# Parliament must vote on Brexit: So Saith the Supreme Court of the UK **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034 "2017-01-24T15:11:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/21 "2017-01-25T05:28:15Z")
I take it the Court said, in effect: "You need Parliament to approve _Something_. Now the issues is “just what will Parliament vote on?”. The PM would love to get a blanket “Go Ahead; you don’t need to tell us where you’re aiming”. I’m also going to guess the chances for such a blank slate are about 0.5%. This is likely where the financial behemoths of London make their last stand to avoid moving to Germany and/or France to retain access to the European Market. I can’t believe May is willing to scrap the market just to keep out those nasty brown people with their funny god. Make you a deal: you take Trump and Pence and we’ll take May and Johnson (or other Brexit loon of your choosing). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/22 "2017-01-25T08:00:36Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > A sensible choice to my mind. A momentous decision like this should be given parliamentary scrutiny. > Personally I think had we had more and stronger parliamentary scrutiny and pushback on Maastricht and Lisbon then we would have lanced the euro boil and we wouldn’t have got a this nuclear option but…hey ho, here we are. > . :dubious: You had ridiculous amount of scrutiny on Maastrich. John Major’s government nearly fell over the issue. The UK unarguably got the best possible deal during the negotiations; as evidenced by the fact even Alex Salmond does not want the Euro anymore. Lisborn lacked enough oversight, but then Blair (due to his ridiculously huge majority) tended to keep Parliament out of the loop as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/23 "2017-01-25T08:10:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Then why not do the right thing and vote against exiting? I guess because although the voter turnout was a near equal split, it’s probably harder to predict symmetry in actual outcomes if one side or the other gets/does not get its way. The whole situation is like opening up the delicate workings of some intricate machine - the moment you start poking around, springs and parts fly off in all directions and you wish you’d just left it alone. Now there’s no very simple way forward or back. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/24 "2017-01-25T08:12:44Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Maastricht and Lisbon then we would have lanced the euro boil and we wouldn’t have got a this nuclear option but…hey ho, here we are. Water under the bridge now, but it went deeper than just scrutiny of major changes by treaty (remember, the Referendum Party at the time of the Maastricht debates got nowhere in elections): the core problem was the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency over what successive governments were doing in the detailed work of the Council of Ministers, right back to the creation of the single market and before. Hence the perception that it was all about Them giving Us orders, rather than a complex set of compromises, too prone to corporate capture and ultimately ending up with the member state governments. To hear some of those who complained about the lack of democracy in the EU, you’d think they wanted so clear a line of accountability for the central institutions as to create the kind of superstate they claimed it was already. But we are where we are, and there’s no realistic prospect of rowing back. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/25 "2017-01-25T08:41:36Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > :dubious: > You had ridiculous amount of scrutiny on Maastrich. John Major’s government nearly fell over the issue. The UK unarguably got the best possible deal during the negotiations; as evidenced by the fact even Alex Salmond does not want the Euro anymore. > > Lisborn lacked enough oversight, but then Blair (due to his ridiculously huge majority) tended to keep Parliament out of the loop as much as possible. Maastricht was extensive quibbling over the footnotes, nothing was actually done to address the direction of travel of the E.U. towards the structure that it is now. The detail of each treaty meant that at each stage it became harder and harder for any single country to initiate fundamental change to the E.U. And, inevitably, we find ourselves at the position we do now. Lisbon was waived through on the nod. A refusal of Britain to sign up to either of those would have meant either a major change or an earlier withdrawal with less pain. Neither could have been ratified without the assent of the UK. and there is a good case to be made that it would have been better for such disruption to have been made at an earlier point. As we know, other countries were also steamrollered into re-running referenda until the “required” answer was given. The warning sign have been there for decades. There is now an acceptance at the highest levels of the E.U. that it must change, but it will be much harder because they have been ideologically wedded to a certain vision and they didn’t listen and no-one had the balls to throw a spanner in the works. I think a huge majority of people in the UK are in favour of close ties and trading agreements with Europe but if we were starting again no-one, in the UK or wider Europe, would seek to create the same beast we have now. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/26 "2017-01-25T08:55:29Z")
