Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[CarreraLightweightRacing]

dbdb said:

The rule of law is a very fragile thing in many countries. Nothing good flows from that. Thankfully, the UK has a robust legal system and a judiciary who ensures that the law is followed by everyone - even the Government - whether those rules are convenient and popular or not.

If we are to leave the European Union and we almost certainly will, then this should be done properly. One of this country's great strengths is that it will be. Following the rule of law even when unpopular with the mob is one of the many positive attributes that the UK will be able to draw upon when attracting the investment the country needs from abroad. Following the rule of law is essential to our stability and economic success, whether the Daily Mail like to see this or not.

I'm not quite sure I'd put so much trust in the UK judiciary system; David Kelly and more recently that teflon fellow spring to mind.

[paulrockliffe]

cirian75 said:

bmw535i said:

cirian75 said:

A lot before did not.

A lot?

Quite a few thought leaving the EU meant we left all the European stuff like the ECHR.

Could we remain in the EU and leave the ECHR?

[paulrockliffe]

Northern Munkee said:

If anyone's thinking the EU is going to reform, change direction, or wind it's neck in after Brexit, Trump, Italy, etc etc then think again. I just heard a former EU commissioner tell Evan Davis on Newsnight that after Brexit "Europe" has realised what they would be losing and opinion polls show like the winning margin increasing in the Austrian presidential run off, even the Richmond by election, that the people of Europe are now more pro-EU. Never mind that 46% of Austrians are prepared to vote for a real far right party, or the likely winner of a Italian GE wants a referendum on, to get out of the euro. It's business as usual in Brussels and what europe needs is just more EU.

If you think that's bad, you should read the latest EU apparatchik to be promoted way above his station, Guy Verhofstadt, article in the Guardian yesterday. Austria is a vote for more EU, Italy is nothing to do with the EU, and Europe wants more EU.

[anonymous-user]

paulrockliffe said:

Could we remain in the EU and leave the ECHR?

I dare say you've already read this.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...

[CaptainSlow]

Elysium said:

AW111 said:

don4l said:

The Supreme Court will become the highest court in the land.

What EU institution do you think overrules the supreme court?

Hint - the ECHR is not part of the EU, and leaving the EU will not take Britain out of the ECHR.

I didn't know that and I bet the vast majority of all voters (leave or remain) did not know that either.

I bet most informed people know it.

As for overruling the Supreme Court...try the ECJ, which is where the Article 50 case could end up. A Leaver's wet dream, pretty much demolishes any argument that the UK has retained sovereignty as part of the EU.

As the ECHR, leaving the EU will give the UK the self determine its membership rather than being at the mercy of the EU.

[Zod]

CaptainSlow said:

I bet most informed people know it.

As for overruling the Supreme Court...try the ECJ, which is where the Article 50 case could end up. A Leaver's wet dream, pretty much demolishes any argument that the UK has retained sovereignty as part of the EU.

As the ECHR, leaving the EU will give the UK the self determine its membership rather than being at the mercy of the EU.

The CJEU has only one route to enter this debate and that is to rule on whether Article 50 is reversible. It has no jurisdiction to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court, but if the Supreme Court upholds the High Court judgment, the Government could decided to go to the CJEU in the hope of obtaining a ruling that Article 50 is reversible. If it obtained that, then the basis of the High Court judgment would be shown to be mistaken and the Supreme Court could sit again to reverse it.

That would, of course, be beautifully ironic - the CJEU helping the Leave case, while at the same time bolstering hopes for some on the Remain side that, we could just change our minds after triggering Article 50.

[johnxjsc1985]

Cant we just send Blair over to the EU as special Envoy that will ensure we get shown the door without delay.
As long as we don't let him back in its a win-win situation.

[Cobnapint]

Watching the proceedings going on in the SC at the moment, and it seems to me there are bits of British law which allow a UK government to go ahead without Parliamentary approval, and bits that don't.

Are they going to add up all the bits on either side and see which one wins, because from where I'm sitting there is no definitive answer.

And if it isn't clear cut, I'm sure the SC judges is will cover there own profession's asses and decide in favour of the HC's original decision anyway.

[don4l]

Elysium said:

AW111 said:

don4l said:

The Supreme Court will become the highest court in the land.

What EU institution do you think overrules the supreme court?

Hint - the ECHR is not part of the EU, and leaving the EU will not take Britain out of the ECHR.

I didn't know that and I bet the vast majority of all voters (leave or remain) did not know that either.

I thought that everyone knew that.

We have been discussing it for months.

I had the ECJ in mind.

[anonymous-user]

Cobnapint said:

Watching the proceedings going on in the SC at the moment, and it seems to me there are bits of British law which allow a UK government to go ahead without Parliamentary approval, and bits that don't.

Are they going to add up all the bits on either side and see which one wins, because from where I'm sitting there is no definitive answer.

And if it isn't clear cut, I'm sure the SC judges is will cover there own profession's asses and decide in favour of the HC's original decision anyway.

There's a bit more to it, as I understand it. The Govt side is trying to say "look at this example, then look at this example, then look at this example. Now look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example. You see a pattern: in the examples, the procedure is X. In the counter-examples the procedure is Y. Now look at this precise case. It's much closer to an example than a counter-example, so the correct procedure is X and it's not Y".

