[Merged]Brexit stuff (part 2)

[Paddy]

It's going to be interesting to see how May plays it. The scope of the judgement is very broad, so I think it will be overturned or curtailed in the Supreme Court.
.

I don't think so. It would be like Perry Mason losing a case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_..._Baron_Pannick

[NotAllThere]

We don't have that kind of democracy, we never have. You're promoting a style of democracy that just isn't British.

[NotAllThere]

The use of law and process to stop the will of the people ...

Even the will of the people is subject to law. And a jolly good thing too, or all recruitment consultants would have been strung up by now.

[shaunbhoy]

Not necessarily. Since we have a first past the post electoral system, the majority of people in the UK could, overall, vote for a Brexit candidate and a majority of Bremainer MPs be elected.

What will happen in practice is that any sitting MP that stands for re-election at the next GE (i.e. most of them!) will have their voting choice on Brexit trumpeted from the rooftops. They will then, on a constituency basis, be subject to the backlash that will ensue from their local Electorate.
A great deal of tactical voting will take place to unseat a large number of these charlatans, and it will happen regardless of Party affiliations.

[Old Greg]

It's going to be interesting to see how May plays it. The scope of the judgement is very broad, so I think it will be overturned or curtailed in the Supreme Court. It's completely unclear what is meant by parliamentary approval in this context, but it seems that a motion would not be adequate. Whether it requires an Act through both houses is debatable. Also, it's completely unclear what minimum requirement there might be on the contents of that Act. For example:

Implementing the Resolution of the People Act:

We hereby consent to give notice under Article 50 etc.

END

A simple no-frills Act would easily pass, and the gov't can reject amendments. There isn't a chance in hell of a Commons (or even Lords) majority against a simple Act. If the Lords do create a fuss, they can be circumvented, albeit with some delay.

So, where it gets interesting is in the contents of the Act. What should it say about the negotiating demands? That's where May now has a headache, and she'd be well advised to keep the Act very simple indeed. That said, I think the Supreme Court will overturn or reduce the scope of the judgement. I'm more certain about that than I was about the outcome today, which was fairly finely balanced (and the gov't did not present a good case TBH). In other words, May will probably wait until 7 December, but start drafting a simple Act now.

Bottom line, there's no way that Brexit is getting stopped, even if it means a GE (a GE doesn't circumvent the judgement today, but it does completely change the composition of the Commons and it does impose a manifesto commitment on the Lords).

An amendment requiring a referendum on the negotiated agreement would be fun.

[Old Greg]

What will happen in practice is that any sitting MP that stands for re-election at the next GE (i.e. most of them!) will have their voting choice on Brexit trumpeted from the rooftops. They will then, on a constituency basis, be subject to the backlash that will ensue from their local Electorate.
A great deal of tactical voting will take place to unseat a large number of these charlatans, and it will happen regardless of Party affiliations.

I'm not sure the electorate will be as motivated as you suggest. I do think that the Tory party grass roots tip the balance in favour of the Brexit camp as it will be a brave Tory MP that defies them.

[Lance]

In other words let the people decide but if they make the wrong choice then take it away from them using legal technicalities

It's not a technicality. It's called the law. It was clear cut and I'm amazed that the government thought they could win.
It was a failure of Parliament to allow a referendum that meant anything. So now Parliament has to fix the mess it made.

[jamesbrown]

I don't think so. It would be like Perry Mason losing a case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_..._Baron_Pannick

You could be right, but I think it's more about HMG than Pannick. Having read the judgement, it seems to me that it was largely HMG's incompetence that lost this. Had they been willing to concede the point about A50 being reversible, I think the judgement could've gone the other way. You have to wonder whether they wanted to lose it. Afterall, it was about the necessity of triggering A50 in terms of the rights conveyed by the EC 1972 Act being withdrawn or abrogated. If you break the necessity, you break the argument that the rights are necessarily withdrawn. Also, the judges were pretty scathing about some of the AG's presentation. It was HMG's to lose, and I think they lost it.

[Lance]

An amendment requiring a referendum on the negotiated agreement would be fun.

that's precisely what the LibDems will push. With just 8 MPs I'm not sure I rate their chances. They are the ones who want a snap GE the most as they have the most to win (UKIP the 2nd most).

[jamesbrown]

An amendment requiring a referendum on the negotiated agreement would be fun.

The "Owen Smith".

The reality is that, were the general public to interpret any moves by Parliament as a direct challenge to their prior instructions, the result would be even more emphatic next time. That's how we Brits operate. Awkward buggers.