Bill of Rights 1688

Triggering Article 50 is a notification under a treaty to the EU, ie a formal communication to the European Council stating our intention to leave the EU.

A notification under a treaty is a Royal Prerogative act, and as such does not need Parliament's approval.

That is as stated by Robert Rogers, former clerk of The House of Commons.

Ironically David Davis in 1999 tried to reduce the use of The Prerogative, but was defeated - by the House of Commons...

 

I wonder if the people who voted out may now possibly regret it?

 

Rubbish. Dan Jarvis didn't run for election in a party that so much as promised an EU referendum. You should have voted for UKIP or Tories for that.

 

People have voted Brexit to 'take back control' of our right to make our own laws, not accept those made in Brussels. And now they are wanting to bypass the very institutions that make those laws- our parliament. Unreal

 

dan Jarvis should do what the majority of his electorate want, which is to leave the eu for whatever reason, not what he wants or that treacherous cockwomble corbyn wants but the community he is paid to represent

 

I'm a little bit puzzled about your attitude here. A referendum was held and the results of that referendum should be upheld. Are you saying that if the deal negotiated is that we leave the EU but to retain access to the single market and do not gain any border controls but vastly increase our contributions to the EU the you think he should vote unquestioningly for that. Is that really what you want for MPs to have no regard for what is negotiated? To vote yes regardless of context. Fair enough if it is seems a bit weird to me as you could be encouraging him to vote for the exact opposite of what his constituents voted for.

 

before we can put anything on the table or start negotiations article 50 must be triggered then its not we might leave, its we're off but lets talk about who gets the genesis cd's. its a divorce before who gets what is decided you got toget divorced, BUT ,I've no doubt there'll be tentative whisperings and "wink wink" if you do that we'll do this

 

Incorrect.

Have a read of the opening post and you may then understand why that opinion is wrong.

Robert Rogers is a very solid Hereford citizen (in fact he's Baron Lisvane now) but he is not a lawyer, and not an acknowledged expert on constitutional law. (He is pretty hot on parliamentary procedure, which is different).

The royal prerogative does not run in areas where Parliament has acted. It operates only in those ares not legislated upon by Parliament.

 

So I'm an MP who wants to do my best for you. You want me to vote to trigger Article 50 without any knowledge of what will follow. If we still have to have free access of labour and contribute to the EU budget afterwards have I done what my constituents want? You are boiling a multifaceted very difficult question into simplistic ideas. It's not straightforward.

 

Is the argument not that Parliament "legislated" for a vote upon Brexit? So they're stuck with the consequences by virtue thereof?

Bit beyond me is all this....

 

Dunno. Pseudo intellectuals know better than the rest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No. If Parliament had specified in the referendum legislation that (something like..) "in the event of a vote to leave the EU the European Communities Act 1972 shall hereby be repealed on a date to be specified by the secretary of state....." then your view would be correct. As it stands, the consequences of a leave vote are not specified in the referendum. [Lazy drafting by Cameron's team] Therefore a seperate piece of legislation is required. That will require a vote in Parliament. That's what I expect the High Court case (and the Suprerme Court appeal) to state.

 

Mmmm..... well one might suspect that a cocksure Cameron team (not that I'm suggesting you were in the vanguard thereof) might have had no interest at all in taking care of any appropriate drafting at the time.

Anyway, if all this is a means of defeating the will of the people then it is not cricket.

I mean...we still want a free market but Europe won't allow us one. We know that.

We want to stop unlimited immigration but Europe won't allow us that. We know that.

So it's down to negotiating the best terms innit?

Off we go!

 

TBH, I think Cameron was so sure he'd 'win' the referendum that he didn't think it worth doing a proper job. He was perhaps buoyed by his wins on PR and Scottish independence. I don't doubt that the litigants in this case are motivated by 'defeating the will of the people' - or to be more correct, 52% of the people! As everyone knows, I've been for remain all along, but at this point I've become more interested in the legal and constitutional aspects of all this.

Assuming Brexit happens, we can have free movement and single market or border controls and no single market. The EU will not agree to anything in between. So that's the choice. Parliamentary vote and a possible Brexit veto would mean an election, which might be another referendum in disguise!

In the meantime, we've now got the prospect of Joxit!

 

Why is anything still being debated.

It was same on QT last night. Soft Brexit hard Brexit what kind of Brexit.

People of this country was asked one question. In or out.

Whether you or anyone or I agree or not the vote was out.

We weren't offered slightly out or slightly in.

The 2 parts you point out shouldn't need to be debated based on the question we were voting on.

On that vote it clearly answers Control of boarders and no single market access.

What am I missing here for all this type of Brexit argument

 

What you are missing is that there are countries who are not in the EU and yet are still part of the single market. Also, there are coutries in Europe who are part of neither. The ballot did not ask which option we want. It probably should have done, but it didn't. Hence the debate.

 

Wouldn't that have been like asking me if I fancied shagging Emma Watson?

In that there is a problem with another party other than me needing to provide their agreement.....

 

I'm really not sure where I stand on this, but QT missed a key point last night. A 2% swing in the vote would have altered the outcome completely. The question is did all of the 52% that voted out do so on the basis that they would end up with hard Brexit? Because Vote Leave spent a huge amount of time stressing our importance to Europe and that we would be able to negotiate a favourable deal (or soft Brexit).

So would the outcome of the referendum be the same if the only option on the table was hard Brexit? Would 2% who voted out suddenly think that wasn't a good outcome? I'm guessing anyone who voted remain would not change their mind to a hard Brexit option (although they may do for a soft Brexit option).

I suppose this is the problem with having a binary referendum on a hugely complex issue.

 

Who is Emma Watson?

 

I'm not missing that, I understand it. I am leading up to my next comment (which will be detailed in reply to Ark as it covers both I think)