Brexit

[eronald]

John Donne, who lived in England between 1573 and 1631, was not, technically, American.

He wrote "Every man's death diminish me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee".

Your presumably deliberate "land of clods" msiquotation might indicate that the rest of your post is not to be taken remotely seriously, in which case I apologise for the correction.

Jeremy

Jeremy,

No need to apologise, you are technically correct, to wit - the poet never made it to America in his voyage of discovery - Newfoundland is indeed part of Canada.

Edmund

[Manoli]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

7. The most fundamental role of the UK's constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it chooses. As an aspect of the sovereignty of Parliament it has been established for hundreds of years that the Crown – i.e. the Government of the day – cannot by exercise of prerogative powers override legislation enacted by Parliament.
[..]
10. The Court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government … In the Judgement of the Court the argument is contrary … to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.

So, once again, statute beats prerogative - as it should.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

Interesting. So if Government does not have power to give notice (Art. 50), because of the effects on domestic laws (which becomes a case for Parliament), then Parliament does. How does that work then ...

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.

I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.

In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice

[Rob C]

Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.

I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.

In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice

With luck, it'll give Parliament an opportunity to act for the greater national good based on the very obvious facts that existed before the vote and still pertain today, if in more underlined manner than ever. I can still not believe that a government that had its prime officials voting in the Remain camp can turn that sensible decision on its head because a relatively small number of malcontents and rabid power seekers has plotted, lied and generally dissembled its way to pushing a decision based on falsehood.

Now the opportunity to make national amends. Please, don't fail us at this eleventh hour.

Rob C

[MarkJohnson]

A further possible problem for those of us in UK who wish to retain EU citizenship and who prefer UK in EU is that government might call an election on the issue, but outcome of that would I think mostly turn on perception of May versus Corbyn as the more credible political leader. Then another Tory victory would be put out as a Brexit victory, rather than as much a vote of no confidence in Corbyn as possible PM.

[Manoli]

... and a guest commentary by Jolyon Maugham QC on the FT.
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/11/03/2178734/after-the-high-courts-brexit-decision-forget-about-activating-article-50-in-march/

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy,

No need to apologise, you are technically correct, to wit - the poet never made it to America in his voyage of discovery - Newfoundland is indeed part of Canada.

Edmund

I can't find any evidence to suggest he went any further west than the Azores. What makes you imagine that he went to Newfoundland?

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

So, once again, statute beats prerogative - as it should.

Neither of the first instance decisions - Northern Ireland and England - matters, nor does the fact that they contradict each other. Both are heading directly for the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. The SC's decision is the only one that matters.

Jeremy

[FabienP]

Bart, I think this means there should be a parliamentary vote to approve the government giving notice under article 50.

I think we're at the start of a next episode of an interesting saga, however I find it hard to imagine the parliament overturning the majority of the referendum, but it's not impossible.

In any case, I think it means more delays in giving the notice

MPs will face a tough choice indeed:

• Keep to their remain opinion and potentially face political suicide at the next election. Many MPs represent constituencies that voted for Brexit. They will already face ejection due to a reform of constituencies that will lead to 50 less seats in Parliament.
• Vote according to the majority obtained in the referendum, even if they do not support it.

This happens in a context where both party leaders of Tories and Labour are mildly in favour of Brexit...

Cheers,

Fabien

[Christopher Sanderson]

Best line I read today on the subject:

a real dog's brexit

[Manoli]

Neither of the first instance decisions - Northern Ireland and England - matters, nor does the fact that they contradict each other. Both are heading directly for the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. The SC's decision is the only one that matters.

If I recall correctly, the NI decision was that 'it was not a devolved matter'. Today's was an initial defeat for the Government in its attempt to fast-track and subvert due process. I don't see the contradiction.

If it is appealed, then that will almost certainly entail a review of the assumption that notification is non-reversible. That will only give May an additional headache. It'll be simpler for the Government to come to heel and accept that the matter has to be put before MP's, as it should have been from the outset.

[stamper]

Lord Kerr, author of the Brexit process, stated on TV last night that the government could change their mind about leaving any time in the next two years if they wish. There is a "get out clause" written into the process. It looks like the Brexiteers have been Brexited?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Best line I read today on the subject:

a real dog's brexit

Several politicians have accidentally used the word "breakfast" instead of "Brexit", one several times in a single speech.

If I recall correctly, the NI decision was that 'it was not a devolved matter'. Today's was an initial defeat for the Government in its attempt to fast-track and subvert due process. I don't see the contradiction.

