Supreme Court to hear government appeal over Brexit powers

[webfact]

Supreme Court to hear government appeal over Brexit powers

 

LONDON: -- The Supreme Court will begin a landmark legal hearing on Monday into whether Parliament's consent is required before official Brexit negotiations can begin.

 

Its 11 justices will hear a government appeal against last month's High Court ruling that only Parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50.

 

The hearing, to be streamed live by the BBC, is expected to last four days, but the verdict is not due until next year. The outcome will have implications for Theresa May's strategy for EU exit.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2016-12-05

[dick dasterdly]

I hadn't realised the decision wasn't expected until next year!

 

Stupid really, as of course such an important decision would take some time  (embarrassed emoticon).

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I hadn't realised the decision wasn't expected until next year!

 

Stupid really, as of course such an important decision would take some time  (embarrassed emoticon).

Well given that we are only just over three weeks away from next year I think that is practical.  This is a landmark hearing and it is important to get the right result, whatever that will be.

 

If there was another referendum I would vote leave, not because I believe in that decision but because that is now the fair way to proceed.  However I am in favour of the rules of engagement being made by parliament because that would make the playing field far more level.  I think having a very small pool of people who are ardent Brexiteers making all the decisions is unfair and unbalanced.

[democratus]

Even if the Supreme Court decides Parliaments consent is required before official Brexit negotiations can commence - and even if Parliament refuses to give said consent - then surely all Theresa May has to do is create 100 new lords, on the condition they vote for Brexit negotiations to commence?

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, democratus said:

Even if the Supreme Court decides Parliaments consent is required before official Brexit negotiations can commence - and even if Parliament refuses to give said consent - then surely all Theresa May has to do is create 100 new lords, on the condition they vote for Brexit negotiations to commence?

 

Nice thought!  I wouldn't want parliament to reverse the brexit decision but they should have a say in the outcome of the negotiations.  They represent all of us and should do that accordingly.

[jesimps]

12 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Well given that we are only just over three weeks away from next year I think that is practical.  This is a landmark hearing and it is important to get the right result, whatever that will be.

 

If there was another referendum I would vote leave, not because I believe in that decision but because that is now the fair way to proceed.  However I am in favour of the rules of engagement being made by parliament because that would make the playing field far more level.  I think having a very small pool of people who are ardent Brexiteers making all the decisions is unfair and unbalanced.

"I think having a very small pool of people who are ardent Brexiteers making all the decisions is unfair and unbalanced."

 

Even though that was what was voted for in the referendum? People were asked if they wanted to leave the EU and the decision was "Yes". There was no mention of leaving but still allowing the free movement of people. Getting back control of our own borders was, IMHO, one of the main reasons people voted "Leave".

 

Now I'm ok with parliament having its say in ratifying the vote, even though it never rubber-stamped our entry to the EU, but I object strongly to it interfering with the wishes of the people as per the referendum.

 

By the way, who are the "small pool of Brexiteers making all the decisions? The PM herself was a "Remainer".

 

[Basil B]

1 hour ago, democratus said:

Even if the Supreme Court decides Parliaments consent is required before official Brexit negotiations can commence - and even if Parliament refuses to give said consent - then surely all Theresa May has to do is create 100 new lords, on the condition they vote for Brexit negotiations to commence?

 

I think she will have to get rid of 100 first... and I do not think it is something she can do.

[Basil B]

This mess has been caused by a referendum to leave that those who "fudged" it up and wrote the the Referendum Bill thought it would not happen so did not think as to what would happen if it was voted for and did not legislate for exiting the EU, no wonder Cameron  jumped ship faster than the captain of the Costa Concordia.

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Basil B

[Basil B]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

This mess has been caused by a referendum to leave that those who "fudged" it up and wrote the the Referendum Bill thought it would not happen so did not think as to what would happen if it was voted for and did not legislate for exiting the EU, no wonder Cameron  jumped ship faster than the captain of the Costa Concordia.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Basil B

[Grouse]

Best solution is for MPs to force a general election. Then there would be no more squabbling ?

[dunroaming]

3 hours ago, jesimps said:

"I think having a very small pool of people who are ardent Brexiteers making all the decisions is unfair and unbalanced."

 

Even though that was what was voted for in the referendum? People were asked if they wanted to leave the EU and the decision was "Yes". There was no mention of leaving but still allowing the free movement of people. Getting back control of our own borders was, IMHO, one of the main reasons people voted "Leave".

 

Now I'm ok with parliament having its say in ratifying the vote, even though it never rubber-stamped our entry to the EU, but I object strongly to it interfering with the wishes of the people as per the referendum.

 

By the way, who are the "small pool of Brexiteers making all the decisions? The PM herself was a "Remainer".

 

 

Yes the PM was a remainer but she appointed the people to orchestrate brexit and they were all passionate brexiteers.  David Davis and Liam Fox in charge and she also made Boris Johnson the Foreign Secretary.  They were all staunch brexiteers and ran the brexit campaign..

 

I think you are right that many people voted for brexit because of immigration and controlling the borders. The problem was that they voted based on the promises of the campaign and many of them were lies.  Sometimes not deliberate lies but born of ignorance of the outcome.  What we have to do now is try to get the best deal we can and slowly Davis, Johnson and the boys are conceding that we will probably have to accept the free movement of people in return for the single market agreement.  They will also probably have to pay in to the EU as well.  Of course the alternative is to go for a hard brexit with a complete break and no single market.  We would have control of our borders but the government would have to commit millions if not billions to compensate the car manufacturers and in fact any other large companies that rely on trade with Europe.

