Brexit and power to the people

Please, please, we can only hope.

If there is a snap election, maybe Fox will be defeated. Every cloud...

I also agree with the courts decision. We elect MPs to Parliment to make these sort of decisions, we don't have Referendums over other say NATO membership, Hinkley Point etc. so why should the EU be any different? And dont say because we dont want to be goverened by a unelected Brussels elite, Teresa May is unelected by the country let alone by the Tories and She is well on the way to being a dictator if it wasn't for our wonderful legal system. Will she follow Turkey and Hungary and sack our judges? I have the wonderful Liam Fox as my MP! And the majority of his constituency voted remain.

Absolutely WW. You have summed up my reaction to the verdict perfectly.

I have been reading about the judgement and apparently it was expressed with such force and clarity that it is difficult to understand the reason behind the government appeal.

It would be so much wiser for May to accept the verdict and do what she should have done in the first place and gone to parliament to ask permission to invoke A50 with a clear explanation of what she hopes to achieve.

Ana, I have read the short list for selection to stand for labour at the
Richmond bi election, one claims to be - red labour and Richmond momentum

Why? Surely voting Labour would be out of the question for you with JC as leader - there are alternative options. Go on, be a devil...vote Plaid!

The thought of an election next year is a terrifying thought for me

I agree with the courts decision, I am not comfortable with this power to the people cry, to vote to give the PM complete freedom to do what she wants and sod the elected MP's is a dictatorship , we voted out of Europe not out of Europe and have a dictatorship

Contrasting opinion from Tom Newton Dunn. He gives seven reasons why he doesn't think a general election next year is likely.

Negotiating hand???!!! Have they got one. Parliament does not at this stage need or indeed want to know blow by blow but what MUST be agreed is the overarching strategy.

I am unclear as to what benefit a snap election would give to the Government. They may consider re-election be a clear mandate, but for what? They, assume will not break the law so if the judgement sticks there is nothing they can do about that. It is already accepted that Brexit means Brexit ad nauseum.

I understood the facts to be that as parliament signed all the papers to enter the EU, only parliament can remove the UK from the EU, or supervise the removal.

Makes sense. In the interview with David Dimbleby on the One Show he said it was obvious from the beginning that too many people just didn't know anything about what leaving the EU will mean, or how it can be managed.

Andrew Lilico on the need for a snap election after the court ruling.

The reason for the concern about the judgement isn’t actually much to do with “interfering judges” or “giving away the Government’s negotiating hand”. It’s that there is a widespread view that MPs, the majority of whom argued against leaving the EU, cannot be trusted with any material role whatsoever in defining it.

There will be an MP in December. The re-election of Zac is December 1st. Nothing will happen about Brexit until then.

Anyway, he voted to leave. He just wanted more of a say in how, but will not get it if May has her way.

Are MPs not allowed to resign on a matter of principle?

That is exactly why that MP should not give in and resign.

He should do the job he was elected for and represent his constituents and their views.

I think that people are muddling Brexit and the Sovereignty of parliament which the court case is about.

The referendum advised parliament that a small majority of those who voted wanted to leave the EU. That is not in question.

However what the UK will look like when we leave the EU was not voted on. This is quite properly subject to democratic debate.

A small clique of reactionary right wingers are now desparately trying to shut down debate and decide for themselves what a future Britain should look like. 99.99% of the UK population cannot be shut out of these decisions. We have a representative democratic parliament whose job it is to do just that. Let them do their job - it is what we pay them to do.

So - he resigns so they have no MP pro-tem? No-one to speak up for his constitutents?

I think he should stay and state his and their case - unless he is going to change parties in which case yes, he would have to go for re-election.

Jalima, the MP wants more parliamentary scrutiny and he's not going to get it.
If the government goes to appeal, that will be in December. That only leaves three months before we leave the EU. Not long enough for the job that needs to be done.

This is brilliant, the Sun complaining about these loaded foreigners influencing our plans.

politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/the-sun-rails-against-foreign-born-millionaires-influencing-the-british-public-a-bit-like-its-owners/

djen they used to do that, didn't they?

All stand and salute the tv before bed!

He says:
It has become clear to me over the last few months that my growing and significant policy differences with the current government mean I am unable to properly represent the people who elected me

That is just daft.
Of course he can continue to represent his constituents' views.

Did you hear about the Tory MP who wants the BBC to play the National Anthem every night to celebrate Brexit?

politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/bbc-newsnight-brilliantly-trolls-tory-mp-who-called-for-bbc-to-play-national-anthem-every-night/

politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/breaking-tory-mp-to-resign-over-governments-criticisms-of-judges-over-article-50-verdict/

The MP has resigned because of the government's criticism of the judges. He is a QC.

In fact, it was just a waste of time and money.

No, it wasn't. It established that, according to the law, the Prime Minister cannot invoke Article 50 without consulting Parliament. That the Prerogative powers which she proposed to use cannot be used if they affect the rights of UK citizens established by prior legislation (or even, I believe, rights established by Common Law). It's about Parliamentary sovereignty limiting the powers of the Executive (government)and has applications far beyond the current situation.

Parliament is highly unlikely to vote against invoking Article 50