The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[JoeUK]

So, now it goes to a parliamentary vote.

[Swiss Cheddar]

LOL

She is having a bad week, first the missile blunder, then todays judgment.......then she has to deal with Trump on Friday.


cheers
SC

[Sbrinz]

A expected the PM Theresa May lost the challenge, parliament will now debate the terms associated with Brexit and article 50,
Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

[Mikers]

	Quote:	Sbrinz
	A expected the PM Theresa May lost the challenge, parliament will now debate the terms associated with Brexit and article 50, Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38720320

Beginning of the end for Brexit maybe ? Government will be slowed down (at least) and Labour have said they want single market access in it. > government slowed down or cannot get bill through > Election > Labour + libdem win ? > brexit reversed...

[Phos]

Sounds like a matter of formulating a measure that simply states they agree to carry out the people's will with the referendum. I don't see why they need to convolute it beyond that, and so who votes against it would be in contempt of the referendum.

[marton]

	Quote:	Mikers
	Beginning of the end for Brexit maybe ? Government will be slowed down (at least) and Labour have said they want single market access in it. > government slowed down or cannot get bill through > Election > Labour + libdem win ? > brexit reversed...

Doubt it, too few MPs will vote against. Just a molehill on the way.

May should have gone to Parliament in the first place long ago.

Her strategy that the Supreme Court should assume for their review that Art. 50 was irrevocable guaranteed she would lose her challenge?

[marton]

May in Parliament PMQ today

	Quote:
	"I recognise I set out that bold plan for a global Britain last week... I can confirm to the House that our plan will be set out, in a white paper, set out in this House", she says.

Progress!

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Phos
	Sounds like a matter of formulating a measure that simply states they agree to carry out the people's will with the referendum. I don't see why they need to convolute it beyond that, and so who votes against it would be in contempt of the referendum.

Seriously! The referendum was consultative and as we now have confirmed the parliament is sovereign and accordingly one can fully expect that MPs will vote according to the wishes of their electors, subject to the whips of course.

I just waiting with interest to see what new challenges will be brought to the high court challenging previous and future decisions by the government in the use of the Queen's Prerogative. Because this decision goes much farther than BREXIT and one can only wonder at the quality of the legal advice being provided to this government.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Seriously! The referendum was consultative and as we now have confirmed the parliament is sovereign and accordingly one can fully expect that MPs will vote according to the wishes of their electors, subject to the whips of course. I just waiting with interest to see what new challenges will be brought to the high court challenging previous and future decisions by the government in the use of the Queen's Prerogative. Because this decision goes much farther than BREXIT and one can only wonder at the quality of the legal advice being provided to this government.

Indeed. As far as I know Heath's government negotiated with the EU on membership without having Parliamentary approval to do so, using the same powers May was proposing to use for Brexit. The Treaty was signed by Heath in January 1972, but the European Communities Act wasn't enacted until that October.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit

In which case we've been illegally contributing to something we don't rightfully belong to for the last 30+ years!

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Indeed. As far as I know Heath's government negotiated with the EU on membership without having Parliamentary approval to do so, using the same powers May was proposing to use for Brexit. The Treaty was signed by Heath in January 1972, but the European Communities Act wasn't enacted until that October. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit In which case we've been illegally contributing to something we don't rightfully belong to for the last 30+ years!

From your link "The United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973." That was after the European Communities Act.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	marton
	From your link "The United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973." That was after the European Communities Act.

Yes, but the Treaty was signed in January the previous year, before Parliament had anything to do with it.

"The Treaty of Accession was signed in January 1972 by the prime minister Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative party.[15] Parliament's European Communities Act 1972 was enacted on 17 October and the UK's instrument of ratification was deposited the next day (18 October),[16] letting the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973."

Heath, as far as I know, used the Queen's Prerogative powers to negotiate and sign the Treaty with no approval from Parliament. That only came later. This is exactly how Mrs May proposed to take us out of the EU, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Therefore, using that ruling, Heath could not take us into the EU because Parliament had not had its say before he started negotiations.

Again, from my link in post 5990

"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."

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/

If the prerogative powers can't be used to take us out, they couldn't have been used to take us in. Simples.

