Brexit 6?

I don't know any Brexiters who wanted to shut democracy down.

May, Johnson, Davis, Fox -amongst others -all wanted to bypass parliament and decide on their own the way forward. An outrage to democracy in my opinion.

Maybe not, but allowing the cabinet to make important decisions would have been against constitutional law. I guess that the British, the English in particular, don't think much about the role of the judiciary and parliament in our constitution, because we've muddled on for centuries without any great upheaval, but it is important as a matter of principle. Countries with younger constitutions and a more turbulent history know that.

My reply was to Ana.

The elected Prime Minister proposed a Referendum after winning a General Election in which his manifesto stated that he would have a Referendum. Parliament voted to hold a Referendum by a large majority, opposed by the Scottish Nationalists but not by Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Green parties.

The Referendum was held during which it was made abundantly clear that Leave meant Leave and the Prime Minister said that, if the country voted Leave, he would trigger Article 50 straightway.

There is no question about the democratic legitimacy of the Referendum; and according to Remain and Leave campaigns, no question about what it meant, at least until the result was known.

I don't see a democratic deficit. I see a cock-up by Parliament, agreeing to a Referendum but not dotting the i's and crossing the t's in law. If Parliament had acted sensibly in voting for the Referendum, the position would have been as clear in law as it seemed to most of MPs, campaigners and the population.

So what happens next? There will be a debate about triggering Article 50 in which all the arguments will be re-aired. If we assume Article 50 is triggered, the people in government who have prepared for negotiations, will negotiate. I hope they will negotiate hard because the EU will.

In such negotiations, I think I would prefer May and Davies to Corbyn and Haddon.

The court case wasn't about the legitimacy of the referendum. It was about how Article 50 is triggered.

It is vital that Parliament has a voice on this. 48% of those who voted didn't want to leave the EU and they do have a right to have their voices heard, so that negotiations take their views and concerns into account. Government cannot escape the consequences of Brexit, intended or unintended.

Has anybody invented a word like Remoaner for those who can't accept the judgment of the Supreme Court?

PS. There was some nutjob on a Radio 2 phone-in earlier today, who kept ranting about the Supreme Court's judges' having committed high treason.

daphnedill, has anyone actually said they won't or can't accept the judgment of the Supreme Court?

Certainly no one on GN has - for once we all seem to be in agreement that justice has now been seen to have been done.

Do hope Miller isn't getting any unpleasant messages

I am not moaning about the judgement; but I am not sure what difference it will make. I hope nobody sends or receives unpleasant messages but sadly, we know they will.

Allowing the cabinet to make important decisions would have been against constitutional law . Maybe but the passage of Maastrict and Lisbon Treaties, which had significant constitutional impact, were seemingly passed on the nod. It's a funny old world.

Charlie Mullins (boss of Pimlico Plumbers and one of Cameron's 'golden boys') has been getting death threats, because he put up £80,000 for the court case.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-mullins/brexit-eu-referendum_b_8938688.html

Errmm! Nice people!

It will make a difference in the future of constitutional law, because no precedent will have been set. It will also give MPs an opportunity to discuss the terms - that's what Parliament is supposed to be about.

Ana No, they just moan.

So do some Remainers - some people are never satisfied!

But Brexiters have become expert moaners - they've had 40 years to hone their skills!

Hmm...Remainers aren't used to not getting their own way, so they have taken extra umbrage!

Pleased to know my crowdfunding money wasn't wasted.
Not that it would have been whateverthe outcome. However, as Starmer said, it could have been sorted without all this extra taxpayers money if only May had done the decent thing and accepted the first court's decision.

Sorry, Cunco, but who is Haddon?

Shame IDS can't understand.

twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/823850944228159489/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

With regard to the Euro, countries that are not in the Eurozone often get mentioned, but there are also countries that use the Euro that are not members of the EU.
They do it for reasons given in Maizie's article, the idea of social cohesion. 70% of those in the Eurozone like using it.

This is getting silly but those voting OUT in 1975 did not moan. We accepted the decision and carried on. The campaign was led mainly by Tony Benn so one would have expected little else. My views on most things differed from Tony Benn but not about accepting the view of the people.

As to the future, I suspect Referendums will be scarce and better constructed. I hope that Parliament will not give away further sovereignty which is, in my view, unconstitutional, but who knows? If we stay in the EU, we will probably have to join the euro and a further chunk of sovereignty will go out the window en route to the United States of Europe.

