Brexit Judgement

This is just using the legal system to slow the Brexit process up and to make it so complicated and drawn out that the public loses interest in it and then hopefully change their vote in the next referendum. This is what the "system" wants and the top judges are just part of this "system".

We dont live in a truely democratic country sadly.

 

A few thoughts of my own and responses to the points made by others;

As someone who was (is) firmly against Brexit I do believe that the people have had their say and it must now go through. If it doesn't it would be a kick in the teeth of democracy.
But this ruling is not an impediment to it happening. Exactly the opposite in fact - it means that when it is all done and dusted it has been done correctly and not open to being contested. Put quite simply it is now incumbent upon the MP's to respect the wishes of the UK voters and to vote yes to the government invoking Article 50. It is not a matter of debate for the House, just their duty to vote the motion through.

As @NigelJ pointed out that is because nothing has happened yet. But there are two givens that will happen;

• the UK government will not accept the Schengen Treaty post Brexit and as such it has been stated by EU leaders that that will result in tariffs.
• post Brexit the UK will lose its financial services passport. I have already lost two customers (one to Paris, one to Frankfurt) and a third resigned when he was told that he had to move to Paris.

Whilst devaluation of the pound is being held up as good for exporters this is a deception. The UK is only capable of producing 10 to 15% of the raw materials that industry needs. The remainder has to be bought with a weak pound.

Once Article 50 is invoked we have two years to agree a deal. If no deal is agreed when the two years is up the umbilical cord is cut and that is it. It cannot be strung out once it is started and it is now taken as a given that the process will start in March.

But it is a very slim majority. This means that it is a political tightrope.

Nope - they are there to apply the law of the land correctly. Nothing to do with the will of the people.

 

Hi Longk,

I've only one thing to say about your post.........



E X C E L L E N T

 

Interestingly I read an article yesterday in which Lord Kerr (he drew up Article 50) expressed the opinion that BREXIT was not inevitable or irreversible if we (the people) changed our minds.
He also said Article 50 was not necessary as we could just stop paying money into the EU and stop going to EU meetings.

 

Do you have a link? As I understood it once Article 50 is triggered that is it.

It's not quite that easy. The EU would have to kick us out. If they don't kick us out then nations that have trade agreements with the EU cannot negotiate trade agreements with the UK. This is basically the situation that we are in until we leave anyway - under the terms of their trade agreements with the EU these countries cannot even enter negotiations with the UK or they will be in breach of the trade deal that they have.

 

@longk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

 

That's it precisely - the Courts are offering MP's the opportunity to delay or possibly prevent brexit - the majority of MP's didn't support brexit - imagine if they blocked brexit 'for the good of the Country' - just over 51% of those who voted would be very cross indeed.

I heard ont' radio that one MP was threatening to block the activation of Article 50 - someone really needs to have a quiet word with him.

Teresa is doing the right thing - out is out - it's not open to further debate - the decision has been made.

 

Whilst I agree with your post saying that out means out (even though I voted t'other way) I do think that you're missing the point. The ruling is not offering MP's the opportunity to put the kibosh on the process, they have simply clarified the correct way to go about it according to the laws of the land. They have not altered anything, it was always that way. The only difference is that now there is no excuse for cock-ups.
As far as the vote goes the MP's will be told to follow the party whip I reckon. The fly in the ointment may come if they decide to follow the votes of their constituency - I don't know what the figures are but they may swing the other way owing to the way that the constituency boundaries fall.

 

All the predictions of an 'economic shock' to the UK economy immediately after a Leave vote were based upon David Cameron's promise of triggering an Article 50 leave the next day following a Leave vote.

As DC immediately copped out/scarpered the day after his defeat and Article 50 departure was deferred until March 2017, this should have delayed any immediate 'economic shock' to the UK economy.

That might explain why the nightmare scenario predictions (Project Fear) haven't happened (yet?), but does little to explain the reaction of Mark Carney/BoE MPC who continued with knee jerk reactions to previous predictions of immediate departure, rather than adjust their predictions in accordance with changing circumstances.

 

That is the whole point, article 50 is yet to be invoked, and if you believe what the PM is saying, I agree.
Its just now though its unsure that the PM can invoke article 50 without the backing of parliament.
So the stringing out is going on before, not after the event

Wouldn't be the first time a PM lost a vote in the House of Commons