Government v Parliament: Britain’s Brexit battle goes to court

[webfact]

Government v Parliament: Britain’s Brexit battle goes to court

Alasdair Sandford

 

 

LONDON: -- Westminster versus Downing Street. The latest battle in the Brexit saga has pitched MPs against Britain’s Prime Minister.

 

Theresa May says there will be no parliamentary vote before the process to leave the EU is formally launched, via Article 50 of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty.

 

The issue has been taken to the High Court by a group of claimants, including an investment manager, a London-based Spanish hairdresser, and two campaign groups: the People’s Challenge Group and Fair Deal for Expats.

 

‘Parliament is sovereign’

 

They argue the EU referendum was merely advisory and the government must seek parliament’s approval for such a momentous move.

 

“Our parliament is sovereign. And the idea that Mrs May said that we’re going to get back sovereignty, actually Parliament is sovereign and it is only Parliament that can bestow and take away people’s rights. And by triggering Article 50 there will inevitably be a reduction in people’s rights. So we’re going to the courts, and I think the courts need to rule on the legal certainty of how we can leave the EU,” said the lead claimant, investment manager Gina Miller.

 

The prime minister believes she has the right to trigger Article 50 without recourse to parliament by using a historical power known as the royal prerogative.

 

She repeated her intention while visiting Denmark on Monday.

 

“As I said last week, we will formally trigger the process of leaving at no later than the end of March next year. And I hope it can be a smooth and orderly departure,” she said during a joint news conference in Copenhagen with her Danish counterpart Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

 

Fears over a ‘hard Brexit’

 

In the UK’s House of Commons, ruling Conservative MPs are among those concerned not just over how Brexit is triggered – but over the form it will take.

 

Like many in the business community, the opposition fear that May is planning a so-called “hard Brexit”, with Britain forced to leave the EU’s single market in order to control immigration – with negative consequences for jobs, trade and investment.

 

“I have stood here and accepted that there is a mandate for exit. There is no mandate for the terms. It has never been put to the country; it has not even been put to the Secretary of State’s political party; and it has not been put to this House. Where is the mandate on the terms?” Labour’s Keir Starmer, Shadow Brexit Secretary, told the Commons.

 

Scrutiny, but no vote

 

Under pressure, the government did make a concession this week by allowing parliament not to vote, but to debate its strategy on leaving the European Union – under two conditions.

 

“We need to be explicit that while we commend and welcome parliamentary scrutiny, it must not be used as a vehicle to undermine the Government’s negotiating position or thwart the process of exit. Both things are important,” said the Brexit Secretary David Davis.

 

Sterling has fallen to 31-year lows since the prime minister’s announcement over triggering Article 50, and the court battle is being watched closely by market players.

 

For one constitutional expert from Kings College London, above all the case will rule on the government’s right to decide alone.

 

“Whether or not they really possess that power, whether they really can act unilaterally to take us out of the European Union, to trigger Article 50, of the treaty on the European Union, is what’s being tested in the courts,” said Dr Andrew Blick, Lecturer in Politics and Contemporary History.

 

The will of the people

 

Theresa May has accused those behind the court challenge of trying to subvert the referendum result.

 

The claimants reject this, saying they did not want to stop the process but bring legal certainty and proper democratic scrutiny.

 

“I don’t see how a court case can block Brexit,” Gina Miller told Reuters. “I am saying we have parliament, scrutiny and then a vote rather than an antiquated power which is secretive and bypasses parliament.”

 

On Thursday a lawyer leading the bid in the High Court denied the case was “merely camouflage” by those who wanted the UK to stay in the European Union.

 

David Pannick said that triggering Article 50 would begin an unstoppable process leading to rights such as freedom of movement – granted by the 1972 European Communities Act which brought Britain into the EU – being stripped away by the government using an ancient power.

 

“Rights that have been created by parliament cannot be taken away by a minister,” he said. “The court is not concerned with the political outcome of withdrawing this country from the European Union. Our claim is in support of parliamentary sovereignty,” he added.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-10-14

[daveAustin]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

“I don’t see how a court case can block Brexit,” Gina Miller told Reuters. “I am saying we have parliament, scrutiny and then a vote rather than an antiquated power which is secretive and bypasses parliament.”

 

What a load of rubbish. The vote (sanctioned by the prime minister) has been and gone. There is no secretive power. The people have spoken and parliament works for the people. I wish these limp-wristed, so-called remainers would get over themselves and get back to work.

[chiang mai]

Everybody wants to be the decision maker on this, everyone wants to tell everyone else which is the best way to do everything - no matter what happens there's going to be  dissatisfied people at the end of it all. Yet another example of why democracy really isn't suitable for most.

