Jump to content

Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say


webfact

Recommended Posts

Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

By JILL LAWLESS and DANICA KIRKA

 

LONDON (AP) — Britain's plans to leave the European Union hit a large speed bump Thursday, as the High Court ruled that the government can't start exit negotiations without a vote in Parliament.

 

The judgment deepened Britain's divide over Europe, raising hopes among pro-EU politicians that they can soften the terms of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the bloc. "Leave" campaigners say any attempt to do that would be a betrayal of voters' decision.

 

The government immediately said it would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling. The Court has set aside time in early December to hear the case.

 

Thursday's ruling could delay government plans to start talks on Britain's EU exit, or Brexit, within weeks, and opens a major constitutional battle over the balance of power between Parliament and the government.

 

Brexit Secretary David Davis said Britain's June 23 vote to leave the EU "must be respected."

 

"The people want us to get on with it, and that is what we are going to do," he said.

 

Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will use centuries-old powers known as royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty, which launches two years of exit negotiations, by the end of March.

 

The powers — traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians — enable decisions about international treaties and other issues to be made without a vote of Parliament.

 

Several claimants, including a hairdresser and a financial entrepreneur, challenged May's right to act. They argued that leaving the EU will remove rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that it couldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

 

Three senior judges agreed, ruling that "the government does not have the power under the Crown's prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the U.K. to withdraw from the European Union."

 

The judges backed the claimants' argument that the government could not remove Britons' legal rights "unless Parliament had conferred upon the Crown authority to do so."

 

The ruling infuriated pro-Brexit campaigners, who see the lawsuit as an attempt to block or delay Britain's EU exit.

 

U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who helped lead the campaign to leave the EU, tweeted: "I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand."

 

"I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50," Farage said. "If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke."

 

It's unlikely the ruling will stop Britain leaving the EU eventually. Most lawmakers accept that voters' decision must be respected — but they differ widely on what form Brexit should take and how close a relationship Britain should keep with the EU.

 

A majority of members of Parliament backed the "remain" side in the referendum, but could be willing to support the start of exit talks if it's clear that the government won't seek a "hard Brexit," in which Britain leaves the EU's single market.

 

Pro-EU legislators hope the ruling will force the government to set out its plans for exit negotiations before triggering Article 50, something May has previously ruled out.

 

"Of course there is a mandate for leaving the EU, and we have to accept and respect the result of the referendum," the opposition Labour Party's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, told the BBC. "But the terms, and how we leave the EU, are vitally important."

 

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller, a lead claimant in the case, said the lawsuit wasn't an attempt to stop Brexit — just to ensure that Parliament is sovereign.

 

"I hope the MPs (members of Parliament) will do their job and debate this in a sober, grown up way," she said.

 

David Greene, lawyer for hairdresser Deir Santos, another claimant, said "democracy has been reaffirmed and now very much needs to show it is alive and kicking."

 

The pound, which has lost about a fifth of its value since the June 23 decision to leave the EU, shot back up on the verdict, rising about 1.5 percent to $1.2493. The ruling boosted the hopes of the financial sector, which is largely opposed to Brexit, that its effects may be mitigated by Parliament.

 

The case is considered the most important constitutional matter in a generation, pitting the rights of Parliament against those of the executive.

 

Nick Barber, associate professor of constitutional law at Oxford University, said the court had ruled decisively that "you can't use executive power to overturn statutory rights."

 

Jeff King, professor of law at University College London, said the government's Supreme Court appeal "would be unlikely to succeed under the circumstances."

 

He said the High Court judges "gave a comprehensive ruling on many points, many of which could cause the government's argument to fail."

 

If the government loses, it will be forced to let the House of Commons and the House of Lords have a vote. It's unclear whether that would be done with a simple motion to trigger Article 50, or would need a full Act of Parliament.

 

Passing legislation can take months of debate, argument and amendment, so that might see the government's timetable for Brexit slipping even further.

 

There is a chance the Supreme Court could refer the case to the European Court of Justice, the EU's highest court, if it thinks a legal principle needs clarification.

 

That would be an ironic outcome given Britain's vote to leave the EU, but Barber said it's extremely unlikely.

 

"I think all sides would agree that would be a mess," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Pan Pylas and Sylvia Hui in London contributed to this report.

 
ap_logo.jpg
-- © Associated Press 2016-11-04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 691
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Farage is complaining because the judges have pronounced that Parliament is supreme. I think anyone who has watched the videos by Professor Michael Dougan got that point early on. 

 

"The first is the myth of sovereignty, there is no doubt whatsoever that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state under international law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the parliament in Westminster is the supreme law making authority in this country.

