Brexit and power to the people

The UK had already been in the EU for two years by 1975. The referendum was whether to stay, but you're right. It was debated in parliament for ages - both times.

Not so far! Let us hope our parliamentary representatives get the chance to indicate to May exactly what they want from Brexit.

Out of interest I looked up the results of the 1975 referendum, when the majority wanted UK to join the EU.
The results were
Yes 67.23%
No 32.77%
Turnout 64.03%
A much more decisive majority. And it seems that the issue was debated, and voted on, in the Commons for some time in preparation. Which didn't happen this time.

The Brexiters are trying to say that is about remainers scuppering Brexit.

Nothing could be further from the truth, it is about where sovereignty lies. It is particularly important in this case as the country is split down the middle and the whole of the electorate must be taken along with this momentous decision and what the UK will look like. Sovereignty resides in Parliament and has done so since something like 1609 (someone can correct that). It is a constitutional matter and is enormously significant.

The issue is that who decides to strip the British citizens of their rights. So that is why Brexit and who makes the decisions is so important. If the vote had been remain it would not have mattered because the British citizen and their existing rights would not have changed.

It is about where power and sovereignty resides.

This is what Angela Smith, the Labour Leader in the Lords, says:

"We will scrutinise. We will examine. But my Lords – we will not block. But neither will we be bullied into abdicating our responsibilities.

We have to be adult about this. We can’t have the most enthusiastic Brexiters crying foul every time Parliament asks for more details or seeks to scrutinise.

This can’t be the only issue on which the Government is allowed a blank cheque without any accountability. It’s complex, it’s difficult. And the Government should see this House as an asset and not try to avoid helpful scrutiny."

This is an important constitutional issue and would set a precedent for the future. It needs to be decided who is responsible - Parliament, made up of MPs from a number of parties, or a handful of Cabinet ministers, all from the same party. It's not just about Brexit.

But nothing would have happened if Remain had won, so what's your argument?

This is an important constitutional issue.

One of the named claimants is a British hairdresser, who voted to leave.

The point of the argument is that had remain won by the same majority, it would have been acceptable without a murmur. But because it didn't go the way of the vested interests of the business, money oriented bureaucrats and bankers, the result was some how unfair, unjust and plain ridiculous and must be overturned at all costs. I so nearly abstained, and now wish I had. I'd certainly never vote in another referendum, although I doubt they'll ever be another after this farce. As Henry Ford once famously said, you can have whatever colour car you like so long as its black!!

The worry is, that Parliament will be tied up for ages in sorting this out, and uncertainty is the one thing that really does hit financial markets.Yes, Supreme Court now, so have to wait and see.

No, there wouldn't have been this same case of course, but it was taking issue with a 'power to the people' from the point of view that if Remain had won the day as it were, how much sympathy would there have been for trying to change the outcome of a democratically held referendum.
I believe the group who brought this claim to court were a mix of legal and business people.

If the outcome of the referendum had been Remain, there would not have been a case, so I'm not sure of the point of your argument.

What vested interest do the people who brought the court case have?

It's now going to the Supreme Court. Whatever the outcome, it's an important constitutional issue beyond Article 50.

Actually, you mean power to a small group of people with vested interests, who are challenging the referendum upon a point of law.Had the Remain side been the majority would you have seen it as 'power to the people' if the same group had brought this appeal? All this is doing, is possibly tangling up the leaving process for years, and in doing so will be very bad for the economy as it involves yet more uncertainty about things and puts off triggering article 50.
Parliament need to put something in place as fast as possible to stop this happening.

Very good news! The govt. are planning an appeal.
I was just going to post this link:
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785

Power to the people!!!!!!

Court ruling that May can't trigger A50 without parliamentary approval.

Our rights cannot therefore be stripped from us without our say!!

Good

From an email sent by my MEP.

www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2016/oct/28/lessons-be-learned-ceta-debacle

Sorry, www.globaljustice.org.uk

'If the EU parliament votes to ratify CETA, the deal will then be 'provisionally implemented' as early as 2017. This means that the parts of the deal that are deemed to affect European law and not national law will be implemented. But to come fully into force, CETA must still clear some 38 national and regional parliaments in the EU in the coming years.

The parliament of Wallonia, the French-speaking Belgian region which has already opposed CETA and postponed the signing, has been promised that they will be able to stop the ratification of CETA when they get a formal vote on it. Unless there are substantial changes, they – and hopefully other parliaments – will use that veto.

What’s more, the whole ‘corporate court’ concept will now go to the highest European court to rule on its legality – something which risks invalidating the EU’s entire trade agenda.

We still have a chance to stop CETA when the EU parliament votes on it.'
From www.globaljustice.co.uk

www.patients4nhs.org.uk/the-eu-ftas/

Are you happy about it?

durhamjen

"Theresa May is going to find it increasingly difficult to get agreements with all the EU countries now CETA has all but gone."

Just goes to show we shouldn't believe all we are told.

Te Canada EU Trade Agreement , CETA, has just been signed!

niggly

I really dislike it there. Hot, dusty overbuilt, crowded, Architecture naff. The thought of living there would fill me with horror .

Here is a suggestion to suit Gibraltar et al.

www.euroweeklynews.com/3.0.15/news/on-euro-weekly-news/uk-news/141726-why-doesn%E2%80%99t-england-just-leave-the-uk

Would keep everyone happy (except maybe the Welsh)

Power to the people.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/10/25/why-th-end-of-the-canadian-trade-deal-is-good-news/

Theresa May is going to find it increasingly difficult to get agreements with all the EU countries now CETA has all but gone.

www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/16-03CETA.pdf

An academic paper showing how the people would not benefit from CETA.

So disappointed. I was really looking forward to a trip "beyond the seas" Can we start a petition to get him reinstated?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-councillor-demands-a-treason-charge-for-anyone-supporting-eu-membership-a7365916.html

No free trips anywhere. He's been suspended.