will be interesting to see what the Tory MP's do. 

The real reason behind May's insistence on trying to use the Royal Prerogative was purely to avoid in fighting between the leave and remain factions in her own party and to avoid open scrutiny. That won't happen now, which has to be good for democracy.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

12 hours ago, daveAustin said:

Waste of time and the lords will not put up a fight lest they want to become obsolete. Talking of obsolete, I see Sturgeon is bleating on about independence again. Yawn, please do.

 

Sturgeon's only agenda item is Scottish Independence, with herself as leader. She represents one area within the UK which has 7-8% of the total UK population.

The small Scottish population enjoys a very high proportional representation at Westminster with over 50 MP's. They also have a devolved local government that enjoys significant powers - although many criticize their performance and lack of focus on what is their responsibility.

 

It's not so long ago Sturgeon claimed she had the power to veto Brexit (claiming May told her this when they first met), then implied an independent Scotland could remain in the EU when the EU leadership stated the opposite; constantly demands things she wants but  refuses to respect the previous referendum result and generally tries to cause as much disruption and divisiveness as she can. She whined about not being included and informed when it's nothing to do with her and she's shown many times she lies and can't be trusted.

 

Many Scots see through her and are embarrassed about her antics. 

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

The point is that the Supreme Court has upheld, as they interpret it, the UK Constitution, law and parliamentary process. Not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit and whether we should leave or remain. This was about a PM and her cabinet trying to use the Royal Prerogative to by-pass parliament and parliamentary process. Had they been allowed to do this, a precedent, a very dangerous precedent for the UK system, would be established.

PM's and their cabinet are not above or beyond laws and cannot ignore them as they please. Of course she would have had an easier life using the RP, as would her party...........

 

Many eminent lawyers argued that Article 50 could be triggered without an act of Parliament because it is the Government who makes and breaks international treaties on behalf of the Monarch.

 

Precedents already exits; for example John major signed the Maastricht Treaty without first obtaining Parliament's approval; although various Acts of Parliament were subsequently required to bring some provisions of that treaty into UK law.

 

Three of the 11 Supreme Court judges appear to have agreed, in principle at least, with this interpretation; but the other 8 didn't.

 

So now we have to go through the process of getting an Act of Parliament; a process which Corbyn and Sturgeon have already said they will try and delay and amend.

 

Let the government get on with it; let them trigger Article 50 and get around the table with the other 27 to negotiate the best possible post Brexit deal they can.

 

That deal can then be put to Parliament for it's approval or not.

[dunroaming]

May has agreed to a white paper at PMQs.  Hopefully she won't U-turn on that!

[Baerboxer]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Many eminent lawyers argued that Article 50 could be triggered without an act of Parliament because it is the Government who makes and breaks international treaties on behalf of the Monarch.

 

Precedents already exits; for example John major signed the Maastricht Treaty without first obtaining Parliament's approval; although various Acts of Parliament were subsequently required to bring some provisions of that treaty into UK law.

 

Three of the 11 Supreme Court judges appear to have agreed, in principle at least, with this interpretation; but the other 8 didn't.

 

So now we have to go through the process of getting an Act of Parliament; a process which Corbyn and Sturgeon have already said they will try and delay and amend.

 

Let the government get on with it; let them trigger Article 50 and get around the table with the other 27 to negotiate the best possible post Brexit deal they can.

 

That deal can then be put to Parliament for it's approval or not.

 

I am a member of a UK Constitutional Law site and have been following the posts for some time. (I can send you the site deals if interested PM me). Various members of the legal profession, law professors, constitutional academics etc have expressed views. I reckon roughly 80% supported the view as expressed in the Supreme Court decision. 

 

What is disturbing is May's insistence on wasting a considerable amount of tax payers money and resources, especially given the previous court ruling and law experts views. But I guess she figured a 20% chance was worth a shot. After all not her money she's spending.

 

I thought I read where Corbyn as stated Labor MP's will not obstruct the government? (Although some may see this as another chance to challenge his leadership). Sturgeon is only interested in independence for Scotland. She was happy to take Scotland out of the EU if the previous referendum had gone her way. Now she's making an issue purely to bring independence back on the table. She will do all she can to stir the pot, divisiveness and obstruct. But it has nothing to do with UK EU membership per se.

