
British Government loses Article 50 court fight - wodow
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
======
agd
For those who don't follow British politics this is very significant.

\- Invocation of Article 50 is likely to be delayed from Q1 as the legislation
will go through parliament and the (hostile) House of Lords.

\- A 'hard' Brexit is less likely due to incoming amendments from remainer MPs
and Lords

It also increases the chances of a general election before Article 50 is
invoked if the PM feels that MPs will force too many changes to her
negotiating stance.

Of course this is all subject to appeal, and ironically, could eventually be
decided by a European court!

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
MP's are in a hard place because of this.

The majority of them are pro-remain, having concluded that brexit is damaging
and dangerous and cannot result in a better deal.

... but they will be whipped into line by government (Tory) and party
leadership (Labour) insisting that they follow the settled will of the clear
majority of the people

... but the will of the people is neither settled nor a clear majority.

~~~
midgetjones
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when
52-48 was ever such.

~~~
koolba
> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when
> 52-48 was ever such.

It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote
(say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.

~~~
ricksplat
My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no
specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy:
Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people.

In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum
clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an
open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and possibilities of
those unforeseen etc.

There was nothing like this with "Leave". Article 50 as a the mechanism by
which leave might be initiated was never even mentioned.

Even since the vote there has been all sorts of _inferences_ based on _opinion
polls_ about what the "Leave" constituency desire and it has largely been
interpreted as "keep the foreigners out" \- and that is an interpretation that
clearly has no constitutional footing.

Brexit was at best a plebiscite, dressed up as a referendum. There is a
mandate for leaving the EU, but there is no _prerogative_ at all for any of
the specifics of how that happens nor has there been a robust discussion over
what "Leave" even _means_.

It will be sad to see the UK go and it will be disruptive for many but if that
is her will then so be it, but I wouldn't want it to happen before all that
are involved get to have their say on what it means.

~~~
jleask
That the meaning of "Leave" was left so vague was with hindsight reckless. It
allowed the leave campaign to bring together all the various differing
factions as they could all believe it meant what they wanted it to mean. I can
only assume the government was so confident it would win that it went for an
option that gave the best soundbite and best opportunity to shut up the euro
skeptics in the Conservative party.

~~~
ricksplat
Have a look at this [https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
refe...](https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-
intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/)

It makes for fascinating reading. It covers the data science angle of how the
"Leave" campaign operated.

Basically yeah, they just figured out iteratively what a possible "Leave"
constituency might want to hear and just fed it to them. Details shmetails.

By far the most illuminating piece I've read on the phenomenon and I think it
goes some way towards explaining what's going on in the US right now ...

~~~
makomk
That's the usual modern approach to campaigning, and the one Clinton has been
taking. Trump is of course too ill-disciplined and unreliable to manage this
kind of clever political triangulation; he just seems to make stuff up. May
the best liar win!

~~~
ricksplat
The beauty of trump is he has no encumbrances. He can literally say whatever
he wants with no consequences. When his analysts tell him "this will really
get the yokels going" he can just go ahead and say it. He doesn't have to
worry about any spinning plates in the background.

But that's all he is. Just words and bluster. Hillary like her or loath her
has substance.

------
cmdkeen
Mrs May has a 14 point lead in the polls and justification to call an election
were Parliament to block Article 50. Given the current state of the
opposition, their leader, and the fact that many Labour seats voted Leave it
is a pretty safe bet that the Conservatives could end up with a 100+ majority.

The key thing comes down to what "block Article 50" means. If the Government
decide to not give ground during the Parliamentary process and refuse to be
bound on their negotiating strategy an election is pretty likely as I doubt
they would get that through Parliament at the moment. That election would
potentially enable May to purge some of the wetter Tories as well.

If you think this ruling is going to stop Brexit or is a victory against the
Government I suspect you're going to be disappointed.

~~~
Khol
The issue here is that Theresa May cannot call a general election.

The Fixed-term Parliament Act means that the only ways to call an early
general election are if parliament passes a motion of no confidence in her
majesty's government or a two thirds majority of MPs passes a motion to bring
an early general election.

