brexitSo, it appears that Brexit means Brexit, but only if parliament agrees.

The English High Court has given a judgement, and on a strict reading of the law, three judges have found that May cannot use royal prerogative and must put the matter to parliament.

Judges (even if they are gay…the Daily Mail, turning seven shades of purple with indignation at the judgement of an all-British court, pointed out that one of the judges was homosexual, as if that meant that his law degree and years of experience were worthless) are bound to interpret the law as it is written. And that seems to be the way that the law is written.

So where does it go from here?

brexit1David Brexit has said that the government will appeal to the UK Supreme Court, which has the power to uphold or overturn the ruling of the High Court. After that, it would be unlikely that the UK government could take the matter further.

An intelligent reading of the subject is given by Craig Dalzell here.

It seems to me that, given that the election of MPs predates the referendum, and that the referendum was a one issue question,  the referendum results might be taken as a more reliable indication of the will of the people on the matter, and consequently  MPs would be foolish  to vote against the way that their constituents voted. This would mean, of course, that every MP in Scotland, including Mr Mundell, should vote against Brexit.

Voting to a party whip, or on one’s own conscience would be inadvisable. It would give the impression that the opinion of an individual MP was more important than that of their constituents.

I also think that giving parliament the right to overturn a democratic vote on a single subject might set a dangerous precedent for the future. Clearly, this is significant to me as far as a Scottish Independence referendum is concerned.

brexNigel Farage sounded, to put it mildly angry, in a tweet which read:

“I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.!”

For once I agree with him, although you can’t help but laugh at the irony as far as he is concerned, as illustrated in a response from James Melville:

“British laws for British people. Taking control back. Parliamentary sovereignty. Isn’t that what you wanted?

It’s a vexed question, with sensible arguments on both sides, and it is worth repeating that judges make decisions like this, not based on common sense, but on a strict reading of law.

I’d be interested to hear your opinions, as ever?

73 thoughts on “BREXIT MEANS…ERM…”

  1. If they lose the verdict in the “Supreme” court then they could always take it to the European courts for a ruling.
    Well,perhaps not.
    I think that they have to respect the outcome of the referendum,otherwise,what is the point in having one in the first place and as you say,there will be a huge public backlash should they vote it down.
    MPs should vote it down for the good of the UK nations but as always will put party and self interest before that and vote it through.
    The Lords would be an entirely different matter however,too many vested interests in Remaining so would reject exit negotiations if possible.
    However,it would be a suicide note for that establishment as they would be seen as thwarting the will of elected MPs as well as the plebiscite resulting in a lot of angry plebs.
    So I think we can expect further delays but ultimately,the democratic will of the people must be respected,or else…..


    1. LOL Take it to Luxembourg? Yep. I’d love to see Farage’s face if they did that and Luxembourg ruled that May could act for the Queen!

      Of course they won’t. The judges have given an interpretation of English Law, and it would me madness to take it farther.

      Yes, I think it will go through too. Although I’d expect every MP in Scotland to vote the way their constituents voted.


  2. I would like to see Parliament vote on this but I don’t expect them to vote against it or even put their power to good use. If only there was an effective opposition…

    I still don’t understand how the government conflated leaving the EU with leaving the customs union and leaving the single market and changes to international aid and everything else. It strikes me that they do need a mandate to go further than the exact wording of the referendum (the one thing they have failed to do is actually leave the EU or even set a firm data for departure). Parliament should play a role in that. An election might help. If only there was an effective opposition…


    1. If only. I think the SNP, and independents, do a reasonable job but even with 93% of Scottish MPs they are in a hopeless minority. If the Labour Party were just one party of the left instead of being a party of the left and of the right, then we might be able to work together.

      Still, I think this will be interesting. A general election would surely only produce the same result as now. I mean who’d vote for a pile of people who in a desperate attempt to hurt their own leader, vote to continue to aide and abet the slaughter innocent children in Yemen?

      Not me. Not ever.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It will certainly be interesting. I wonder who will vote for and against. I just looked it up and Kenneth Clarke is still an MP. Would he vote against A50? I guess he would.


        1. I guess he would. But, surely he will take into consideration what his constituents voted, and reflect their views in his vote.

          I know that every constituency in Scotland voted remain. Even Fluffy’s.

          Will he vote with the government or with his constituents?

          Will David Davis come round and duff him up if he defies the whip?

          Will he still have a seat if it comes to a General Election?

          Will there ever be honey for tea again… Oh no sorry, wrong blog.


      2. I suppose Kenneth Clarke could argue that he stood as a pro-Euro MP and that his views have been clear for many years. He could also point to his party’s manifesto at the the 2015 election, which was clearly to remain in the EU. The truth is that the UK doesn’t have a system of direct democracy and is ill-equipped to deal with plebiscites.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I suppose, Terry. It’s really all pretty unsatisfactory.