[stander]

There is NO "Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit". There is only total Brexit. Time for Remoaners to get over themselves

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, daveAustin said:

 

What a load of rubbish. The vote (sanctioned by the prime minister) has been and gone. There is no secretive power. The people have spoken and parliament works for the people. I wish these limp-wristed, so-called remainers would get over themselves and get back to work.

Gina Miller is correct, the court cannot dictate to parliament on how to vote, the court is not being asked to do this, it  is deciding who has authority to invoke Art 50.

Consider if the Executive  invoke art 50 and then was challenged and  it was found not in line with UK constitutional requirements, the UK would be in breach of its international obligations and the EU within its rights to terminate any negotiations.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

using a historical power known as the royal prerogative

So no legal foundation for such power?

Does this mean that Queen Elizabeth must endorse such use of power as Sovereign (Head of State) or does May assume royal power by self-declaration to bypass the Crown?

 

I would have thought May would as Head of Government rely on the UK majority constituency as her authority. But maybe such authority doesn't exist.

[bark]

2 hours ago, daveAustin said:

 

What a load of rubbish. The vote (sanctioned by the prime minister) has been and gone. There is no secretive power. The people have spoken and parliament works for the people. I wish these limp-wristed, so-called remainers would get over themselves and get back to work.

Maybe the Remainers have a load of British Pounds. And they see their Fortune disappearing as the Sterling continues to drop to the lowest levels in History. When it drops below the Euro, the Brit's will be running back to the French and Germans,

saying please let us come back in. We did not know what we were doing when we voted to leave. We were all at the pub all night. We thought that the vote was dropping out of the Euro Rugby league. Please please take us back !

We will bend over for all Europeans, we will not play are best Football players ( not that it matters) against your teams in World Cup games. Please let us stay.

[Muhendis]

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Muhendis said:

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

 

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by rockingrobin

[TKDfella]

Being British I can appreciate the 'doom and gloom' that Brexit might bring but the referendum indicated the majority wanted Brexit. Whether I, or the other British expats, voted in or out is no longer important and in my opinion the sooner Britain is allowed to settle down and determine its future, the better. I read the other day that Lawyers Society intend to block Brexit although I admit I don't know how, but all this 'to & fro' only makes investors etc undecided and so the stock markets suffer.

I realise that this is a simplistic, non-political point of view but making big waves only prolongs suffering.

[Grouse]

I think the vast majority, including me, accept the result of the referendum regardless of the conditions at the time. Basta.

 

However, May's cynicism in clearly putting party before country is putting people's heckles up. There was no need for the statements made at the conference. They were made to keep the howling right wingers happy.

 

There are multiple ways forward with varying effects on the economy. Giving the executive (the government) total control is dangerous. 

 

If you consider "the man in the street" with "the pound in your pocket", I don't think the Torys will help in any way. 

 

Many Tory right wingers will be primarily motivated by FTSE100 for example.

 

Does anyone believe that high profits from exports or foreign earnings will filter down to the man in the street?

 

IF, as I hope, the high court finds against the government, there WILL be serious discussion and no doubt some horse trading.

 

With the correct deal Scotland may decide to stay with the union.

 

If it were me, I would negotiate some deal a la Switzerland. I really believe the EU will have to compromise on free movement.

 

Anyway, let's see if a sensible solution is possible. I note there seems to be a floor under Sterling since the high court took the case....

[stander]

China's Ambassador confirms that China wants to deepen ties with UK after Brexit and praises opportunity for independent UK

 

Brexit makes China keener to strike a trade deal with Britain, says ambassador

 

China wants to do more business with post-Brexit Britain, the country’s ambassador to the UK said, as he praised the City of London and Britain’s financial prowess

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/11/brexit-makes-china-keener-to-strike-a-trade-deal-with-britain-sa/

[Khun Han]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

So no legal foundation for such power?

Does this mean that Queen Elizabeth must endorse such use of power as Sovereign (Head of State) or does May assume royal power by self-declaration to bypass the Crown?

 

I would have thought May would as Head of Government rely on the UK majority constituency as her authority. But maybe such authority doesn't exist.

 

UK law works on the principle of precedent.

[Khun Han]

Miller's lawyer has already misled the court.

[Grouse]

2 minutes ago, stander said:

China's Ambassador confirms that China wants to deepen ties with UK after Brexit and praises opportunity for independent UK

 

Brexit makes China keener to strike a trade deal with Britain, says ambassador

 

China wants to do more business with post-Brexit Britain, the country’s ambassador to the UK said, as he praised the City of London and Britain’s financial prowess

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/11/brexit-makes-china-keener-to-strike-a-trade-deal-with-britain-sa/

 

Well that's nice! ?

 

I wonder whether they favour the breaking of the EU rather more than the independence of the U.K. though?

