Thanks (or no thanks) to a private prosecution, the High Court has ruled that MPs must be given a vote on triggering Article 50 - but what happens now?
Firstly, the government have appealed to the Supreme Court; my suspicion is that the High Court ruling will indeed be upheld by the Supreme Court, and there will be a vote in Parliament before triggering Article 50.
Would the current Parliament actually uphold the referendum result in a vote? I think the likely answer is yes, purely because they want to keep their seats and their jobs. For the result of the referendum result to be upheld, MPs need to understand that they will lose the support of their constituents (and ultimately their jobs) if they vote against leaving the EU. This is why it's important to write to your MP, and politely explain to them that it is important to uphold the democratic will of the people.
The ruling of the High Courts is unlikely to actually block the triggering of Article 50, but will more than likely delay it. This is frustrating to the public, and the additional uncertainty dissuades the business investment needed for a healthy economy and jobs market. Ultimately, however, starting the process of leaving the EU slightly later next year may be beneficial for the UK; elections in France and Germany mean that there will be new leadership in major EU countries by Autumn who may well be more reasonable negotiating partners.
It's also important to note that Mrs. May is in India for trade discussions this weekend, we've had another royal tour in Canada, and good sentiment regarding trade arrangements with countries in the rest of the world. Getting good trade intentions from the rest of the world seems to be a reasonable strategy to put the UK in a strong negotiating position when it actually comes to leaving the EU, as global trade access provides mutual benefits.
Overall, the High Court and likely Supreme Court ruling will only serve to delay Brexit - on the plus side this could put us in a stronger negotiating position. It is important to continue to remind our elected representatives that the democratic vote of the people must be upheld - because they'll be voted out at the next election if they don't.
I don't think the politicians are that concerned. I think they will vote Article 50 down if they have the chance out of a kind of brainwashed sense of ... whatever it is, something;
ReplyDeleteThis is the perspective of my Remain supporting MP: This is on RT'd by someone else on his twitter with the caption: Great to see my MP @peterkyle taking a position on behalf of the most vulnerable
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/14845759.Kyle_joins_rebel_Lucas_against_Brexit_on_wrong_terms/
This guy does not respond to any logical points. He just carries on like a lemming. He made a massive passionate rant when he lost the EU referendum and during the Remain campaign and if you write something in the comment box that completely undermines his argument in a factually sourced way he just ignores you. In this article he says:
"I believe that if in my heart I believe that by submitting Article 50 we will damage either our society, our economy, or a significant part of our population, then I cannot in conscience do it."
This will always justify Remain from this persons perspective because you cannot remove uncertainty from the future. He seeks security over freedom essentially.
And if there are two types of people voting remain, people like Mr Kyle, who are set in their ways and have no desire to consider other options or the wishes of the 'people' they deem themselves to be above. And those who know what is going on but are blackmailed into it by having video available of them in paedophilic acts for example.
From my side of The Atlantic, the Brexit vote seemed to be a perfectly rational exercise in retaining national identity and control of one's borders. Anyone who rants and raves about "economic loses" would seem to have no understanding of trade and the capitalistic impulse. If I were an Englishman doing business in France, I would darn well figure out how to continue doing business regardless of some vote. There seemed to be plenty of trade going on before the EU.
ReplyDelete