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

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

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

 

 

 

Robin, you know that she's an outspoken remainer (and she committed something of a faux pas in her Sky interview), and you know that a large majority of MPs favour remain. Forcing the executive to give the decision to MPs will result in some form of remain.

[Baerboxer]

12 minutes ago, stander said:

 

 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.

 

That's a good analogy. The last thing they want is countries challenging their vision of "ever closer union" i.e a Federal State of Europe by wanting to retain sovereignty. And of course there is no need to test such a vision by actually asking the people of Europe. These "leaders" know what's best for them.

[Khun Han]

25 minutes ago, Brer Fox said:

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.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if a big part of her motivation for this is brexit impacting her ability to move her clients' money around in order to help them avoid paying UK taxes.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Robin, you know that she's an outspoken remainer (and she committed something of a faux pas in her Sky interview), and you know that a large majority of MPs favour remain. Forcing the executive to give the decision to MPs will result in some form of remain.

 

It's not a case of forcing the executive to do anything. It has to be a case of ensuring what is done is done legally, in accordance with the UK Constitutional Law and not illegally as an expedient.

[Baerboxer]

4 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.

 

Indeed, and similarly there are many non UK EU citizens who have made their and their families lives in the UK. They also deserve and must have protection as must the UK expat.

[Mr Big]

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. It is highly questionable, if the Brexit vote did truly represent the will of the sovereign. Secondly it is more than  questionable if the British parliament would vote for the Brexit. Members of Parliament are not bound by the populist vote, which in my opinion has never been integral part of the British democratic system. The British courts must decide, if the road taken by the government is a legal raod or if parliament must be consulted on such important decision. The parliament is representing the sovereign British people.

 

The vote was highly influenced by populists and initiated by Mr Cameron, who - I am sure - never expected this desaster. The price of the Brexit is paid by the British people. I bet with anyone that no increase in social spending as a result of the Brexit will happen, this mostly for those imbeciles who thought the money saved in the EU will be spent on the poor.

 

Why did the UK join in the first place? The EU is the best thing that has happened in the long long history of Europe. There has never been a time with more wealth, more freedom and peace. This counts for the last 2000 years.

 

Some people know better. History will tell.

[rockingrobin]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Robin, you know that she's an outspoken remainer (and she committed something of a faux pas in her Sky interview), and you know that a large majority of MPs favour remain. Forcing the executive to give the decision to MPs will result in some form of remain.

The case will be decided on legality, are you suggesting the rule of law should be brushed aside for political expediency

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

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.

 

I largely agree with you except that, if the divorce were being negotiated with sensitivity and with the interests of the country as a whole at the heart of it, most MPs, including remainers, would vote inline with the referendum. So, in practice, it's about leverage.

[vaultdweller0013]

I'm really not up to speed on my UK Common Law, but whether a separate Act of Parliament is required is a valid question. For a simple justification as to why, the English Bill of Rights 1689 states:

Quote

 

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

 

 

Invoking article 50 would generally mean the repeal of the  European Communities Act 1972,  this would require Parliament's consent. However, the open questions I see are:

1. Does the European Union Referendum Act 2015 function as Parliament's consent? There is nothing explicit in the act that mandates or establishes the process for invoking article 50. However, if Parliament was just going to ignore the result, what would be the purpose of a referendum.
2. Is there a loophole in this since article 50 does not explicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1972, but only mandates that the relevant EU treaties would cease to apply to the UK? In such a case, would a "hard" brexit only relieve the obligations of the EU member countries to the UK while leaving the European Communities Act 1972 remain in force in the UK up until it was repealed explicitly by Parliament?

The simple solution would seem to be for Parliament to just get on with it and explicitly pass an Act authorizing the PM to invoke article 50 at the time they see fit.

Edited October 14, 2016 by vaultdweller0013

[Khun Han]

3 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The case will be decided on legality, are you suggesting the rule of law should be brushed aside for political expediency

 

Nothing of the sort Robin. The case will rightly be decided on legality.