(A third alternative would be to repeal the act.)

~~~
notahacker
This is a purely theoretical obstacle. In practice, she could call a vote of
no confidence in her government and order her MPs to abstain at very short
notice.

~~~
gsnedders
Why abstain? You risk the motion not passing if they abstain: you simply whip
the party to vote in favour of the motion, therefore defeating yourself.

~~~
notahacker
Abstaining is less politically embarrassing than voting no confidence in
yourself. You can guarantee that at least some of the opposition MPs will vote
no confidence in your government, and it's not really politically possible for
them to vote _in favour_ of your government.

------
bb101
Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity
and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country.

By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has
ensured that Brexit will not happen. That's a sound result for the politicians
and chiefs of industry based in London, but what will it mean for the wider
UK?

Both the courts and parliament demonstrating they are ready to meddle and
overrule the majority will of the people, I have a feeling we are going to see
many, many more votes for UKIP and BNP in any subsequent election. It's a
ratchet effect along the lines of "if they didn't get the message with this
vote, perhaps they'll get the message with this one."

For the Americans out there, this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by
US voters (yes, 52% is still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the
Electoral College deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who
becomes President: of course it would be Clinton.

~~~
notahacker
> this is akin to Trump receiving a 52% majority by US voters (yes, 52% is
> still a majority, no matter how thin), and then the Electoral College
> deciding to vote amongst themselves instead about who becomes President: of
> course it would be Clinton

It's more like Americans voting in a referendum that a trade agreement with
Canada should be scrapped in favour of something new, and then the Supreme
Court ruling that the date of departure and negotiation objectives are set by
Congress debating and voting and not by the House Majority Leader exercising
prerogative powers.

------
nicolapede
I think it was quite arrogant from Theresa May to decide not to involve the
Parliament in the first place. People did not give a blanket mandate to her
for implementing whatever she thinks Brexit means.

~~~
michaelt
The article says parliament will get a vote on whether to invoke Article 50.

As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU, and the UK voted
to leave. And as I understand things, there's only one way to leave the EU,
and that's by invoking Article 50.

Seems to me that means there was a referendum on whether to invoke Article 50,
and people voted to invoke it. Why should MPs get to block the referendum
result?

~~~
nicolapede
And if Theresa May thinks that taking back board control is worth leaving the
single market, can she do that, just because of the referendum?

People also gave Tories majority in the Parliament and Tories' manifesto
committed to stay in the single market.

>As I understand things, there was a vote on leaving the EU, and the UK voted
to leave. And as I understand things, there's only one way to leave the EU,
and that's by invoking Article 50.

You are interpreting people's reasoning here, as Article 50 was not mentioned
in the referendum (another option to leave the EU is to declare war to it, is
that what they voted for, then?) and as I understand things, in UK, that is
the Parliament's job.

~~~
ldjb
Whether the UK remains or leaves the single market isn't really relevant.
Triggering Article 50 opens up the possibility of leaving the single market,
but doesn't necessarily result in it.

Triggering Article 50 is one of the simplest ways of leaving the EU, and it
was almost universally agreed across both sides of the referendum campaign
that Brexit (if that was to be the outcome) would be achieved through the
triggering of Article 50.

I don't think those who want to leave the EU are especially hung up on Article
50 -- it's just a means to an end. How the UK leaves the EU isn't vital.
What's important is that the UK does leave. Those who oppose the triggering of
Article 50 aren't doing so because they want another method of leaving the EU
-- they don't want to leave at all!

The question is ultimately about whether the UK should leave the EU or not.
And the decision was already made on 23rd June.

------
pjc50
Hoisting a comment of mine from a previous thread:

The UK has never been through a "year zero" forcible reconstitution, so its
constitutional and administrative arrangements are full of little adhoc
anomalies (the various islands like Sark and Man, the City, "County" Durham,
chancel repair liability, and so on). Mostly these are a fine and picturesque
addition to the texture of the nation. There's certainly no real appetite to
"fix" things, although Scotland managed to abolish the feudal system
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_Feudal_Tenure_etc...))

However, this means that the sort of internal tensions which in the US get
nailed to the mast of the constitution instead float around, un-crystallized.
Until now, when the "brexit" vote has triggered a cascade of constitutional
crises: is parliamentary consent required to leave the EU? How does this
affect the Good Friday Agreement? What about Scotland? What exactly is the
constitutional status of the Human Rights Act and why do the conservatives
keep trying to abolish it? And so on.

Right now the fight is about "sovereignty", but everyone seems to be operating
with a sixteenth-century Henry VIII view where sovereignty must be absolute
and means getting to do whatever you want. People keep talking about trade
deals without realising that they _also_ involve a compromise in
arbitrariness, especially when things like ISDS are involved. Pretty much any
international agreement involves the governments binding their hands and
refraining from doing certain things (e.g. preferential subsidies) in exchange
for the counterparty also accepting the same restriction.

There seem to be a lot of people who simply cannot handle the idea that other
countries are free to not go along with what Britain wants if it's not also in
their interests. Compromise lacks the stirring power of "sovereignty", but
it's necessary if you want to get on in the global economy.