          Surely the UK government should have known what the law was before they embarked on this.


      3. Unsatisfactory is certainly one way of describing it!

        The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were both elected on a pro-EU manifesto and they both stood on the remain side during the referendum. Now they’re the loudest cheerleaders for leaving. This is all terribly confusing. On the one hand I expect MPs to make good on their manifesto, while on the other I expect them to listen to the result of the referendum. I feel one my dizzy spells coming on. Nurse!


  3. in a Parliamentary constitution referendums are worth a crock of shite
    you got Davis giving out about the sovereignty of the people what a
    two faced twat. Still best watch wot I say Davis was in the territorial
    S.A.S and can kill you with his bare hands but only at the weekends.

    Gay judges well that must grounds for an appeal right there
    Daily Mail of course Nazi supporters from way back…

    You know what gets me is in a democracy nothing is ever
    really settled you can always have another debate and
    another vote and another change of policy its the essence
    of a Democracy I thought .

    The one Important fact in this case is where you have
    peoples rights enshrined in Parliamentary acts
    the executive cannot and should not have the power
    to arbitrarily override those rights without a parliamentary
    act .


    1. “You know what gets me is in a democracy nothing is ever
      really settled you can always have another debate and
      another vote and another change of policy its the essence
      of a Democracy I thought .”
      How very un-SLab of you…


    2. Well, that would seem to be the outcome of the judges deliberations.

      Yes, you’d better watch out Davis might be round to sort you out, and bring his buddy, IDS! He was in the army proper, or so he says, but of course as everything else he ever said was a pile of lies, I guess we have to take it with a pinch of salt. He probably delivered sausage rolls to an army base somewhere.


  4. The 56 SNP MPs should vote against the Article 50 vote. The people of Scotland are sovereign in Scotland. Westminster’s “legality” will always be used against the will of the people of Scotland if that will is seen to be not in Westminster’s interests. The time is fast approaching when the Scottish government must act as if it was already the government of an independent country, and to hell with Westminster’s laws. Anything else is to accept perpetual submissiveness and thus be a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.


    1. We’ll have to tell them before they do that.

      But yes, totally agree. They must vote against leave. Anything else would be a betrayal.


      1. tris

        betrayal……now that’s a very snp/nat word but how
        about voting with a free conscience as a parliamentary
        representative after all they are not delegates.

        we are after all in a parliamentary democracy
        now afterwards the electors would be within
        their rights to vote them out…you should
        perhaps consider the ones who voted to
        leave or did not indicate either choice.


        1. Well, I guess it would be up to them. But if the referendum means anything and a majority of the constituency votes in a particular way…whichever that is… should the MP respect that vote, or does he or she think that their opinion is superior for some unfathomable reason?

          If that is the truth why go to all the expense and trouble of having a referendum.? Why not just ask the MP for his/her superior opinion.


  5. Some parliamentary democracy, a government Scotland did not elect, in power at Westminster with around a third of the total UK votes, aye democracy in action…my arse.


  6. They’re a strange lot at the Daily Fail, spitting homophobic bile one minute then singing the praises of Fluffy and Davidson the next…..(The days of people’s sexuality being news should be long gone).

    All this delay leaves plenty of time for another Broon intervention or Saint JK Rowling of Morningside to save the day.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Tris

    I can’t see MPs voting against Brexit down South and while you would expect the SNP to vote against leaving the EU as per constituents wishes but you can bet it will come back to haunt us in the event of a future yes vote.

    If that were to happen then Scotland would have no choice but to declare udi and we had better hope the EU support us or the world is going to get really messy.


    Liked by 1 person

    1. To be honest, I’m not sure the EU could support a country that had declared UDI. But what else could the SNP do but vote against. It’s what Scotland wants, and it’s how Scotland voted.

      If they voted any other way people would say that they wanted the UK to Brexit so they could use that for their own ends.


    1. The Daily Diana, on the other hand, seems to think that today is comparable to the darkest days of the second world war. And they have a bloody poppy on the top of the page. Talk about losing it?


      1. And Harry’s girl does porn… a bit like him really, and Ms Middleton showing off her legs to get herself back on the front page.

        Now how do I get that £5 bingo thingy.


      1. Not scary really, just some uncertainty.
        Sometimes you’ve got to kill the chicken (show them how disastrous Brexit is) to scare the monkey (yoons) into voting Yes.

        Going just perfectly.
        Hold, hold…..Tick tock


      1. er ! NO Conan on a point of law be she ever so high
        Parliament is higher she is only one amongst
        equals.We do not have presidents and are not
        ruled by plébiscite . If god forbid the snp
        had won their secession vote Westmonster
        would have had accepted the result.
        the issue afterwards was the prior assurance
        by the snp leadership the referendum was a once
        in a generation vote…we normal people thats
        obviously does not include nats we thought about
        20 years maybe a few less or so.
        But not being( unlike extremist irrational nats)
        timelords did not realise they could alter the timline
        and change a generation into a week past Thursday.

