# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/121 "2017-03-10T15:40:42Z")
> [@Lyonessite](#): > > There is no evidence that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn with or without EU agreement. It may need to be decided by the ECJ, but if the UK did withdraw, a political fudge would be organised. There’s also no evidence that it can. The rules say that it’s triggered and after two years the country in question is out. If it is possible to withdraw, the UK would likely survive the legislative whiplash of a reversal but not without injury. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/122 "2017-03-10T15:41:41Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There’s a Dawkins video going around at the moment that makes a point I’ve been pondering since the Scottish referendum, which is: why are these major, irrevocable decisions based on simple majority results in public votes? If 49.9% want one thing and 50.1% want another, can we really say the people have spoken? Hell, that’s within the margin of error. Ideally there ought to be a two-thirds approval requirement to change the status quo, and certainly nothing under 60%. A candidate or government that wins by a single vote will be up for a vote again within five years, but Brexit and devolution are forever (or as “forever” as anything in politics is). It would be politically unacceptable for the Scottish case as they were cheated out of devolution three decades ago. It would cause uproar even with Unionists if Westminster acted to limit a Scottish decision. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/123 "2017-03-10T15:43:49Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > And that’s why the EU holds all the leverage: it doesn’t have to give any concessions at all unless it wants to, and it has an active incentive to hit the UK as hard as possible in order to send a message to any other countries thinking of leaving. Meanwhile, the UK will face a ticking clock to negotiate the best possible deal, a clock the EU can easily run down on any terms it doesn’t like, and the UK can’t decide to cancel the exit just because it doesn’t like the deal. > > (In theory, of course, the EU could decide to let the UK stay in should the UK change its mind…but be prepared for a re-renegotiation of the current terms. Say goodbye to the rebate, for starters…) Not really. Article 50 has not been shown to be irrevocable. If revoked the UK and EU would still be bound by the treaties they signed. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/124 "2017-03-10T15:45:52Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > There’s also no evidence that it can. The rules say that it’s triggered and after two years the country in question is out. If it is possible to withdraw, the UK would likely survive the legislative whiplash of a reversal but not without injury. Sorry, that is not the case. Have you read Article 50? The author believes it allows revocation. ---
**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:** [March 10, 2017, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/125 "2017-03-10T16:58:39Z")
> [@Lyonessite](#): > > Sorry, that is not the case. Have you read Article 50? The author believes it allows revocation. Well I have, and it’s pretty clear to me that it doesn’t permit revocation, and allows for subsequent re-application to be subject to the normal application procedure - your view rests on the assumption that a lack of explicit exclusion implies inclusion, which defies common sense (have we been over this ground before?). In any case, what the person who drafted it believes is beside the point. Now it’s law, it would be legally up to the ECJ to rule on what it means, should someone chose to make a case out of it, and even if no-one did, a decision politically to pretend that the notification under Art. 50 hadn’t happened would require unanimity among the member states. Revocation isn’t a starter. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/126 "2017-03-10T17:35:40Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Well I have, and it’s pretty clear to me that it doesn’t permit revocation, and allows for subsequent re-application to be subject to the normal application procedure - your view rests on the assumption that a lack of explicit exclusion implies inclusion, which defies common sense (have we been over this ground before?). In any case, what the person who drafted it believes is beside the point. Now it’s law, it would be legally up to the ECJ to rule on what it means, should someone chose to make a case out of it, and even if no-one did, a decision politically to pretend that the notification under Art. 50 hadn’t happened would require unanimity among the member states. > > Revocation isn’t a starter. Which is also the view of the various (informal) legal opinions I’ve read as well as some professional legal opinions received. If the UK and the EU - the whole EU - decide to allow the UK to change its mind, there’s nothing to stop that from happening, but neither is there the remotest element in the Article to indicate that unilateral revocation is an option. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/127 "2017-03-10T19:08:16Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Well I have, and it’s pretty clear to me that it doesn’t permit revocation, and allows for subsequent re-application to be subject to the normal application procedure - your view rests on the assumption that a lack of explicit exclusion implies inclusion, which defies common sense (have we been over this ground before?). In any case, what the person who drafted it believes is beside the point. Now it’s law, it would be legally up to the ECJ to rule on what it means, should someone chose to make a case out of it, and even if no-one did, a decision politically to pretend that the notification under Art. 50 hadn’t happened would require unanimity among the member states. > > Revocation isn’t a starter. Politically it might be difficult, but legally it is difficult to interpret it in the way that you do. The author says it was intended to be revocable. Both parties are tied by their treaty obligations until they are abrogated or agreed to be ended. The text: Article 50 Print Email 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 1. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/128 "2017-03-10T19:10:16Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Which is also the view of the various (informal) legal opinions I’ve read as well as some professional legal opinions received. If the UK and the EU - the whole EU - decide to allow the UK to change its mind, there’s nothing to stop that from happening, but neither is there the remotest element in the Article to indicate that unilateral revocation is an option. Please cite those ‘opinions’. Read the text above. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/129 "2017-03-10T19:21:48Z")
An interesting analysis of the legal and political possibilities over revocation of Article 50 withdrawal. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/130 "2017-03-10T19:50:56Z")
> [@Lyonessite](#): > > An interesting analysis of the legal and political possibilities over revocation of Article 50 withdrawal. [http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes](http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes) ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2017, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/131 "2017-03-10T21:07:54Z")
This gives you an idea of how far the EU would go to keep the UK in the EU. [http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes](http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/12/12/can-we-withdraw-article-50-once-we-trigger-it-probably-yes) ---
**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:** [March 11, 2017, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/132 "2017-03-11T08:08:33Z")
> [@Lyonessite](#): > > Both parties are tied by their treaty obligations until they are abrogated or agreed to be ended. Exactly - and the legal authority who would ultimately decide on what those obligations are is the European Court of Justice - if anyone should refer the issue to them. If they don’t, then it becomes an issue as to how the Council of Ministers (the other member state governments) would react if the UK suddenly announced it wanted to revoke the application. Maybe they would consider it as falling into the process of negotiating an agreement by QMV, maybe they wouldn’t and would treat it as a new application under Art. 49: maybe they’d agree it without any change in the UK’s position within the EU, but maybe they’d expect some additional price to be paid for mucking everybody about - some opt-out or previous concession abandoned. And that’s to say nothing about the reaction within the UK if such a massive U-turn were to be undertaken without a further referendum. “Politically difficult” isn’t in it, as understatements go. One might conceive of enough people having second thoughts if it becomes clear the price of departure would also be the departure of Scotland from the UK, but since that would only be clear after a Scottish referendum approving independence - it would become a question of which referendum result Westminster would choose to ignore, and whether the outraged disappointed would allow them to get away with it. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2017, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/133 "2017-03-11T08:54:31Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Exactly - and the legal authority who would ultimately decide on what those obligations are is the European Court of Justice - if anyone should refer the issue to them. If they don’t, then it becomes an issue as to how the Council of Ministers (the other member state governments) would react if the UK suddenly announced it wanted to revoke the application. Maybe they would consider it as falling into the process of negotiating an agreement by QMV, maybe they wouldn’t and would treat it as a new application under Art. 49: maybe they’d agree it without any change in the UK’s position within the EU, but maybe they’d expect some additional price to be paid for mucking everybody about - some opt-out or previous concession abandoned. > > And that’s to say nothing about the reaction within the UK if such a massive U-turn were to be undertaken without a further referendum. “Politically difficult” isn’t in it, as understatements go. One might conceive of enough people having second thoughts if it becomes clear the price of departure would also be the departure of Scotland from the UK, but since that would only be clear after a Scottish referendum approving independence - it would become a question of which referendum result Westminster would choose to ignore, and whether the outraged disappointed would allow them to get away with it. Thing is though, we are in uncharted territory anyway. Any issues arising from revoking article 50 are minimal compared to the actual decision already taken to leave in the first place. That’s why I rule nothing out and based on the EU’s rather loose interpretation of their supposedly watertight rules I’m open to pretty much anything, regardless of any blather in the press. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/134 "2017-03-11T09:21:44Z")
