Brexit and power to the people

I follow the argument about the importance of parliamentary democracy. What I don't understand from your post, ww, is why a withdrawal from the EU would "lead to the removal of the rights of UK citizens".

UK citizens had rights before the EU existed. UK Parliamentary democracy existed before the EU.

Perhaps I did not get enough sleep last night, but I don't understand whitewave
Who is Amino 1?
What is this court case?
Who is "the challenger" and what are they challenging?
Maybe a link (to the Ladybird version for my befuddled brain this morning) might enlighten me?

bags it isn't my argument it is the Qcs
As far as I understand
The EU has instilled rights to the UK citizens through various treaties etc. Like hours directive etc, which have been enshrined in UK law through the peoples representatives in Parliament. The argument therefore is that only parliament can take these rights away, and not some arcane royal Prerogative (my words)

Daphne well
Amino should have read Amio - phone keeps correcting me. That is my querky description of the 3Brexiters.
1 is Davis.
The court case is about the Royal Prerogative and sovereignty and who is entitled to withdraw the UK from the EU.
It's people V the government and about our constitution.
The challengers are two individuals and "the people" represented by 3QCs
Hope that helps.
Boring maybe but I love this sort of stuff

Amigo!!!!!!

One example would be the right to the freedom to live, work and retire in other EU countries. This is something that some of us hold very dear and would want our children and grandchildren to benefit from as well.

Lord Wolfson -Next chief ex. and Tory peer who was a strong leave supporter, has warned May that hard brexit- a stance favoured by May- will isolate Britain and could destroy the economy

Yes mamie

Here we go again! ( enjoy!)

@thatbags

My understanding (for what it's worth) is that the argument isn't that a withdrawal from the EU would "lead to the removal of the rights of UK citizens" but the notification of the withdrawal. In other words, that constitutionally parliament represents the people and is the only body with the right to vote on the withdrawal, not Theresa May and her cabinet, who are claiming that they have the right to make decisions without the support of parliament.

It's an important constitutional issue, not just with reference to Brexit, but to any future decisions the PM should make. It's the beginning of a slippery slope, if PMs are allowed to make decisions without putting them to a parliamentary vote.

A vote would, of course, put many MPs in a very difficult position. If their own opinion differed from their constituents, which would be the case for many, it could mean personal political suicide.

History in the making!! And hopefully another step towards grownup governance.

Indeed it is history in the making! When Brexit is done and dusted (whatever happens), the high court's decision will remain in the history books as a turning point in constitutional history.

Soooo interesting.

I certainly find it amazing to hear, again and again- as on QT last night' what kind of Brexit the UK will wish to opt for.

The UK will not have much to say on the terms- so the dissussion is fairly irrelevant. The EU is making it abundantly clear, and it was clear in EU rules right from the start- a leaving member will not be part in negotiating terms.

Well it depends whether you are a Remainer or a Leaver as to how you view the 'Brexit and power to the people' thread title.

If you voted Remain you might find it just that.

If you voted Leave you might see it as an affront to the democratic will of the people.

You can put your own 'spin' on how this is democratic but there is an irony in using the word democratic these days it would appear when it comes to referendums and vote percentages .

pogs the choice of words was quite deliberate as each side can take what they want from it

I know, I know - some really do not like one paper or another being critisised, and their readers for reading them...

but when you hear some of their columnists, like Isobel Oakeshott, or Katie Hopkins (as in last night on QT and Andrew Neils) - then really- one has to wonder. Facepalm emoticon- truly.

The EU MAY (no pun intended) CHOOSE to negotiate, because it suits them, and only if. There is no way the UK can dictate terms or how soft or hard they want their Brexit. And it is no longer up to them.

It is of course NOT ME saying this- but it is very clear in Article 50 and the procedure for a member to leave. It was clear right from the start- expert and others tried to explain this- but many chose NOT TO LISTEN, CHOSE NOT TO STUDY article 50, chose to put their head in the sand and sing lalalalalalalala rule Britannia- bring back control, independence day, etc.

“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Isn't that the stage we're at now?

No need to shout.

Are you on the right thread Granjura.

I only ask as I don't follow your post to the OP. Is it me?

You missed that very important bit

For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 ... then see above.

I 'wrote' quite loudly, because so many do not seem to understand this, or refuse to.

We're not at that point yet though, are we? So it doesn't apply yet.