Skip to comments.MPs vote to back Government’s timetable on Article 50 (Brexit)
Posted on 12/07/2016 11:26:21 AM PST by UKrepublican
MPs have voted in favour of the Government's timetable to trigger Article 50 by March 2017.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.sky.com ...
Not in theory - the government will have to enact a plan to get it through, which many scumbags will vote against - and claim they are not voting against the will of the British people, just the plan. The governing Tories are severely divided atm.
About time they set a date to invoke Article 50. This means Great Britain will be free from the EU by March 2019.
This is what I am thinking...
"Traitors"...jumped out at me in one of those comments.Yikes!
Yes, the government has trapped them - they had no choice to support this largely.
It basically confirms Brexit will start at this point - the battle for what that means - i.e. single market and immigration is yet to be had.
So like the Obamacare repeal this is a vote that they will definitely do something some time in the future...probably...
Not quite, it puts in place a timeline to fire the start gun, which is a big deal.
Yup,I’ve seen it.I’ve been watching Farageâs videos on youtube for some time.The guy is outstanding! I just wish he could be declared to be a ânatural bornâ US citizen so he could someday succeed Trump.
So does this make the current Supreme Court case moot? Now that the Parliament has approved it, why is it necessary to continue with the case?
Somebody wanted to keep their jobs...
Yes, but also, most MPs do understand how the system works and will follows its conventions.
A lot of people seem to think that all the MPs who wanted a vote on this were intending to try and block Brexit. But most are not. Even if they personally disagree with the idea, they understand that the people have spoken and they will vote to give effect to Britain leaving the European Union.
But the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is literally at the core of the British constitution - and so insisting on the right to have a debate and a vote in Parliament is also an important part of ensuring the United Kingdom functions the way it is constitutionally supposed to.
Part of the reason why membership of the EU is a problem is because it undermines Parliamentary sovereignty and the British constitution. Insisting that leaving is done in a way that puts those principles back at the forefront is something I would do if I was a British MP. I’d regard it as the only truly patriotic course.
Parliament must have a vote. But it must vote for Brexit. Those two things are both important if Britain is to be the nation it is supposed to be under its own constitution by its own conventions, evolved over a thousand years.
Not exactly. The Supreme Court case claims that there will have to be an Act (or acts) of Parliament before Article 50 can be triggered - in other words the sovereign Parliament, rather than the executive Government, will make the key decisions. Today’s vote was simply backing a motion rather than a statute, so is not law, but it’s a useful first step. The fact that the Government tabled an amendment to the motion which broadly supported it is being taken by many to indicate that the Government expects to lose its appeal in the Supreme Court, and is conceding that Parliament will have to have a greater involvement than it had hoped.
And that, as naturalman1975 has now explained with his usual elegance, is only right and constitutionally proper. The present opposition to Parliamentary control by those who campaigned for repatriation of sovereignty from Brussels to Westminster is, to put it mildly, perverse.
Actually, one alternative was to declare that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the EU. Afterwards, all relations between the U.K. and the EU would have to be negotiated de novo. The U.K. would not be obligated to pay any separation fee, accept immigrants, coordinate tariffs, tax law, or regulations with the EU.
If the U.K. took that route, the EU would have no legal standing of any sort on U.K, soil, laws. Declaring Article 50 is considered more polite, like filing divorce papers vs. tossing shoes into the street. Either is legal under U.K., EU, and international law.
Thanks for the clarification.
Your choice Parliment.
The pro-EU faction want a parliamentary vote as a desparate last chance to stop BREXIT - whereas HMG Parliament already have the sovereign right to honor the declared wishes of the British people without further voting.
The government famously, and at great taxpayer expense, sent a referendum pamphlet to everyone in the UK declaring that:
"This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide".
But when we decided for Brexit, what happened? The pro-EU faction decided to attempt the same betrayal that they succeeded in in Ireland and France.
Those countries were betrayed and cheated out of their anti-EU decision. It's foolish therefore not to see the push for a second vote, this time in Parliament, as anything but a cynical ploy.
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.