4 ms·

What hypocrisy to even consider bypassing the parliament in the first place. Thank god the Surpeme Court still stands up for the Parliamentary supremacy [1]. Ha

What hypocrisy to even consider bypassing the parliament in the first place. Thank god the Surpeme Court still stands up for the Parliamentary supremacy [1]. Have a non-binding referendum and then the government bypassing the parliament altogether would have really put the UK in a constitutional crisis and created lasting damage to the very institutional stability that is behind the success of UK governance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...

grabcocque 10y ago
The failure lay with David Cameron's government, by not putting any legal effect in the bill that authorised the referendum. One paragraph was all it would have taken. 'If the referendum carries, the Prime Minister shall be authorised to invoke Article 50'. Why didn't he? Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- StavrosK 10y ago
  > Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot. Was he an idiot? Or did he figure that, if he did lose the referendum, he needed to put as many obstacles between the result and the actual Brexit as he could?
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity"
    - n4r9 10y ago
      I don't think it's being attributed to malice in this case.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  To be fair to him, if you had a world class propaganda operation working on your behalf most of the time, you'd be a bit mentally unprepared for what happens when you go against it as well. Poor boy probably thought he squeaked to (partial) victory twice on his policies or statesmanship or something ridiculous like that.
- walshemj 10y ago
  Or follow parliamentary custom and practice that a 2/3 or 75% majority is required to implement such a major change. After all if companies and even the local allotment association have to get a 2/3 or 75 majority to change the rules surly a referendum should too.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    FYI, the usual argument against that position is that the EU itself has made major changes since we joined and will surely continue to do so, so treating membership as status quo in that way is unwarranted.
    - walshemj 10y ago
      Thats not the point ignoring eskine and may is
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        Where does Erskine May say anything about requiring such a supermajority under the present circumstances?
richmarr 10y ago
It seems likely that ministers were fully aware that they couldn't change the legal framework of the UK, the rights of UK citizens, as well as armfuls of other issues without an act of Parliament. That would suggest this was something of a delaying tactic.
djmobley 10y ago
Obviously things are not that black and white. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hand this decision to the people in the form of a referendum.
- enkid 10y ago
  They voted to let people have a voice in it, not make the decision.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Yes, the key word here is "non-binding".
  - skocznymroczny 10y ago
    Unless the result was for staying in the EU, then it would be "the nation has decided".
    - nicktelford 10y ago
      Staying in the EU requires no changes to UK law. Leaving requires the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act; an Act of Parliament can only be repealed by parliament (unless the referendum was made legally binding, which it was not).
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Well, that's the question, isn't it? During the debates on what was then the referendum bill, one MP after another, up to and including the level of government ministers, stood up and quite unambiguously supported the right of the people to make the decision. There was little if any hedging at that time. You can read the transcripts in Hansard, and you'll be hard pressed to find any MP who actually said what you just wrote, or anything like it. In the official government leaflet, sent to all households at considerable expense and amid considerable controversy, the explanation was also quite unambiguous. There was nothing in there about just giving the government a hint either. The legal difficulty seems to be that the enabling legislation for the referendum was poorly drafted and what was written didn't actually reflect what was being said during the parliamentary debates. Put another way, it's not clear that MPs were actually voting on what they thought they were voting on. I'm a little surprised that Pepper v Hart didn't seem to come up during the resulting confusion, but given the profound constitutional implications, the lack of explicit provision in the enabling legislation for what should happen after the referendum seems to be the main reason for the Supreme Court's majority decision today.
baq 10y ago
that's why the first step to authoritharian rule is always dismantling the supreme court or the constitutional court; see e.g. turkey, hungary, poland.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Remainers tried to get a re-vote, or get the vote overturned/ignored, despite the validity of the referedum. Is that not also a 'step to authoritharian rule'?
  - Veen 10y ago
    I don't know why it would be. Putting the question a second time doesn't seem especially authoritarian. Running the country as the representative parliamentary democracy it's supposed to be, rather than direct democracy where referenda have final say doesn't seem authoritarian either.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      It does in the context that the original referendum had a lot of official enforcement of the 'right' way to vote, and a second referendum would no doubt be accompanied by even stronger marketing. Also, there are small, random influences on the referendum - any close election can give the result you want so long as it remains close, and you keep doing it until you win. > the representative parliamentary democracy it's supposed to be What about the monarchy it was supposed to be? Representative parliament is supposed to be a compromise of practicality, not preference.
      - Veen 10y ago
        Not only a compromise of practicality. Mob rule and dictatorship of the majority are not pretty.

