In the last few minutes the supreme court has ruled that the government cannot trigger Article 50 using perogative powers but must hold a vote in Parliament. The reasoning seems to be that triggering Article 50 would cut off a dynamic source of UK law, would be a change to the UK constitutional arrangements, and this can only be done by an act of Parliament.
The court also ruled that there was no obligation on the government to consult devolved administrations.
There is a summary of the judgement on the supreme court website here.
Gina Miller, the plaintiff, has responded: The supreme court Brexit judgment isn’t a victory for me, but for our constitution.
Other reaction as it comes in:
We want the people to be given a final say on the #Brexit deal in a referendum. Without that we will vote against Article 50. #SupremeCourt
— Liberal Democrats (@LibDems) January 24, 2017
NEWS! Supreme Court Brexit decision to be written on the side of a bus https://t.co/O8z0OUcNBI pic.twitter.com/E26F2OAdSZ
— SLATUKIP IMP 🇪🇺 ❄ (@SLATUKIP) January 24, 2017
My new toon: Sovereignty#SupremeCourt #Brexit #Bresistance pic.twitter.com/08dtU7VinO
— SKZ Cartoons (@SKZCartoons) January 24, 2017
Govt will comply with supreme court ruling – says Attorney General Jeremy Wright
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) January 24, 2017
David Davis to make statement in Commons on supreme court ruling this afternoon
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) January 24, 2017
Labour will seek to amend the Article 50 Bill to prevent the Conservatives using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven.
— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) January 24, 2017
The @libdems are clear, we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for A50 pic.twitter.com/PQXxncVkUb
— Tim Farron (@timfarron) January 24, 2017
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
expats
David Raw
Tom Reeve
Nonconformistradical
Sam Ammar
23 Comments
Jeremy Corbyn -“Labour will not frustrate process of invoking Article 50”. How the world sometimes repeats itself. Quote from Churchill on another Labour Leader, Ramsay Macdonald. :
“I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum’s Circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit on the programme which I most desired to see was the one described as “The Boneless Wonder”. My parents judged that the spectacle would be too demoralising and revolting for my youthful eye and I have waited fifty years, to see the The Boneless Wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench”.
Good. The 8-3 majority is clear, but does show that there are different opinions on this, so saving some face for the government.
The questions for the party are, will it try to amend whatever Bill is presented, how will it do so (eg to guarantee single market status and/or to insert a second referendum) will it and can it work with other parties on this, and if (when) this fails, will it vote against the Bill in both houses, and how many times?
I don’t doubt that there will be an element of theatrics to all of this, and to be honest, I think this won’t delay article 50. After that we’re down to a treaty negotiation that afaik does not constitutionally need the explicit involvement of parliament.
But there is a qualitative difference between article 50 triggered by a government acting under prerogative that has not heard the concerns of dissenting members, and article 50 triggered by a government that has passed a bill through parliament and engaged in a listening exercise whereby it has had to try to establish a consensus.
The comments by the Attorney General are a mixture of law and politics, essentially contradicting himself in one short statement. We deserve better.
The headline ruling is largely irrelevant as Labour will vote with the tories anyway.
Of more significance is the crushing blow the court has dealt to unionists and federalists. You can’t have genuine devolution or federalism within the confines of UK constitutional traditions. It can’t conceive of the idea of the smaller member states stopping, modifying or even being consulted on what the largest member state wants to impose on them. The ruling makes it plainer than ever that only independence can deliver the real power that Scotland needs to safeguard it’s own interests.
No, Al, that’s not true. Not ‘only independence’. A new federal written constitution could secure the same thing, rather than our piecemeal unwritten mishmash which has created this messy situation.
The Lib Dems need to do what they can to ensure that Westminster honours the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding with the devolved legislatures. The Sewel Convention doesn’t carry legal force but it should be seen as a moral and constitutional commitment by Parliament.
If Labour vote against Article 50 and that leads to a general election it will damage them very badly. Many of their seats are strong leave areas and if they appear to be blocking brexit UKIP will have a field day. Few will trust them to fight the remain cause and the Lib Dems should mop up a lot of those votes. The Tories and Mrs May are so popular the chances are they will increase their majority. Corbyn just cannot afford a general election and despite a lot of noise I don’t think the SNP would want one either. Losing seats in a general election – and I think they would – will not fill them with confidence for another referendum on independence. My guess is that after a bit of loud noise the vote will be passed easily.
@Matt (Bristol) – “But there is a qualitative difference between article 50 triggered by a government acting under prerogative that has not heard the concerns of dissenting members, and article 50 triggered by a government that has passed a bill through parliament and engaged in a listening exercise whereby it has had to try to establish a consensus.”
Agree and let us hope the government has guts to allow a free vote, because it is only with a free vote can the result truly be said to be “the will of Parliament”…
Dreadful news that will just drag things out even longer.
