UK government suffers Brexit court blow

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

I think that will be the case unless the Supreme Court* refers the case to the European Court of Justice on the question of whether A50 is reversible or not, in which case it may take longer.

It can't be referred to the ECJ because it isn't a question of European law. The Supreme Court is as high as it can go.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

This will now end up in parliament - high court was definitive and appeal unlikely to succeed

Parliament won't block brexit - but they'll scrutinise, slow down, and supervise Brexit and put clear limits in place to the range of outcomes parliament will accept - so a chaotic, destructive, hard brexit now looks much less likely.

[Deleted User]

Still, on the fun side, tonight's "Question Time" should be interesting - its from Watford.

According to - https://www.watford.gov.uk/info/20248/elections_and_voting/515/elections_results/2 - the result from the Watford voting area was a small majority in favour of "leave" on a 71.68% turnout.

Wonder if they'll have bouncers?

WR

Masomnia

steampowered wrote: »

It can't be referred to the ECJ because it isn't a question of European law. The Supreme Court is as high as it can go.

Correct if I'm incorrect, but if this does hinge on whether or not Article 50 is reversible or not, which I understand it does, then that is a question of European Law.

If Article 50 is reversible once triggered then no rights arising from the Act of 1972 are lost, thus Teresa May will not need to consult Parliament and can use Royal Prerogative.

If Article 50 is not reversible then rights will be lost by triggering A50, and May must consult Parliament as rights guaranteed by the European Communities Act will be lost, which is unconstitutional.

So really, it does depend on European law.

sann420

"The Supreme Court will hear the appeal case in December but it will not deliver a ruling until the middle of January 2017, leaving just 10 weeks between the result and the Prime Minister's deadline for triggering Brexit in March 2017.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister ruled out a further appeal to the European Court of Justice if the Supreme Court case is not successful."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/brexit-could-be-delayed-by-a-year-following-high-court-ruling/

Moto2

The Brexiteers wanted UK society to be governed by UK laws - that's what they got today.
UK judges applying UK laws.

If they are not happy about it, you could always appeal to the European Court

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

This will now end up in parliament - high court was definitive and appeal unlikely to succeed

Parliament won't block brexit - but they'll scrutinise, slow down, and supervise Brexit and put clear limits in place to the range of outcomes parliament will accept - so a chaotic, destructive, hard brexit now looks much less likely.

The point, is that it could go on for years. Which certainly doesn't help our economy, something which you've bitten all your nails off about.

There will be only one group whop wins from this.

It won't be remainers or outers. It will be the lawyers.

I've already heard of MPs who have stated they will resign if anything is put in the way of the peoples voice.

It's just going to be one massive hemorrhage of cash from taxpayers to lawyers, and a fair bit spent on politicians voicing their opinions.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Do you support it?

Do you believe it is the correct thing for the parliamentary democracy to do? To ignore the result of a referendum of the people with a 72%+ turnout?

If we had a referendum with 72% turnout which resulted in 52% of the votes in favour of making being !!!!!exual illegal again, do you think parliament should go with the will of the people?

EDIT: For some reason the word h-0-m-0-sexual is banned. I guess we know which way mse would vote.

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

Correct if I'm incorrect, but if this does hinge on whether or not Article 50 is reversible or not, which I understand it does, then that is a question of European Law.

If Article 50 is reversible once triggered then no rights arising from the Act of 1972 are lost, thus Teresa May will not need to consult Parliament and can use Royal Prerogative.

If Article 50 is not reversible then rights will be lost by triggering A50, and May must consult Parliament as rights guaranteed by the European Communities Act will be lost, which is unconstitutional.

So really, it does depend on European law.

I point you towards the actual judgment in this case and the court's 2-page summary, which is available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/:

The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown's prerogative powers and without reference to parliament.

Moto2

steampowered wrote: »

I point you towards the actual judgment in this case and the court's 2-page summary, which is available at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/:

The issue before the court is whether, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the Government is entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the European Union under Article 50 by exercise of the Crown's prerogative powers and without reference to parliament.

but...
The issue of whether or not Article 50 was revocable is key, the Government have argued in court that it's not (for political reasons)
Their case would be strengthened if they were to change their position on this and so may well do so when the Supreme court hear it.