If Brexit needs house of commons and Lords backing ...

TrickyTree83

jimjames wrote: »

They haven't as far as I'm aware

Not yet no, they're discussing if they'll allow the Swiss to do it or not at the moment.

Conrad

beecher2 wrote: »

So they need to be honest about the fact that the UK won't be part of the single market.

How does Japan sell huge amounts of services, let alone goods, to Europe?

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/september/tradoc_111836.pdf

Daniel54

Masomnia wrote: »

See points 5 and especially 6 in the 2 page summary: 'The government accepts that a notice under Article 50 cannot be withdrawn once it has been given'

ie. the decision is based on the idea that Article 50 is not reversible. Hence point 6

'Therefore, once notice is given under Article 50, some rights under EU law... would inevitably be lost'.

Whether rights would 'inevitably' be lost once Article 50 is served is central to this case.

You and Bob Q are both right.

It suited both sides to state as their view that Article 50 was irrevocable.The plaintiffs because their case depended on it ,as you correctly state,and the Government because they did not want to go down the route that Brexit might not mean Brexit, if we could simply change our minds and withdraw notice at some point in the future.

The judges considered whether they needed to rule on this but in the end accepted that the point was not contended by either side.

It is possible that the Government could change its view at the appeal,but surely that would be an unacceptable political cost of potentially winning the case.Alternatively,it is possible that the Supreme Court could decide that it needs clarity on whether the Article is revocable and itself refer the case to the ECJ.

Either way,I suspect this subject is not going to go away .Interestingly,both Donald Tusk and the author of Article 50,Lord Kerr ,have suggested that it is revocable.

For the record,I don't think there is any chance at all that Parliament won't vote for triggering Article 50 when the relevant Act comes before it - although strings may well be attached.

The attached link is to a blog by Jolyon Maugham QC which was written during the case with much more authority than I could make claim to and addresses the revocability question.

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/10/16/brexit-the-important-role-of-the-court-of-justice/

padington

jimjames wrote: »

They haven't as far as I'm aware

The Swiss have been trying to make a good deal with the EU for 45 years and still they're not happy.

prosaver

Why does most people think the lords will say yes to brexit.
Lord sugar,
Lord Lichfield. .lord charles goottle of gear..sorry going into meltdown

Ha ha

[Deleted User]

prosaver wrote: »

Why does most people think the lords will say yes to brexit.
Lord sugar,
Lord Lichfield. .lord charles goottle of gear..sorry going into meltdown

Ha ha

Probably because they're an unelected house that gets paid for doing apparently nothing and certainly not for helping ensure the public good. Apparently the Lib Dems have many more peers than MP's. Nice work if you can get it.

BobQ

Daniel54 wrote: »

You and Bob Q are both right.

It suited both sides to state as their view that Article 50 was irrevocable.The plaintiffs because their case depended on it ,as you correctly state,and the Government because they did not want to go down the route that Brexit might not mean Brexit, if we could simply change our minds and withdraw notice at some point in the future.

The judges considered whether they needed to rule on this but in the end accepted that the point was not contended by either side.

It is possible that the Government could change its view at the appeal,but surely that would be an unacceptable political cost of potentially winning the case.Alternatively,it is possible that the Supreme Court could decide that it needs clarity on whether the Article is revocable and itself refer the case to the ECJ.

Either way,I suspect this subject is not going to go away .Interestingly,both Donald Tusk and the author of Article 50,Lord Kerr ,have suggested that it is revocable.

For the record,I don't think there is any chance at all that Parliament won't vote for triggering Article 50 when the relevant Act comes before it - although strings may well be attached.

The attached link is to a blog by Jolyon Maugham QC which was written during the case with much more authority than I could make claim to and addresses the revocability question.

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/10/16/brexit-the-important-role-of-the-court-of-justice/

The revocability of Article 50 is not in dispute and so is not an issue.

The issue is explained in the full judgement. Constitutionally we have never allowed an Act of Parliament to be changed by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That is the issue. All sides agree that invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative will
change the law. Ergo the Govrnment cannot use the Royal Prerogative to invoke Article 50.

The full judgement's final paragraph says all there is to be said....(I summarise) ..... for the reasons set out the SoS does not have the power under Royal Perogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50.

That is the Government can invoke Article 50 provided Parliament votes to do so.

The hysterical reaction of some Brexit campaigners is frankly absurd. There is little doubt, that unless they win an appeal, they will need to present an Act and that it will be passed. As has been said, few MPs will vote against the will of the people.