 

I guess they get to buy up more of our infrastructure discounted by 20% now? Is their share of Hinckley in GBP or Euro?

[Khun Han]

3 hours ago, Muhendis said:

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

 

This thread's about the legal challenge, led by Gina Miller, to Government executive authority.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

This thread's about the legal challenge, led by Gina Miller, to Government executive authority.

 

No Han, once again its you that's missing the point. The case was brought to gain leverage.

 

I am disappointed in you. I was looking forward to some intelligent debate but you continuously miss the point. Subtlety is not your thing is it? Nor is humour.

 

Now, I abandoned another related thread because I couldn't be bothered with your facile posts. Please choose threads. I will take the other.

[rockingrobin]

16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

Miller's lawyer has already misled the court.

Can you clarify, in what way has the court been misled

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Muhendis said:

Looking past the sometimes childish rhetoric of some posters, there really does need to be considerable discussion about how the UK is to extricate itself from the EU. There are millions of older UK citizens living in other countries in Europe who may find their pensions frozen unless they move back to the UK. They may find they are no longer welcome in the counties of the EU without the correct visa. The list of problems is doubtlessly quite long and needs to be carefully thought out. There needs to be open debate about issues which will affect UK citizens.

 

There was quite a long and detailed debate resulting in the referendum, that produced a majority for Britex. However as in the case of the Netherlands and France who voted in a referendum to reject the Lisbon ( so called ) agreement and the wishes of othe countries such as the Irish republic,who were refused a referendum. Their democratic decisions were ignored by the dictators in Brussels.

 The question now is "will the democratic rights of the British electorate be ignored"

. This question has been posed by a foreign born ( Guyana )investment Banker by the name of Gina Miller,supported by another plea to the courts by a Spanish hairdresser. 

  In the meantime the Remoaners will point to the decline in the value of the £, 

. How will this effect people's thinking? Well for those living in the Uk they will not in the short time notice any difference, however imported goods will certainly rise while the £ is in decline. We already have the case of Unilever using the referendum result to increase the cost Marmite, this of course is quite reasonable, as It is imported from Burton Upon Trent.

  For ex-pats like myself relying on £ based pensions and investments, we will have  to take the suffering for how long,non of us know. Interestingly the chief currency buyer at Barclays, considers the £ to be well undervalued, and expects a 10% incease in the new year, but there again he's an expert,or should I say a so -called expert.

   So why is the £ in decline? could one of the reasons be that it's in the interest of some foreign governments,also the international banks and international companies for the £ to decline in order to pressurize the British people to accept the undemocratic EU.

 

 

 

[Khun Han]

9 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

No Han, once again its you that's missing the point. The case was brought to gain leverage.

 

I am disappointed in you. I was looking forward to some intelligent debate but you continuously miss the point. Subtlety is not your thing is it? Nor is humour.

 

Now, I abandoned another related thread because I couldn't be bothered with your facile posts. Please choose threads. I will take the other.

 

Can you cite where it's stated that this case was brought to gain leverage? Oh, I forgot: interpretation of the subtleties, aka making it up to suit one's argument.

 

Brexit humour: a one way street that Grouse and his fellow remainers police.

 

I'll post where I like, so you'll just have to flounce from this thread as well, won't you?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Khun Han

[Khun Han]

8 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Can you clarify, in what way has the court been misled

 

He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Can you cite where it's stated that this case was brought to gain leverage? Oh, I forgot: interpretation of the subtleties, aka making it up to suit one's argument.

 

Brexit humour: a one way street that Grouse and his fellow remainers police.

 

I'll post where I like, so you'll just have to flounce from this thread as well, won't you?

 

OK ?

[SaintLouisBlues]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.

If only they had Article 44

[Grouse]

22 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

There was quite a long and detailed debate resulting in the referendum, that produced a majority for Britex. However as in the case of the Netherlands and France who voted in a referendum to reject the Lisbon ( so called ) agreement and the wishes of othe countries such as the Irish republic,who were refused a referendum. Their democratic decisions were ignored by the dictators in Brussels.

 The question now is "will the democratic rights of the British electorate be ignored"

. This question has been posed by a foreign born ( Guyana )investment Banker by the name of Gina Miller,supported by another plea to the courts by a Spanish hairdresser. 

  In the meantime the Remoaners will point to the decline in the value of the £, 

. How will this effect people's thinking? Well for those living in the Uk they will not in the short time notice any difference, however imported goods will certainly rise while the £ is in decline. We already have the case of Unilever using the referendum result to increase the cost Marmite, this of course is quite reasonable, as It is imported from Burton Upon Trent.