Then I am afraid if you opposed the principal of further integration, then the ship had long sailed buy 1991, Parliamentary oversight or not. The SEA (Mrs Thatcher) and earlier ECJ caselaw had already expanded the erstwhile EEC’s remit beyond, actually well beyond what the initial Treaty of Rome signatories had intended. Maastrich and Lisborn were born as a result of the road taken by the ECJ in _Costa_, \*Van Gend En Loos \*, _Simmenthal_, _Marleasing_ Major, by getting major British opt outs probably kept the EC/EU from collapsing on itself. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/27 "2017-01-25T09:49:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But so many people seem to have change there minds once they realized what they had done. What the hell are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/28 "2017-01-25T09:50:51Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Seems it would almost certainly favor Remain. > > But wouldn’t a Remain referendum vote outcome (last year) \*\*\*not \*\*\*be subject to Supreme Court / Parliament review? Seems like a double standard. Eh? What? ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/29 "2017-01-25T09:54:58Z")
Anyone who watched/listened to the BBC Nws reports yesterday could be deeply confused: The Supreme Court decision was no more than a procedural clarification necessary in unprecedented circumstances - no country as done this before. There could only be one outcome, of course Parliament is sovereign, of course MPs will vote on the deal. That’s why the Gov is already prepared for the next stage. The rest is just drama for the sake of it. And yes, BBC News is prone to that, esp. since Laura Kuenssberg became Political Editor. Almost infantile spin on this. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/30 "2017-01-25T10:06:23Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > I agree with your posts so far on this thread. I get the impression Labour(other than a few notable exceptions) are going to keep their heads down over this, and to be fair that is probably the wisest course of action the Party can take. Labour, as a Party voting against this Bill, would see about a third of its already cut to the bare bones number of seats under real threat at the next GE. You can’t be this stupid - a week ago the Labour leadership announced a three line whip to help trigger Article 50. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/31 "2017-01-25T10:24:29Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Then I am afraid if you opposed the principal of further integration, then the ship had long sailed buy 1991, I suspect you are right on this, the die was cast. > [@](#): > > The SEA (Mrs Thatcher) and earlier ECJ caselaw had already expanded the erstwhile EEC’s remit beyond, actually well beyond what the initial Treaty of Rome signatories had intended. but I suspect a significant minority of the signatories did have ever-increasing integration as an ideological endpoint. Certainly the original architects had that in mind > [@](#): > > Major, by getting major British opt outs probably kept the EC/EU from collapsing on itself. Perhaps, but my wider point is that such individual tinkering has perhaps delayed an inevitable rethink to a point where it is going to be much more difficult and painful to put it right (if, indeed they ever can). Up until now the response of the E.U. to periods of relative success has been “GREATER INTEGRATION” whilst the response to periods of challenge has been “GREATER INTEGRATION”. Only now when the reality hits home is there impetus for change and a rethink. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/32 "2017-01-25T10:40:13Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > You can’t be this stupid - a week ago the Labour leadership announced a three line whip to help trigger Article 50. No, the Labour leadership didn’t. Corbyn said that he wanted Labour MPs to vote for it, but ducked out of saying there would be a three-line whip: > [@Guardian](#): > > “I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.” > > When asked if that meant a three-line whip, an order to MPs to vote for the bill, he replied: “[It means that Labour MPs will be asked to vote in that direction next week](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/corbyn-to-impose-three-line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50), or whenever the vote comes up.” > [@Telegraph](#): > > And just hours after suggesting MPs will be subjected to a three-line whip on the vote, meaning they would have no choice but to back Mrs May,[aides close to the leader said no decision on the party’s stance had been made.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/labourmps-will-forced-vote-favour-triggering-article-50-says/) > > In an apparent U-turn, sources denied Mr Corbyn will force his MPs to vote with the Government and instead claimed that the leader is still making up his mind. ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/33 "2017-01-25T10:48:24Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Stanislaus** , thanks for the link to the decision. I won’t have a chance to read it today, so l have a quick question, if I may: did the Court refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the _Patriation Reference_? The SCC reached the opposite conclusion on the convention issue, and held that it could declare the scope of a constitutional convention. > > However, that was under the Court’s reference jurisdiction, not a civil action, so it may have a broader jurisdiction than the SCUK. Not that I can see. They do reference “Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution [1981] 1 SCR 753” (para 141) and quote the majority judgement that conventions cannot be legally enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/34 "2017-01-25T10:54:41Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > You can’t be this stupid - a week ago the Labour leadership announced a three line whip to help trigger Article 50. Sorry for missing a fairly minor story in the UK press this week. I was specifically talking of Labour officially opposing the Bill, and gave a couple of different options - abstention and removal of the whip. I would say a 3 line whip in support of this Bill is in itself a way of Labour keeping it’s head down over Brexit. They are not in it to destroy the Bill. Instead, this Bill looks as if it will be one of the easier Bills(in terms of raw numbers) for the UK Gov’t to pass in the Commons this session. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/35 "2017-01-25T10:56:38Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > a week ago the Labour leadership announced a three line whip to help trigger Article 50. Labour are royally fucked on this. There is a very simple equation to be considered and it is captured neatly in the [second bar chart down in this article](http://uk.businessinsider.com/nomura-2-charts-show-why-remain-mps-wont-oppose-brexit-2016-10) Put simply, Labour hold twice as many “leave” constituencies as they do “remain” How can they campaign on a platform of opposition to Brexit and go against two thirds of the seats they hold? But of course all the while Corbyn gives mealy-mouthed assent to such a monumental change he is seen as a weak opposition leader which will not endear him any further to floating voters. Plus if he throws too many procedural spanners in the works as the brexit process progresses then people (certainly the tories) will also blame him if the deal goes pear-shaped…and anyway, ultimately Corbyn _wants_ to be out of Europe, which will forever put him in direct opposition to most of his MP’s He is fighting on several fronts and on at least two of those he is in direct opposition to a huge chunk of his party’s voters and MP’s. All the while he dithers, May can put on a business-like air and make strong sounding speeches like she did last week which (whether you like the content or not) cast Corbyn in a bad light. Labour need to be a strong opposition now more than ever but I can’t hear or see any evidence of that. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/36 "2017-01-25T11:27:03Z")
Seems to me this opens up a historic opportunity for the Lib Dems? If they go in hard for remain, they’ll gain access to the nearly 50 % of voters who are remain and don’t feel neither Labour nor the Tories are on their side here. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/37 "2017-01-25T11:32:11Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I suspect you are right on this, the die was cast. > > but I suspect a significant minority of the signatories did have ever-increasing integration as an ideological endpoint. Certainly the original architects had that in mind > . Actually no. During the _Costa_ litigation representations were made by all six founding governments (and this was a few years after the original treaty was signed , so many of the same people were still around) that under the Treaty of Rome as they had intended to read, did not make EC rules (at the time it was not even called “law”) to be superior to national law. The ECJ told them to get stuffed. During\* Van Gend En Loos - a year later, again all six governments said that nothing in the Treaty was supposed to give private individuals the ability to enforce rights against governments, and indeed International agreements generally do not and are not construed to do so unless specified. The ECJ took the opposite view. So the EEC managed to become more integrated and more influential than its creators intended. Much more. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/38 "2017-01-25T11:55:46Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > You can’t be this stupid . . . . Dial it back. This is not The BBQ Pit. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/39 "2017-01-25T12:02:29Z")
I voted remain and recently responded to an online poll asking remainers what they thought now. I have yet to see the published result, but I suspect that there will be many like me who say that the die is cast - let’s get on with it. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2017, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/40 "2017-01-25T12:06:33Z")
Here’s a very interesting article in the Spectator. The Spectator is a highly conservative publication that strongly supports Brexit… _BUT_ this article fully agrees with the court’s decision: [The Supreme Court ruling, like the Brexit vote, has defended the sovereignty of parliament](http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/supreme-court-judgement-like-brexit-vote-defended-sovereignty-parliament/) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034.md?page=3)