Friday, November 4, 2016

Brexit - a sequel


I don't normally post about politics, but I made an exception after the Brexit referendum in June. I wondered then how it would actually be brought to pass. I had optimistically thought that no PM would have the effrontery to try to take Britain out of the EC without parliamentary support - basically invoking Royal privilege. And I had hoped that any PM who tried to do so would lose a vote of confidence and have to resign.


I may have been too optimistic - perhaps the battles that were fought for supremacy of parliament really have been forgotten. However, this may be moot. The High Court has now intervened to rule that parliamentary approval to trigger Article 50 is required.


So if parliament was too spineless to insist on its prerogative, won't it just roll over and agree? I wonder. The thing is, they will have to approve an actual deal, which may be quite harmful to a lot of their constituents. And members will be rightly held responsible for that. Could be interesting. And there's still the Scotland thing.










Posted by Nick Stokes at 9:04 AM

9 comments:

  1. William M. ConnolleyNovember 4, 2016 at 9:06 AM

    > they will have to approve an actual deal

    Why? The court has only said "you must get Parl approval for triggering article 50". So if they put forward a motion saying "Trigger article 50" and nothing else, there's no particular deal needing approval.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick StokesNovember 4, 2016 at 9:22 AM

      William,
      Yes,they could just vote to let the government do as it pleases, although the judgment seems to say that they actually have to modify or repeal the 1972 law. But in any case having voted, they will be held responsible for the results. Spinelessness is one thing, but that sounds like suicide.

      Delete
    2. bill hNovember 5, 2016 at 5:01 AM

      William, our Prime Minister was seeking to invoke Article 50 without,it would appear, making her aims in the ensuing negotiations known. For instance is it a case of immigration control trumps continued membership of the free market? At least now Parliament can demand that she make those aims clear before permitting her to act. Sounds like a big deal to me.

      Still, enough mention of "trump" and "deal".

      Delete
  2. PeterNovember 4, 2016 at 11:51 AM

    Couch it in such as way as to make it very clear that it enacting the will of the people...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bill hNovember 5, 2016 at 5:03 AM

      Exactly, Peter, as everyone knows, the question in the referendum was: "do you wish to leave the EU and give the Prime Minister complete control over the terms under which they leave".

      Warning the foregoing may contain traces of irony.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousNovember 6, 2016 at 4:58 AM

    At least it won't take too long for parliament to scrutinise the governments plan

    The longest part will be turning over the piece of A4 paper to check they are not looking back.

    Tadaaa

    ReplyDelete
  4. DavidRNovember 6, 2016 at 10:26 AM

    "And there's still the Scotland thing."

    Not to mention 'the Northern Ireland thing'. We still don't know whether we're getting a hard border with the south, in which case they may as well paint target roundels on it for the republican dissidents; or whether the hard border will be between us and the rest of the UK, in which case expect much frothing at the mouth from the unionists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andy MitchellNovember 6, 2016 at 10:55 PM

    Soft means hard. Apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  6. TadaaaNovember 7, 2016 at 3:40 AM

    I am beginning to suspect that this whole Brexit debacle is simply a conspiracy to prevent us, here in the UK, from laughing at the folks across the pond

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)