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

jimjames

setmefree2 wrote: »

Everyone is acting as if Judges are politically independent - they are not - at least they are honest about that in the US were the judges are political appointments. These judges are up to their necks in the EU justice system - they are not independent.

That's just not true. Which part of the judgement do you not agree with? Or do you want the ability of a PM to override laws they don't agree with and not need parliament to play any part. That's certainly not our current democracy whether you like it or not.

The referendum was only advisory and parliament needs to enact the outcome. Seems fairly simple to me.

Daniel54

BobQ wrote: »

The Government cannot change the revocability of Article 50 without a Treaty change. It is a matter of fact.

Article 50 is silent on whether notice can be withdrawn during the notice period

The chap who wrote it disagrees with your view

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

CLAPTON

Daniel54 wrote: »

Article 50 is silent on whether notice can be withdrawn during the notice period

The chap who wrote it disagrees with your view

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

the chap who wrote it is a committed europhile and remainer so of course will be totally objective.

BobQ

Daniel54 wrote: »

Article 50 is silent on whether notice can be withdrawn during the notice period

The chap who wrote it disagrees with your view

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628

I agree that Article 50 is silent. I was simply suggesting that somewhere, if it becomes an issue, a court will have to decide this point. The UK Government cannot decide it for itself, it can only argue the point that it is or it is not.

Article 50 is quite vague. Its revocability is simply a topic on which the Government has (for the purpose of this legal action) decided to say nothing. The author is simply stating an opinion, the fact that he helped draft it does not mean it is not capable of different interpretations.

It may indeed be the case that Article 50 is revocable. If so why on earth has the Government been delaying? I suspect that it may be because they know that while they can revoke it the EU27 may not be obliged to do accept that.

The enclosed speculates on the fact that the European Court may be asked to decide on the matter (which would be ironic)

https://www.monckton.com/article-50-litigation-result-reference-european-court-justice/

My view is that the decision on whether Parliament has to decide to invoke Article 50 is a matter of law. If the Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it, it would follow that Article 50 could only be revoked by the same method. That is Parliament will never get to vote on anything till we are out of the EU or decided not to leave.

System

BobQ wrote: »

. If the Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it, it would follow that Article 50 could only be revoked by the same method..

It doesn't follow. "Can be" doesn't mean "must be" or "can only be".

BobQ

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It doesn't follow. "Can be" doesn't mean "must be" or "can only be".

Agreed.........

wotsthat

setmefree2 wrote: »

I believe, from what I've read, that the government want a clear ruling on this from the Supreme Court - motion or Act of Parliament. A motion need only be put to HoC and is clearly the May government's preferred option.

The conservatives would win a parliamentary debate, they'd win a GE and Labour are over represented.

Yet the government aren't putting this through parliament because, all of a sudden, they've got really interested in the legal process too?

mrginge

setmefree2 wrote: »

The Lords could hold things up for a year - during which time the Brexit department will be getting our ducks in a row with the WTO and carving out new trade deals. This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Delays by the lords is not going to go down well with quite a lot of groups. Lots of voters, the govt, businesses, the EU, most countries in the world. In fact, anyone with a vested interest in getting this sorted.

The lords are a law unto themselves though and are may well take the view that everyone else can lump it.
Whether people believe that it's right or wrong for the lords to take that view is irrelevant.

One indirect consequence of significant delays to triggering article 50 is that it will pile the pressure onto the EU to start some kind of informal discussions beforehand. Not necessarily a bad thing from the govts perspective.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Delays by the lords is not going to go down well with quite a lot of groups. Lots of voters, the govt, businesses, the EU, most countries in the world. In fact, anyone with a vested interest in getting this sorted.

The lords are a law unto themselves though and are may well take the view that everyone else can lump it.
Whether people believe that it's right or wrong for the lords to take that view is irrelevant.

Exactly, the government need to accept the ruling, do the right thing and get on with it. Jeez, do we really need the Lords involved?

mrginge wrote: »

One indirect consequence of significant delays to triggering article 50 is that it will pile the pressure onto the EU to start some kind of informal discussions beforehand. Not necessarily a bad thing from the govts perspective.

I think the informal discussions have already started. Have you noticed a reduction in the mud being flung across the channel in the last couple of weeks.

mrginge

wotsthat wrote: »

Exactly, the government need to accept the ruling, do the right thing and get on with it. Jeez, do we really need the Lords involved?

I think it's just a balancing act. Govt have nothing to lose by appealing and it'll make their lives a bit easier if they get it overturned.
If not then three things happen.
They can blame delays on everyone else.
They can pretty much guarantee getting a vote passed the HoC
Once parliament approve it, then its going to be hard for remain MPs who voted it through to then start criticising.

I think the informal discussions have already started. Have you noticed a reduction in the mud being flung across the channel in the last couple of weeks.

I'm sure there's been an odd chat here and there. Maybe not direct with the EU but certainly with individual countries. Can't be avoided, just the usual EU posturing that will be knocked down as soon as the members start seeing the impact of uncertainty affecting their own interests.