Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
SilverSixer said:
Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...
It would appear that the government wanted to keep their legal defence secret until the case, leaving the other side unable to plan. That sort of ambush makes it difficult for the other side. You can't blame the government for trying but it might lead to the suspicion that they are a bit concerned that they are on dodgy ground.

I don't know enough about such cases to say whether the government's lack of disclosure, or rather their intent, is the norm or not. It seems unfair but then, so much in law is.
No Derek.

The Government wanted the documents to be kept in the domain of the interested parties only, until the case came to court.

Both sides have full disclosure of their documents, there is no attempt to not disclose anything between the parties concerned prior to the trial where the documents would have become public knowledge.

The court ruling in this case allowed the documents they both have to be published with redactions where appropriate. All that means is that you and I can now read the documents, the interested parties already had access to these documents.

craigjm

17,907 posts

199 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
Derek Smith said:
SilverSixer said:
Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...
It would appear that the government wanted to keep their legal defence secret until the case, leaving the other side unable to plan. That sort of ambush makes it difficult for the other side. You can't blame the government for trying but it might lead to the suspicion that they are a bit concerned that they are on dodgy ground.

I don't know enough about such cases to say whether the government's lack of disclosure, or rather their intent, is the norm or not. It seems unfair but then, so much in law is.
No Derek.

The Government wanted the documents to be kept in the domain of the interested parties only, until the case came to court.

Both sides have full disclosure of their documents, there is no attempt to not disclose anything between the parties concerned prior to the trial where the documents would have become public knowledge.

The court ruling in this case allowed the documents they both have to be published with redactions where appropriate. All that means is that you and I can now read the documents, the interested parties already had access to these documents.
Indeed, this is nothing sensational.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
Greg66 said:
jsf said:
Having just read both documents, I will be very surprised if the government lose the case based on how the Crown prerogative is used as a matter of course when dealing with any treaty matters. The treaty to join the EEC was signed using Crown prerogative as were the following treaties such as Lisbon, Parliament only got involved at a latter stage when legislation was required to ratify what is in the treaties.

The whole case is basically an argument that the government has no right to use the Crown prerogative, which is clearly nonsense. The case in no way asks for the referendum result not to be respected or acted upon, its purely an argument over who issues the order to trigger article 50, the Crown or Parliament.

If they want an argument about the British constitution, which is all this boils down to, I'm not sure this is the correct fight to achieve that. Some nice £ being earned by the lawyers though.
The case is about whether the Govt can use the prerogative to do something that in substance amounts to a repeal of an Act of Parliament (the 1973 Act); something that conventional wisdom says only Parliament can do. On one view it is quite surprising to suggest that the Govt could use the prerogative to repeal legislation, as that would provide it with an incredibly broad executive power, far outstripping the Commons.

If successful it puts triggering A50 into the hands of the HoC, which will have to have regard to what is legally an advisory referendum.

AIUI it is pretty much uncharted territory.
Have you read the documents released today? I ask that because the Government specifically covers off your suggestion that this case is about using Crown prerogative to repeal the 1972 Act in paragraph 43. That is not what the Crown prerogative will do, all it will do is trigger a process in a treaty, something that is the absolute norm for the Crown to do without the need for further legislation via Parliament or a vote by MP's.

The Government states specifically that when the process of leaving the EU is complete, as set out in the treaty, Parliament will then be involved in the repeal of the 72 Act of Parliament.
Yes, I understand that's what the Govt says. And the other side says otherwise. That, I think, is the core of the argument. The prerogative is narrow and pretty arcane in its scope these days. To say "Parliament will get its say when it is asked to repeal the 1972 Act after A50 has been triggered is circular: it assumes that is the right order of events in order to justify that order or events.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
jsf said:
Greg66 said:
jsf said:
Having just read both documents, I will be very surprised if the government lose the case based on how the Crown prerogative is used as a matter of course when dealing with any treaty matters. The treaty to join the EEC was signed using Crown prerogative as were the following treaties such as Lisbon, Parliament only got involved at a latter stage when legislation was required to ratify what is in the treaties.

The whole case is basically an argument that the government has no right to use the Crown prerogative, which is clearly nonsense. The case in no way asks for the referendum result not to be respected or acted upon, its purely an argument over who issues the order to trigger article 50, the Crown or Parliament.

