Traditionally the UK holds that Parliament is sovereign. Some modifications to the absolute sovereignty of Parliament have been made, starting with the Parliament Act of 1911 and including aspects of human rights law (contrary to popular belief withdrawal from the EU will not in itself change the...
@MartinSchröder - Yes. It's a treaty issue so he can simply invoke the prerogative. On top of that, enacting Article 50 can be done with a simple statement from the PM.
@Valorum Sorry, you are incorrect. The UKs membership of the EU is enshrined in Law via an Act of Parliament. So the Prime Minister cannot enact Article 50 without Act of Parliament reversing the current legislature. See link Doing so would be would be legally ineffective and therefore would fail to comply with the Article itself.
@Valorum Do you have any links to an alternative interpretation by 'Constitutional' lawyers? On a subject that has already been plagued by so much conjecture I think it best to stick to verifiable sources.
@BeaglesEnd - Alas, I do not. That being said, a single article does not equal a definitive legal opinion, especially given that a cursory glance at the author list reveals that two of the three writers have spoken out prominently against the government on countless issues. The cynic in me says that they're trying to be controversial in order to gain publicity.
@Valorum Agree that it certainly is not definitive ;) . However in the absence of any other sources, where the protagonists are professionals in that arena and/or there is a legal precedent contradicting that opinion, it's the best we've got.
@BeaglesEnd - The fact that at least one plank of their objections relies on EU law (!) I wouldn't put good money on this opinion standing up in court, especially when a judgement may take multiple years to come through (e.g. after we've left and EU law no longer applies).
I'm sorry isn't this the same old answer everyone keeps giving? What will actually happen? How can it be political suicide if everyone is ignoring it? What does political suicide even mean other than 'people will hate you'.
@djechlin, no it's not. It's just fulfilling a promise. Here is a link to the official UK government leaflet, issued to every household, stating why the Government believed we should vote to remain : eureferendum.gov.uk/… On page 14 it reads "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."
@Insane,Some people may have said that that parliament wouldn't vote to invoke Article 50, but I haven't.
@Lostinfrance, djechlin is right. Whoever pushes the button will be remember by the decision. And I can imagine how the market will react over this event.
@djechlin As a father, I have certainly given my kids the chance to make a poor decision and then let them see first hand the results of that decision. Unfortunately, while the principle is the same, you can't treat a 5 year old's allowance the same as a 2+ trillion dollar economy...
Okay I can try to be a little bit more direct. I think this answer is poor because "political suicide" is being used in a very reductive and simplistic way. It's a complex situation. Lots of options are politically unsavory at best, and political "suicide" at worst. Therefore I don't really accept that labeling one option as suicide, without any credible analysis of any of the other options, as a valid argument.I see this kind of argument all the time -- if you don't like something, call it political suicide, without any further analysis or argument, and consider the case closed.
The prime minister just resigned. If that's not political "suicide" then I don't know what is. So that's a pretty giant proof of concept that when it comes to Brexit, major politicians may consider political suicide on the table. If you want to explain to me why this particular form of political suicide won't be committed please do so in your answer -- that's exactly what I'm urging you should do in this answer.
@djechlin See also this much-quoted Guardian comment, which says that invoking Article 50 is at least a hot potato. I'd like to see an answer posted here that carefully addresses that comment's extraordinary claim that both sides are now in a sort of political zugzwang.
The problem with parliament defying the will of the people is that it would destroy the confidence of the electorate in the political system. In the 1920's, there was a (unjustified) belief in Germany that the Weimar government was illegitimate as a result of the "Stab in the Back" that ended the Great War. Something similar would likely play out in Britain here. There would be lasting and sustained resentment at what would effectively be a coup by the "intelligentsia" against the lower middle/working class. The difference mainly being that in this case, the "Stab in the Back" would in fact…
Discussion on answer by Lostinfrance:…
Discussion on answer by Lostinfrance:…