Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicolapede | Hacker News Reader

I think it was quite arrogant from Theresa May to decide not to involve the Parliament in the first place. People did not give a blanket mandate to her for implementing whatever she thinks Brexit means.

View on HN

One of the arguments for Brexit was the sovereignty of Parliament and they weren't going to let it vote on the subject!

Parliament is involved in the Brexit process, including through the Brexit Select Committee. Politicians from across different parties will have their say on how the UK leaves the EU.

However, the British people have voted to leave the EU, and it would be an affront to democracy if the will of the people were denied by Parliament. It would be unacceptable for Parliament to vote against triggering Article 50, so why even vote if there is only one valid outcome?

Even as someone who is fanatically pro-EU, I think you're right about the affront to democracy bit. The remedy for the public is to 'throw the bastards out' at the next election if they feel sufficiently affronted. Or alternatively to have made the referendum self-executing - a clause could have been added to the 2015 referendum act giving Article 50 notification in the event of 'leave' winning. Of course, that ship has sailed.

I feel pretty conflicted about this, given that I strongly prefer the 'not leave' option but also think the result of an (even advisory) referendum should be respected. That's the nature of a polity with Parliamentary sovereignty, though :-/

I agree that certain aspects of the referendum (both in terms of the Referendum Act and also the campaigning) were far from ideal. All the same, we're in the situation we're in, and everyone needs to look forward at how the UK can best proceed with Brexit, and not look backwards and try to overturn the referendum result (but of course I'd say that).

You're already anticipating a "remain" vote by parliament.

That's not on the table, so far. Parliament wants to be involved, not necessarily kill Brexit.

You can come back with that argument if and when Parliament actually tries to stop Brexit.

My point is: If a "remain" vote is not on the table, then what's the point in voting? It seems like a pointless exercise.

Parliament can be (and are) involved in the Brexit process, but there are plenty of other ways to do that than with this vote.

The point of retaining the option for Parliament to veto Article 50 being invoked on a specific date is to ensure the MP for Maidenhead actually has to get their consent for the approach she chooses.

The referendum gave the What. Parliament would give the How and When.

The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work. I haven't heard Labour or other parties set out how they want Brexit to work, except the Lib Dems who don't want Brexit to happen at all.

If the only plan for Brexit out there is the one the government has, then of course that's the one that is going to be implemented. Parliament does have the opportunity to influence that plan, though.

> The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work

the whole point is that the government does not get to decide. Even if, as it is likely, the parliament ends up voting for brexit, in the same bill it might constraint how the government is to conduct the negotiations.

"The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work"

Have they? I'd really like to see this.

Yes, the government has said that Brexit means Brexit, meaning that the UK will exit the EU. There will be controls on immigration, but the UK will seek to maintain positive relationships with other European countries (and the rest of the world) and co-operate in matters such as security.

Okay, they haven't quite spelt it out in the level of detail some would have liked, but they've provided more detail than other parties have, and I'm sure further details will emerge in due course.

I'd say this is more of a strategy than a plan. It's all pretty vague.

It was the tories who called the referendum, and the tories who are currently dealing with Brexit. It's not Labour's job to come up with a plan (which would not get used anyway). All Labour have been trying to do is get details of the Tory (currently non-existent) plan, in order to be able to start a discussion on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-que...

Labour, as the official opposition, are supposed to represent an alternative government. I think it's perfectly right to expect them to set out what they want from Brexit. However, they won't even answer any of the 170 questions they asked the government.

I don't want the Conservative government to have a monopoly over deciding how Brexit is implemented. But if other parties want to have a say, then they do need to say what they want from Brexit! They need to take a more pro-active stance. Problem is that Labour is still rather divided, UKIP is literally beating itself up, and the Lib Dems (whilst united in opposing Brexit) are still rather weak. What we really need is a strong opposition, and unfortunately we don't have one right now.

I do understand what you're saying, but I would say labour are representing an alternative government. One that would not have got us into the mess that we are currently in. One that would attempt to bridge the gap between the different groups across the uk (the gap that has been highlighted by the brexit vote).

But Brexit has never been defined (in terms of a government position on what it actually means in trade terms for example) , so saying Brexit means Brexit is pretty much nonsense!

The article says parliament will get a vote on whether to invoke Article 50.

As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU, and the UK voted to leave. And as I understand things, there's only one way to leave the EU, and that's by invoking Article 50.

Seems to me that means there was a referendum on whether to invoke Article 50, and people voted to invoke it. Why should MPs get to block the referendum result?

Article 50 states that "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." It's the "constitutional requirements" clause that's the problem. Britain does not have a written constitution, but it has traditions that are considered an unwritten constitution, eg. the government (ie. the ruling party) cannot take away rights of the citizens without the consent of Parliament. How exactly this interacts with the Brexit vote is a difficult question, hence the need for this court case.

And if Theresa May thinks that taking back board control is worth leaving the single market, can she do that, just because of the referendum?

People also gave Tories majority in the Parliament and Tories' manifesto committed to stay in the single market.

>As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU, and the UK voted to leave. And as I understand things, there's only one way to leave the EU, and that's by invoking Article 50.

You are interpreting people's reasoning here, as Article 50 was not mentioned in the referendum (another option to leave the EU is to declare war to it, is that what they voted for, then?) and as I understand things, in UK, that is the Parliament's job.

Whether the UK remains or leaves the single market isn't really relevant. Triggering Article 50 opens up the possibility of leaving the single market, but doesn't necessarily result in it.

Triggering Article 50 is one of the simplest ways of leaving the EU, and it was almost universally agreed across both sides of the referendum campaign that Brexit (if that was to be the outcome) would be achieved through the triggering of Article 50.

I don't think those who want to leave the EU are especially hung up on Article 50 -- it's just a means to an end. How the UK leaves the EU isn't vital. What's important is that the UK does leave. Those who oppose the triggering of Article 50 aren't doing so because they want another method of leaving the EU -- they don't want to leave at all!

The question is ultimately about whether the UK should leave the EU or not. And the decision was already made on 23rd June.

The referendum was an opinion poll, with no legal effect.

The effect comes from what the government does with that poll, and the high court has ruled that the government cannot act without parliament's consent. To be absolutely clear: The referendum had no legal effect beyond being an opinion poll.

37.5% of the population voted to "Leave the EU". The definition of what "Leave the EU" actually meant and the way in which the leaving would actually take place was never discussed.

If the EU was just a group of people holding hands, and after deciding to leave you were informed that instead of just letting go, the only way out was to cut off both of your arms, I imagine you might want to re-think your decision?

Because the referendum was only advisory, something that was stated clearly at the start. Both sides were aware going into the referendum that invoking article 50 would ultimately be decided by parliament.

and people voted to invoke it Because apparently that's not how the UK system of government works. Parliament has a sovereignty different than that of the people.

> As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU

You understand incorrectly. A referendum has no legal binding in the UK, it is essentially the government asking the population what to do - it might decide to ignore the results altogether.

Because it's an advisory referendum. Also, UK is not a direct democracy.

The court has said that the government can't constitutionally send a notification under Article 50 without Parliament passing new legislation.

It's not about voting, it's about the law on the statute books.

I 'm pretty sure the Courts know better than any of us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com