~~~
thesmallestcat
> Hoisting a comment of mine from a previous thread:

Ugh.

------
throwawayReply
Despite the ruling being kept under-wraps until 10:00, looking at GBP/USD it
started rising at 09:20 suggesting it leaked at that time.

~~~
andysinclair
Services PMI was released at 9:30 which caused a small move up, then around 10
when the A50 ruling was announced there was extreme volatility. I can't see
any indication of a leak.

Overall I can't see Parliament voting to remain, the ruling has only really
delayed he process. It may result in a "softer" Brexit, maybe this is why the
GBP has risen?

~~~
pjc50
I can; there are just enough Tory potential rebels to make it happen, led by
Ken Clarke. I think that a big part of the reason article 50 hasn't been
triggered already is that a lot of people know deep down that it's going to be
a disaster in the long term and their names will live in infamy. Just as we
invoke the name of Vidkun Quisling to this day. But at the same time they know
that _not_ doing so will be unpopular in the short term. They're in a
comparable position to #NeverTrump republicans.

------
cletus
David Cameron is really the architect of this clusterfuck. The referendum
legislation should've made it clear what needed to happen.

May's position is that the PM can wake up one day and decide to irrevocably
and unilaterally leave the EU. That's a ridiculous position. You can argue
there was a referendum but it was non-binding.

MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland will oppose leaving as their
constituents vote overwhelmingly to remain so much so that many in Scotland
want to revisit the question of independence.

The leave vote was a proxy for two issues: first and foremost was immigration.
The second is control of territorial waters and the resulting overfishing.

On immigration, there is no access to the single market without freedom of EU
has made that clear. That will mean paying into the EU coffers too but without
any voting rights. So the alternatives are both terrible (for the U.K.).

The U.K. while in the EU can and has extracted concessions on the threat of
leaving. This is the best position for them. After pulling the trigger the UK
has far less leverage. The EU does want access to the U.K. market but I think
the U.K. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.K.

Hopefully this decision is upheld but even the delay is good. Maybe cooler
heads will prevail. An uninformed 52% fueled by a Leave campaign making a
bunch of promises they cannot keep and had no intention of delivering upon
(since they expected to lose) is hardly a clear mandate.

------
tobltobs
It is the same screenplay as in Switzerland and their MEI referendum [1].
Difference is just that the Brits managed to trash all lot of porcelain before
they will blink.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/swiss-eu-
stand...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/swiss-eu-standoff-
striking-similarities-uk-predicament)

~~~
Zelmor
I didn't know about Horizon2020 and Erasmus, thanks for sharing. I do know
decisions ought to happen before March 2017, when shit would hit the fan for
the Swiss. It would be a shame, it is a country I would definitely would like
to live in sometimes in the future.

------
pavlov
I can't believe the UK government allowed this to happen. They went ahead with
the referendum without ever explaining what Leave means.

They should have drafted the Leave plan first, with very specific dates, and
have people vote on that. "Do you want Britain to invoke Article 50 by 31 Dec
2016?"

That would have been the responsible thing to do. (If anyone argues that you
can't have a referendum on such a specifically worded question -- well, if the
electorate doesn't understand even the basics, is it a good idea to have a
referendum in the first place?)

Cameron must be one of the least competent political leaders of our time.
Maybe the Venezuelan ruling party could hire him as a consultant.