No, that's not right. See the whole judgment, or a useful summary here.

If it is appealed, then that will almost certainly entail a review of the assumption that notification is non-reversible. That will only give May an additional headache. It'll be simpler for the Government to come to heel and accept that the matter has to be put before MP's, as it should have been from the outset.

I don't think there's any doubt that it will be appealed, and your terminology ("come to heel" - what a preposterous phrase to use to describe a complex argument) presupposes the outcome.

Lord Kerr, author of the Brexit process, stated on TV last night that the government could change their mind about leaving any time in the next two years if they wish. There is a "get out clause" written into the process. It looks like the Brexiteers have been Brexited?

I heard that interview. I think the noble Lord is confusing intent with what was actually done. Whatever the drafters might have meant to include in the treaty, the actual terms of Article 50 seem to me to be crystal clear.

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. [emphasis supplied]

Paragraph 3 makes it quite clear that notice is irrevocable: it can at most be delayed ("extend this period") and then only by unanimous decision.

Jeremy

[eronald]

Best line I read today on the subject:

a real dog's brexit

A rabid dog's brexit? There is something to be said in favour of having predictable political machinery in a democracy, and these questions should have been elucidated before the referendum was held.

Edmund

[Manoli]

Edmund,

How good to see you here! Last I heard you were shooting talent on the Champs-Elysées ...

Manoli

[Manoli]

Jeremy,

Unless there's hidden meaning in Mancunian dialect, 'come to heel' means 'a person or organisation agreeing to obey, usually because they have been forcefully persuaded to do so.'  - at least according to my understanding and that of the Cambridge University Press.

So thank you for your bombastic interjection but I'll stick with the generally understood implications of the phrase and hold that it is entirely appropriate in the current context.

In so far as you suggest the argument is a complex one - the argument may have been, but the judgement is not. The decision is detailed and thorough, the LCJ even went so far as to describe the Government's position as 'baffling' during the proceedings and the court held the government's case to be so weak and 'flawed at a basic level' that it judged it untenable, irrespective of the challenge of the claimants.

What is complex are the interlocking legal issues that will arise as the UK seeks to leave the EU, and that is not a matter for a prime minister alone, but for Parliament.

As I write, we've now had a resignation from a Brexit MP, Stephen Phillips, QC  over 'irreconcilable policy differences with May's administration and warned against the “tyranny” of not giving MPs a vote on the Government's stance in Brexit talks and yet May persists, announcing that she is confident of winning the appeal. 

With a speech at her party conference sending sterling to its lowest level in over 30 years, two court verdicts already against her, and a third pending – I'd say her her first months in office are beginning to resemble the 'Charge of the Light Brigade' more than a Prime Minister with a clear sense of direction.

From David Allen Green, in the FT today:

The government is not taking the opportunity offered by the judgment to start the exercise again, properly. An appeal has been announced and the court has been denounced. The ministerial heads are going down again and the UK state is charging at the wall of reality.

Those in favour of the UK remaining in the EU can draw only limited comfort from the decision. There is no reason to believe parliament will directly defy the result of the referendum. That is as unrealistic as the idea that the UK can simply walk away from the EU. The only thing that has been undermined by the High Court’s decision is Mrs May’s superficial approach to achieving Brexit.

Eventually, the government will have to adopt a broader, more collaborative and more open approach to the process, as there is no alternative to making a success of it.

Manoli

[eronald]

Edmund,

How good to see you here! Last I heard you were shooting talent on the Champs-Elysées ...

Manoli

Yes, I hope the talent enjoyed the experience as much a I did.

Re Brexit, I guess institutional inertia can be a good thing sometimes, slowing things down to where they can be thought out,  this might be one of those cases. Let May cool her heels a bit


Edmund

[Chairman Bill]

Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

My bolding of text. The referendum was advisory, and our constitution requires Parliament to make the final decision. I'm not sure what part of this is bothering some people, but the Daily Hatemail & Daily Express are apoplectic with rage, spitting out their collective dummy, throwing toys out of the playpen & scweaming and scweaming.

[Manoli]

... but the Daily Hatemail & Daily Express are apoplectic with rage, spitting out their collective dummy, throwing toys out of the playpen & scweaming and scweaming.

It beggars belief.
'A new low for UK newspapers: the most hysterical frontpages on the Brexit court ruling'
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2016/11/new-low-uk-newspapers-most-hysterical-frontpages-brexit-court-ruling