Irish court case on whether Brexit can be reversed to be heard this month

[webfact]

Irish court case on whether Brexit can be reversed to be heard this month

REUTERS

 

FILE PHOTO: A cyclist wears a pro-Brexit badge on her Union flag themed helmet outside the Supreme Court on the first day of the challenge against a court ruling that Theresa May's government requires parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, in Parliament Square, central London, Britain December 5, 2016. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - A crowdfunded legal challenge to determine whether Britain's divorce from the European Union can be reversed once it has been triggered will be launched in Dublin by the end of January, the lawyer behind the case said on Thursday.

 

British Prime Minister Theresa May says she will invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty by the end of March, triggering two years of formal divorce talks.

 

Lawyers for the British government have said that, once started, the process is irrevocable, but some EU leaders say Britain can change its mind.

 

Jolyon Maugham, a London tax lawyer, is taking legal action to seek a ruling from the European Court of Justice on whether Britain can unilaterally revoke Article 50 without the consent the other 27 EU states.

 

He said "a letter before action" would be issued against the Irish state on Friday and that legal proceedings would begin in Dublin's High Court on or before Jan. 27.

 

"If we change our minds we must be able to withdraw the notice without needing the consent of the other 27 Member States," Maugham said in a statement.

 

"I want to establish clarity for British voters and deliver sovereignty to the British Parliament over the question of its future relationship with its biggest trading partner."

 

He said the challenge, in which several unnamed UK politicians would act as plaintiffs, would also seek clarification of what rights they would lose as EU citizens when Article 50 was triggered and when they would lose these rights.

 

Their case is that Britain's exclusion from EU Council meetings since the Brexit vote would in contravention of European treaties unless Article 50 had already been triggered.

 

"Litigating this matter before a UK court is impossible or non-justiciable given the UK's exclusion from the European Council meetings in question," the letter from Maugham's legal team says.

 

Maugham, whose supporters raised 70,000 pounds ($90,000) in 48 hours last month to fund their challenge, told Reuters in an interview in December that his case would not stop Brexit but would allow for a change of heart if Britons who voted to leave the bloc had a change of heart.

 

Britain's Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next couple of weeks on whether May can trigger Article 50 without parliament's approval or the assent of devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

 

Next week London's High Court is due to hear a challenge on whether leaving the EU means Britain automatically leaves the European Economic Area (EEA) which allows access to the single market and free movement of goods, capital, services and people.

 

(Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Guy Faulconbidge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-13

[Laughing Gravy]

Another waste of Money. What on earth has Irelands judicial and court system got to do with the UK. I wish everyone would just accept the majority of the UK's peoples wishes and butt out of it.  Just because Ireland had two referendums because the EU didn't like the Irish decision does not mean the UK will put up with it.

 

A total waste of time effort and money.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Laughing Gravy

[steve187]

Jolyon Maugham trying to force his personal view onto millions, maybe he is afraid he will lose some trade

and as laughing gravy posed whats it to do with Ireland. they can keep their noses out as well.

The EU is like any other club, once they change the rules too many times its time to leave, and that means losing all the benefits of that club, and finding another with a better deal. you can not leave a tennis club, but still play tennis there, but the courts are better up the road a bit.

[rockingrobin]

42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Another waste of Money. What on earth has Irelands judicial and court system got to do with the UK. I wish everyone would just accept the majority of the UK's peoples wishes and butt out of it.  Just because Ireland had two referendums because the EU didn't like the Irish decision does not mean the UK will put up with it.

 

A total waste of time effort and money.

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

[jpinx]

duplicated

Edited January 13, 2017 by jpinx

[jpinx]

It's another delaying/complicating tactic.  The writer of Article 50 has already stated that it is NOT irrevocable, it is lodged by a country and can be taken back, there is no need to go to court to find that out.  The Irish court's involvement is incidental - maybe because they need to go through a national court to get at the European Court, but who knows.  All they want is as many tripwires as possible.  Here's hoping TM will treat this sideshow with the contempt it deserves.

Edited January 13, 2017 by jpinx

[jpinx]

26 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

Maybe in Ireland's constitution, but not in UK's. 