Conversely there is no doubt whatsoever that the EU is not a sovereign entity, far from being a sovereign state, it is not even a sovereign entity, it has only those powers which has been given under the EU treaties. If the UK courts sometimes give priority to EU law in the event of a conflict with domestic law, it is purely because our parliament has expressly instructed them to do so in our own legislation.

So it the UK a sovereign state? Yes.

Is parliament our supreme legislative authority? Yes."   Professor Michael Dougan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Triggering article 50 and leaving the EU.  17.2 million say leave, 3 judges (who probably all voted remain themselves) say let's let 650 MP's decide instead because we don't like the answer the people gave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gmac said:

Triggering article 50 and leaving the EU.  17.2 million say leave, 3 judges (who probably all voted remain themselves) say let's let 650 MP's decide instead because we don't like the answer the people gave.

 

As it should be - we live in a parliamentary democracy, not the Big Brother house. The Brexiters were complaining so ferociously that the EU was some unelected body making decisions about the future of the UK; well now you have your wish - an elected body getting to decide the future of the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

As it should be - we live in a parliamentary democracy, not the Big Brother house. The Brexiters were complaining so ferociously that the EU was some unelected body making decisions about the future of the UK; well now you have your wish - an elected body getting to decide the future of the UK.

The elected body is supposed to act on behalf of the people not in line with their own personal feelings.  If you want to be pedantic, maybe the referendum should have been divided into 650 separate votes with the MP for each area then voting in line with his constituents wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, gmac said:

The elected body is supposed to act on behalf of the people not in line with their own personal feelings. 

 

Sorry, but that is simply incorrect. How many times has your MP consulted with you on any other matter that he or she has voted upon? Never, I would assume. MPs are elected by their constituents to represent their constituency to the best of their ability. That doesn't mean agreeing with the voters' opinions. They use their personal feelings, judgement, specific experience and knowledge, etc, to form an opinion of what is best for their constituency, party, country etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

As it should be - we live in a parliamentary democracy, not the Big Brother house. The Brexiters were complaining so ferociously that the EU was some unelected body making decisions about the future of the UK; well now you have your wish - an elected body getting to decide the future of the UK.

So if Sturgeon gets her wish for a second independence referendum and the Scottish people vote to leave the UK, you would be quite happy for the British parliament to take a vote and possibly overturn the will of the people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stag4 said:

So if Sturgeon gets her wish for a second independence referendum and the Scottish people vote to leave the UK, you would be quite happy for the British parliament to take a vote and possibly overturn the will of the people?

 

Wholly off-topic, however I would expect that Scottish independence be secured through a lawful and internationally recognised process. However if the UK parliament was to block a popular movement, there would be serious internal issues that would only be compounded - it would not be in their interests to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Wholly off-topic, however I would expect that Scottish independence be secured through a lawful and internationally recognised process. However if the UK parliament was to block a popular movement, there would be serious internal issues that would only be compounded - it would not be in their interests to do so. 

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, stag4 said:

Exactly!

 

Then let's see how this develops. The pro-leave support was marginal at best; now, with the various possible ramifications of Brexit still so unclear and the cack-handed efforts of Brexit politicians and the government alike in trying to define what it actually means, the popular support is surely waning. I have seen no evidence of Remain voters changing their minds since, but the opposite seems to be a tangible thing. 

 

The popular movement has had it's day in the sun; I predict it will dissipate while most breathe a sigh of relief that common sense finally prevailed.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Then let's see how this develops. The pro-leave support was marginal at best; now, with the various possible ramifications of Brexit still so unclear and the cack-handed efforts of Brexit politicians and the government alike in trying to define what it actually means, the popular support is surely waning. I have seen no evidence of Remain voters changing their minds since, but the opposite seems to be a tangible thing. 

 

The popular movement has had it's day in the sun; I predict it will dissipate while most breathe a sigh of relief that common sense finally prevailed.. 

If it goes to a vote, it will be down to the MPs to choose referendum or constituents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stag4 said:

So if Sturgeon gets her wish for a second independence referendum and the Scottish people vote to leave the UK, you would be quite happy for the British parliament to take a vote and possibly overturn the will of the people?

you don't seem to understand how the respective referendums were set up - the EU leave / stay was purely advisory - the last Scottish was much more binding.

 

Read the preamble to the various referendums and you'll get an idea of their scope.

 

they are particularly difficult, rare  and unliked in UK as parliament is sovereign...not a one day vote with a 2% majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing advisory about it.

Cameron stated on more than one occasion "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

Parliament voted unanimously to hold a referendum and the majority of the People voted to leave. Democracy in action!

It was also made clear by many politicians prior to the referendum that the vote was to remain or leave including the single market.

The will of the people needs to be implemented and not frustrated at every turn by the establishment and traitorous politicians.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, stag4 said:

Nothing advisory about it.

