Brexit and power to the people

English Civil War and Charles I's execution too! With hindsight, it's so easy to see where mistakes were made and history could have been different, but we live in the present and don't have the benefit of hindsight. If a spirit from the future had come to earth in 1920s Germany, no doubt the people would have called the spirit a messenger from Project Fear.

Runnymede all over again!!!!

Agreed, trisher. If you look back in history, there are so many times when you ask yourself how things reached such a point. With hindsight, it's possible to pinpoint past decisions, which contributed to later events. Nazi Germany is the obvious one, but there have been others. That's what makes history so fascinating. It's always a question of 'what if...?'

I'm not accusing Theresa May of being a megalomaniac (I hope), but we just don't know who will be PM in 20 or 30 years. Only 25% of those eligible to vote voted for the current government. Theresa May became PM by default. It's difficult to argue that she has a mandate from the people to act alone, which makes a mockery of democracy.

What would happen if in the future we have a PM who really is a megalomaniac? He or she could act alone and overrule parliament on just about everything. He or she would even be able to change laws without consulting parliament and could use notification of Article 50 as a precedent.

If this future megalomaniac has the media and police/armed forces under control, he or she could appeal directly to the 'people' by offering some kind of sweetener, which might even justify abolishing parliament. If you look at the history of dictatorships, there is often that kind of background.

It really is that serious. It's about the relationship between parliament (of all parties) and the cabinet, as well as the relationship between MPs and constituents. Without a US type constitution, this kind of constitutional crisis has been part of the history of the system we now have.

This argument isn't actually anything to do with Brexit really it is a constitutional matter that quite simply poses the question Is Parliament the final arbiter in any decision to do with government or can the Prime Minister use the Royal prerogative? Theresa May thinks she can.

Wiki says
Contrary to widespread belief, the royal prerogative is not constitutionally unlimited. In the Case of Proclamations (1611) during the reign of King James VI/I, English common law courts judges emphatically asserted that they possessed the right to determine the limits of the royal prerogative.

We live in interesting times

MPs in Parliament are the representatives of the people.

The argument is about who has the authority to notify. The people argue that it can only be the body who allowed the EU Act into U.K. law and that was Parliament.

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.

But surely, if we had a referendum, and the majority voted in favour of withdrawing from the EU, then that vote gave the government the authority to trigger the process in accordance with the rules of the EU.

I agree with whitewave. It's to do with who has the right to make the notification.

It's a constitutional issue and would set a very dangerous precedent.

bagsthis court case has nothing to do with overturning the referendum result. It has everything to do with government being accountable and the royal prerogative which many see as arcane and undemocratic.

pogs has made the same point in a different way.

Thanks, daphdill. That's clear enough. What isn't clear is what use referendums are if the "will of the people" can be overturned by parliament. In short, why have a referendum if its result can be ignored?

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

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.

Are you on the right thread Granjura.

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

No need to shout.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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 .

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.

Soooo interesting.

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.

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