grabcocque 10y ago

The failure lay with David Cameron's government, by not putting any legal effect in the bill that authorised the referendum. One paragraph was all it would have taken. 'If the referendum carries, the Prime Minister shall be authorised to invoke Article 50'. Why didn't he? Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
StavrosK 10y ago
> Because Cameron never considered for a second he could lose the referendum. He was an idiot. Was he an idiot? Or did he figure that, if he did lose the referendum, he needed to put as many obstacles between the result and the actual Brexit as he could?
- gpderetta 10y ago
  "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained with stupidity"
  - n4r9 10y ago
    I don't think it's being attributed to malice in this case.
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
To be fair to him, if you had a world class propaganda operation working on your behalf most of the time, you'd be a bit mentally unprepared for what happens when you go against it as well. Poor boy probably thought he squeaked to (partial) victory twice on his policies or statesmanship or something ridiculous like that.
walshemj 10y ago
Or follow parliamentary custom and practice that a 2/3 or 75% majority is required to implement such a major change. After all if companies and even the local allotment association have to get a 2/3 or 75 majority to change the rules surly a referendum should too.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  FYI, the usual argument against that position is that the EU itself has made major changes since we joined and will surely continue to do so, so treating membership as status quo in that way is unwarranted.
  - walshemj 10y ago
    Thats not the point ignoring eskine and may is
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Where does Erskine May say anything about requiring such a supermajority under the present circumstances?

richmarr 10y ago

It seems likely that ministers were fully aware that they couldn't change the legal framework of the UK, the rights of UK citizens, as well as armfuls of other issues without an act of Parliament. That would suggest this was something of a delaying tactic.

djmobley 10y ago

Obviously things are not that black and white. Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hand this decision to the people in the form of a referendum.

enkid 10y ago
They voted to let people have a voice in it, not make the decision.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Yes, the key word here is "non-binding".
- skocznymroczny 10y ago
  Unless the result was for staying in the EU, then it would be "the nation has decided".
  - nicktelford 10y ago
    Staying in the EU requires no changes to UK law. Leaving requires the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act; an Act of Parliament can only be repealed by parliament (unless the referendum was made legally binding, which it was not).
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Well, that's the question, isn't it? During the debates on what was then the referendum bill, one MP after another, up to and including the level of government ministers, stood up and quite unambiguously supported the right of the people to make the decision. There was little if any hedging at that time. You can read the transcripts in Hansard, and you'll be hard pressed to find any MP who actually said what you just wrote, or anything like it. In the official government leaflet, sent to all households at considerable expense and amid considerable controversy, the explanation was also quite unambiguous. There was nothing in there about just giving the government a hint either. The legal difficulty seems to be that the enabling legislation for the referendum was poorly drafted and what was written didn't actually reflect what was being said during the parliamentary debates. Put another way, it's not clear that MPs were actually voting on what they thought they were voting on. I'm a little surprised that Pepper v Hart didn't seem to come up during the resulting confusion, but given the profound constitutional implications, the lack of explicit provision in the enabling legislation for what should happen after the referendum seems to be the main reason for the Supreme Court's majority decision today.

baq 10y ago

that's why the first step to authoritharian rule is always dismantling the supreme court or the constitutional court; see e.g. turkey, hungary, poland.

Chris2048 10y ago
Remainers tried to get a re-vote, or get the vote overturned/ignored, despite the validity of the referedum. Is that not also a 'step to authoritharian rule'?
- Veen 10y ago
  I don't know why it would be. Putting the question a second time doesn't seem especially authoritarian. Running the country as the representative parliamentary democracy it's supposed to be, rather than direct democracy where referenda have final say doesn't seem authoritarian either.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    It does in the context that the original referendum had a lot of official enforcement of the 'right' way to vote, and a second referendum would no doubt be accompanied by even stronger marketing. Also, there are small, random influences on the referendum - any close election can give the result you want so long as it remains close, and you keep doing it until you win. > the representative parliamentary democracy it's supposed to be What about the monarchy it was supposed to be? Representative parliament is supposed to be a compromise of practicality, not preference.
    - Veen 10y ago
      Not only a compromise of practicality. Mob rule and dictatorship of the majority are not pretty.