~~~
zigzigzag
There can't be any leave plan because the EU refused to ever even discuss the
possibility, as did unfortunately large chunks of the British civil service.
Their primary strategy, since more or less forever, has been to resolutely
insist that the EU is irreversible and forever and reducing its power is
utterly unthinkable.

Given that both governments refused to contemplate the possibility, how much
of a plan did you expect there to be? Planning for the outcome of referendums
is the governments job!

~~~
pavlov
Who are you blaming exactly when you say that "EU refused"? What should this
other party have done -- written a Leave plan when the UK government wouldn't
do it?

The referendum was a matter between the UK electorate and their government.
Other EU states played no part in that.

The Treaty of Lisbon specifically offers a way for a member state to withdraw
in the timespan of two years. Not sure how you read that as "irreversible".

~~~
zigzigzag
The EU should absolutely have been willing to talk about it, yes!

Article 50 was only put there because the British insisted on it. Read what
the guy who wrote it thinks:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-
refe...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-
britain-theresa-may-article-50-not-supposed-meant-to-be-used-trigger-
giuliano-a7156656.html)

~~~
pavlov
The EU (minus Britain) is over 440 million people. Who should have been
willing to talk? About what?

Cameron did negotiate with EU leaders and tried to get concessions (on top of
the existing special treatment that Thatcher and others negotiated over the
years). Isn't that "talking"? Why didn't the UK government make a plan for the
Leave option after those negotiations were concluded?

The lack of clarity around Leave is really not the fault of anyone except the
UK government. Blaming it on other states is just avoiding responsibility.

------
tom_mellior
For anyone else who likes primary sources on this sort of thing, here is the
court's very readable 2-page summary: [https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/summ...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-
eu-20161103.pdf) (PDF) And here's the actual ruling:
[https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/judg...](https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-
the-eu-20161103.pdf) (PDF)

------
lordnacho
Rather odd situation now. May was lukewarm on remaining, but may now be forced
to whip her MPs into voting to leave.

And the MPs will be under pressure to do as people had voted in the
referendum.

At the same time public opinion may well have moved.

~~~
throwawayReply
And the MPs constituents who they are supposed to represent may be from areas
that voted remain.

~~~
walshemj
And those MP's in rural areas will get pressure to vote remain as the farmers
are getting scared about losing the CAP subsidies and the cheap eastern
european labour to pick the crops.

------
usgroup
This was frankly unexpected. I wonder what P(supreme=no|high=yes) ? If anyone
knows please say. Will the gov bother appealing?

The ruling makes available a sabateurs toolbox and could potentially delay
Brexit for some time.

My bet is that the government don't appeal and then go onto put serious media
pressure on parliament to pull the trigger quickly. Having said that I was
definitely betting that the high court would pass this ...

~~~
pmyteh
Not sure about P(supreme=no|high=yes). I've read the judgment in some depth;
although I'm not a lawyer I am a political scientist with a strong interest in
constitutional law. The principle that rights established by Parliament cannot
be abrogated by the executive in exercise of prerogative powers is a really
strong one in English common law and the judgment seems very strong there.

The technical question about whether the European Communities Act enshrined a
particular set of rights as guaranteed in the treaties, or enshrined whatever
rights happened to be a consequence of those treaties from time-to-time seems
a much closer question in my view. I think the judgment is convincing on the
point, but it wouldn't surprise me if another bench took a different view. In
fact, the High Court in Northern Ireland did, when they recently ruled (though
the present judgment does address and explain the differences).

I think the other thing worth mentioning is that this was a _very_ high
powered High Court panel - it featured both the Lord Chief Justice and the
Master of the Rolls - so it's not exactly akin to a handful of random junior
judges giving an opinion in expectation of being overturned. The Supreme Court
may take a different view of the merits, of course.

~~~
usgroup
Very grateful for the depth of your answer, thank you ...

------
SticksAndBreaks
Good old - we dont like the outcome, lets revote?

