View Single Post
  #6015  
Old 21.10.2016, 17:54
Medea Fleecestealer's Avatar
Medea Fleecestealer Medea Fleecestealer is online now
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 21,726
Groaned at 386 Times in 298 Posts
Thanked 16,659 Times in 9,410 Posts
Medea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond reputeMedea Fleecestealer has a reputation beyond repute
Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

Quote:
View Post
So in summary you say: it took an act of parliament to join the EEC, parliament needs to approve the new treaty and fix up the laws, but the PM can ignore them if she wants to break a treaty! Do you really not see the contradiction there???
No, no contradiction. The PM/Government can use their powers to trigger Article 50 and then Parliament does what's needed to change UK laws to implement any subsequenty deals/treaties.

"Another way of looking at this is to acknowledge that the Government and Parliament played different, and complementary, roles in securing EU membership, and that they will (or may) play different, and complementary, roles in terminating such membership. Just as it was the UK Government, exercising prerogative power, that caused the UK to be bound by EU Treaty obligations, so it is for the Government, using prerogative power, to extricate the UK from those obligations — including by triggering the Article 50 extrication process itself. Meanwhile, just as it was for Parliament to enact such domestic legislation as EU membership required (such as the ECA 1972), it is equally for Parliament to enact any domestic legislation that Brexit may in due course require. On this analysis, no tension between the ECA 1972 and the prerogative arises because they concerned with distinct spheres of activity, the one operating on the plane of diplomacy and international law, and the other operating on the plane of domestic law.

This is not to deny that domestic law could not have the effect of curtailing the prerogative, but as legislation that simply facilitates discharge of Treaty obligations entered into under the prerogative, the ECA 1972 does not amount to a statute that cuts across the prerogative. Indeed, if it were the case that legislation giving effect to Treaty obligations were to extinguish any prerogative power to renegotiate or extricate the UK from such obligations, it would be necessary to enact legislation every time the Government wished to secure such renegotiation or extrication — and that simply does not happen. The fundamental point, then, is that legislation — like the ECA 1972 — facilitating the discharge of treaty obligations does not occupy the same legal space as, and therefore does not conflict with, the Government’s prerogative power to contract, renegotiate or extricate the UK from treaty obligations."

Seems pretty clear cut to me on this opinion. It's how we got in, so why can't it work to get us out?
Reply With Quote