 

There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated.

[AhFarangJa]

Too many people stand to lose sinecure jobs with their noses in the troughs......I am the first to admit that I do not understand all the 'Article This' or 'Article That'.....but I am experienced enough to know that politicians put up walls and stumbling blocks to protect their inner sanctum of jobs for the boys..........The people voted......Leave the E.U.   just get on with it........I guarantee if it was a vote to join the E.U. then we would be in it now, signed sealed and delivered....

[rockingrobin]

7 minutes ago, jpinx said:

It's another delaying/complicating tactic.  The writer of Article 50 has already stated that it is NOT irrevocable, it is lodged by a country and can be taken back, there is no need to go to court to find that out.  The Irish court's involvement is incidental - maybe because they need to go through a national court to get at the European Court, but who knows.  All they want is as many tripwires as possible.  Here's hoping TM will treat this sideshow with the contempt it deserves.

The Art 50 author also claimed it was never meant to be used, the Art50 is silent on the issue of revocability and its terms. It is  prudent to get a definite answer now   rather than at the end of the process.

Can you please explain how it is a delaying/complicating factor or a tripwire.

The UK referendum result is fixed in time, however public opinion is not.The public may have a different outlook in 2 years 

[rockingrobin]

17 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Maybe in Ireland's constitution, but not in UK's. 

 

There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated.

The Irish constitution was a reply  to another poster on why a second referendum was held in Ireland.

Do I take it the ideology of leaving is more important than any consequences,

 

' There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated '

 

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The Art 50 author also claimed it was never meant to be used, the Art50 is silent on the issue of revocability and its terms. It is  prudent to get a definite answer now   rather than at the end of the process.

Can you please explain how it is a delaying/complicating factor or a tripwire.

The UK referendum result is fixed in time, however public opinion is not.The public may have a different outlook in 2 years 

Whilst the Article does not specify the terms, the author has stated publicly the terms, so why go to the cost of a pointless court case now if the result is already known.

The public might do many things, but the reality is that the polls did not change markedly prior to, or after the referendum.  Unless we abandon the UK system and go for government by referendum, it has to be allowed to stand.

[jpinx]

Just now, rockingrobin said:

The Irish constitution was a reply  to another poster on why a second referendum was held in Ireland.

Do I take it the ideology of leaving is more important than any consequences,

 

' There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated '

 

This is not some academic ideological debate --  this is a reality for so many brits that voted to leave, by the best deal possible, knowing full well that there are implications for trade, immigration, etc, etc. 

 

The debates in forums like this one are academic and will change nothing, but occasionally the idealists spill over into action like the supreme court case and now this.  Both are superfluous and only succeed is stirring up divisions and resentment when what is needed is full support for the result of a democratic vote.

[rockingrobin]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Whilst the Article does not specify the terms, the author has stated publicly the terms, so why go to the cost of a pointless court case now if the result is already known.

The public might do many things, but the reality is that the polls did not change markedly prior to, or after the referendum.  Unless we abandon the UK system and go for government by referendum, it has to be allowed to stand.

I dont follow the government by referendum, it would appear to me you would decline the public a vote  on the final deal negotiated  , somehow the will of the people at this point is inconsequtional. 

Under what International law can Art 50 be unilaterally revoked

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

I dont follow the government by referendum, it would appear to me you would decline the public a vote  on the final deal negotiated  , somehow the will of the people at this point is inconsequtional. 

Under what International law can Art 50 be unilaterally revoked

It's not international law, it's EU law.

You are making a mockery of the UK system if you go back to a referendum on every action of Westminster. 

 

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

David Cameron tried to negotiate before the referendum and basically was told get stuffed. The EU has repeatedly told the UK that it will not be favourable and will do its best to make sure the UK gets a poor deal. If there was another referendum, which there will not be, the margin would be even greater than before, as the constant lies peddled by the remain on the economy have proven to be unfounded. Also the way the EU have behaved as made people realize why on earth we didn't get out sooner. Why don't you just accept the result.