Watching it does illustrate vividly the massive chasm between the reality of what's actually being argued about in this case vs what the Mail/Express/Telegraph report the case is about.

[Digga]

It's alarming how badly drafted many of these acts are, WRT potential future changes.

Who enters a contract without clear termination/end clauses?

[anonymous-user]

Hindsight's never wrong.

Foresight, on the other hand...

[B'stard Child]

Digga said:

Who enters a contract without clear termination/end clauses?

Every country that has joined the EU - it's never designed to be terminated only a stepping stone to complete union.....

Hopefully we get to test the exit process fully - I'd hate to leave and then find like the words of Hotel California that "we haven't left at all"

Obviously they aren't the words from the song

[Zod]

CarreraLightweightRacing said:

dbdb said:

The rule of law is a very fragile thing in many countries. Nothing good flows from that. Thankfully, the UK has a robust legal system and a judiciary who ensures that the law is followed by everyone - even the Government - whether those rules are convenient and popular or not.

If we are to leave the European Union and we almost certainly will, then this should be done properly. One of this country's great strengths is that it will be. Following the rule of law even when unpopular with the mob is one of the many positive attributes that the UK will be able to draw upon when attracting the investment the country needs from abroad. Following the rule of law is essential to our stability and economic success, whether the Daily Mail like to see this or not.

I'm not quite sure I'd put so much trust in the UK judiciary system; David Kelly and more recently that teflon fellow spring to mind.

Oh, I didn't realise that Blair had been tried in relation to the matter of Dr Kelly.

[Ridgemont]

Greg66 said:

Cobnapint said:

Watching the proceedings going on in the SC at the moment, and it seems to me there are bits of British law which allow a UK government to go ahead without Parliamentary approval, and bits that don't.

Are they going to add up all the bits on either side and see which one wins, because from where I'm sitting there is no definitive answer.

And if it isn't clear cut, I'm sure the SC judges is will cover there own profession's asses and decide in favour of the HC's original decision anyway.

There's a bit more to it, as I understand it. The Govt side is trying to say "look at this example, then look at this example, then look at this example. Now look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example. You see a pattern: in the examples, the procedure is X. In the counter-examples the procedure is Y. Now look at this precise case. It's much closer to an example than a counter-example, so the correct procedure is X and it's not Y".

Watching it does illustrate vividly the massive chasm between the reality of what's actually being argued about in this case vs what the Mail/Express/Telegraph report the case is about.

Couple of fascinating pieces that provide some of the detail Eadie is referring to:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/11/07/mark-el...

which notes that rights accrued under the treaty that led to the ECA are accrued via the treaty, and that the rights are not statuatory rights despite passing into UK law via the ECA..

Interestingly there is a whole can of worms that Eadie is essentially leading the SC towards and which I noted much earlier in the thread after the HC ruling:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/11/18/mikolaj...

Under the High Court's reasoning the executive is limited in its use of prerogative in reference to Statutory rights: but this has enormous implications to the passage of secondary legislation into UK law since the UK's accession:

article said:

I am referring to voting by UK ministers in the EU Council in favour of EU secondary legislation that diminishes any individual rights derived from UK or EU law. It is difficult to assess exactly how many times, on this argument, UK ministers broke UK constitutional law since the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. What is not difficult to see is how staggeringly surprising is the conclusion that such law-breaking has been taking place. I neither criticise nor defend this conclusion here. My ambition is merely to develop the argument for it, applying faithfully the logic adopted by the High Court. ........

Applied to the issue at hand, it would mean that to infer that s. 2(1) ECA confers on UK ministers a power to vote in the EU Council for rights-diminishing measures, we would expect more express language. In the absence of such language, the intention cannot be inferred from the general words that s. 2(1) ECA does contain. And that means that UK ministers have neither prerogative nor statutory authority in UK law to assent to rights-diminishing EU measures. When they do so, they act unlawfully in UK law.

The fascinating thing watching Eadie in action, is that he's built the evidence pile, and left it at that: that pile of evidence has a flashing great big sign over it screaming 'be careful, here be dragons!' and it will be interesting to see whether or not the SC pick up on it.

Obviously didn't have the cameras in for the HC case, but the gov's case appears to be much more strongly put forward this time.

[Zod]

Ridgemont said:

Greg66 said:

Cobnapint said:

Watching the proceedings going on in the SC at the moment, and it seems to me there are bits of British law which allow a UK government to go ahead without Parliamentary approval, and bits that don't.

Are they going to add up all the bits on either side and see which one wins, because from where I'm sitting there is no definitive answer.

And if it isn't clear cut, I'm sure the SC judges is will cover there own profession's asses and decide in favour of the HC's original decision anyway.

There's a bit more to it, as I understand it. The Govt side is trying to say "look at this example, then look at this example, then look at this example. Now look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example. You see a pattern: in the examples, the procedure is X. In the counter-examples the procedure is Y. Now look at this precise case. It's much closer to an example than a counter-example, so the correct procedure is X and it's not Y".