        But since Nicola has abandoned her pretence of being
        just Nicola and is now acknowledged by all the snp
        followers(but not everybody else or as we call them
        the majority) as the MASTER we understand what
        her motivation is… enslavement of the human


  8. I hope that folk that were criticising the SNP for not going for an immediate INDY2 vote after the EU referendum will now take a chill pill.
    Imagine Nicola Sturgeon had named a date, and the UK ends up staying in the EU. She would look extremely foolish if she cancelled it, or even worse went ahead with it under those circumstances.


    1. Nicola presumably doesn’t want to run yet. We are doing everything possible to stay in at least the single market. We must be seen to do that by the EU too. We had a sweet spot for ID2 – 2020/21. If we go earlier the demographic will still not quite be in our favour. And the Anglo Irish agreement defines a “generation” as 7 years ( not that the random musings of anyone are gospel – in a democracy indeed! ).

      We have to win next time. Second place is not enough.

      The EU may disintegrate before 2019. There are elections in France Germany and Italy next year. Marine may win. We cannot jump til we know what is going to happen in the UK, and what is going to happen across the North Sea.

      The legal judgement may help best by delaying the process. Labour know it was racism that drew their supporters to vote leave. They can dress up their reluctant connivance in it by “respecting” the referendum result. The Conservatives will rip themselves apart if they don’t mostly vote leave in wastemonster. Its not UKIP that’s a problem any more, its the sceptic wing that has taken over their party – and likely their selection process. So parliament is going to approve Brexit – but what form?

      Nicola is wise. Trust her. We have to win ID2 whatever else.


      1. I’m inclined to trust Nicola. She seems to have a pretty wise view of things. She won’t always be right, but who is. It seems though she’s a pretty shrewd cookie particularly when she has her lawyers head on.


  9. All those newspaper proprietors and many of their senior staff have put money into offshore accounts, and they, and their spokespersons point out that what they are doing is ‘legal’. Now, we have a legal opinion delivered by judges and the offshore investors now complain about this. Clearly, they want one law for them and another law for the rest of us.
    A lot of good analysis has been done in the posts here about how MPs ought to vote, should they get one. The debate preceding any vote should focus on what Leaving is likely to entail. This, I hope, will bring some clarity for all of us. If that ensues, then, there is an argument that MPs should vote to represent the views expressed in the referendum by their constituents. On the other hand, as instanced by the notional example of Mr Kenneth Clark, the tradition of Westminster is that MPs vote on the basis of their own views taking a range of factors into account. So, it has opened a debate about the need for a formal constitution.


    1. Well, it was ever thus that there was one law for us… and one for them, Alistair.

      I take your point about MPs having to take a range of views into consideration. (Of course what they usually do is tramp through the Lobby they have been told to by the whips for fear of losing promotions, or some other reason!!!)

      Presumably this “judgement” they use is based upon the opinions of people they have met in the line of their duties. But it would be fair to say that, in this case, they have a very good idea of what their constituents voted adn what the majority of them would want them to vote.


  10. Dear Aunt Betty,
    I have a real problem. I want to stay in the EU. I want to be Independent, free from Westminster rule. I NEED the excuse of Brexit.
    What can I , should I do?


  11. From your newspaper clips above,the Sun claiming that the next Royal hanger on can now be seen on an adult porn site,stripping naked and groaning.
    Reminds me of myself these days…….trying to get into the bath!


  12. There’s a long history of MPs ignoring the wishes of their constituents and voting with their conscience – capital punishment being a prime example. With a precedent set, no reason why they shouldn’t vote according to their own judgement. I for one, hope that they do.


    1. Well, that’s true Angus, and some vote on religious grounds, like for example on abortion, and get away with it.

      But then, in all these cases they haven’t just had an opinion poll of 100% of their constituents who are interested enough to have an opinion.


  13. In a nutshell

    5. Types of referendum

    This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example,


    1. every MP received a copy of this report which
      clearly which states

      The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented,

      so whats not to understand….


      1. Point taken, Niko. But two things.

        First: Try telling that to the rabid kippers, particularly in England, but they exist most places. See what happens.

        And second. In the information leaflet that Cameron sent round at taxpayers expense to every household, it quite clearly said that whatever the people voted would be implemented.

        It could be that he had no right to say that, but say it he did.


  14. I see the Sun further tried to stir up trouble by colouring the person who brought the challenge far darker than her skin tone actually is.


  15. Thought it was too good to have a quiet revolution – just a cross on a piece of paper – no guns – just Keep Calm and Carry on. Well the divorce lawyers have arrived and all the relatives are interfering. I’ll have to keep my powder dry.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.