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

 

3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

David Cameron tried to negotiate before the referendum and basically was told get stuffed. The EU has repeatedly told the UK that it will not be favourable and will do its best to make sure the UK gets a poor deal. If there was another referendum, which there will not be, the margin would be even greater than before, as the constant lies peddled by the remain on the economy have proven to be unfounded. Also the way the EU have behaved as made people realize why on earth we didn't get out sooner. Why don't you just accept the result.

I take that as no 

[Laughing Gravy]

Just now, rockingrobin said:

 

I take that as no 

It seems to be a new negotiating tactic from the remain camp that the UK needs to think about its options, have a transitional period before getting out. Well that's not what people voted out for. The people want out of the EU, they want to stop bankrolling EU countries, they want to choose who they do business without penalties and they want the countries sovereignty back. They also want out now. I wish the other countries in the EU luck they are going to need it. Those who can't accept the peoples wishes have the option of joining the other EU countries apparently, coming from the EU commission. If that's not people want start accepting the majority of the peoples wishes and quite frankly stop moaning and causing division.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

How many ways does this question need to be answered?  People voted for Brexit knowing that there are implications for trade, immigration, etc, etc.  The majority voted for Brexit and leave it up to Westminster to sort out the details for the best deal available. 

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

How many ways does this question need to be answered?  People voted for Brexit knowing that there are implications for trade, immigration, etc, etc.  The majority voted for Brexit and leave it up to Westminster to sort out the details for the best deal available. 

Exactly.

[Laughing Gravy]

Great article today in the times from Michael Gove who I am not a big fan off but this was brilliant IMHO. Here is a snippet and some TV Posters should read it and take not.e

 

"Today I’m going to be blunt. And brief. Because I believe in getting on with the job, not wasting words.

And also because the vote to leave the European Union was a demand from the public for plain speaking after years of being patronised. The public knew that we could not cut migration to tens of thousands while we were in the EU. They knew the idea that the European Union was essential to our prosperity and security was nonsense given how it was handling the euro crisis and the migrant crisis. And they knew the hopeful claim that the EU had been reformed thanks to our negotiating efforts was wishful thinking.

So let me say to my fellow politicians — if you think you can go back to patronising the public, if you think you can carry on telling them that they only voted as they did because they don’t understand the issues, that they fell for lies and hate foreigners, and that is why we in Westminster are now going to limit the damage by making our new relationship with Europe as much like the old as possible, then you will get an almighty kick in the ballots at the next election. And you will deserve it.

The public have told us what they want. We must get on with leaving the EU. Completely. In months not years. And, more than that, we have to show that we understand this vote wasn’t just about Europe. All our policies from now on must reflect the common sense of the majority, not the preoccupations of the privileged. For example, the public want more money for mental health and less on Ethiopian girl bands. They want an end to massive pay-offs for incompetent bosses — whether in the public or the private sector. They want brave British soldiers protected from persecution by unscrupulous solicitors using flawed human rights laws and they absolutely want an end to those same laws being used to stop ministers deporting terrorists."

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/may-must-deliver-full-brexit-not-fake-brexit-hxwxgdm6f

[jpinx]

I take it back :)

That was nice to hear from Gove. :)

Edited January 13, 2017 by jpinx

[flossie35]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Another waste of Money. What on earth has Irelands judicial and court system got to do with the UK. I wish everyone would just accept the majority of the UK's peoples wishes and butt out of it.  Just because Ireland had two referendums because the EU didn't like the Irish decision does not mean the UK will put up with it.

 

A total waste of time effort and money.

"the majority of the UK's peoples wishes" is an unknown. Brexit was supported by only 37% of registered voters, some of whom didn't mean it - they just wanted to protest - while others may have believed the lies about more money for the NHS and a million Turkish immigrants arriving at Dover on Tuesday week. Mrs May's main concern seems to be to stop her party falling apart. Remainers have a legitimate concern with what's best in the national interest.