If the Government does not win an appeal it is yet further evidence of how ill prepared the Government is months after the vote. The Court held this was a fundamental principle of the UK's constitution. The fact that May thought she could ride roughshod over it is evidence of the confusion reigning in Government.

Parliament may well amend a Bill to ensure that it gets a further opportunity to vote on the terms of Brexit, but it will not stop Article 50 notice being given.

Shakethedisease

Conrad wrote: »

Lisa Nandy on QT kept saying 'MP's must have a say on the shape of Brexit'.


So lets imagine how the question of the SM would be debated and surely indefinitely stalled;


1) Access to the Single Market - THE GOVT > 'The Govt believes we can obtain tariff and barrier free trade, given the fact French and German workers will not tolerate having their jobs put at risk by trade being hampered, let alone all the economic uncertainty a trade war would introduce' 'Article 8 more or less requires an amicable practical settlement that works in the interests of trade'


REMAINERS > 'we believe this to be a fantasy, we will be punished hard by Brussels, and German and French workers will pay the price, as will we, therefore we must accede sovereignty or lose trade'


How on earth would this ever be resolved?

Oh I don't know. The Shadow Brexit minister seems to be pretty gung ho on Brexit. Maybe most of Labour too ?

In the most comprehensive explanation of his position on Brexit to date, Starmer told POLITICO that Britain’s membership of the single market will have to “lapse,” that Labour will push for “the fullest possible” tariff-free access to European markets, and that any new deal with Brussels will require Westminster to have some control over who comes to work in the U.K.

Setting a course at odds with his leader, Starmer argued that immigration has been too high and said Labour must support “some change to the way freedom of movement rules operate” as part of the Brexit negotiations.


Starmer is also open to the U.K. leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — the prime minister’s core demand — as long as another body is established to settle disputes between Britain and the EU.


In all, it suggests Labour is flexible on the practicalities of Brexit, but only within certain red lines, which the party is not prepared to cross. “If she’s out, out, out then there’s no compromise,” Starmer insisted. A total, clean break from the EU, its single market and customs union is not acceptable to him. If May does not compromise, Starmer said he sees no possibility of consensus...


...Starmer’s intervention points to an emerging political consensus — although far from universally accepted — on the central questions of Britain’s exit from the European Union. The battle, as he sees it, is no longer to keep Britain in the single market, to preserve free movement of people or retain the authority of the European Court of Justice over British law.

http://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/

Full article at link. Too long to post.

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

So both sides will disagree on the shape of Brexit, and so endless debate ensues, this will mean Brexit cannot proceed.


Given 68.8% of the counting areas voted leave, but only 25% of parliamentarians so did, I would imagine the people would look very dimly on Parliament for denying the will of the people and something truly fundamental would come to pass.

Since the law states that Parliament must vote to give Article 50 notice this is a nugatory argument.

Article 50 will be invoked by Parliament not the Secretary of State. What is the problem!

BobQ

Conrad wrote: »

Lisa Nandy on QT kept saying 'MP's must have a say on the shape of Brexit'.


So lets imagine how the question of the SM would be debated and surely indefinitely stalled;


1) Access to the Single Market - THE GOVT > 'The Govt believes we can obtain tariff and barrier free trade, given the fact French and German workers will not tolerate having their jobs put at risk by trade being hampered, let alone all the economic uncertainty a trade war would introduce' 'Article 8 more or less requires an amicable practical settlement that works in the interests of trade'


REMAINERS > 'we believe this to be a fantasy, we will be punished hard by Brussels, and German and French workers will pay the price, as will we, therefore we must accede sovereignty or lose trade'

How on earth would this ever be resolved?

I do not think this will happen. In any negotiation both sides approach it with a position and a strategy, and it is unfair and indeed it would be silly to expect that to be published.

What I think is reasonable, however, is that Parliament is told the Government's initial position. It is normal in a negotiation for one or both sides to state an initial position.

Right now we have one minister saying one thing and another one saying something else. If the Government would like to have as you put it "tariff and barrier free trade" it should state this. It may get something less than that, but saying that is its aspiration discloses nothing that affects its negotiating position.

I see little point in Parliament amending the Article 50 Act but a White Paper setting out our initial position, a debate on it and then passing the Bill seems a reasonable plan.

Right now we have no idea if May is wishing to negotiate tariff and barrier free trade for say automotive products and financial services or whether she is content to leave quickly on WTO terms. Whatever she might want, I suspect the fear is resignations if it is made public what kind of Brexit her Government is seeking.