Cameron stated on more than one occasion "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

Parliament voted unanimously to hold a referendum and the majority of the People voted to leave. Democracy in action!

It was also made clear by many politicians prior to the referendum that the vote was to remain or leave including the single market.

The will of the people needs to be implemented and not frustrated at every turn by the establishment and traitorous politicians.

 

It was advisory - just check the law - it is in black & white....

 

"Cameron stated on more than one occasion "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide." - which he had no right to do as the referendum was only advisory and Parliament - not the government are sovereign.

 

"Parliament voted unanimously to hold a referendum" - completely inaccurate several voted against. As the majority of MPs at the ime (anf now ) are remainers maby actually miscalculated and thought it would re-enforce UK in the EU.

 

Democracy is not a simple 2% majority on a one day vote by a mislead electorate - there are  - thank God - safeguards and checks built into any functioning democracy to prevent this sort of thing - why do  you think the referendum was only advisory in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes fellow sheeplings you think you are in control but your not. Every once in a while the real power steps out of the closet and set you straight. Yes they gave you a "vote" on leaving but its a case where they want to replay the game to get "their" desired result or they come and impress upon you that they have the final say not you. Your just a voter an opinion giver. Means nothing. Your nothing in the bigger scheme of things. Its a modern version of political crusades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day Britain will leave the EUSSR despite the obstacles being placed in its way.

 

fYI

Legal definition of Referendum 

The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the remoaners , the people who voted to leave were of the lesser educated part of society, ( to be put politely). Now if you think the leftie, hippie, activist types were a problem when marching or kicking off about the establishment on remaining or immigration or whatever looney problem they thought they had, just remember the poll tax riots. If normal joe public start, this could mean trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gmac said:

Triggering article 50 and leaving the EU.  17.2 million say leave, 3 judges (who probably all voted remain themselves) say let's let 650 MP's decide instead because we don't like the answer the people gave.

 

Wrong. Nothing to do with leaving or staying. All to do with the executive part of government illegally trying to by-pass the constitutional parliamentary process for their own ends. And rightly being stopped.

 

May has announced she will appeal - on what grounds? Her not likely the result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stag4 said:

Nothing advisory about it.

Cameron stated on more than one occasion "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

Parliament voted unanimously to hold a referendum and the majority of the People voted to leave. Democracy in action!

It was also made clear by many politicians prior to the referendum that the vote was to remain or leave including the single market.

The will of the people needs to be implemented and not frustrated at every turn by the establishment and traitorous politicians.

 

 

Referendums have no consequence in the UK per se. Only parliament, as again reinforced with this court decision, can enact legislation. 

The executive cannot, and should not, be allowed to try and avoid parliament by inappropriate use of the Royal Prerogative. 

 

Parliament should now vote, not on triggering Article 50, put on whether the UK should leave the UK and if so what that process must entail.

If Parliamentarians vote to remain in the EU, against the wishes of 52% but in line with the wishes of 48% who bothered to vote, then they will have to test that resolve in a general election. That is something the Tories fear more than anything as they are far from united.

 

Cameron and his cronies created this shit heap and then headed for the hills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, stag4 said:

At the end of the day Britain will leave the EUSSR despite the obstacles being placed in its way.

 

fYI

Legal definition of Referendum 

The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.

 

Oh dear! - you should practice your Googling a little - research rather than search - look up the rules applying to the referendum on Brexit---actually don't bother, you are the ONLY person who doesn't know this....Brexiteer or remainer.

 

here's a brief summary for you.....

"There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK Government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). To date the previous three UK-wide referendums in 19752011 and 2016 were all post-legislative. Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign." - wiki

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gmac said:

Triggering article 50 and leaving the EU.  17.2 million say leave, 3 judges (who probably all voted remain themselves) say let's let 650 MP's decide instead because we don't like the answer the people gave.

 

Good point. Who are these three unelected judges?

 

Baron Thomas the UK lord Chief Justice,just happens to be the person who set up the European Law institute, with the intension of further integration of European Laws, that would over-ride British law. So much for his impartiality.

 

 Another of these judges was Sir Phillip Sales who had previously been part of Tony WMD Blairs government, during which period he just so happened to bill the British  taxpayer over £600,000 per year. Probably trying to keep up with Cherie. So we know  whose interest he's looking after.

 

  Yet people on TV keep complaining that Thailand is corrupt and is governed by the 

 elite/establishment for their own interest. Well how about smelling the coffee and looking at their own country!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it could be back to the polls again. I wonder how the UK will vote this time?at least the scaremongers won't be able to frighten  the public this time around of how the sky will fall in if they leave the EU:giggle:

 

Prospect of early general election increases after High Court rules Government cannot trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/high-court-to-rule-on-brexit-legal-battle-and-theresa-mays-decis/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...