[MagnumForce]

42 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The debates in forums like this one are academic and will change nothing

 

You know this is Thaivisa.com, right? Academic, me arse! 555

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, flossie35 said:

"the majority of the UK's peoples wishes" is an unknown. Brexit was supported by only 37% of registered voters, some of whom didn't mean it - they just wanted to protest - while others may have believed the lies about more money for the NHS and a million Turkish immigrants arriving at Dover on Tuesday week. Mrs May's main concern seems to be to stop her party falling apart. Remainers have a legitimate concern with what's best in the national interest.

if people didn't vote that is their decision. Once again start accepting the majority of the people who voted will. They voted leave.  One bad thing that I have seen from the referendum is just how people are still complaining about the result. if you are unhappy then vote Mrs. May out in the next general election. I will be if she doesn't deliver Brexit properly as promised. That is democracy.

[evadgib]

Link to all things Brexit from HMG:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/brexit   

       

[evadgib]

21 minutes ago, jpinx said:

It is interesting that news items about Brexit are invariably about "Brexit-problems", and commentary in here is just the same old remainers harping on about the same regurgitated arguments.  Maybe there can be a moratoium on posting about Brexit until there is actually something new to post about?

 

I suggested yesterday that the link in the last post be pinned and locked but as yet it hasnt happened therefore I assume their answer ended in '....off!'

Edited January 13, 2017 by evadgib

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The Irish constitution was a reply  to another poster on why a second referendum was held in Ireland.

Do I take it the ideology of leaving is more important than any consequences,

 

' There's been several attempts to drag "rights" into this pantomime, but the reality is that the majority of UK votes were to leave the EU - in whatever way can be negotiated '

 

A rather small majority

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Would you not want to know all the options before entering into negotiations, the Irish EU referendums that you allude to was a requirement of Irelands constitution. 

 

49 minutes ago, jpinx said:

How many ways does this question need to be answered?  People voted for Brexit knowing that there are implications for trade, immigration, etc, etc.  The majority voted for Brexit and leave it up to Westminster to sort out the details for the best deal available. 

The court case is about giving UK sovereignty over the final deal negotiated .

Without a definitive ruling on revocability, then we are left with except the deal or leave without any deal. Whereas the opposite would offer the choice of accepting new deal, remain or leave with nothing.

Now I personally think Art50 is reversable, however the gov. position is Art 50 irrevocable ,

[Enoon]

 

The British Constitution does not allow for Parliament to rule against future legislation.

 

Thus any legislation is not "permanent" insofar as a future Parliament may pass further legislation that rules against it and terminates it (Repeal).

 

Likewise any legislation that is Repealed may be re-introduced for future consideration.

 

So even if the process were to commence Parliament could introduce legislation that would allow for another treaty to be established before the the 2 year time limit for the departure under article 50 had been reached.

 

The British people really have no idea of the potential for domestic political chaos (with it's attendant effects on economic security) that the UKIP/Conservative rivalry created.

 

Hopefully, should that situation arise, they will feel happy......... up to their necks in broken eggs....... waiting for the fantasy omelette to be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Enoon

[Baerboxer]

30 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

The British Constitution does not allow for Parliament to rule against future legislation.

 

Thus any legislation is not "permanent" insofar as a future Parliament may pass further legislation that rules against it and terminates it (Repeal).

 

Likewise any legislation that is Repealed may be re-introduced for future consideration.

 

So even if the process were to commence Parliament could introduce legislation that would allow for another treaty to be established before the the 2 year time limit for the departure under article 50 had been reached.

 

The British people really have no idea of the potential for domestic political chaos (with it's attendant effects on economic security) that the UKIP/Conservative rivalry created.

 

Hopefully, should that situation arise, they will feel happy......... up to their necks in broken eggs....... waiting for the fantasy omelette to be made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed. Nor do many British people understand that the Bill that facilitated the referendum stated it was "advisory" or that allowing any government to act on "advisory" referendums by using the Royal Prerogative undermines parliamentary process and our constitution having a representative democracy in which those elected must debate and vote on issues.

 

The Tories want out now purely to kill off UKIP. Nothing to do with what's right or wrong for the country and are prepared to undermine parliament for their own agenda. Sadly, without a meaningful opposition and with a press and media owned by a few interested parties,  the people aren't being well informed.