 

I was pointing out the motivation behind bringing the case.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

UK law works on the principle of precedent.

 

Common Law works on the principal of precedent and has evolved based on that principle as cases are heard and judged. Statutory law doesn't.

[Khun Han]

7 minutes ago, Mr Big said:

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. It is highly questionable, if the Brexit vote did truly represent the will of the sovereign. Secondly it is more than  questionable if the British parliament would vote for the Brexit. Members of Parliament are not bound by the populist vote, which in my opinion has never been integral part of the British democratic system. The British courts must decide, if the road taken by the government is a legal raod or if parliament must be consulted on such important decision. The parliament is representing the sovereign British people.

 

The vote was highly influenced by populists and initiated by Mr Cameron, who - I am sure - never expected this desaster. The price of the Brexit is paid by the British people. I bet with anyone that no increase in social spending as a result of the Brexit will happen, this mostly for those imbeciles who thought the money saved in the EU will be spent on the poor.

 

Why did the UK join in the first place? The EU is the best thing that has happened in the long long history of Europe. There has never been a time with more wealth, more freedom and peace. This counts for the last 2000 years.

 

Some people know better. History will tell.

 

The UK joined the EEC (a trading club) following a referendum. The EEC has mutated into the EU, which is trying to become a Europe-wide superstate. Nobody voted for that, but a majority voted against it in the recent referendum .

[rockingrobin]

10 minutes ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

I'm really not up to speed on my UK Common Law, but whether a separate Act of Parliament is required is a valid question. For a simple justification as to why, the English Bill of Rights 1689 states:

 

Invoking article 50 would generally mean the repeal of the  European Communities Act 1972,  this would require Parliament's consent. However, the open questions I see are:

1. Does the European Union Referendum Act 2015 function as Parliament's consent? There is nothing explicit in the act that mandates or establishes the process for invoking article 50. However, if Parliament was just going to ignore the result, what would be the purpose of a referendum.
2. Is there a loophole in this since article 50 does not explicitly repeal the European Communities Act 1972, but only mandates that the relevant EU treaties would cease to apply to the UK? In such a case, would a "hard" brexit only relieve the obligations of the EU member countries to the UK while leaving the European Communities Act 1972 remain in force in the UK up until it was repealed explicitly by Parliament?

The simple solution would seem to be for Parliament to just get on with it and explicitly pass an Act authorizing the PM to invoke article 50 at the time they see fit.

To answer or not the question of the referendum

 

'In short, by passing the 2015 Act, Parliament decided that one of the constitutional requirements that had to be satisfied as a condition of a withdrawal from the EU was a referendum '

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/approved-judgment-rhd-shindler-2.pdf

 

[Mr Big]

Khun Han, as I said, history will tell. And as a matter of fact the UK has participated actively in the transformation of the EU.

At this moment I see the UK pound dropping faster in value than I could drop my pants. I see Tesco taking out a wide range of products because they refuse to accept the hard facts of life, prices for imported products become more expensive. On the lighter side, my UK made MINI should become significantly cheaper..........

 

[Khun Han]

11 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Common Law works on the principal of precedent and has evolved based on that principle as cases are heard and judged. Statutory law doesn't.

 

Isn't the main thrust of this case whether or not brexit has to be run by the statutory body?

[Grouse]

3 minutes ago, Mr Big said:

Khun Han, as I said, history will tell. And as a matter of fact the UK has participated actively in the transformation of the EU.

At this moment I see the UK pound dropping faster in value than I could drop my pants. I see Tesco taking out a wide range of products because they refuse to accept the hard facts of life, prices for imported products become more expensive. On the lighter side, my UK made MINI should become significantly cheaper..........

 

 

The manufacturing costs are reduced for sure. You won't see the benefit though! (BMW will)

[Caps]

40 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

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.