If there is a real debate on the terms of Brexit, I hope someone will address the future of Britain in the EU. We have heard a lot of stories about how dreadful it will be if we leave but who will make a positive case for the ever-closer Union to convinvince us knuckle-draggers to change our tune?

I find it odd that people who believe so profoundly in the supremacy of Parliament seem to care little about Parliament passing over its powers to outside bodies, not answerable to Parliament or to us.

Apologies, Jen, I meant Tim Farron. I don't know where Haddon came from.

cunco where have you been for the past 40 years. You need to tell that to Major and Thatcher. Look at the grief they got from the Tories.

Shamelessly copied and pasted from a mumsnet thread:

On the continuous retention of vast sovereignty by the UK by the way, this is not my opinion. It is fact verified by constitutional lawyers who write books on this subject ( yes dreaded experts) and also the government sources below.The now disunited kingdom's decision to delegate some minor amounts of shared sovereign power to the European Union over matters such as Agriculture and trade was a calculated decision.Membership has strengthened the UK’s economic position making us (formerly) the world's fifth largest economy and helped maintain peace between member states.

Numerous Eurosceptics ..... repeatedly assert the myth that to exit means regaining sovereignty, but it is a myth.If you want to justify the result of the referendum by all means try, but not on the basis of control or sovereignty because that is just not correct.

*Objective fact*The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget in 2014/15 was 1.2% of Britain’s total spending of £735 billion that year. British parliament still had sovereign control of over 98% of public spending.(HM Treasury and institute for fiscal studies- summarised in chart here medium.com/*@ChathamHouse*/five-things-to-know-about-sovereignty-in-the-uk-s-eu-referendum-debate-2ed7ab82bd41#.27zhptk52)*

Determined* exclusively by UK -*Health policy. Education. Fiscal policy. Public expenditure. Monetary policy. Income tax. Corporation tax.Capital gains tax.Inheritance tax. Border control and security. Non-EU immigration.Pensions.Welfare. Foreign policy decisions. Defence. Military Intelligence. Development cooperation and humanitarian aid.All local government.National policing.Crime. *Media and press regulation.Family law. Property law and succession of estates.

*( Objective facts Sources -* 1. HM Government Balance of Competences review. 2. Chatham house- Niblett.Link in previous post, and general knowledge.)

*Determined by joint UK and other European Union member states*
Trade.* Energy.Climate policy.Environment.Agriculture. Some Employment. Consumer.Transport. Some crime. Asylum.VAT. F*oreign policy (EU). Single Market.Competition.Fisheries.EU migration.( Sources 1. HM Government Balance of Competences review. 2. Chatham house- Niblett.)

*Objective fact* The key benefit of membership has been peace, prosperity and unfettered access to 16.6 Trillion a year in a Single Market of 500m people.
*(http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/)

The overwhelming evidence is that the small amount of delegation of some shared sovereignty, mainly tedious but necessary standardisation and safety in trade and food is a price worth paying for the immense benefits.

I have no comment

Thanks, Cunco. You had me worried, mentioning a politician twice of whom I hadn't heard.

Conservative and Labour governments passed over powers to the EU. I am not partisan in my criticism. I have little time for Major, none for Blair. I suspect most MPs (as Ken Clarke admitted) did not read the whole of the Maastrict Treaty because (I hope I am not misquoting him), nobody could.

I admit that Mumsnet is a great authority on constitutional matters so who am I to argue how much sovereignty has passed? We know from Full Fact that it not insignificant because if it was, Full Fact would have said so.

The real questions, though, lie in the future. Again, I ask who will make the positive case for the UK in the ever-closer Union in the long run? The Referendum presented a great chance for Europhiles to state their case and win us Leavers over. If they did, I didn't hear it over Project Fear which ultimately turned people off.

I disagree with Michael Hesletine about the EU but I believe he is right to say that if we stay in, we will join the euro. Ultimately, the euro only works if it is an economic union, not just a monetary union. It means significantly more transfer of sovereignty.

In the old days, people in favour of the EU used to say that the USA works so why not the USE? I used to point out that, economically, the Union works for some states but leaves others way behind. I suspect these days few will want to use the USA under President Trump as the blueprint.