Article 50 and Labour Viewpoint

tuiip-siddiq

As Article 50 bill is getting ready, media is again highlighting conflicts within Labour.

I think these discussions are vital signs of an active party with supporters from all walks of life.

Internal Labour discussions are not much different from a REMAIN voted (then MP) PM presenting the Article 50 bill.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both supported REMAIN, but the country voted otherwise.

Being respectful of that decision, both leaders are asking their respective MPs to pass Article 50 bill so that the negotiations with EU and rest of the world could commence.

This being the case, why single out the internal difference within Labour?

The referendum was not discussed and voted based on party affiliations.  Instead, supporters from all parties (except UKIP of course) were intensively divided to support both sides of the argument.

One of the sides won.

Now leaders of both major parties are asking their MPs to vote to support invoking Article 50.

I do not see anything wrong with it.

If Tulip Siddiq cannot understand that democratic process, it is better for her to resign.

Advertisements

Brexit, Judiciary and ruling on Article 50

Article50_court_ruling.png

Court ruling on Article 50 invocation dominates UK press and media for last couple of days.

A number of newspapers had headlines similar to “court vs. people” and calling the judges “enemies of people”.

Is it really so?  I do not think so.

The judges in their ruling clearly mentioned that “the court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the EU, which is a political issue”.

Then what is the ruling?

The court was requested to decide whether the UK Government is entitled to invoke Article 50 without a reference to parliament.  The judges ruled that the Government cannot overlook the parliament.  The ruling also mentions that “the most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it choose.”

This principle is critical.

Not only it is critical, but it is what the referendum voters voted for, in a larger context.  The referendum results established the fact that UK voters do not like rules imposed on them by an un-elected EU parliament – which was what the PM and her Government were trying to do.

From that perspective, I even dare to say that the judges were more biased towards the Brexit results!

So, the ruling should not be considered as a blow to referendum result.  It only says that Government should now present the terms – that it intend to discuss and debate with EU – first with the parliament, and then initiate the Article 50 discussions.

From this perspective, the ruling indeed is a defeat of the Prime Minister Theresa May and her Government.  The PM and her Tory party should not rush in to the Article 50 discussions directly with the EU; instead it should properly debate UK’s case within the parliament, reach cross-party agreements and then – then only – invoke Article 50.

From this perspective, the ruling indeed is a defeat of the Prime Minister Theresa May and her Government.  The PM and her Tory party should not rush in to the Article 50 discussions directly with the EU; instead it should properly debate UK’s case within the parliament, reach cross-party agreements and then – then only – invoke Article 50.

Resignation of Tory MP Stephen Phillips underlines this fact.

Stephen Phillips is not only a Tory, but also backed EU exit.  Still, the MP is critical of Conservative government’s actions and accuses the PM of “trying to ignore the views of parliament and avoiding scrutiny of the government’s negotiating position”.

This is in line with the court ruling as well.

I do not think UK MPs are not that unintelligent to overlook referendum result which was backed by 52% of the voters.  If they are, then they should resign – at least those ones whose constituencies voted to Leave – and then look for a fresh mandate, before they should vote against invocation of Article 50.

What is your opinion?