If they want an argument about the British constitution, which is all this boils down to, I'm not sure this is the correct fight to achieve that. Some nice £ being earned by the lawyers though.
The case is about whether the Govt can use the prerogative to do something that in substance amounts to a repeal of an Act of Parliament (the 1973 Act); something that conventional wisdom says only Parliament can do. On one view it is quite surprising to suggest that the Govt could use the prerogative to repeal legislation, as that would provide it with an incredibly broad executive power, far outstripping the Commons.

If successful it puts triggering A50 into the hands of the HoC, which will have to have regard to what is legally an advisory referendum.

AIUI it is pretty much uncharted territory.
Have you read the documents released today? I ask that because the Government specifically covers off your suggestion that this case is about using Crown prerogative to repeal the 1972 Act in paragraph 43. That is not what the Crown prerogative will do, all it will do is trigger a process in a treaty, something that is the absolute norm for the Crown to do without the need for further legislation via Parliament or a vote by MP's.

The Government states specifically that when the process of leaving the EU is complete, as set out in the treaty, Parliament will then be involved in the repeal of the 72 Act of Parliament.
Yes, I understand that's what the Govt says. And the other side says otherwise. That, I think, is the core of the argument. The prerogative is narrow and pretty arcane in its scope these days. To say "Parliament will get its say when it is asked to repeal the 1972 Act after A50 has been triggered is circular: it assumes that is the right order of events in order to justify that order or events.
There I nothing new or even unusual in the Government using the Crown prerogative in this way. What would be unusual is to not do so.

The fact that this is a high profile situation doesn't alter that as a norm, the government only involves Parliament when legislation is required, or the repeal of legislation is required, under normal circumstances the cabinet make decisions and they act on those.

There is little point in us arguing the case either way though, as that's the job of the court/lawyers very shortly, so we will see what the judge feels is appropriate.

What may not be clear to some though, is that this case has no intent to overturn the referendum, or indeed to stop Art 50 being invoked, its just a case of arguing how our constitution works in practice.

anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 29th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
There I nothing new or even unusual in the Government using the Crown prerogative in this way. What would be unusual is to not do so.
Not sure where you get that from. Even the Govt's defence doesn't go that far: see the last sentence of para 14. They just assert this based on the proposition that entering a treaty is done by prerogative (which is true, but there's no Act of Parliamnet at that point, unlike at the point of exiting a treaty).

jsf said:
There is little point in us arguing the case either way though, as that's the job of the court/lawyers very shortly, so we will see what the judge feels is appropriate.
In truth, it will end up being decided by the Supreme Court on an expedited basis. The divisional court will hear it first, apparently with the three most senior non-Supreme Court judges sitting. Then inevitably it will be appealed, and will go straight to the SC on an expedited basis.

jsf said:
What may not be clear to some though, is that this case has no intent to overturn the referendum, or indeed to stop Art 50 being invoked, its just a case of arguing how our constitution works in practice.
True. I think it is a play for time, with the hope that over time public mood will swing enough either to persuade MPs to say no to A50 or to lead to referendum #2. Judge for yourself the prospects of those outcomes flying, but remember that the claims were launched much closer to the vote when things were greatly less settled than they are now.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
Opinion piece on this from the LSE https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/Craig-5...

There was a review of Royal prerogative in 2007, its worth reading the annex as that lists the prerogatives in place, I think most people are not aware of how many powers the government carries via prerogatives.

http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/royal-prerogative...

It's all basically a sideshow, as either way this case goes it wont alter the final outcome, its interesting to read more about our democracy though. smile

FiF

43,960 posts

250 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
craigjm said:
jsf said:
Derek Smith said:
SilverSixer said:
Phase 1 of the court case against the Government's wish to use royal prerogative to pass Article 50 without a parliamentary vote, has been lost by the Government:

https://www.bindmans.com/news/peoples-challenge-gr...

A quick google suggests that only The Guardian are reporting this. Surely this is worthy of wider coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/g...
It would appear that the government wanted to keep their legal defence secret until the case, leaving the other side unable to plan. That sort of ambush makes it difficult for the other side. You can't blame the government for trying but it might lead to the suspicion that they are a bit concerned that they are on dodgy ground.

