Brexit and power to the people

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?

pogs has made the same point in a different way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MPs in Parliament are the representatives of the people.

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

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.

Runnymede all over again!!!!

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.

I can't see that the court will go with Parliament in this climate though.

The OP is quite enigmatic and does not name names but I presume, after googling, that it refers to this case:

www.independent.co.uk/news/people/gina-miller-the-woman-who-could-derail-brexit-a7361221.html

Are you questioning the indendence of the judiciary, whitewave?

It is up to the courts to interpret the law objectively. That is, without any regard to the political situation that obtains at the time. If the challenge falls it should be on a point of law, not on what the Executive (TM) wants.

Should the 'Great' Repeal Act ever go ahead I think there will be further challenges as TM has already proposed that subsequent amendment of UK legislation would not be debated in Parliament. Chilling....

No certainly not! I am worried about the way everything is going in the country

jalima yes she's one of a number of representatives.

bag plebiscites can be set up in a great variety of ways and this is why they can be non binding unless certain criteria are met. This referendum was set up to have the result 'advisory' only - to be binding the majority percentage is normally stipulated - being 60/40 or a two thirds one - this is why the Irish one failed a few tears ago. The referendum was badly set up and not specific enough which is why this idea of the 'will of the people' etc is ridiculous - it was a 72% turnout - normally 75% is required - and with a much higher majority. Even Farage said before the vote that 48/52 was no majority to go by - changed his mind when it was unexpectedly for leave. The results are questionable because of the lower turnout and also the majority being so small - it was only 37% of the electorate and 28% of the population who voted 'out'. There is also the question of at least 25% of postal voters not receiving their papers in time. A very unsatisfactory result all round for such a massive change affecting the whole of the population.
However the Court case is not about this at all but not making a precedent with Parliament not being required to consent.

Another bit of useless information.

The royal prerogative covers stuff like being able to award bling, and accepting a pms resignation and asking someone if they could form a government and other unimportant fal lals but crucially it does cover foreign policy, which presumably what May is banking on in their argument in court next week.

But as our constitution is based on court law and precedent I suppose there is the possibility that the judge could decide that progress would be made if the foreign policy bit should be taken into the jurisdiction of parliament along with everything else, and move the UK constitution closer to the 21st century.

I thought we didn't have a constitution.

waitingfortax.com/2016/10/16/brexit-the-important-role-of-the-court-of-justice/

We do have a constitution; it's just not a written one.

Yes it is all on precedent and set by the courts. I'm just wondering if the court will be willing to overturn the royal prerogative relating to foreign policy. I can't think of a reason why it should be returned to the will of the people.

Which makes it very expensive to police.

Talking about the courts,

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/17/call-to-keep-uk-in-eu-should-be-treason-urges-tory-councillors-petition

We may need to be very careful what we say in future.

I have twice written Boris and got that silly survey coming up about me being a BT user. Are they watching now?

How utterly ridiculous! Honestly where do they find these people. Would the Tower be roomy enough for half the population?! Is hung drawn and quartered still on the books?!

I think that the punishment set out in the 1948 Act, which he suggesting the amendment to, is transportation.

Unfortunately, the Australians have a points sytem, don't they?

I wouldn't mind being transported to the Cayman Islands, though. They're still under Brit control so I think we'd get in quite easily.