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	Yes, but the Treaty was signed in January the previous year, before Parliament had anything to do with it. "The Treaty of Accession was signed in January 1972 by the prime minister Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative party.[15] Parliament's European Communities Act 1972 was enacted on 17 October and the UK's instrument of ratification was deposited the next day (18 October),[16] letting the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, or "Common Market", come into effect on 1 January 1973." Heath, as far as I know, used the Queen's Prerogative powers to negotiate and sign the Treaty with no approval from Parliament. That only came later. This is exactly how Mrs May proposed to take us out of the EU, but the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Therefore, using that ruling, Heath could not take us into the EU because Parliament had not had its say before he started negotiations. Again, from my link in post 5990 "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." https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...-to-legislate/ If the prerogative powers can't be used to take us out, they couldn't have been used to take us in. Simples.

"Treaty was signed in January the previous year" true but with an effective date of January the following year.

Then Parliament had their vote before January 1973 to authorise the deal.
If they had voted against then Heath would have to have withdrawn his signature because it was not valid, embarrassing but not fatal.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations.

As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.

[Phos]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations. As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.

Sure he did. Its only because you don't have a constitutional process defined in a document on how to use it. It's the Chief Executive privilege.

The Royal prerogative is devolved to parliament, traditionally to the first of peers, the Prime Minister. Its traditional use is for making an executive decision, like trade and war. Blair used it to invade Iraq, so Cameron promised to devolve it to parliament.

In the case of Brexit, since there is time for deliberation, it makes sense to pass it to parliamentary vote. But it doesn't bode well for situations that may require a more immediate response.

The ruling may have been good for the Brexit situation, but it could hamper future decision making. What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation; e.g., catastrophe, economic crash, war, an opportunity, etc.? You may not always have the luxury of time to debate and deliberate things. It could slow the UK down.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand.

Of course he had. Two completely different things, learn the difference.

[Medea Fleecestealer]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Of course he had. Two completely different things, learn the difference.

Teach me the difference. When did Heath consult with Parliament before he started negotiating to enter the EU? When was the White Paper debated?

[marton]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand. If May can't use prerogative powers to take us out, Heath could not use them to take us into the EU because he didn't have Parliament's approval to do so based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling. He should have introduced a White Paper for Parliament to debate and only when that had been agreed should he have started negotiations. As that wasn't the case I suppose you could argue that anything to do with the EU over the last 30+ years has been illegal as far as UK law is concerned.

You are confusing different things.

The problem May had was she claimed invoking Art. 50 was irrevocable which forced the Supreme Court decision.
Ïf she had said it was revocable then likely the Supreme Court decision would have been different.

[marton]

	Quote:	Phos
	Sure he did. Its only because you don't have a constitutional process defined in a document on how to use it. It's the Chief Executive privilege. The Royal prerogative is devolved to parliament, traditionally to the first of peers, the Prime Minister. Its traditional use is for making an executive decision, like trade and war. Blair used it to invade Iraq, so Cameron promised to devolve it to parliament. In the case of Brexit, since there is time for deliberation, it makes sense to pass it to parliamentary vote. But it doesn't bode well for situations that may require a more immediate response. The ruling may have been good for the Brexit situation, but it could hamper future decision making. What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation; e.g., catastrophe, economic crash, war, an opportunity, etc.? You may not always have the luxury of time to debate and deliberate things. It could slow the UK down.

"What if the UK needed to react to a immediate situation;" No need for you to worry; the Supreme Court decision was on a very specific area, not a general decision about Royal prerogative. One key point was such a notice will inevitably affect rights under domestic law (many EU rights having direct effect in the UK), in which realm the royal prerogative has no application.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Medea Fleecestealer
	But the point I'm making is that Heath did not have the authority to negotiate in the first place because he hadn't consulted Parliament beforehand.

The negotiations had no effect without parliamentary approval. Had the treaty been refused he'd simply have wasted his time (plus some costs incurred).

However invoking art 50 will have an effect hence it requires parliamentary authorisation beforehand.

[marton]

May has published the Bill to invoke Art. 50, strangely it gives her the power to invoke it but leaves her the option to decide to invoke it or not.

Meanwhile, Shadow minister Tulip Siddiq has resigned from the Labour frontbench, telling the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, that she could not reconcile herself to the party’s three-line whip to vote for triggering article 50.

The time set aside to debate the Bill is only an eighth of the amount of time used to debate the Bill introducing the 1992 Maastricht treaty,