 

The problem is if Article 50 is triggered and no deal is concluded after 2 years, Britain is out with nothing. All 27 must agree to any extensions and ratify and agreement unanimously. This is a chance for countries like Malta and others to get some limelight and "significance". It also gives a region like Wallonia the chance to veto any deal as Belgian's constitution allows. 

 

There may well be no deal to put to parliament.

[jpinx]

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

I am a member of a UK Constitutional Law site and have been following the posts for some time. (I can send you the site deals if interested PM me). Various members of the legal profession, law professors, constitutional academics etc have expressed views. I reckon roughly 80% supported the view as expressed in the Supreme Court decision. 

 

What is disturbing is May's insistence on wasting a considerable amount of tax payers money and resources, especially given the previous court ruling and law experts views. But I guess she figured a 20% chance was worth a shot. After all not her money she's spending.

 

I thought I read where Corbyn as stated Labor MP's will not obstruct the government? (Although some may see this as another chance to challenge his leadership). Sturgeon is only interested in independence for Scotland. She was happy to take Scotland out of the EU if the previous referendum had gone her way. Now she's making an issue purely to bring independence back on the table. She will do all she can to stir the pot, divisiveness and obstruct. But it has nothing to do with UK EU membership per se.

 

The problem is if Article 50 is triggered and no deal is concluded after 2 years, Britain is out with nothing. All 27 must agree to any extensions and ratify and agreement unanimously. This is a chance for countries like Malta and others to get some limelight and "significance". It also gives a region like Wallonia the chance to veto any deal as Belgian's constitution allows. 

 

There may well be no deal to put to parliament.

Better no deal than a bad deal....   or did you miss that bit ?

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

I thought I read where Corbyn as stated Labor MP's will not obstruct the government?

 Various Labour MPs were quoted on the BBC radio news this morning as saying that Labour not back any Bill for triggering Article 50 unless the government gave full details of what they wished to achieve in the subsequent negotiations into a White Paper first and promising to engage in "hand to hand combat" in the Commons if they are not allowed to scrutinise everything.

 

The subject came up again in PMQs this afternoon.

 

It seems that May has caved in on this: Brexit: Theresa May promises White Paper on EU exit plan

 

I can only hope the White paper does not go into too much detail.  revealing broad aims is one thing; but telling the people you will be negotiating with the full details of you will and will not agree to  before the negotiations have even started is a big mistake.

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by 7by7

[JB300]

 
 
The problem is if Article 50 is triggered and no deal is concluded after 2 years, Britain is out with nothing. All 27 must agree to any extensions and ratify and agreement unanimously. This is a chance for countries like Malta and others to get some limelight and "significance". It also gives a region like Wallonia the chance to veto any deal as Belgian's constitution allows. 
 
There may well be no deal to put to parliament.

At which point there's a good chance that the 27 will vote to extend the 2 year deadline (I don't think anybody wants to walk away with no Deal).

[emilymat]

4 hours ago, dunroaming said:

If Gina Miller was running brexit rather than the useless shower in charge then I would feel far more confident than I do today.  I can understand why some of the Brexiteers hate her so much.  She is intelligent, well educated and very successful in her chosen careers, but more importantly, it is all those things and the fact that she is not white! 

I'm finding the whole Brexit issue more and more depressing.

 

Firstly, I agree with your general point - I think this woman has been extremely brave when faced with all the vile threats to her, simply for exercising her right as a citizen. Sure, you need big bucks to do it but she had the backing.

 

Secondly, I believe Teresa May is a huge fraud, and simply not up to the task anyway. She lay low on purpose during the referendum (when did anyone see her on the telly supporting remain?). She worked hard to get the outcome in the Tory Party election, where the male candidates self destructed making sure it was an all woman ticket and then acting surprised when the other candidate withdrew - someone who now has a plum government post. Say what you like about Donald Trump - at least he was elected.