Yes, I can agree on that.  I also think thats why the pound keeps taking a nose dive.  It was understandable that it was going to drop when and if Brexit happened but every time someone from the Government or a Lawyer comes out of the wood work to argue the to55 and try and fight it (Brexit) the pound drops even more. More uncertainty.  Thats what it seems like, I could be wrong! Its happened, for better or worse, so instead of people arguing and trying to fight it maybe they should try and find out how we as a country can do this with minimal damage to the Pound and the Country  

[vaultdweller0013]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

To answer or not the question of the referendum

 

'In short, by passing the 2015 Act, Parliament decided that one of the constitutional requirements that had to be satisfied as a condition of a withdrawal from the EU was a referendum '

 

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/approved-judgment-rhd-shindler-2.pdf

 

 

The full section related to the summary above is:

 

Quote

19. I accept that Parliament is sovereign and that it does not need the mandate of a referendum to give it the power to withdraw from the EU. But by passing the 2015 Act, Parliament has decided that it will not withdraw from the EU unless a withdrawal is supported by referendum. In theory, Parliament could decide to withdraw without waiting for the result of the referendum despite the passing of the 2015 Act. But this is no more than a theoretical possibility. The reality is that it has decided that it will withdraw only if that course is sanctioned by the referendum that it has set in train. In other words, the referendum (if it supports a withdrawal) is an integral part of the process of deciding to withdraw from the EU. In short, by passing the 2015 Act, Parliament decided that one of the constitutional requirements that had to be satisfied as a condition of a withdrawal from the EU was a referendum.

 

If anything, I would think this implies that a further Act of Parliament is required, as the ruling recognized that Parliament is sovereign; it the entity that has the authority to withdraw (or not withdraw ) from the EU, regardless of how the referendum turned out. If Parliament could chose to leave the EU even if the referendum had been a "remain" result, then I would argue that Parliament could still choose to remain, even though there was a "leave" result. Parliament  chose to have the referendum, and as such, it is part of the constitutional requirements, but the ruling only refers to it as one of the constitutional requirements, not the constitutional requirement, so there still could be other requirements to be met, such as an Act of Parliament explicitly invoking or authorizing the invocation of Article 50.

 

[Caps]

28 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The UK joined the EEC (a trading club) following a referendum. The EEC has mutated into the EU, which is trying to become a Europe-wide superstate. Nobody voted for that, but a majority voted against it in the recent referendum .

Hit the nail on the head for me, the EEC and EFTA were a lot better and worked 

Edited October 14, 2016 by Caps

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

The UK joined the EEC (a trading club) following a referendum. The EEC has mutated into the EU, which is trying to become a Europe-wide superstate. Nobody voted for that, but a majority voted against it in the recent referendum .

 

Thats what you believe but my research tells a slightly different story. The numpty flavour of Brexiteer was actually looking for more and better paid work, available and affordable housing, improved public services such as NHS and education. Of course they will get none of that.

 

The racist Brexiteers wanted fewer Muslims and other Africans and South Asians. That will not happen either.

 

The cynical bastard types are already coining it of course. I'll bet JCB profits are rocketing? Their employees pay?

 

We need a Venn diagram again! Ha!

 

In our globalised, automated, highly productive world we need to be a great deal smarter to compete. The UK has the brains but can we exploit that? How do we turn that into products? Not by blaming the EU for everything that's for sure ?

 

Its the same with Trumpeteers believing building barriers will bring them success. Nonsense of course....

[evadgib]

Ironic that any judgement from within the UK would then be overturned by a European Court. How's that for playing 'em at their own game?

 

Out is out.

Edited October 14, 2016 by evadgib

[Khun Han]

24 minutes ago, Mr Big said:

Khun Han, as I said, history will tell. And as a matter of fact the UK has participated actively in the transformation of the EU.

At this moment I see the UK pound dropping faster in value than I could drop my pants. I see Tesco taking out a wide range of products because they refuse to accept the hard facts of life, prices for imported products become more expensive. On the lighter side, my UK made MINI should become significantly cheaper..........