BBC TV’s Victoria Derbyshire ignored what Tom Brake MP said and focussed on what Baroness Kramer said. This is a journalist looking for news value, namely will there be a crisis on the House of Lords.
We can get more respect from journalists if we elect more MPs. Journalists should recognise the perverse effects of the first-past-the-post system which weakens and undermines the UK’s democracy.
More nonsense about ‘It’s up to the people”…In case you missed it the ‘people’ voted to leave the EU….That means they voted for Article 50 to be invoked….
What the final terms are is another matter…..But, as they will be worse that remaining ‘IN’, that means LibDems will vote against them no matter what…Why not just be honest and say so?
A brilliant decision as it has demonstrated the anti-democratic, deeply un-British attitudes of a section of the right. The Daily Mail, the Tory fringes and UKIP have shown their contempt for the people and institutions they claim to champion.
How can any democrat object to today’s decision. Do we really want to go down the route where in America where a President can simply with a stroke of a pen remove laws without any debate whatsoever. Parliament is sovereign that is how a functioning democracy should work. Democracy is precious, we need to value it a lot more.
@ expat appears to have some problems with the British constitutin.
The people of this country voted in an advisory referendum to advise our Parliament that they wanted to Leave the EU. The law of this land (and our constitution) dictates that this advice is given to our Members of Parliament who have to vote on whether to trigger Article 50. Simples. 🙂
Nick Cuningham
“Do we really want to go down the route where in America where a President can simply with a stroke of a pen remove laws without any debate whatsoever”
Inside and outside of parliament this subject has been debated many, many times. Parliament said a referendum was needed and the government said they would honour the peoples wishes. It was hardly undemocratic, now if triggering Article 50 is stopped by the House of Lords that would surely be undemocratic.
And so, the game moves on.
Next moves.
Getting art50 through parliament.
Scottish indyref2.
ECJ to rule on whether art50 can be withdrawn.
European elections in France, Holland and Germany.
Trump fallout.
UK economic performance.
TM has put 9 months between the referendum and her March deadline on Art50.
Another three might be welcome in terms of the timing of the European elections. Some delay from the Commons and Lords might be useful for her (to be condemned of course!!).
I would proffer that it might be useful to have a back door out of this process. A vote in parliament re the final negotiations has been committed to, but I still like the LibDem line of BRef2 (don’t think we will get it). The EU is under massive pressure to change over the course of next two years and it is going to have to swallow further integration or a looser arrangement which could offer a whole new option for the UK.
Hope springs eternal in the Liberal Democrat breast………..
@William Ross
Can’t remember where you stand on Scot Indy.
now if triggering Article 50 is stopped by the House of Lords that would surely be undemocratic.
Err no. If May is unable to get her proposed form of Brexit through Parliament, it will be because she and her Brexit monkey’s haven’t done their homework and properly prepared and presented their case…
By ‘case’ I’m not just talking about her approach to the process of Brexit, but her strategy for the UK to transition Brexit and beyond eg. R&D investment, tax system changes, enlargement of government etc.
So as far as I’m concerned unless May can give a convincing story for how she proposes to steer the UK socially and economically through Brexit; MPs and the Lords should vote against the invoking of Article 50…
However, it would seem that many in the Brexit camp believe “we’ll muddle through”, so why bother doing any preparation and thus follow the philosophy: fire, aim, oop’s can we start again as we weren’t ready…
PJ
You ask where I am on Indyref2 pre-Brexit. I am concerned about it. My full thoughts are written in an article for ThinkScotland called ” No Exit from Brexit” I think Nicola can in principle call the referendum but the issue is clarity of question/backdrop. Can we be sure that we would in fact “remain”; would we have to agree to adopt the euro or launch the Scottish pound; would we have a hard border with England ( I think not); and so on?
I am concerned and wish that we would wait until the 2020s.
male
How can you point the finger at the House of Lords when May and her Brexiteers Ministers sort to deny the elected House of Commons a vote. Today her judgement has been deemed unlawful, it took the courts to make a judgement that democracy and not dictatorship rules. You might hold to the principal that a blank piece of paper should determine the nation’s destiny, that’s your right, which to me is simply nonsensical. But today Parliamentary sovereignty which you as a Brexiteer made it your central plank in your argument for a ‘Yes’ vote has indeed been upheld. You should be happy, not making excuses. By the way the referendum was advisory, why, because our democracy in base on on Parliamentary representation, meaning that Parliament has the final say and that’s how it should be for any functioning democracy. God help us all if we end up like America where a stroke of a pen is deemed sufficient without any accountability whatsoever.
Nick
The ” elected House of Commons” had a vote, and decided by 6 to 1 to ask the British people whether they want to remain in the EU or leave. The result was narrow but clear. I cannot see a need for another Parliamentary vote, but the Supreme Court has decided otherwise.
I will not make any difference.
I wanted the judges to give a combined judgement, and the majority eight did. The three dissenting judges had different reasons.