Court ruling
- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The High Court has ruled the UK Government must get consent (presumably in the form of an Act) from Parliament before it can trigger the formal process of leaving the EU.
It's most likely that it will get a bill past the Commons (but watch out for drama), and will eventually have to invoke the Parliament Act on the Lords (where Lib-Dems will vote as a solid bloc to block passage and thre'll be enough EU positive Lords of other parties t join the fun). That adds a year to the story.
So, Artcle 50 won't be invoked in March 2017, which means we'll still be in the EU come the next Europarl elections (that could become the second referendum). It also probably means the May administraion will have to spell out what sort of Brexit deal they want, and probably means a soft Brexit becomes more likely, as she will have to buy off the critics because of her slim majority.
Odds on an early General Elections will have fallen…
That's what the Brexiteers said they wanted, isn't it, parliament "taking back control" and becoming "sovereign" again? The dominant section of the ruling class is mounting a determined rearguard action against the crazy decision (from their point of view) that Cameron took the risk of allowing the electorate to take.
ALB wrote:That's what the Brexiteers said they wanted, isn't it, parliament "taking back control" and becoming "sovereign" again? The dominant section of the ruling class is mounting a determined rearguard action against the crazy decision (from their point of view) that Cameron took the risk of allowing the electorate to take.Although there is no written constition I would have though that this is a constitional question. It could be logically argued that if there was a written constitution a 52% majority is not sufficient to make constitutional changes. I am no expert on the US constition but I believe a two thirds majority is required.
The issue is that unlike, say, the AV referendum, Parliament did not write into law what the result of the referendum would be: so, in law, it had no practical effect (the effect is moral only). Since The Single European Act enshrines rights and EU law into UK law, the argument was that Articlae 50 by Royal Perogative would amount to law making by Executive Fiat, and only Parliament can make law.The US constitution is:
Quote:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[3]In the UK, a majority of a quorum (I believe 100) of MPs can do the job.
Quote:The Deputy First Minister Mr McGuinness declined to rule out the party’s MPs attending Westminster to vote against it, telling a Stormont press conference: “Who knows where all of this is going to end up? There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that all of us face immense challenges that lie ahead.Time to resurrect Marxism-ROFLMAOism
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.