UK government loses Brexit court case.

[kentonio]

In a humerous (and utterly predictable) move, the government lost the court case demanding that the right to trigger article 50 and leave the EU must be decided by parliament, not by the government using the Royal Perogative. The law on this is perfectly clear, and states that no government can remove rights from British citizens without an act of parliament. Why Theresa May got it into her head she could is frankly bizarre. Why the government is now going to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court is equally bizarre, as they will certainly lose again.

Brexit wise it is hugely unlikely MP's will try and totally overturn Brexit (despite most of them being Remain supporters) because of the whole democracy thing, but it does radically limit the Tories ability to force a 'hard Brexit' which had made the markets **** the bed in terror when it was implied. Todays decision had caused a pretty huge upward spike in the pound, which says a lot.

Theresa May however currently has her surrogates out in the media claiming that they still don't have to consult parliament on the terms of Brexit, and thing it will be ok (when the decision is inevitably sustained in the Supreme Court) to go to parliament, give no details of their negotiation plans and just ask for a yes/no on Article 50. This is stupid, and the MP's certainly will not tolerate it.

On the downside, this latest upset massively increases the likelihood of an early election next year, and the Tories will probably win it with an increased majority. Because people are ****ing idiots.

[Giancarlo]

A hard exit is an all around bad move. A self inflicted wound. But even a soft exit may not be enough to soften the incredible damage snowballing.

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/02/brexit-vote-disposable-incomes-gdp-niesr

The effects are already being felt and inflation has shot up to 4%. Businesses are fleeing the country too.

The best that can be done is try to get a deal out of the EU that mitigates the already spreading damage. A hard exit would crash the UK's economy into deep recession.

Edit: Correction:

Inflation is projected to rise to 4%. It isn't there yet.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/02/uk-inflation-to-rise-to-4-but-niesr-has-missed-something-important-retail-competition/

I bet some want to reverse Brexit now.

[kentonio]

No ****.

[Giancarlo]

I know that this was a vote, but was there any possibility of a "do over"? It was only narrowly passed.

[Proteus_MST]

I know that this was a vote, but was there any possibility of a "do over"? It was only narrowly passed.

Sure ... actually there was a referendum months before the Brexit (interestingly enough from a Pro-Brexit-Person) that dalled a second referendum in case that the Brexit-Voting results were narrow. AFAIK the referendum got more than enough votes to be discussed by the parliament (which, however decided negatively over the contents of the referendum)

[C0ckney]

the thing is that while this decision is probably legally correct (and i've not read it, nor will i have time to, but i wouldn't be quite so sure that the supreme court will see it that way; royal prerogative issues are complex), it just feeds further into the narrative of the out-of-touch establishment trying to thwart the will of the people. this will be further reinforced if, as i expect, any delay to invoking article 50 is occasioned by the house of lords rather than the commons.

a GE would be very interesting at this stage since both major parties are split on this issue, and i don't think that either leader could enforce discipline on this issue if it came down to it.

[C0ckney]

Sure ... actually there was a referendum months before the Brexit (interestingly enough from a Pro-Brexit-Person) that dalled a second referendum in case that the Brexit-Voting results were narrow. AFAIK the referendum got more than enough votes to be discussed by the parliament (which, however decided negatively over the contents of the referendum)

i think you're referring to a petition, which is rather different to a referendum.

but to answer the central question: no. the people were asked a clear question and gave a clear answer. that answer must be respected, and most politicians, even if they are personally against brexit, recognise that. a second vote isn't going to happen, at least not in the near future (40 years passed between the EEC vote and the brexit one).

[kentonio]

the thing is that while this decision is probably legally correct (and i've not read it, nor will i have time to, but i wouldn't be quite so sure that the supreme court will see it that way; royal prerogative issues are complex), it just feeds further into the narrative of the out-of-touch establishment trying to thwart the will of the people. this will be further reinforced if, as i expect, any delay to invoking article 50 is occasioned by the house of lords rather than the commons.

a GE would be very interesting at this stage since both major parties are split on this issue, and i don't think that either leader could enforce discipline on this issue if it came down to it.

Of course the decision was correct, parliamentary sovereignty was determined by the civil war and the issue of Royal Perogative set in stone in a law passed in 1915. This isn't just judges making things up as they go along.

You're quite right though that that is the narrative our ridiculous right wing press will spoon feed their uneducated readership, because far too many British people don't know how their own democracy works.

[kentonio]

i think you're referring to a petition, which is rather different to a referendum.

but to answer the central question: no. the people were asked a clear question and gave a clear answer. that answer must be respected, and most politicians, even if they are personally against brexit, recognise that. a second vote isn't going to happen, at least not in the near future (40 years passed between the EEC vote and the brexit one).

There won't be a second vote, but allowing constitutional changes on a referendum result of about 38% of the country is beyond insane.

[C0ckney]

There won't be a second vote, but allowing constitutional changes on a referendum result of about 38% of the country is beyond insane.

what other way is there, though?

[kentonio]

what other way is there, though?

Maybe do like any other country on earth would have done and set at least a 60% requirement for change?

[C0ckney]

rig it in favour of the status quo in other words. i disagree, for obvious reasons.

[Giancarlo]

No. A bare majority (which this was) simply wasn't enough. You have 47%-48% who didn't want an exit. 60% sounds appropriate. Then to have it approved by parliament with majority vote.

Or don't bother pushing something like this to vote in the first place.

[kentonio]

rig it in favour of the status quo in other words. i disagree, for obvious reasons.

Referendum should always be 'rigged' in favour of the status quo, to prevent wildly radical changes being made base on short term populism. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks that if something isn't working very well you should set it on fire and hope a replacement happens to turn up.

[C0ckney]

Referendum should always be 'rigged' in favour of the status quo, to prevent wildly radical changes being made base on short term populism. Unless you're the kind of person who thinks that if something isn't working very well you should set it on fire and hope a replacement happens to turn up.

well i simply disagree with that. it's a binary choice and, therefore, must be 50%+1 in my view.

but on your other point, the brexit vote isn't short-term populism, it's the culmination of years and years of governments ignoring a large section of the population and, more broadly, european governments deciding the direction of the EU without listening to people or working to convince them, and, as we saw on several occasions, simply ignoring democratically expressed objection to it rather than addressing them.