May’s Brexit: Europe responds

[jpinx]

The invocation of Art50 is a foreign treaty matter, and given that the RP is allowed in such cases, it is appropriate here also.

Art 50 is a "notice to quit" that UK can take back at any time during negotiations, so it might be the start of a process that goes nowhere.

This is not a statement favouring any course of action over any other, but merely a statement of facts which the courts are now being asked to rule on for the benefit of those who don't like the result of the referendum.  Can anyone point out a supporter of the court actions who is also a supported of Brexit?

[rockingrobin]

29 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The invocation of Art50 is a foreign treaty matter, and given that the RP is allowed in such cases, it is appropriate here also.

Art 50 is a "notice to quit" that UK can take back at any time during negotiations, so it might be the start of a process that goes nowhere.

This is not a statement favouring any course of action over any other, but merely a statement of facts which the courts are now being asked to rule on for the benefit of those who don't like the result of the referendum.  Can anyone point out a supporter of the court actions who is also a supported of Brexit?

A leave voter was one of the original claimants, Art 50 being a foreign affairs matter in this case is insufficient to use RP, even the gov acknowledge this and it is not their submission.

[jpinx]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

A leave voter was one of the original claimants, Art 50 being a foreign affairs matter in this case is insufficient to use RP, even the gov acknowledge this and it is not their submission.

A diverse group of individuals, EU citizens and even pro-Brexit lawyers are driving the legal challenge.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/who-are-the-claimants-in-article-50-court-case

 

The Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, told the Supreme Court that the triggering of Article 50 by the Government, using the power of royal prerogative, would not happen “on a whim, or out of a clear blue sky”, because Parliament knew the referendum result was intended to be final.

He said: “The referendum was conducted, we say, in the universal expectation, including in Parliament, that the Government would implement its result.

“The triggering of Article 50...is the logical conclusion of a process in which Parliament has been fully and consciously involved...and in which Parliament expected the Government to act on the answer [the British people] gave.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/brexit-judgment-supreme-court-hearing-article-50-live/

 

 

One of the Justices hearing the Supreme Court appeal, Lord Carnwath, asked chief government lawyer James Eadie QC why more information about the Great Repeal Bill hasn’t been forthcoming. He asked: “Do we have any evidence about that [the bill]? About what it is, what it’s going to do?

“It seems to be of some relevance to ask ourselves, what is Parliament’s role going to be between now and the end of the two years? I think there’s been a statement at the Conservative Party conference. Has there been anything else?“

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-live-latest-supreme-court-appeal-theresa-may-article-50-eu-uk-judges-hearing-a7456196.html

 

Not the most up-to-date links, but as valid today as when they were new.  The judges cannot be impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling. Which begs the question: who is responsible for generating most of “the political heat and fury”? ...and will the judges remain impervious to that?  They already known for their political views -- let's see how they justify their decision -- whichever way it goes.   Certainly for one of them to make some remarks about "what will Parliaments role be during the negotiations" sounds like a miffed schoolboy who's been sent out of the room,,,,,,

Edited January 20, 2017 by jpinx

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

A diverse group of individuals, EU citizens and even pro-Brexit lawyers are driving the legal challenge.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/who-are-the-claimants-in-article-50-court-case

 

The Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, told the Supreme Court that the triggering of Article 50 by the Government, using the power of royal prerogative, would not happen “on a whim, or out of a clear blue sky”, because Parliament knew the referendum result was intended to be final.

He said: “The referendum was conducted, we say, in the universal expectation, including in Parliament, that the Government would implement its result.

“The triggering of Article 50...is the logical conclusion of a process in which Parliament has been fully and consciously involved...and in which Parliament expected the Government to act on the answer [the British people] gave.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/brexit-judgment-supreme-court-hearing-article-50-live/

 

 

One of the Justices hearing the Supreme Court appeal, Lord Carnwath, asked chief government lawyer James Eadie QC why more information about the Great Repeal Bill hasn’t been forthcoming. He asked: “Do we have any evidence about that [the bill]? About what it is, what it’s going to do?

“It seems to be of some relevance to ask ourselves, what is Parliament’s role going to be between now and the end of the two years? I think there’s been a statement at the Conservative Party conference. Has there been anything else?“

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-live-latest-supreme-court-appeal-theresa-may-article-50-eu-uk-judges-hearing-a7456196.html

 

Not the most up-to-date links, but as valid today as when they were new.  The judges cannot be impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling. Which begs the question: who is responsible for generating most of “the political heat and fury”? ...and will the judges remain impervious to that?  They already known for their political views -- let's see how they justify their decision -- whichever way it goes.   Certainly for one of them to make some remarks about "what will Parliaments role be during the negotiations" sounds like a miffed schoolboy who's been sent out of the room,,,,,,

From court transcript

AG

' It is common ground that treaties are not

 self-executing. Prerogative actions of the Government

 on the international law plane on the one hand, and on

 the other, Parliament giving effect as necessary to

 rights and obligations on the domestic plane are legally

and constitutionally separate. The EU legal order, we

 say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is

 a clear example of it. '