Indeed, it’s all just so much guff. I think the theoretical legal possibilities inform the political environment, which inform the bluff and double-bluff of the negotiations. In the end - somewhere around the next ice age - (a) there will be a deal and (b) Merkel will have to make concessions on free movement. Or Merkel will depart stage left and some new bod will do the same deal. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/135 "2017-03-11T11:22:09Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Indeed, it’s all just so much guff. > > I think the theoretical legal possibilities inform the political environment, which inform the bluff and double-bluff of the negotiations. Paragraph 3 says the exit is final two years after the notification, if no withdrawal agreement is reached. So technically, at least, there doesn’t _have_ to be an agreement or a negotiation. Once the UK submits its Article 50 notification, what will the EU want from the UK that would bring it to the negotiating table? ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/136 "2017-03-11T11:54:30Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Exactly - and the legal authority who would ultimately decide on what those obligations are is the European Court of Justice - if anyone should refer the issue to them. If they don’t, then it becomes an issue as to how the Council of Ministers (the other member state governments) would react if the UK suddenly announced it wanted to revoke the application. Maybe they would consider it as falling into the process of negotiating an agreement by QMV, maybe they wouldn’t and would treat it as a new application under Art. 49: maybe they’d agree it without any change in the UK’s position within the EU, but maybe they’d expect some additional price to be paid for mucking everybody about - some opt-out or previous concession abandoned. > > And that’s to say nothing about the reaction within the UK if such a massive U-turn were to be undertaken without a further referendum. “Politically difficult” isn’t in it, as understatements go. One might conceive of enough people having second thoughts if it becomes clear the price of departure would also be the departure of Scotland from the UK, but since that would only be clear after a Scottish referendum approving independence - it would become a question of which referendum result Westminster would choose to ignore, and whether the outraged disappointed would allow them to get away with it. No. The ECJ is, of course, going to be looking at the case from the EU law point of view. If there were to be a challenge to the UK changing its mind, it would be proper for the International Court of Justice to decide purely on the wording and intention of the Treaties. Should opinion polls show, as I exect they will, total horror at the outcome f the negotiations, the ‘mandate’ of the referendum would be seen as very doubtful. ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/137 "2017-03-11T11:56:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Paragraph 3 says the exit is final two years after the notification, if no withdrawal agreement is reached. So technically, at least, there doesn’t _have_ to be an agreement or a negotiation. > > Once the UK submits its Article 50 notification, what will the EU want from the UK that would bring it to the negotiating table? But what if the UK withdraws its application even before two years are up? The Treaties then continue unamended. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2017, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/138 "2017-03-11T13:05:11Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Once the UK submits its Article 50 notification, what will the EU want from the UK that would bring it to the negotiating table? Aside from the odd city (Paris, Frankfurt) there is no economic benefit to the EU - or indeed to the UK - from the UK leaving. None of the 27 wants the UK to leave. The UK is an excellent trading partner, esp. to Germany which has a 50-60 billion euro trading surplus that German manufacturing doesn’t want to lose. And no one at all in the EU wants barriers to the financial services out of London. When all the bluff and postering dies down the great question is how far down the road of negotiations will this go before Germany - under whatever leadership at that point - finally agrees to move their position on the issue of freedom of movement (uncontrolled immigration as between EU states). ---
**Author:** ![Lyonessite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecccb3/32.png) [@Lyonessite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lyonessite)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/139 "2017-03-11T13:14:06Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Aside from the odd city (Paris, Frankfurt) there is no economic benefit to the EU - or indeed to the UK - from the UK leaving. None of the 27 wants the UK to leave. > > The UK is an excellent trading partner, esp. to Germany which has a 50-60 billion euro trading surplus that German manufacturing doesn’t want to lose. > > And no one at all in the EU wants barriers to the financial services out of London. > > When all the bluff and postering dies down the great question is how far down the road of negotiations will this go before Germany - under whatever leadership at that point - finally agrees to move their position on the issue of freedom of movement (uncontrolled immigration as between EU states). That misses the point that it is a political necessity for the UK to be shown to have suffered serious damage by leaving the EU to discourage other potential leavers. May seems determined to ensure this happens. ---
**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:** [March 11, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034/140 "2017-03-11T13:39:20Z")
How will that happen without European jobs suffering: Germany can and does bully Greece and Spain and Ireland and Italy - in fact, German financial imperialism bullies the entire euro zone - but the UK has the means to stand up for itself. A lot more posturing and bluster to go yet … [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parliament-must-vote-on-brexit-so-saith-the-supreme-court-of-the-uk/778034.md?page=8)