Top UK judges rule: Government can't pull the Article 50 trigger alone

Re: Worst of both worlds

"What then, does the PM keep forcing re-votes until she gets her way?"

I think a fail at this stage would be counted as a confidence vote which would mean a general election. Given that Labour are in no shape to fight one I doubt they'll rock the boat so it'll go through.

Re: Worst of both worlds

Let's face it, a majority of MP's will not vote against Brexit. Regardless of their opinions on the matter, they realise it would be bad for their careers.

However, a defeat by the government is still possible. A vote against triggering A50 is possible if the govt try to force it through with unacceptable terms (e.g. not enough scrutiny on the negotiations from Parliament). While the most extreme of the Leave voters (and the stupid ones who don't understand the process and think the Supreme Court just ruled against Brexit) would rail against MPs "ignoring the will of the people", it would actually be very sensible to ensure that controls are in place in the Act to stop TM running off and doing whatever the hell she wants.

EDIT: Also, a defeat would probably be seen as a vote of no confidence, as mentioned above.

A referral to the ECJ was possible on the "is article 50 binding" question but both sides agreed it was, despite the author saying it wasn't, so that particular pantomime has been avoided.

Shame really, might have been fun watching some people explode with rage.

"The court has merely said that parliament must be 'consulted', it does NOT say any vote in parliament can stop leaving"

^ That is gravely mistaken not least because May herself gave an assurance that both parliamentary chambers would be given a vote on the final Brexit deal so therefore an eventual, and highly economically destructive, May hard Brexit offering could very well end up being voted down in both chambers.

Memo to all Leave scribblers: think clearly and logically (if you can, that is) before you write anything down and you almost certainly will not get your own way in everything that you want.

"it does NOT say any vote in parliament can stop leaving"

Err no, their Lordships said that Parliament must pass an Act. Mere consultation or even just a resolution won't do.

"It can quite easily totally ignore any such advice, having complied with the court, it is not bound by any advice."

If you want to shout at people and pick holes in things, just remember it can also totally ignore any such advice, having complied with the court, and it is not bound by any advisory referendum either, it 's just chosen to follow the line screamed by the Daily Fail, the Murdoch "newspapers", and of course the Home Office mandarins who wrote the Snoopers Charter (who needs Human Rights anyway?)

"The court has merely said that parliament must be 'consulted', it does NOT say any vote in parliament can stop leaving."

No it has not. It has said the exact opposite. You can read the judgement in full at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html but if you wish I can save you the effort. The relevant paragraph is number 24 on p 39 (of 97; after a long analysis of the constituational history, the relevant legislation and the legal arguments and followed by an analysis of the issues raised by the devolved governments and the minority dissenting opinions).

"Thus, the referendum of 2016 did not change the law in a way which would

allow ministers to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union without

legislation. But that in no way means that it is devoid of effect. It means that, unless

and until acted on by Parliament, its force is political rather than legal. It has already

shown itself to be of great political significance."

Consultation is not enough. There must be legislation. And it must be before the triggering of Article 50 as it is common ground of both parties that once invoked Article 50 cannot be stopped (para 60 on p9 if you want to check).

It beggars belief that the Leavers are so fixed in ignoring anything whatsoever which contradicts their view of the world. It does not augur well for the future when one considers that this is the quality of knowledge and thinking which has driven their votes.

There's no 'uncertainty' about it at all.

No, none at all. Except:

- what trade deals, if any, we end up with and on what terms

- impact on the economy,

- impact on people's rights,

- impact on employment,

- impact on people's wages,

- impact on tax revenues,

- impact on inflation,

- impact on trade,

- what will happen to expats in the EU

- a multitude of other questions

No, no uncertainty at all.

“Any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an act of parliament. To proceed otherwise would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries.”

Not advice, not consultation, an ACT of parliament. No Act, no Article 50, FULL STOP.

"indicates determination to ignore the narrowness of the vote ?"

Since the vote opinion polls have consistently shown that about 60% of the UK population approve of the EU. That is why the press etc are screaming loudly, they know that as time goes on and the full impact becomes known brexit will be dropped.