Watching it does illustrate vividly the massive chasm between the reality of what's actually being argued about in this case vs what the Mail/Express/Telegraph report the case is about.

Couple of fascinating pieces that provide some of the detail Eadie is referring to:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/11/07/mark-el...

which notes that rights accrued under the treaty that led to the ECA are accrued via the treaty, and that the rights are not statuatory rights despite passing into UK law via the ECA..

These guys, in their eagerness to reach their desired conclusion have misunderstood their own point; if, as they say (and is correct) EU law is not sui generis as a component of UK law, but is given force solely through the operation of the ECA, then by definition, rights accrued thereunder are statutory rights, conferred by act of Parliament and not subject to abrogation by use of the Royal Prerogative.

[don4l]

A nice piece of optimism from Daniel Hannan in the Washington Free Beacon.

He is predicting that the Supreme Court will allow the Royal Perogative to be used to trigger Article 50.

‘Crybabies’ Protesting Referendum Outcome Won’t Block EU Departure

[Elysium]

Zod said:

Ridgemont said:

Greg66 said:

Cobnapint said:

Watching the proceedings going on in the SC at the moment, and it seems to me there are bits of British law which allow a UK government to go ahead without Parliamentary approval, and bits that don't.

Are they going to add up all the bits on either side and see which one wins, because from where I'm sitting there is no definitive answer.

And if it isn't clear cut, I'm sure the SC judges is will cover there own profession's asses and decide in favour of the HC's original decision anyway.

There's a bit more to it, as I understand it. The Govt side is trying to say "look at this example, then look at this example, then look at this example. Now look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example, look at this counter-example. You see a pattern: in the examples, the procedure is X. In the counter-examples the procedure is Y. Now look at this precise case. It's much closer to an example than a counter-example, so the correct procedure is X and it's not Y".

Watching it does illustrate vividly the massive chasm between the reality of what's actually being argued about in this case vs what the Mail/Express/Telegraph report the case is about.

Couple of fascinating pieces that provide some of the detail Eadie is referring to:

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/11/07/mark-el...

which notes that rights accrued under the treaty that led to the ECA are accrued via the treaty, and that the rights are not statuatory rights despite passing into UK law via the ECA..

These guys, in their eagerness to reach their desired conclusion have misunderstood their own point; if, as they say (and is correct) EU law is not sui generis as a component of UK law, but is given force solely through the operation of the ECA, then by definition, rights accrued thereunder are statutory rights, conferred by act of Parliament and not subject to abrogation by use of the Royal Prerogative.

I think the Govt argument and the one in the link misses the point. Para's 57 to 66 of the High Court judgement set out 3 categories of rights created by the ECA:

1. Rights capable of replication in the UK
2. Rights enjoyed by UK citizens and companies in other EU member countries (e.g. freedom of movement)
3. Rights that cannot be replicated in UK law (e.g. the right to stand as an MEP)

As I see it there are two sides to those rights. The UK side and the EU side. Category 1 rights can be preserved without the EU side, but category 2 and 3 cannot.

The EU side was put in place by a treaty, which is where the Govt can use the Royal Prerogative. The UK side requires new law, which can only be put in place through an act of Parliament.

Assuming a50 cannot be revoked, issuing a notice results in the removal of the EU side. This means that the UK side no longer works in respect of Cat 2 and 3 rights. Under UK law we are entitled to stand as MEP's, but the Govt will have rendered this impossible.

The Govt has tried to argue that the bit of law allowing category 2 and 3 rights is not in the treaty, but that is is instead a product of the legislation of the two member states involved (ie UK allows free movement + France allows free movement = free movement with or without the EU). The court rejects this in para 66.

So the process on the way in, must be reversed on the way out:

Govt Treaty => Parliamentary Legislation => EU membership with rights => Parliamentary Legislation => Govt Treaty => Brexit

I think there is potentially a huge spanner in the works when you stop to think about this. The Act of Parliament needs to agree to undo the legislation creating the rights. I am not sure that a very basic a50 bill can do this as it will be hugely unclear which rights will be affected. The obvious example being freedom of movement.

If the Supreme Court do uphold the previous verdict I think the final bill will need to be a whole lot more complicated than the Govt have suggested.

[don4l]

I think that we have a Remainer amongst us who is skilled at making YouTube videos.

I found this YouTube video, and it seems to consist of all the Remainers who post on here.

[url]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lVHRHw3gos[/url]

The first few minutes are the best. If you get bored, then skip forward to 9:17 where we are introduced to PurpleMoonlight. He is joined by ajd at 9:45.


Enjoy!

[paulrockliffe]

don4l said:

I think that we have a Remainer amongst us who is skilled at making YouTube videos.

I found this YouTube video, and it seems to consist of all the Remainers who post on here.

[url]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lVHRHw3gos[/url]

The first few minutes are the best. If you get bored, then skip forward to 9:17 where we are introduced to PurpleMoonlight. He is joined by ajd at 9:45.


Enjoy!

Brilliant, thanks so much for posting. I won't watch it all now, but will keep it open and keep dipping in.. That cupid stunt politician that pops up near the start is great, I've forgotten her name though.