  For ex-pats like myself relying on £ based pensions and investments, we will have  to take the suffering for how long,non of us know. Interestingly the chief currency buyer at Barclays, considers the £ to be well undervalued, and expects a 10% incease in the new year, but there again he's an expert,or should I say a so -called expert.

   So why is the £ in decline? could one of the reasons be that it's in the interest of some foreign governments,also the international banks and international companies for the £ to decline in order to pressurize the British people to accept the undemocratic EU.

 

 

 

 

I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply at ID11 above. Nobody is questioning the validity of the referendum. Relax. The right of the executive to take decisions without parliament is in question. I think it is in YOUR interest that the Tory government doesn't get its own way without considering the whole of the electorate.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Grouse

[Brer Fox]

If she gets desperate perhaps she could hire Article 44 for a short while from PM Prayuth ......for a price of course. 

He might also give her some valuable advice as to how to stimulate a higher value of the British pound (vis a vis the Thai baht).... for a price of course.

[Khun Han]

14 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.

 

Seems that she's a bit of a drama queen too, claiming that fellow named petitioners pulled out because of personal abuse, when the fact of the matter is the court instructed them to lump all the petitions together under one petitioner's name!

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, bark said:

Maybe the Remainers have a load of British Pounds. And they see their Fortune disappearing as the Sterling continues to drop to the lowest levels in History. When it drops below the Euro, the Brit's will be running back to the French and Germans,

saying please let us come back in. We did not know what we were doing when we voted to leave. We were all at the pub all night. We thought that the vote was dropping out of the Euro Rugby league. Please please take us back !

We will bend over for all Europeans, we will not play are best Football players ( not that it matters) against your teams in World Cup games. Please let us stay.

 

There's more countries than Germany and France in the EU - and many appear to be get pissed at those two trying to dictate everything.

Until Article 50 is triggered the UK isn't officially even declaring it will leave and still pays and contributes as before. The could reverse the decision and don't actually have to seek anyone's permission at the moment. Not wannabee Federal State of EU president Merkel or her lap dog Juncke; and certainly not the soon to be unemployed but then given and EU earner for life Hollande. 

 

There isn't a Euro Rugby league to leave wither.

 

Guess you must be an Aussie - try taking more water with it.

[stander]

 

 The EU has to make leaving painful or others will want to do it. That is why Germany bailed out Greece. It is not a union of equals; it is more like a protection racket.

[rockingrobin]

35 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

He stated to the court that the petition wasn't an attempt to reverse brexit. Gina Miller gave an interview to (I think) Sky, stating that human rights abuses will definitely occur because of brexit if the petition doesn't succeed. I'm paraphrasing, but I put a link to the relevant story in the other thread.

This interview she talks about human rights being taken away, but does not indicate reversing the referendum

http://uk.businessinsider.com/gina-miller-article-50-brexit-eu-supreme-court-2016-8

 

An article from July

http://citywire.co.uk/money/gina-miller-the-funds-boss-behind-brexit-challenge/a934276

Edited October 14, 2016 by rockingrobin

[Baerboxer]

5 hours ago, Srikcir said:

So no legal foundation for such power?

Does this mean that Queen Elizabeth must endorse such use of power as Sovereign (Head of State) or does May assume royal power by self-declaration to bypass the Crown?

 

I would have thought May would as Head of Government rely on the UK majority constituency as her authority. But maybe such authority doesn't exist.

 

The Royal Prerogative has legal foundation. That prerogative effectively passed from the regent to the government considerable time ago. 

However, that prerogative has / is only used for certain things. This is about whether that prerogative can and if so should be used in this context or if a Parliamentary Act, following a debate and vote in both houses is required.

 

The UK is a representative democracy. Therefore referendums are rarely used and require and act of parliament in themselves. The Brexit referendum act does not convey the right to implement the result automatically and by-pass parliamentary procedure.

May is saying the that the executive, her cabinet, has the right to use the Royal Prerogative, to by-pass parliament, and simply implement the decision of the referendum. Those opposing that say that this is not a legal use of the prerogative in accordance with the UK constitutional law. Most, but not all,  UK Constitutional Law experts I've read comments from believe that to be the case. That this requires a full parliamentary debate and vote in both houses. 

May, I'm sure, knows that should she have to do that, her position will be untenable. She herself was a remain supported, although she mainly hid in the shadows. She knows a parliamentary vote would most likely result in a majority to remain, and not support the referendum. The Tory Bexiters would be furious and she'd loose their support and they'd demand a leadership challenge. All opposition parties and possibly a lot of Tory remainers would demand a general election. Parties would then have to declare their position on the EU which could rip some of the established parties wide open. People would be voting for a government that was then pro or anti EU. Her career most likely ruined.

 

Sadly, a lot of this is about politicians and their selfishness being put in front of the interests of the people and the country - how usual that is.