~~~
sharrs
It's pretty clear that if they revoted the result of the referendum would be
anti-Brexit so UK is in the absurd situation where they have to proceed with a
major political/economic decision that does not reflect anymore the will of
UK's citizens.

~~~
christoph
And if the vote outcome _does_ change, what do we do afterwards - make it best
of three and have another one to finally settle it as the pro Brexit voters
revolt about their decision being overturned?

------
anon4this1
The common working class person has no real ability to alter the globalisation
and pro-immigration agenda pushed by mainstream politicians. Successive
governments have indicated that they would reduce immigration but all it has
done is increase.

My father was born in Birmingham, a city in which people of english-descent
will be a minority by 2020. When a city is only 40% english-descent, it is no
longer an English city.

Karachi is still a pakistani city. Lagos is still a nigerian city. Birmingham
is not an english city.

Most brexiters aren't particularly fussed with the finer points of the common
market, or EU centralised decision making. They just want border control and
feel completely powerless as things stand to change anything. There is no neat
referendum question regarding immigration, and there seems to be no way other
than a referendum for real democratic hearing of people's views on this issue.

~~~
pmyteh
Brummies born in Birmingham with brown skin are still Brummies, I suggest,
just as the British descendents of Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman, Jewish,
Huguenot, German, Irish, Jamaican and American immigrants remain British.

That, and it's a bit cheeky to pray-in-aid Karachi as some kind of purely
Pakistani city given how much influence we Brits have had over the place as a
result of conquering it.

------
astannard
This put a big smile on my face. I do wonder how many people have had a change
of heart after the facts came out.

~~~
return0
Isn't the general stance still pro-brexit? If anything, this period has made
brexit more acceptable to the eyes of everyone (it used to be taboo).

~~~
M2Ys4U
An opinion poll released today showed a (small) majority in favour of
remaining in the EU.

------
jbb555
Ultimately a clear majority of the UK population is in favor of leave. This
has increased since the vote as the lies of the remain campaign proved not to
be true.

Much of the remain support is concentrated in a handful of London consistences
meaning that almost all english MPs have a significant majority of leave
supporters.

They have to vote for that or they won't be selected in a future election.

In any case. If the government doesn't follow the will of the people, then the
18 million people who votes leave will ensure that we have a new government
one way or another.

~~~
alphadevx
> This has increased since the vote as the lies of the remain campaign proved
> not to be true.

Just curious as an outsider, what lies are those?

~~~
KaiserPro
The main rallying cry was:

o there are no down sides to leaving

o Leaving would give us 350 million pounds extra a week to improve healthcare

o We would have a strong currency

o The world would fall over it's self to give "free trade deals" to the UK

o UK tourists would be able to go to the EU without a visa

o No businesses would leave the UK to avoid trade tarrifs/customs hops

o The UK wouldn't loose service "passport rights" that allow banks, IT
companies and service providers to provide services to the continent without
extra taxes or hurdles

o that more good and secure jobs would be created, and globalisation would be
rolled back

~~~
matthewking
These are all lies told by the leave campaign, not the remain campaign?

~~~
KaiserPro
The Leave side.

The Remain camp had "project fear" which basically translated the top end of
the economic consensus into tabloid.

------
afarrell
Is this something that could split the conservative party between those in
more UKIP-populated districts and those in more LibDem dominated ridings? What
if the LibDems start campaigning in those ridings where they are strong in
order to pressure those MPs? It wouldn't be in the interest of the LibDems as
a party (who would benefit from backlash against triggering article 50), but
it would be in the collective interest of individual LibDem-leaning voters who
want brexit not to happen.

~~~
ldjb
Although they didn't win, the Lib Dems did fairly well in the Witney by-
election and they are certainly making a big deal about the upcoming Richmond
Park by-election.

A lot can happen before the next general election, and the next local
elections aren't until May, after the government intends to trigger Article
50. And the Lib Dems still only have eight MPs. So whilst I'm sure the Lib
Dems will be doing a lot of campaigning, they remain in a rather weak
position.

------
Zelmor
Isn't it a well known fact for everyone by now that leaving the EU would have
dire consequences to England? Losing the shared market access, researchers not
being allowed into shared EU projects, the European Stock Exchange moving from
London OR London leaving the UK, Scotland leaving the UK, maybe even N.
Ireland leaving as well to unify the island (erin go bragh by the way!). How
would it be in the interest for anyone to go on chasing this rabid dog that is
Brexit?

