Brexit and power to the people

I suppose you won't read it- but here it is, again- clear as a bell:

What is Article 50?

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union allows a member state to notify the EU of its withdrawal and obliges the EU to try to negotiate a ‘withdrawal agreement’ with that state – it involves five points laid out below.

“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.

Call it gloating if you wish - I personally call it FACT

Perhaps 'gloating' is one of those Humpty Dumpty words. As in 'A word can mean anything I want it too'...

Violette

'I think the ultimate decision should be left to the EU and M. Junker ...who would have us all out and the gate slammed shut afterwards ,,,to teach any other EU member state a lesson ...for which we will all suffer ! Power to the People ?? not such a good idea..'

I am sure Monsieur Junker would if he could do exactly that because he is like those in high positions in the EU more interested in the enshrinement of 'Ever Closer Union' and the 'Free Movement of People' over the living standards of the people in the EU who rely on trade.

This has been the crux of all ills pertaining to the EU , not only in the UK. It is why the preferred idea of a Common Market as opposed to a Federal State of Europe has found legs and the likes of Junker know this to be the case, hence only fear and 'teaching lessons' will stop it spreading . If that is the company some like to keep so be it but to others it just appears arrogant and threatening .

As for your point 'Power to the People is not such a good thing ' What is your preferred stance living under Communism, Dictatorship, Removal of Sovereignty to what , a body of people who decree your laws, finances irrespective of whether they are appropriate for national enhancement and standard of living. Hmm.

I voted Remain in the referendum but to be honest I did it with a pen hovering over the ballot paper. After numerous threads and watching /listening/reading posts on GN , media coverage I honestly do not know if my vote would stay the same.

You mean like Brexit, Maizie.

Tbh I'm not bothered about the Court case one way or the other. If that's what it takes to get Brexit moving, fair enough. It's only delaying the inevitable.

Well put, Rosesarered

Its not about being 'bothered or not bothered' à la Tate...

The British people want British Parliamentary Sovereignty and British Law, applied by British Judges in British Courts, according to the British Constitution ...

or not?

I can be 'not bothered' if I want, granjura - I was speaking only for myself of course.

On last night's QT:

Labour MP Lisa Nandy told Question Time: "Britain is leaving the EU and whether or not Parliament has to vote to trigger Article 50, this will happen because, in reality, there are no more than a handful of parliamentarians who would seek to block that decision."

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

Maybe you should try living there before you make sweeping comments. I lived there for 13 years and would go back in a flash! I never met more truer and loyal Brits, or friendlier people than you will find in Gibraltar!

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

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.

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/

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.

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

All stand and salute the tv before bed!

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.