Home | About | Donate

Anti-Brexit Ruling Gives Surprise 'Victory for Parliamentary Democracy'


#1

Anti-Brexit Ruling Gives Surprise 'Victory for Parliamentary Democracy'

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The U.K.'s High Court on Thursday ruled that only British Parliament can decide to leave the European Union, slowing Prime Minister Theresa May's unilateral Brexit plans in what one leading lawyer called "a resounding defense" of democracy.


#3

No matter how you feel on this subject, this is just another example of the fact that our vote does not mean anything and the will of the rich and powerful always wins.


#4

Yes, and to hear Corbin say that their must be accountability to parliament is a shock.
What happened to Parliament's accountability to the people?


#5

48% no and 52% yes, from 76% of eligible voters, to leaving the Europe is a rather underwhelming majority. As a Brit I am pleased about the decision. As for the banksters of Europe; the British Government nationalised the Royal Scottish Bank when it went arse-over-tip because of greed, the taxpayer thus saved it and now the Tories (derived in the 18th century from Thoraid; Gaelic for thief) want to privatise it when it hasn't repaid the taxpayer. Ho hum, who needs Germans banksters to screw you when your own banks are doing it anyway.

The advantage of the EU is that it has a Court of Human Rights, which can if need be have influence in the UK. Plus there are a lot of expat Brits living in the EU and an EU passport is extremely useful. As for Parliamentary accountability; take the vote to leave to a General Election; if the Tories really want a mandate for "brexit", that is the way to achieve it.


#6

The Tories were trying to force through Brexit based on a medieval law which gives perogative power as formally used by Kings (dictators) overuling parliament elected by the people. We had a bloody civil war over this and beheaded the King back in the 1600's to make sure excatly this doesn't happen. This ruling merely sets them right saying in a pariamentary democracy they have no right to do that and must consult the parliament first. Or would you rather revert to unaccountable perogative power structures? It doesn't mean Brexit won't go ahead, it means it has to be debated in parliament and not be done behind closes doors by a tiny bunch of right-wing, neo-liberal fanatics. Labour are pleased about this ruling because it means matters such as environmental leglislation, worker's rights, etc, will now have to be debated and if they don't like a deal with the EU that removes them they can vote against it. Otherwise you give the neo-liberals carte blanche. This is a victory for democracy. It also reflects the incompetence of the Brexiterrs in that they never had a plan for Brexit and when laying out the referendum didn't make it binding under law but made it advisory. Moreover, there are probably more 'rich and powerful' supporting Brexit than against it. It's mainly the Tories who wanted it, and of them, the most neo-liberal.


#7

Thanks for the explanation.


#8

I recently, here in EU Land, purchased some English produced potato chips while shopping on the continent. I began wondering if the English will have to pay an import duty on any such an export if they do leave the EU. Also, if Scotland and/or Northern Ireland decide to stay, how will commerce and movement of people between those EU countries be handled?

Norway had over time more than a decade or so negotiated to become part of the European Economic Area (EEA), and assumed many the requirements of the European Trade Association (EFTA). It has accepted the requirements it negotiated for joint adherence to EFTA , including the rules of the Schengen Area. That was one of the key areas that brought on the movement for the withdraw of England from the EU. While many agreements were reached between Norway and the EU, key to the association was the acceptance of and adhering to Schengen. The social and economic (and military) agreements between Norway and the EU are or have been negotiated with Brussels holding the significant cards; the agreements between the nations on both the EEC and the EFTA part were reached in a convivial atmosphere. It's more than likely that England will not come to many agreements on the principals of the EFTA, and few of, if any, requirements on agreements for associated with the EEC.

The devil is in the details, and from all the information on Brexit that I've taken in thus far, it seems that England has yet to explore the details.


#9

Thank you for this explanation as my understanding was the vote was always advisory.


#10

Exactly, and worse than that, the brexit campaigners didn't have any actual plan for what they campaigned involving such details and so were able to claim anything off the top of their heads even though people with a more detailed grasp of the realities knew they were undeliverable, yet such rational voices were drowned out in a tide of fervent nationalism and xenophobia as 'scare-mongerers.' A blanket sound bite used to shut down any kind of serious rational discourse. And so the brexiteers where able to promise incompatable realities, such as 'we can still have access to the open market' when challenged on how a leave vote may effect trade, and then the next minute, how 'we will be able to stop freedom of movement and control our borders,' two promises we now know are almost certainly incompatible. Such a disgraceful low level moronic campaign all round.