Is The Supreme Court Ruling Now An Irrelvance?

[ToraToraTora]

great politicking from Tezza, Lured labour in and wallop, we are triggering A50 by end of march! sorted!

[Zacs-Master]

Don't count yer chickens:
However, Wednesday’s vote is not binding - meaning that it technically does not have any bearing whatsoever on the Supreme Court case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/does-article-50-vote-mean-brexit-happens-next-britains-departure/

[ToraToraTora]

not binding, yeah like the referendum ZM. Technically correct but in reality they are both binding.

[EDDIE51]

^^ Read the artical TTT.
T May can only trigger A50 IF the supreme court rule in her favour. It WAS NOT a binding vote.

[Zacs-Master]

I only gave a link in answer to your question Tora. I think it speaks for itself in being technically accurate. I'm not sure how something can be so yet you still feel that it's binding.

[ToraToraTora]

Morally binding not technically. I know that may be an anathema to the left but do have a go at getting your heads round it eh.

[EDDIE51]

From the link >
Wednesday’s amendment only states that Parliament “should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”.

Crucially, it DOES NOT trigger Article 50. It is only a commitment to do so by the end of March next year.

[Zacs-Master]

Ah back to the insults I see. Bit embarrassed at not doing a little research before posting a question are we?

[mushroom25]

//T May can only trigger A50 IF the supreme court rule in her favour.//

I thought - and I thought the law lords were at pains to point out yesterday - that what was at issue was whether the royal prerogative (as applies to foreign affairs) applies to the triggering of A50, or not, and not whether A50 could actually be triggered. Or am I and the lords both wrong?

[ToraToraTora]

Yes eddie but now any delaying tactic will be easily batted away.

[mikey4444]

As I have posted on another thread, yesterdays vote was because of a Opposition Day Motion TTT.

Mrs May should be thanking Labour for helping her out of the trouble she was in because of her inexperience and ineptitude.

She should also be calling off her attack-dog lawyers in the Supreme Court, which we, the tax payers are funding !

[youngmafbog]

It was win-win for sensible Labour ant Tory MP's.

The loosers are the Remoaner MP's that will now have to explain to their constituents why they hate democracy.

I think it is probably a bit late for the Supreme Court Mickey, as for attack dogs they are more defensive dogs surely. The case was started by that very rich foreign Lady who didnt like what the people voted for and is seeking to get her (and secretive backers) way by cash.

[mikey4444]

YMB....if this current Supreme Court hearing was just a 1-2 day affair, and cost a few thousand, then I would say that we might as well continue with it, as it will put a firm full stop under any further attempts by Mrs May to deprive Parliament of its proper role.

But that isn't the case. Its costing all of us a very expensive arm and a leg, and now it isn't needed, after last nights vote in the HOC.

Mrs May should now get on with her job of getting the best deal she can for Britain in the withdrawal from the EU. That is what the British public wanted in the Referendum, and to quote the Scottish Play :::::

"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well, It were done quickly"

Mrs May......pull your finger out....please !

[ichkeria]

Gina Miller may be a 'foreigner' to the likes of you but she's been using her money to lobby for more openness in business. What you'd call a 'philanthropist'
What the judges are deliberating on is whether Article 50 can be triggered without a parliamentary vote or merely by the government, and its ruling will be law, unlike the parliamentary vote.
This presumably is why the govt has gone to the huge expense (to us) of an appeal when it presumably now already accepts the principle of what it is appealing against.

[mikey4444]

TTT....I am afraid that you have shot yourself in the foot here, by your use of the word "foreign" !

From her Wiki entry,, it appears to say that she is a "British investment manager "

[Old_Geezer]

I doubt they accept the principle of being unable to progress with the result of a referendum parliament already gave consent to, and knew would be complied with. May is merely ensuring minimal remainer delay by pursuing all routes available, in parallel.

[Peter Pedant]

does 3Ts comment show that he still doesnt understand the issues in the Court and in the Commons

yes - case proven your honour

despite repeated attempts by ZM, Mikey and new j
ho hum the cockney carousel continues unabated

You will notice dear reader that the H of C has been reinvolved in the withdrawal process - something the Supreme Court has been all about

[ and yes political events can overtake the legal process - the 1973 general election and the National Industrial Relations Court springs to mind. ]

[Peter Pedant]

// The case was started by that very rich foreign Lady //

justice is open to everyone in this country YMF
even pink anglos such as yourself .....

( you just have to have er enough money but as Mrs Thatcher would say ( and said ) 'twas ever thus' )

[ichkeria]

"May is merely ensuring minimal remainer delay by pursuing all routes available, in parallel. "

Indeed so. If the Supreme Court rules against the government, then it would be intriguing to see, however, what happens next. Effectively, the vote last night is meaningless per se. After all, MPs have said that they agree to do X by date Y. But of course, in the normal course of events, they'd simply actually vote to do X, by Y, and they've not actually done that. There will have to be another vote. The Daily Telegraph reckons that because there is now a lost of who voted what last night, it will be very difficult for MPs to change their minds in the second vote. But I am not ao sure. This is where the amendment comes in, because by then there will have to be some sort of flesh on the bones, and it may be then that the vegetarians start complaining. So, all may go smooothly for the government, or it "may" not.

Then there's the legal position of the Scottish Parliament to consider :-)

[ichkeria]

"list" not "lost", although who knows ...

[Gromit]

It is a tad ironic that TTT is boasting of the legitimacy of a parliamentary vote yesterday, when he actually wants to deny parliament a vote on the important next step.