I don't know enough about such cases to say whether the government's lack of disclosure, or rather their intent, is the norm or not. It seems unfair but then, so much in law is.
No Derek.

The Government wanted the documents to be kept in the domain of the interested parties only, until the case came to court.

Both sides have full disclosure of their documents, there is no attempt to not disclose anything between the parties concerned prior to the trial where the documents would have become public knowledge.

The court ruling in this case allowed the documents they both have to be published with redactions where appropriate. All that means is that you and I can now read the documents, the interested parties already had access to these documents.
Indeed, this is nothing sensational.
Exactly, the claim is supposed to prevent individuals from suffering online and other abuse from supporters of the other side. If that is correct, then it's an example of how big are the fractures in society, both sides are guilty at times. It's got to the point where people have to realise that the best way forward is to work out what is best for the UK and work towards that. Fat chance of that happening with such divergence of opinion on the basic direction, this thread evidences that, loud elements on both sides who will just never give up.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
FiF said:
Exactly, the claim is supposed to prevent individuals from suffering online and other abuse from supporters of the other side. If that is correct, then it's an example of how big are the fractures in society, both sides are guilty at times. It's got to the point where people have to realise that the best way forward is to work out what is best for the UK and work towards that. Fat chance of that happening with such divergence of opinion on the basic direction, this thread evidences that, loud elements on both sides who will just never give up.
At the moment public opinion on the whole remain/leave situation is still very important and likely to influence Brexit negotiations.

JNW1

7,707 posts

193 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
At the moment public opinion on the whole remain/leave situation is still very important and likely to influence Brexit negotiations.
Not quite sure what you're implying with that? We had a referendum which produced a result and, while I agree the country was pretty much divided, we got a result nonetheless which was to leave. Therefore, I'm not clear why perceived public opinion should now come into this; we know opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate so why would we suddenly pay them great attention when it comes to Brexit negotiations? Assuming we carry through the decision to leave the negotiations from our side need to be handled in a hard-headed manner based on what's best for the UK; the resultant stance may or may not be in line with the latest opinion polls but for me that's irrelevant as you can't govern or negotiate by opinion polls. Similarly, opinion polls don't trump the result of an actual referendum....

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
JNW1 said:
Not quite sure what you're implying with that?
Well basically that public opinion can affect Government policy.

Leaving the EU is the end result but our relationship with it thereafter is yet to be decided.

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
JNW1 said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
At the moment public opinion on the whole remain/leave situation is still very important and likely to influence Brexit negotiations.
Not quite sure what you're implying with that? We had a referendum which produced a result and, while I agree the country was pretty much divided, we got a result nonetheless which was to leave. Therefore, I'm not clear why perceived public opinion should now come into this; we know opinion polls are notoriously inaccurate so why would we suddenly pay them great attention when it comes to Brexit negotiations? Assuming we carry through the decision to leave the negotiations from our side need to be handled in a hard-headed manner based on what's best for the UK; the resultant stance may or may not be in line with the latest opinion polls but for me that's irrelevant as you can't govern or negotiate by opinion polls. Similarly, opinion polls don't trump the result of an actual referendum....
Fluffy statements mean nothing however authoritative they are made to appear,sounds good,looks good,but neither.

The government trusted the people of the UK with the vote, now it's up to the government to carry through the majority decision of those who had the strength of their convictions to visit the polling stations/stick an envelope through a letter box and vote on their beliefs.

Mr & Mrs Miggins et al have done what was asked of them.

Crack on May!

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
The government trusted the people of the UK with the vote, now it's up to the government to carry through the majority decision of those who had the strength of their convictions to visit the polling stations/stick an envelope through a letter box and vote on their beliefs.

Mr & Mrs Miggins et al have done what was asked of them.
My God, you make out as if people have put their lives on the line rather than just put a cross on a piece of paper, which only had a yes or no response because by and large that is all the people could cope with.

rolleyes

JNW1

7,707 posts

193 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Well basically that public opinion can affect Government policy.

Leaving the EU is the end result but our relationship with it thereafter is yet to be decided.
I agree our relationship with the EU post-Brexit is yet to be determined but I'm not convinced general public opinion will play much of a part in shaping how it looks. Through the referendum the electorate expressed their view on whether we should remain or leave and from here on in it's up to the negotiating team to do the best deal they can for the UK; I'd expect them to consult with relevant specialist groups (e.g. the CBI) to get their views as and where appropriate but I don't see that formulating policy by reference to public opinion polls is the way forward....