 

So, we now enter the Brexit danger period, with an unelected prime minister, who I believe is out of her depth, a leader of the opposition who is a disgrace quite frankly, and seems to have no idea how to articulate a position on party policy.  (I have been a Labour Party member for 50 years but have quit in protest)

 

You have to hand it to the Lib Dems - at least they have a position on Brexit and I think they will benefit at the polls. If Bexiteers are so confident, then a second referendum on the outcome will surely increase the majority in favour - won't it???    The SNP don't seem to  realise that to get a second Scottish referendum they need the agreement of the HOC, but they are certainly a more effective opposition at the moment.

 

Finally, whilst getting this off  my  chest, the thing I find most depressing is trying to have a discussion with Brexiteers on where we are going. All I get is  "You can't accept the will of the people". It's almost a default answer to every query which is raised. (I was simply asking how Airbus and other multi-country projects might be affected, when I got the latest version of this reply)

 

Someone on this thread mention the 8-3 Supreme Court judgement, suggesting it showed a lack of certainty.   On this basis, the  referendum would have been around 6-5.  Hardly a landslide, but you would think, the way it is portrayed as the 'will of the people' that it was!

[dunroaming]

54 minutes ago, emilymat said:

Finally, whilst getting this off  my  chest, the thing I find most depressing is trying to have a discussion with Brexiteers on where we are going. All I get is  "You can't accept the will of the people". It's almost a default answer to every query which is raised.

They have to choose the stock answer because they haven't got anything else.

[Donutz]

On Tue Jan 24 2017 at 2:20 PM, 7by7 said:

I don't know what Miller and her associates hoped to gain when starting this action, or feel they have gained now that they have won. Brexit will happen, like it or not.

 

(...)

Which is what should have happened, would have happened if Miller and her associates had not tried to delay the whole process. I still wonder why she did. To get her name in the papers?

 

 

I hadn't expected this of you 7by7. Now this ruling and these people who called for it only got a bit of attention here, so I have no clue how Miller and her associates come across, but I tend to assume the positive intend in people first. So I would reason, much like Bearboxer did, that it was mainly to make sure Brevity happens in accordance with the law. Making sure that the process is done in a proper legal way with little to no legal arguments left on how Brexit should be handled makes complaints or I'll feelings down the line a whole less likely. 

 

But I do entirely agree with the rest of your post. I think Brexit is foolish and the way this was brought up with the people may not have been the most perfect, but now that it did happen and turned out the way it did, Brexit will need to happen as soon as possible. And whatever deal will replace the EU partnership, it will have to be a two way street. Neither side will allow cherry picking just the bits they like. I do worry how the UK will end up though and if the final deal will be much to be pleased about for Brexiteirs and Bremainers alike. 

[jpinx]

12 hours ago, JB300 said:

 

At which point there's a good chance that the 27 will vote to extend the 2 year deadline (I don't think anybody wants to walk away with no Deal).

You missed TM's Lancaster House speech?  "No deal is preferable to a bad deal....."

 

9 hours ago, emilymat said:

..............................

Finally, whilst getting this off  my  chest, the thing I find most depressing is trying to have a discussion with Brexiteers on where we are going. All I get is  "You can't accept the will of the people". It's almost a default answer to every query which is raised. (I was simply asking how Airbus and other multi-country projects might be affected, when I got the latest version of this reply).......

You're talking to the wrong people.  Brexit means an independent UK, no more silly EU laws that really do not apply in UK, and which cut across the UK cultures.  UK has always been an unhappy partner in the EU, and now the red-line has been crossed and we're on our way out.  Most of EU law will just be transferred to the UK's statute books, but the UK has control of it's own destiny again.  Airbus is doing just fine - why do you think anything will change in that realm? They're muttering about scrapping the double-decker for lack of demand, but those decisions are nothing to do with Brexit.

 

6 hours ago, Donutz said:

I hadn't expected this of you 7by7. Now this ruling and these people who called for it only got a bit of attention here, so I have no clue how Miller and her associates come across, but I tend to assume the positive intend in people first. So I would reason, much like Bearboxer did, that it was mainly to make sure Brevity happens in accordance with the law. Making sure that the process is done in a proper legal way with little to no legal arguments left on how Brexit should be handled makes complaints or I'll feelings down the line a whole less likely. 

 

But I do entirely agree with the rest of your post. I think Brexit is foolish and the way this was brought up with the people may not have been the most perfect, but now that it did happen and turned out the way it did, Brexit will need to happen as soon as possible. And whatever deal will replace the EU partnership, it will have to be a two way street. Neither side will allow cherry picking just the bits they like. I do worry how the UK will end up though and if the final deal will be much to be pleased about for Brexiteirs and Bremainers alike. 

There is considerable debate about the SC's decision, given that they are all Remainers.  Miller et al wanted to throw a few tripwires across the path of Brexit, hoping to bring it down. Obviously they do not admit this publicly, but it is well-known.  They also got and are still getting huge attention for their companies - advertising as extensive as this would have cost a lot more than taking the action - it was partly a  commercial decision. Miller and her cohorts have no interest in whether Westminster follows the correct procedure.  If that was a substantive matter there would have been a much greater groundswell of objection from the legal profession. In the end, Miller et al have succeeded in delaying the process and costing the taxpayer vast sums.  What else has been achieved?

[JB300]

Didn't miss TM's speech but it's only "No Deal" when the negotiations stop, if all 27 EU countries vote to extend the talks then they will continue until either an acceptable deal is reached or they no longer agree to extend the talks

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, JB300 said:

Didn't miss TM's speech but it's only "No Deal" when the negotiations stop, if all 27 EU countries vote to extend the talks then they will continue until either an acceptable deal is reached or they no longer agree to extend the talks

There is no compulsion on UK sitting down to talk about a deal, good or bad.  UK can walk away and the membership will just stop - as will EU's income from UK.

[JB300]

There is no compulsion on UK sitting down to talk about a deal, good or bad.  UK can walk away and the membership will just stop - as will EU's income from UK.

True, all I'm saying is that there isn't necessarily a cut-off date A50 + 2 & the landscape at that time might be quite different than it is today.. e.g http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38749884

I'm feeling quite confident about the UK doing well out of the negotiations but believe a "No Deal" would be a failure on both sides.

[jpinx]

Just now, JB300 said:

 

True, all I'm saying is that there isn't necessarily a cut-off date A50 + 2 & the landscape at that time might be quite different than it is today.. e.g http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38749884

I'm feeling quite confident about the UK doing well out of the negotiations but believe a "No Deal" would be a failure on both sides.

Agreed that a deal is the best outcome -- the EU and UK will need to be friendly trading partners afterwards.  The sooner that deal is put together the better for continuity and stability in both markets.

[dick dasterdly]

On 1/24/2017 at 9:00 PM, Khun Han said:

It's a hollow victory.

 

Who knows why Miller brought the court action? She's certainly a drama queen and attention seeker.

"Who knows why Miller brought the court action? "

 

Presumably there are monetary or personal reasons as to why Miller brought the court action.

 

Of course its possible that she was happy to spend one hell of a lot of money as she cared so much about parliamentary approval, but it seems unlikely that this was the main motivator.

[dick dasterdly]

16 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

The point is that the Supreme Court has upheld, as they interpret it, the UK Constitution, law and parliamentary process. Not about the rights and wrongs of Brexit and whether we should leave or remain. This was about a PM and her cabinet trying to use the Royal Prerogative to by-pass parliament and parliamentary process. Had they been allowed to do this, a precedent, a very dangerous precedent for the UK system, would be established.

PM's and their cabinet are not above or beyond laws and cannot ignore them as they please. Of course she would have had an easier life using the RP, as would her party.

 

Please remember that the Act of Parliament necessary to create the referendum clearly stated it was "advisory". Now, as parliament will have the chance to debate that and vote on it. MP's can certainly take the referendum result, the into account the advisory referendum result, take into account the views expressed by their constituents who they represent and of course party instructions and whips.

 

This is a result for real democracy by ensuring government must follow the law, constitution, and due process, and not try to short circuit it for their convenience.

 

There were a number of petitions lodged with the court and the court selected Miller to be representative. What motivated Mrs. Miller and why she was selected can only be speculated on. 

 

"Please remember that the Act of Parliament necessary to create the referendum clearly stated it was "advisory"."

 

If only the government had made this clear whilst arguing their case prior to the referendum vote - rather than saying that the government would act on the referendum result.

 

Not that it matters, as I'd be suprised if MPs in constituencies that voted strongly 'leave' - vote against activating article 50.