 

 

I expect fuel prices to rise, which will have a small knock-on effect ( fuel being a very small percentage of most industries' costs. As for consumer goods, it will be the foreign suppliers who will be taking most of the knocks (we got a taste of that yesterday with Unilever). But they can afford it: their prices and profit margins are generally way over the odds in the UK, in comparison to most other countries.

 

But we're getting quite offtopic now (I don't mind, by the way).

[Grouse]

12 minutes ago, Caps said:

Hit the nail on the head for me, the EEC and EFTA were a lot better and worked 

 

OK, leave EU and join EFTA! Deal?

[Caps]

Just now, Grouse said:

 

OK, leave EU and join EFTA! Deal?

Ah Mr Grouse...I take it I am out of your bad books now!

I think you missed the point...I am not saying leave and join anything, I merely said that they worked in the past and they did...without all the rest of the bureaucracy/ruling that comes with having an EU Parliament.  We didn't have it in the past and managed well enough.  I am sure that all the countries are grown up enough to get along just fine without a EU Parliament 

 

[Caps]

12 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Ironic that any judgement from within the UK would still be overturned by a European Court :)

Yep...something else we don't need

[dunroaming]

We are in uncharted waters.  It is all very well saying get on with it but rushing into it with no exit strategy is suicidal.  The markets are twitchy and every time May talks about a hard exit the pound tumbles.  That shows you that the business world out there realises that a hard brexit (and there is a vast difference between hard and soft) is going to be very problematic for the UK and will de-stabilise the economy.  Nobody knows by how much because as I said we are in uncharted waters but anyone not worrying about the consequences are burying their head in the sand.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Ironic that any judgement from within the UK would then be overturned by a European Court. How's that for playing 'em at their own game?

 

Out is out.

I dont think it functions like that

 

The ECJ cannot overule the UK supreme court.In the case of matters relating to the EU, the Supreme court can ask for a preliminary rulings before it gives its  own judgement.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court-and-europe.html

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, Mr Big said:

The UK is a parliamentary democracy. It is highly questionable, if the Brexit vote did truly represent the will of the sovereign. Secondly it is more than  questionable if the British parliament would vote for the Brexit. Members of Parliament are not bound by the populist vote, which in my opinion has never been integral part of the British democratic system. The British courts must decide, if the road taken by the government is a legal raod or if parliament must be consulted on such important decision. The parliament is representing the sovereign British people.

 

The vote was highly influenced by populists and initiated by Mr Cameron, who - I am sure - never expected this desaster. The price of the Brexit is paid by the British people. I bet with anyone that no increase in social spending as a result of the Brexit will happen, this mostly for those imbeciles who thought the money saved in the EU will be spent on the poor.

 

Why did the UK join in the first place? The EU is the best thing that has happened in the long long history of Europe. There has never been a time with more wealth, more freedom and peace. This counts for the last 2000 years.

 

Some people know better. History will tell.

 

Wealth for whom? 

More freedom, I don't think so.

More peace, paper thin.

[nontabury]

6 hours ago, Mr Big said:

Khun Han, as I said, history will tell. And as a matter of fact the UK has participated actively in the transformation of the EU.

At this moment I see the UK pound dropping faster in value than I could drop my pants. I see Tesco taking out a wide range of products because they refuse to accept the hard facts of life, prices for imported products become more expensive. On the lighter side, my UK made MINI should become significantly cheaper..........

 

 

Apologies for repeating myself,as I have mentioned in another thread, this is all about trying to brow beat the British people into submission. 

 You mention Tesco and their spat with Unlever, who are wanting to increase prices due to the extra cost on imported items.  So because of th extra cost of importing Marmite from that distant country called Burton upon Trent. The British people Must now pay more. 

 

[dunroaming]

Unilever is an Anglo-Dutch company that runs using the Euro.  It did come to a deal with Tesco but the details are not made public.  It is not rocket science that food will increase in price along with petrol and clothing. It just so happens that these are the things most of us spend our money on.