Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

Moto2

Tammykitty wrote: »

This is the view the NI High court took

I thought the court in Belfast ruled that there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement that prevented it?

I can't see the UK government winning in the Supreme Court unless they change their mind over whether or not Article 50 is irrevocable

Tammykitty

Moto2 wrote: »

I thought the court in Belfast ruled that there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement that prevented it?

I can't see the UK government winning in the Supreme Court unless they change their mind over whether or not Article 50 is irrevocable

They NI court ruled on a number of different issues


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37796836


One of which was is a parliamentary vote required


This is the exact wording of the ruling


“The actual notification does not, in itself, alter the law of the UK. Rather, it is the beginning of a process which ultimately will probably lead to changes in UK law. On the day after the notice has been given, the law will in fact be the same as it was on the day before it was given. The rights of individual citizens will not have changed – though it is, of course, true that in due course the body of EU law as it applies in the UK will, very likely, become the subject of change. But at the point when this occurs the process necessarily will be one controlled by parliamentary legislation, as this is the mechanism for changing law in the UK.”

wotsthat

Could there be a third option in the poll and that's that the government U turn and propose a motion to trigger article 50?

Going to the supreme court and arguing the initial ruling was incorrect because they've now changed their minds (or at least now want to argue the point) on whether article 50 is irrevocable quite weak.

Judwin

The full High Court verdict is here : https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf


The High court considered the NI decision in Para 104 of the judgment, and basically came to the conclusion that the NI decision is incomplete because they weren't presented with all the facts about ECA1972 and the effects of Art50.


If the Govt side change their minds and now start to claim that Art50 is reversible, then I think the Supreme court will defer judgment and refer that point of law the ECJ to give a definitive answer. ECJ cases typically take 2+ years to reach a decision and the Brexiteers will be apoplectic.


Hence, IMV, the Govt aren't going to do anything that risks a referral to the ECJ, because March 2019 then becomes doubtful for an Art50 notification never mind March 2017.

CLAPTON

I don't know that the supreme court will decide
but it is clearly true that if more than 50% of MPs wish to form a vote of no confidence in the government they can get rid of the government .
Its also true that such a threat would prevent May from declaring article 50.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't know that the supreme court will decide
but it is clearly true that if more than 50% of MPs wish to form a vote of no confidence in the government they can get rid of the government .
Its also true that such a threat would prevent May from declaring article 50.

It's a risk. If only the government had thought this through properly in the first place.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

It's a risk. If only the government had thought this through properly in the first place.

with a house of commons 75% in favour of remaining and even higher percentage in the house of lords, what exactly would one have done?

Thrugelmir

There must be grounds for appeal. Not just a question of carrying on until you get the result you want.

HornetSaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There must be grounds for appeal. Not just a question of carrying on until you get the result you want.

And what result exactly would that be?

If the problem is that Parliament will not allow a high turnout referendum to be implemented despite no elections taking place since, then the problem is that we are not a sufficiently democratic country.

Equally, if the problem is that the Government does not feel that it's autocratic enough... well... good riddance.

I don't forsee either outcome. I'm pretty sure the Government has no clue how to win an appeal other than ask the other parent and keep its fingers crosed. And I'm equally sure that the only way Article 50 fails to go through is if Labour or the Tories try to play politics with what should be a one-line piece of legislation stating that the House authorises the Prime Minister to implement Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty in accordance with the referendum result.

But on balance, a clamour from the majority of people for a democracy that actually works would be a less-worse outcome than a Government with even fewer checks and balances than it already has.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

with a house of commons 75% in favour of remaining and even higher percentage in the house of lords, what exactly would one have done?

Called an election and dared anyone to stand on a Remain platform?