Posted on 11/03/2016 3:39:09 AM PDT by UKrepublican
Theresa May cannot trigger Brexit without putting it to an MPs' vote in the House of Commons, the High Court has ruled.
In a landmark ruling, Lord Chief Justice Thomas said Mrs May did not have the right to set in motion Article 50, the official start of EU divorce proceedings, without consulting parliament.
The Government instantly announced it would appeal the decision and the two sides will now prepare for another showdown at the Supreme Court in early December.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...
Constitutionally the situation is complex and the Queen should only take an active role if an actual constitutional crisis develops.
The way forward for this should be that Theresa May, as Leader of the Conservative Party insists that her Cabinet make Brexit government policy to enact the will of the people. If they do this, it then becomes subject to what is referred to as ‘three line whip’ in any Parliamentary vote - that is, that Conservative MPs are required to vote the party line or face consequences imposed by the party. They cannot actually be forced to cast a particular vote - they can be told that if they don’t do so, they will be disendorsed by the party at the next election - under those circumstances most would vote with the party line.
If Theresa May does not do this, or something similar, and the vote failed, a constitutional crisis would develop and the Queen would be justified in using her reserve powers to dismiss the government and appoint a new government who would act on the will of the people (if she could find such a government in the House of Commons) or prorogue Parliament to create a situation where a new election would be held giving the people the power to elect a new government expressly on this issue if they so choose. Th is type of power has not been used by the Monarch in the United Kingdom for a long time, but they have been used by the Monarch’s representatives in Commonwealth Realms such as Canada and Australia more recently to resolve constitutional crises, and they remain real. The reason they are so rarely used is a competent government never allows such a crisis to develop to the stage they need to be.
(The Queen has used less dramatic reserve powers a couple of times during her reign most notably in 1963 when she appointed a Prime Minister using the Reserve Powers when it became clear the Conservative Party had no procedure to appoint a replacement when a Prime Minister from their party resigned from office - she agreed to use the powers then on the express condition that they would develop a procedure for future use - as I said, a government is supposed to avoid the Queen having to intervene.)
May still has a number of ways to proceed. She doesn’t need the Queen to get involved but reminding some of her Members of Parliament that that possibility exists and they are supposed to avoid it, could certainly be part of her strategy.
Agree. They would at least think about it, but then they may look at the polling numbers, smell the smoking torches and the hot melting tar and decide that safest policy is to “listen to the voters”.
Brexit was a major blow to the establishment in the EU. (I refuse to call them elites. If you have seen them close up, you know they are far from being an elite.) However, not the first one. Since 1992 Danish, French, Dutch, Swedish, and Norwegian voters shown the EU and local establishments what they think of their project. Norway stayed out of EU, Denmark got several exemptions from the Maastricht treaty, and Sweden did not adopt the Euro. French and Dutch voters said no to the EU Constitution, but together with the Irish they were abandoned by their own politicians and forced to accept the Lisbon treaty (an EU constitution in all but name). I do not think the British voters will allow that to happen to them.
ask yourself if congress would and you have your answer...
I was just watching BBC America as they were doing an analysis of the ruling.The commentator suggested,and his guest agreed,that the ruling means that "hard Brexit" is now unlikely..."extremely unlikely" I think they said.It sounds to me like "hard Brexit" means,among other things,no freedom of movement while the other types might mean that EU regulations regarding the shape of bananas might no longer apply in Britain.
From this side of the Atlantic I cannot claim to be an expert on the subject but it seems to me that immigration was always *the* central issue with Brexit.If I'm correct then it seems to me that any "Brexit" which accedes to the demands of those corrupt,lard a$$ clowns in Brussels is in direct defiance of the clearly expressed will of the people.
Your analysis is correct.
There will be hard brexit, the politicians know they will be sacrificed if they don’t deliver.
The Left has to subvert the will of the people to implement its agenda as it cannot win at the Ballot Box.
I sure hope not. It feels a lot like 1989 with Brexit and Trump, and we need both to fully succeed. I’m definitely behind on my anti-EU history, but your post helps me catch up.
Can’t allow the people to decide their own fate. I guess the judges and the Left who are subverting the vote need to start dying.
Yes...and if Remain had won the Court wouldn’t have touched the case.
Screw the court, the people voted, do it by force if necessary ...
Whatever the motives behind this court action, it’s no bad thing that the courts should reiterate the fundamental principle of the British constitution - the sovereignty of Parliament. There was always something faintly absurd about the proposition that a constitutional change of such magnitude could take place without reference to the nation’s sovereign body. As it happens, it’s unlikely to change the outcome in any significant way: but a referendum is always a device which sits uneasily with the principle of a representative parliamentary democracy, and a parliamentary vote now would help resolve that constitutional tension.
As I recall, Parliament AUTHORIZED the referendum. The High Court can pound sand. The ruling in meaningless.
Understand how we felt in 1776?
Sounds just like our activist courts overturning the will of the people.
P4L
Yep. How I despise leftists.
How are UK judges held accountable for rogue rulings?
Are they elected or something?
The world’s wealthy power people think they own and control the little people....and to a large extent, they do...until We the People have had enough.
Then, it’s:
SHOWDOWN AT THE O.K. CORRAL!
I’m angry about this too, and I don’t even like e there. I’m a big fan of Nigel Farage, I bet he is beside himself.
Sounds just like our activist courts overturning the will of the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.