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
JNW1 said:
I agree our relationship with the EU post-Brexit is yet to be determined but I'm not convinced general public opinion will play much of a part in shaping how it looks. Through the referendum the electorate expressed their view on whether we should remain or leave and from here on in it's up to the negotiating team to do the best deal they can for the UK; I'd expect them to consult with relevant specialist groups (e.g. the CBI) to get their views as and where appropriate but I don't see that formulating policy by reference to public opinion polls is the way forward....
Twice you have mentioned public opinion polls whereas I didn't at all.


don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
don'tbesilly said:
The government trusted the people of the UK with the vote, now it's up to the government to carry through the majority decision of those who had the strength of their convictions to visit the polling stations/stick an envelope through a letter box and vote on their beliefs.

Mr & Mrs Miggins et al have done what was asked of them.
My God, you make out as if people have put their lives on the line rather than just put a cross on a piece of paper, which only had a yes or no response because by and large that is all the people could cope with.

rolleyes
For someone who didn't vote, yet be so vocal, and then to decry the importance that others placed upon their decision and vote is laughable.

The majority of the people who voted would have known the importance of the vote, it was impressed endlessly by the remain campaign if only to get people to vote in favour of remain.

You didn't/don't share the importance, we established that quite some time ago.



PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
For someone who didn't vote, yet be so vocal, and then to decry the importance that others placed upon their decision and vote is laughable.
If it's so important perhaps you should stop patronising and ridiculing those that voted to remain and lost and respect their vote with honour and compassion.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
If it's so important perhaps you should stop patronising and ridiculing those that voted to remain and lost and respect their vote with honour and compassion.
If it's so important maybe you should have voted and stop patronising those who voted leave and respect the outcome.....

JNW1

7,707 posts

193 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
JNW1 said:
I agree our relationship with the EU post-Brexit is yet to be determined but I'm not convinced general public opinion will play much of a part in shaping how it looks. Through the referendum the electorate expressed their view on whether we should remain or leave and from here on in it's up to the negotiating team to do the best deal they can for the UK; I'd expect them to consult with relevant specialist groups (e.g. the CBI) to get their views as and where appropriate but I don't see that formulating policy by reference to public opinion polls is the way forward....
Twice you have mentioned public opinion polls whereas I didn't at all.
Sorry, you mentioned public opinion and i assumed that would be gauged by reference to opinion polls? They're often inaccurate - and hence can't be relied upon for anything much - but if you're not using them how else do you form a view of public opinion?

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
don'tbesilly said:
For someone who didn't vote, yet be so vocal, and then to decry the importance that others placed upon their decision and vote is laughable.
If it's so important perhaps you should stop patronising and ridiculing those that voted to remain and lost and respect their vote with honour and compassion.
You can of course point me in the direction of where I have done what you allege, when you do, I'll defend whatever it is that you allege that I have done and the reasons behind the alleged slights.

It's admirable of you to defend the offended, if they had been as offended as you suggest perhaps they should have said so at the time of your unfounded accusations.

Please do carry on though.


Elysium

13,755 posts

186 months

Friday 30th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
Opinion piece on this from the LSE https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/news/Craig-5...

There was a review of Royal prerogative in 2007, its worth reading the annex as that lists the prerogatives in place, I think most people are not aware of how many powers the government carries via prerogatives.

http://www.peerage.org/genealogy/royal-prerogative...

It's all basically a sideshow, as either way this case goes it wont alter the final outcome, its interesting to read more about our democracy though. smile
I agree, but I instinctively dislike the idea of the government using executive powers if that is questionable in law. I want to see that clarified first.

The secondary point is that, regardless of the noise about a hard Brexit, I think it is very unlikely indeed that the Govt will act prior to this being settled. In other words, very little chance that an a50 letter will be issued this year.

In other news, I have not seen any reference to proposed redundancies by Arup:

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/brexit-fa...

They are directly attributing this to Brexit and, given their exposure to London commercial property development, this seems a fair assessment. Clearly this has a big impact on individuals, but it might be argued that we are only talking about 90 jobs. That ignores the background to this action, which is essentially predicting a slowdown in commercial activity in the city.


TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED