'A hollow victory': our readers on the supreme court Brexit ruling

来源:永乐国际-官网√ 作者:牧胃寝 人气: 发布时间:2019-11-16

, confirming that parliament will vote on authorising the UK’s departure from the EU.

A spokesman for the prime minister Theresa May said: “We respect the supreme court’s decision, and will set out our next steps to parliament shortly.”

Readers have been discussing the implications of the ruling, and sharing their thoughts on how the parliamentary parties should proceed.

Below, we highlight some of the best contributions so far.

‘This will not change the result of the referendum’

Whilst this decision in no way changes the outcome of the shambolic referendum - the terms of which were clearly unfit for purpose - it is important to rein in those on the extreme right who would choose to ignore the constitution of a parliamentary democracy.
Perhaps now the government will wisely use the power of parliament to consider each element of the withdrawal process & do what is in the best interest of the whole country, remembering that the final result was 52%:48% and not - as the extreme right would claim - a landslide.

‘A hollow victory for Remainers’

Just read the press summary of the judgement and, as a leave voter, I feel the judgement is really not all that bad. Firstly it seems that the difference between the 8 who say an act of parliament is needed before art 50 and the 3 who say it isn't is mainly one of degree. The changing of rights and the removing of the primacy of EU law will require and act of parliament at some stage, whether now or further down the line. So in my opinion it is probably better to get it out of the way as quickly as possible and thereby making sure at the earliest possible point to ensure the proper legality of the move to leave the EU. Meanwhile the judgement basically tells the devolved parliaments that they have no legal beef in this process.

The final outcome, I feel, will be a rather hollow victory for those seeking to remain in the EU. To be fair it might have helped their game to have brought this out further down the line rather than ensuring that this Government got its legal position right from the outset.

‘Only Labour can stop a “hard Brexit”’

It now lies with Labour to stop the hard/far right Tory/UKIP vision. There's enough Tory MP's who may well vote against their party, so Labour can stand with the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid, and all the other parties standing against a hard or give ground to the Tories.

‘Article 50 will be activated but under what terms?’

Not an unexpected decision so no real shock. Article 50 will be activated but under what terms. Labour MP's are now in a situation that they really, really didn't want to be in. If they are seen to be blocking the democratic decision of their constituents, for many of them its career over at the next election and since a large number of Labours constituencies voted leave its gonna leave a lot of these MP's in a cold sweat. Recent polls have shown that there is a large majority in the country , remainers included, that are a little tired of this dragging on, and want to get on with it. The question is, will Labour MP's vote to save their own skins. I think we probably know the answer to that.

Lead claimant in the Article 50 case, Gina Miller, delivers a statement outside the supreme court in London. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA

‘This will lead to the break up of the UK’

You thought that the referendum result had divided the country ? I predict that this judgement and the passage of the Bill through Parliament will exceed everything that we have seen to date on the issue and the United Kingdom will merely become even more "Disunited". There are no winners to-day on either side of the argument.

In addition it will also fuel the forces of nationalism and populism . We are seeing the slow motion eventual break up of the United Kingom I am afraid but that was the case the moment Cameron recklessly called the referendum last year on the basis of a weak negotiation deal.

Whatever the outcome of "Brexit" negotiations the country will be split down the middle and that is the only certainty in all of this

‘This is all just theatre’

It’s good that parliament’s supremacy has been asserted. And this whole episode has shown 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, with their idiotic “enemies of the people” rhetoric. Shameful.

That said, this is all just theatre in the end. Parliament will vote Article 50 through. The referendum wasn’t billed as ‘advisory’. People voted on the understanding that it will be binding. So to overturn the result now would be to mortally damage the perception of legitimacy that the democratic system depends on. The outcome of that would be worse than Brexiting – a roiling tide of rage that could lead to a Trump-style despot.

‘May is playing a dangerous game’

Not a good week for Theresa "tentative Remainer to full-on Brexiter" May. The debacle over Trident and her refusal to answer a simple question, and now this, something she was dismissing only a few months ago. May is playing a very dangerous game by painting her plans for a hard, red, white and blue Brexit, when in reality I'm sure she's much keener on a less severe break from the EU. She was, after all, a Reamainer (albeit only just).

She's clearly playing a numbers game, banking on the fact that the 52% all want the same thing. That's why she's taking the hardline approach. She's appealing to the Kippers and the more extreme wing of her party, no matter what the consequences. As she'll find out, having your cake and eating it is very rarely possible. Concessions have to be made. The EU are in a much stronger negotiating position than us - the idea that we're going to get everything we want (or 52% apparently want) is such nonsense.

Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage conducts a television interview on the supreme court’s ruling. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

‘I’m still trying to figure out Labour’s position’

Still trying to figure out what Labour's position in all this is.

All good and well saying parliament must have a genuine say on final deal but the reality is that this is simply not possible. Even if the tories were minded to consider re-engaging in negotiations if parliament rejects the deal, there's no guarantee that the EU would agree to this. Once Article 50 is triggered, we (and that includes parliament and the government) are no longer in full control of the process.

Starmer knows this. Therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion that Labour are merely putting up a symbolic opposition on brexit. I wouldnt be surprised if, secretly, they were hoping for the government to win this case.

‘Now parliament can set out the terms of our leaving’

The significance of this case is not that it provides MPs with an opportunity to block Brexit. I am sure Parliament will trigger A50 in the next few weeks. What is significant is that MPs are now required to do their job, including representing all their constituents views and aspirations. They have an opportunity to do what the Referendum failed to do: set out the terms of our leaving. This does not require huge detail. Polly Toynbee's approach is fine (we can debate the list, but the 'headline' approach is fine). In fact, the Government had an opportunity also. It should come forward with a White Paper and a detailed Bill, which Parliament can debate openly, amend as necessary and then vote through. If we aim to be in control of our affairs again, then let us do so in style and with a great degree of maturity, and let us begin to heal the rift between the 52:48.

‘Parliament should hold the government’s Brexit policy to account’

I voted leave but disagree with the apparent Government Brexit policy.
Here's where Parliament should now hold the Government Brexit policy to account before agreeing the Art 50 Bill:

1. How do you expect to negotiate a trade deal with the EU within 2 years when the EU has never negotiated one within 3 years, and when we have an exit deal and a phased implementation process to agree at the same time?
2. Why are we abandoning the Single Market, a British invention, when regulatory harmonisation is obviously an effective method in increasing global wealth?
3. Why are we sacrificing our voice in the evolution of the Single Market in favour of controlling EU migration when we have not exhausted all options of reducing EU migration already, and could reduce non-EU migration to zero overnight?
4. Explain, in detail, the exact consequences of reaching no deal with the EU, and why exactly taking the risk of no deal being reached is in the national interest.

But they won't, they will moan and complain about, what are in comparison, totally irrelevant and pointless issues such as workers' rights and tax havens.
Whether Parliament is involved or not, we do not have a fully functioning and effective democracy.