 

The argument is EU laws are not UK domestic laws, but are merely transposed into UK domestic sphere, and parliament has not limited Prerogative powers expressly

[jpinx]

13 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

From court transcript

AG

' It is common ground that treaties are not

 self-executing. Prerogative actions of the Government

 on the international law plane on the one hand, and on

 the other, Parliament giving effect as necessary to

 rights and obligations on the domestic plane are legally

and constitutionally separate. The EU legal order, we

 say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is

 a clear example of it. '

 

The argument is EU laws are not UK domestic laws, but are merely transposed into UK domestic sphere, and parliament has not limited Prerogative powers expressly

Based on that commentary  Art50 is a "foreign treaty", needing acts of Parliament to give it effect in due course, but not - of itself - anything that has any legal imprint on UK domestic law. Art 50 is not self-executing, it is merely a "notice to quit" and will require the appropriate acts of Parliament.  The facts stated bear this out, but the conclusion is blurred - probably deliberately.

"...........The EU legal order, we  say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is  a clear example of it....."

The duality of the system is not in doubt, it's a question of on which side of the table Art50 resides.

 

It's seriously technical, based on the way EU laws are transposed but not trans-scribed into UK law by that single act of parliament.

It's all going to be very interesting - to see how the court presents its decision either way. 

 

TBH it's a speed-bump because everyone knows that a vote in the house now will pass, even though there might well be some fun at the debate stage.

 

 

[soalbundy]

On 1/19/2017 at 2:25 PM, RuamRudy said:

 

Great - then hopefully we won't be battered with the same barrage of lies and scare tactics that were employed by Westminster last time.

Westminster is a place full of lies, you get to put a cross on your ballot paper believing in the lies they told you leading up to the vote and then they go ahead and do what they want, voters memories are short lived. Brexit is going to rejuvenate the trade unions to the same state as it was before Thatcher because the UK will slowly but surely demolish those pesky workers rights and human rights laws as well as the environment protection that the interfering EU introduced, welcome the the land of continual strikes again.

[RuamRudy]

49 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Westminster is a place full of lies, you get to put a cross on your ballot paper believing in the lies they told you leading up to the vote and then they go ahead and do what they want, voters memories are short lived. Brexit is going to rejuvenate the trade unions to the same state as it was before Thatcher because the UK will slowly but surely demolish those pesky workers rights and human rights laws as well as the environment protection that the interfering EU introduced, welcome the the land of continual strikes again.

 

The difference now, however, is that the unions have been well and truly neutered, and 30 years of Thatcherism has taught the population that, rightly or wrongly, unions are not our friends. Claiming unfair dismissal in the UK is now much more difficult than it was in the past - I am sure that we are on the slide towards US style fire-at-will, union free workplaces where people are so scared of losing their jobs that they will accept any crap that is flung at them. Only now, we don't have Europe to protect us.

[soalbundy]

15 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The difference now, however, is that the unions have been well and truly neutered, and 30 years of Thatcherism has taught the population that, rightly or wrongly, unions are not our friends. Claiming unfair dismissal in the UK is now much more difficult than it was in the past - I am sure that we are on the slide towards US style fire-at-will, union free workplaces where people are so scared of losing their jobs that they will accept any crap that is flung at them. Only now, we don't have Europe to protect us.

It is this 'crap' which will drive more and more workers into the arms of the unions so that they eventually reach the power that they once had. If organized responsibly as in the German Montan-Mitbestimmungsgesetz the unions are indeed your friend not however if it reaches the Marxist levels of the pre Thatcher era

[rockingrobin]

16 hours ago, jpinx said:

Based on that commentary  Art50 is a "foreign treaty", needing acts of Parliament to give it effect in due course, but not - of itself - anything that has any legal imprint on UK domestic law. Art 50 is not self-executing, it is merely a "notice to quit" and will require the appropriate acts of Parliament.  The facts stated bear this out, but the conclusion is blurred - probably deliberately.

"...........The EU legal order, we  say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is  a clear example of it....."

The duality of the system is not in doubt, it's a question of on which side of the table Art50 resides.

 

It's seriously technical, based on the way EU laws are transposed but not trans-scribed into UK law by that single act of parliament.

It's all going to be very interesting - to see how the court presents its decision either way. 

 

TBH it's a speed-bump because everyone knows that a vote in the house now will pass, even though there might well be some fun at the debate stage.

 

 

The question is the nature of the prerogative. Does it exist unlimited or is constrained by foreign affairs not having force in  domestic laws and rights.

 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The question is the nature of the prerogative. Does it exist unlimited or is constrained by foreign affairs not having force in  domestic laws and rights.

 

 

I wouldn't get too excited by the legal nitty gritty if I were you Robin. It's become obvious that Brexit is going to happen regardless. The legals are just a side show that remain is clinging to like a comfort blanket, and they will wither away the same as the currency shenanigans.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

The question is the nature of the prerogative. Does it exist unlimited or is constrained by foreign affairs not having force in  domestic laws and rights.

 

I don't know :)  I guess we'll find out on Tuesday.  :)