 

On the other hand if Italy and France go hard right then that would probably see the collapse of the EU.  Without any EU the relevant member countries could negotiate a new pact that works.  Then we would certainly all be winners.  The EU is outdated and is a shambles as it is now.

[notmyself]

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

Allowing ministers to trigger Brexit was Parliament's "clear expectation" when it agreed to an EU referendum, the Supreme Court has been told.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the government would be making "lawful" use of "fundamental" powers by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

 

He was speaking at a legal hearing into whether Parliament's consent was needed before Brexit negotiations begin.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, dunroaming said:

 

Nice thought!  I wouldn't want parliament to reverse the brexit decision but they should have a say in the outcome of the negotiations.  They represent all of us and should do that accordingly.

 

They should vote according to what they believe is in the best interest of The electorate. 

[Grouse]

4 minutes ago, notmyself said:

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

 

If you're so cock sure, you won't mind another vote to double check! What have you got to lose? I sense you're feeling a bit of a draft?

[notmyself]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

If you're so cock sure, you won't mind another vote to double check! What have you got to lose? I sense you're feeling a bit of a draft?

 

Sure. Maybe we can get the EU to throw us a shedload of cash as they did in Ireland to force through the Lisbon treaty.

The Lisbon treaty and how the electorate was treated is much of the reason for the discontent. In its previous guise it was firmly rejected by the French and Dutch so the ran it through a spellchecker, renamed it Lisbon treaty and then countries for the most part were not given the vote. The few that did get to vote had money thrown at them in order to purchase a yes vote. Ireland done very well and fair play to them as they double dipped and are now doing quite well after such a massive cash injection.

[Xircal]

According to the LBC video clip in this Independent report, she'll lose the appeal: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-leaked-document-reveals-still-no-plan-article-50-a7417931.html

 

[Xircal]

9 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I hadn't realised the decision wasn't expected until next year!

 

Stupid really, as of course such an important decision would take some time  (embarrassed emoticon).

 

This report from Reuters seems to suggest the bill the government would introduce should they lose the Supreme Court hearing is sufficient to proceed with triggering Article 50 at the end of March. http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-breakingviews-idUKKBN13U20Y

 

[William C F Pierce]

3 hours ago, notmyself said:

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

In 1975 MPs voted for a referendum an then had a final say on the outcome. As parliament voted for this the Prime Minister has no valid authority to proceed without the approval of Parliament. The previous 1975 Parliamentary vote is still valid.

[notmyself]

22 minutes ago, William C F Pierce said:

In 1975 MPs voted for a referendum an then had a final say on the outcome. As parliament voted for this the Prime Minister has no valid authority to proceed without the approval of Parliament. The previous 1975 Parliamentary vote is still valid.

 

It doesn't work like that due to parliamentary sovereignty though it would do if it were still the same government. Labour or rather Corbyn first mentioned this some months ago and again in the last week though in a more polititalk way. Something like I will respect the vote while not mentioning that he doesn't have an option. We WILL leave of that there is no question so call 50 and lets get on with it. This is the real reason why Dave resigned.... he knew he had to call within weeks if not days but did not want to do it. Shame really because I would rather him in charge than that dullard May creature.

[dunroaming]

4 hours ago, notmyself said:

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

 

You really need a new tag line.  It is not about losing the vote it is about  damage limitation.  The way it looks at the moment is that nobody is winning.  The object of running it through Parliament is to try to protect our interests as we negotiate the divorce, not to stop it..

[William C F Pierce]

On 05/12/2016 at 3:42 PM, notmyself said:

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

In 1975 MPs voted for a referendum an then had a final say on the outcome. As parliament voted for this the Prime Minister has no valid authority to proceed without the approval of Parliament. The previous 1975 Parliamentary vote is still valid.

[SheungWan]

Following the proceedings and the legal arguments has been a fascinating read. A very open process. It is not surprising that the forum hard brexiteer usual suspects have tended to stay away from the hearing as they have no commitment to the legal process and in fact are just standing by to denounce it if it goes against them. Hardly the thinness of a tobacco paper between them and the populist rantings of the Daily Express.

[SheungWan]

On 12/5/2016 at 11:42 PM, notmyself said:

MPs already voted on having a referendum and they voted yes.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

 

Now they want to vote again because they didn't get the result they expected. Please go in the direction of 'away' and stop trying to scuttle the ship because all this BS is damaging the economy. I suspect that this is the very reason it was taken to court in the first place. So they could damage the UK and in a couple of years say 'told you so' with a grin on their face.

 

You lost, get over it.

 

There is your opinion what should happen and then there is the legal process of what is possible. One should not conflate the two.

[SheungWan]

4 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

In 1975 MPs voted for a referendum an then had a final say on the outcome. As parliament voted for this the Prime Minister has no valid authority to proceed without the approval of Parliament. The previous 1975 Parliamentary vote is still valid.

 

This argument came up in the Supreme Court hearing. Essentially it amounts to the argument that any decision taken by Parliament can only be undone by Parliament. Even the Government recognises that in and of itself the result of a referendum does not trump parliament. That is why it has taken recourse in the use of the Royal Prerogative as its means to reverse prior Acts as an alternative to Parliament. The Supreme Court's responsibility is to determine whether the Government is legally entitled to do so. Actually, the High Court has alreeady determined that the Government is not entitled to do so. The Government has not accepted that decision and is exercising its legal right to appeal that decision and therefore the Supreme Court deliberations is in the form of an appeal. A second bite of the apple if you wish.

[SheungWan]

On 12/5/2016 at 7:47 PM, Grouse said:

Best solution is for MPs to force a general election. Then there would be no more squabbling ?

 

Actually no. It is the responsibility of this parliament to navigate the process, however messy.