ARTICLE 50: PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL

Responded on behalf of the Government, stating that while legal considerations exist regarding whether Article 50 can be invoked through the royal prerogative or requires an Act of Parliament, democratic principles should take precedence. Acknowledged the Prime Minister's commitment to parliamentary involvement and hinted at a comprehensive debate format without providing specific details.

Pressed for clarity on legal aspects, questioning whether using royal prerogative would be a breach of promises made during the referendum campaign. Raised concerns about significant areas affected by Brexit and the need for parliamentary approval before negotiations begin.

Suggested that proceeding quickly to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 while transferring relevant EU law into British law, protecting borders, and managing contributions would be a way to take back control and seek parliamentary approval.

Called for a clear plan before triggering Article 50 and emphasised the need for cross-party consensus and proper resourcing of the negotiating team. Highlighted concerns about current budget cuts impacting civil service capacity.

Defended the democratic legitimacy of triggering Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, arguing that the referendum was an instruction from the British people to be followed by democrats.

We are grateful to the Minister for confirming that this will be done through royal prerogative. However, before any process is started on Article 50, the Scottish Government should be fully consulted and able to give their consent. The Scottish people did not vote for Brexit and we must ensure they secure what they voted for.

I confirm that the Scottish Government will be involved, but it is a commitment to consult rather than seek outright consent. This decision lies with this Parliament and the UK as a whole, not the devolved Governments.

There is no escape from invoking Article 50 via treaty obligations, and we must meet our commitments to achieve Brexit. We have to respect the British people’s decision despite any lack of consensus.

Referendums are advisory; this Parliament is sovereign. It would be a constitutional outrage and democratic defiance to ignore the referendum's outcome without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

It would be unprecedented for us to start taking instructions on decision-making from an administrative court. The legislative consent was effectively given when we passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015.

There are as many versions of Brexit as there are MPs on Government Benches. Parliament needs to reaffirm its sovereignty and vote on the negotiating stance, particularly regarding issues like the Irish border.

There is a slight chance of generating more heat than light over Brexit in the coming weeks. While Parliament must be informed and its views heard, it should not hamper or constrain negotiations with the EU.

The triggering of Article 50 will have profound consequences for 3 million EU citizens in the UK. We need clarity on their right to remain and representations from other EU countries about their nationals here.

Sovereignty is delegated by the British people, not given by divine right. The mandate must be fulfilled with details implemented via legislation.

Will the Minister consider establishing a royal commission or independent body to receive evidence on the risks and benefits of triggering Article 50 at various times, reporting before Parliament votes?

All common sense points towards not triggering Article 50 until it is in the UK’s national interest to do so, as reported by the Treasury Committee and many experts.

Questions why the government is challenging the legal case when it admits it's a political issue, suggesting that this undermines the negotiating position with other EU countries.

Responds to Chris Bryant by expressing sadness at Labour's lack of unity and confirms the Attorney General believes the government's case is strongly arguable in court.

Remarks on Labour's internal conflict following the referendum result and urges the Government to implement Brexit to prevent further electoral losses for Labour.

Urges order in the House while responding to Philip Davies' interruption.

Emphasises the importance of respecting the referendum result regardless of individual views, advocating for democracy and adherence to public will.

Agrees with David Winnick about the need to respect democratic processes and decisions made by voters.

Asks if Article 50 is the only lawful route for exiting EU, whether it's a matter of royal prerogative, and how to manage amendments or repeals of existing legislation.

Confirms that Article 50 is indeed the correct legal route for exiting EU and agrees that primary legislation will be required for any significant changes or repeals.

Asks about discussions with devolved regions, particularly Northern Ireland, regarding free movement of goods, services and people.

Responds to Margaret Ritchie by confirming ongoing discussions but cannot provide detailed progress updates at this time.

Questions the potential public response if the government refuses to trigger Article 50, suggesting it would be seen as contemptuous of democratic will.

Reiterates the importance of respecting the public's views and expresses concern over potential damage to democracy if this is ignored.

Questions whether Parliament should come back to review triggering Article 50, drawing parallels with criticism in the Chilcot report regarding pre-Iraq war prerogative powers.

Acknowledges the complexity but maintains that while 'Brexit means Brexit', the process for how it is achieved remains open to discussion and negotiation.

Asks about timing of triggering Article 50 in relation to potential retaliatory measures from EU, using Switzerland's experience as an example.

Responds that the timing will be a crucial consideration for negotiations and will be factored into strategic planning by the new government.

Raises concerns about misinformation during the referendum campaign, pointing out potential consequences of Brexit on staffing levels at Foreign Office and other departments.

Acknowledges changes needed due to Brexit but cannot prefigure decisions by the incoming Prime Minister's team, inviting further discussion with them directly.

Advocates focusing on securing a looser, more collaborative relationship with European neighbours and pursuing opportunities elsewhere post-Brexit.

Stressed the need for a constructive approach to Brexit, highlighting opportunities and the necessity of clarity in negotiations. Emphasised that any changes to Article 50 require unanimity from EU member states and that the new Prime Minister's team will consider various options to maximise negotiating leverage.

Questioned whether the Government had considered extending the two-year period for Brexit negotiations beyond Article 50's provisions, citing analysts' predictions of a longer process.

Called for a cross-party approach to deal with when to invoke Article 50 and the negotiating position around it. Suggested setting up a special parliamentary committee to hold the negotiating team accountable.

Suggested that open negotiations between the UK Government and their European counterparts could help set out parameters for Brexit before coming back to Parliament. Emphasised the need to ensure the best deal possible for constituents.

Asked about the proper scrutiny and voting process in Parliament regarding the terms of exit, given that no one knows what they will be.

Inquired about the specific role expected for Welsh Government Ministers and the Assembly in deciding the final proposal to be put before Parliament.

Questioned whether Brexit should proceed without a clear definition of its meaning, considering it involves parliamentary sovereignty but lacks agreed definitions or decisions from Parliament.

Pressed for clarification on the extent to which devolved institutions will be consulted in Brexit negotiations, particularly regarding work that is devolved but affected by EU policies.