~~~
_delirium
While I think it will overall be bad for the UK, on the specific point of
researchers in shared EU projects, that is a bit less tied to EU membership.
The EU research programme doesn't require EU membership to join, or even
quasi-membership of the EFTA/EEA variety. In fact Turkey recently joined it
(in 2014). It does still require mutual agreement that may or may not happen,
but I think a specific "a la carte" agreement on a programme like this one is
less thorny than most other questions, since it isn't really tied with
anything else (like common markets or immigration or anything else), except
for agreeing to pay the membership dues.

~~~
Zelmor
Factually wrong, it is already happening. It is tied to funding for these
projects. Project management are afraid of losing key research members when
the funding doesn't come through from the UK. So they exclude UK researchers
altogether until things biol over. Problem is, these researches could be
years/decades long, and joining in the middle of it is way harder than during
planning phase.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-
scienti...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jul/12/uk-scientists-
dropped-from-eu-projects-because-of-post-brexit-funding-fears)

------
return0
They should have opted for elections long ago to give the electorate the
responsibility to choose both leaving and _who_ will take them out.

I wonder if it is possible however for either Tories or Labours to go with a
believable pro-brexit stance in the polls. Ideally one would take the "in"
stance and the other the "out", the point is who is with what?

------
user5994461
Meanwhile for the young tech immigrant in the UK:

"Well, time to move to another European country... oh wait, they're all
economically f __ __* and have no jobs for me.

Well, gonna stay in the UK for a bit longer, see how it goes."

~~~
M2Ys4U
The UK is pretty much slap-bang in the middle of the table when it comes to EU
economies. The idea that the UK is an economic powerhouse within the Union is
mostly a myth.

~~~
user5994461
I don't know what you mean.

If you're a software engineer, London has many [good] jobs for you. Your home
country may not.

------
ed_blackburn
As a passionate remainer, as much as I want this to mean something sensible I
hold little hope it'll be nothing more than a side show.

------
devnull791101
hopefully they hold a general election and Mrs May can continue doing her good
work unimpeded for the foreseeable future. You may haggle on the terms of a
"clear majority" on the referendum but there is no mistaking the majority the
tories currently have over their opponents.

------
simonswords82
What a clusterfuck.

------
Kenji
Democracy is dead. The political class spits on your vote and laughs, and you
can do nothing about it. Welcome to the 21st century.

------
andrewclunn
Just in case you thought (foolishly) that democracy was a real thing.

~~~
Tomte
Involving Parliament instead of letting the Government do whatever it wants
_is_ democracy.

~~~
jstanley
Letting parliament vote on something after _everybody_ has already had the
chance to vote on it is not democracy, it's letting the political elite
overrule the decision of the people.

~~~
padolsey
Referendums in the UK are, legally, glorified opinion polls and so any
resulting democratic mandate is spurious.

~~~
pmyteh
The mandate is as strong as mandates ever are in a democracy. But the cost of
ignoring it is political, not legal.

------
AWildWebDev
Britain still has a higher court (Supreme Court) that this will now go to so
this isn't a big deal.

------
venomsnake
As everybody that was calm knew back in june - Brexit will never happen.

------
emp_zealoth
This is a big issue stemming from incredible divide that has happened and is
widening ever faster

You have two camps that are pretty much self contained - paper magazines, TV,
radio, YouTube channels, Facebook groups, even fucking meme sites are now
springing up to spew propaganda

And the worst thing is that on the left you have SJW terrorists attacking
anything and everything just to feel better about themselves, while the right
has no fucking idea how to make anything work good and the only slightly
reedeeming point is their pushback against extremism from the left

And the bubbles just push most of the people off to either side

Brexit done by cretins currently in power will just wreck UK. The tremors we
are seeing now are just the beginning - my welsh friend tells me that power,
water, gas, etc. prices are adjusted yearly, so next wave of pain is
approaching already

Staying in would be the best, IMO, but, it hardly matters - either way you are
going to have ~30% population extremely unhappy

