Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
JuniorD said:
All I can say is thank frig for these guys, the ones in the wigs. Can you imagine if May & her 
y party had unfettered power to do what she wanted
I were you, however, I think I might wait to see what the effect of their ruling will be on TM's ability to get an extension without getting the terms voted through Parliament in time, or, if she tries, to be jammed up in a judicial review, whether ultimately successful or not. y party had unfettered power to do what she wanted I think we should all be grateful to Gina Miller, whatever her motives. It is, of course, vital to observe the rule of law, however inconvenient it might be for the executive, Parliament or ourselves personally. It is the foundation of a civilised society. That, of course, will not prevent the delicious sense of schadenfreude if her noble action actually results in knocking the wind out of Remain's sails
.I went back to the text of the various bits of withdrawal legislation and read it again, after a couple of exchanges on here yesterday. I am not a lawyer, but when I was a civil servant I used to instruct them regularly defending JRs, so I can at the least claim to have some experience in this area and to be a more-or-less "intelligent client". I am also no stranger to piloting SIs through Parliament.
I still think that passing an Article 50 extension next week by means of a Statutory Instrument vote is highly vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts.
As I read it, the power to extend was expressly drafted to implement an agreement about an extension - or an abridgement - in the exit date in domestic law but does not in/by itself seem to me to go further and provide any authority at all to seek such an extension from the EU. It is also worth highlighting that the provisions also expressly provide only for amendment of the date, not extension. Another factor worth considering, although this is nothing decisive, is that these provisions are parked in the "Interpretation" section of the Act. The parliamentary draftsmen are usually very good at their jobs and as this is not the customary location for wide powers, but for matters of an administrative nature, any judge considering intention is likely to draw the same conclusion - and interpret the power narrowly.
I still cannot see any justification for a view that last week's motion gives any authority to seek an extension. Re-reading the Miller judgement (however flawed it is now claimed to be - and this would need to be tested in court), the principles elaborated there would surely suggest that an Act is needed no less than it was needed to serve the Article 50 Notice in the first place, and just as much as it would be needed to revoke the Article 50 notice.
Any action extending the authority of the EU, changing existing dates and/or exposing the UK to more liabilities* seems to me to absolutely within the ambit of the Supreme Court's ruling requiring proper authority, which derives from an Act, not an indicative vote or motion, and certainly not a clerical provision, especially of the Henry VIII power variety (which the judges quite rightly construe very strictly and narrowly).
On that basis, the same Miller reasoning must apply to negotiating any conditions the EU might wish to discuss. The Supreme Court was quite clear in its judgement that the Government simply has no prerogative powers to agree to any. I'm not sure the Court is actually right about this, and some of the analysis appears to contradict itself, but that is what the judgement says, unless I'm seriously misreading it.
In any case, while I might ultimately be proven wrong by the judges, I think there's more than enough basis in all that for at least securing a hearing.
However, I am sure a lawyer or two will be along shortly to tell me that I am wrong...
- I haven't yet looked up how the UK could pay Brussels in the absence of express Parliamentary authority. IIRC Managing Public Money (the Treasury's guide to propriety and regularity, among other things, absolutely bans such expenditure in the absence of express and prior Parliamentary approval (although there may be an exception for expenditure arising from the use of prerogative powers)).
TTmonkey said:
Democracy of North Korea perhaps. A strong opposition to government policy is essential. Just a bit odd this time that the conservatives are split on this.
Any other government with such a weak position would have fallen by now, only the presence of Corbyn is propping up May.
34 million votes cast and you compare it to N.Korea.Any other government with such a weak position would have fallen by now, only the presence of Corbyn is propping up May.
johnxjsc1985 said:
34 million votes cast and you compare it to N.Korea.
Well, how sure can you now be that if there is to be another referendum, that they won't stuff the ballot to make sure it is 99.6% Remain? It seems to be how large parts of the Remain establishment now roll. Welcome to Britain Robert Mugabe style.SpeckledJim said:
I'm sure that's true, but I bet it's not evenly distributed.
I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
If you look at the results by constituency it's clear you are wrong. Well unless a lot of conservative voter in labour constituency voted remain.I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
Mrr T said:
SpeckledJim said:
I'm sure that's true, but I bet it's not evenly distributed.
I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
If you look at the results by constituency it's clear you are wrong. Well unless a lot of conservative voter in labour constituency voted remain.I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
What results do you mean please?
SpeckledJim said:
Mrr T said:
SpeckledJim said:
I'm sure that's true, but I bet it's not evenly distributed.
I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
If you look at the results by constituency it's clear you are wrong. Well unless a lot of conservative voter in labour constituency voted remain.I expect it's 85% of London Labour voters voted Remain, and only 35% of Sunderland Labour voters.
So it's not the case that any and all Labour MPs can say, whilst merrily subverting Brexit, that they're merely following the orders of their voters.
What results do you mean please?
Mrr T said:
Can not find the link at the moment but some one took the constituency votes in the referendum and compared them to the 2017 election. Assuming conservative voted 75% leave they estimated labour voter preference. About 20/25 labour constituency had a labour voter majority for leave.
you can play with this as much as you want but 75 % Labour seats voted leave which means Labour will have a massive problem in these seats. johnxjsc1985 said:
you can play with this as much as you want but 75 % Labour seats voted leave which means Labour will have a massive problem in these seats.
Why would a labour candidate have a problem in a constituency where the majority of Labour voters voted remain but the majority was for leave because 75% of conservative voters voted leave?johnxjsc1985 said:
Mrr T said:
Can not find the link at the moment but some one took the constituency votes in the referendum and compared them to the 2017 election. Assuming conservative voted 75% leave they estimated labour voter preference. About 20/25 labour constituency had a labour voter majority for leave.
you can play with this as much as you want but 75 % Labour seats voted leave which means Labour will have a massive problem in these seats. Cameron brought this vote to the people. Cameron told the electorate to reject it and stay in. A posh conservative twunt appealed to everyone to vote remain, and you know what, the electorate, and a majority of them labour supporters, rejected it. Ask yourself if they all wanted freedom from EU tyranny, or did a least a few million want to “stick it up Cameron’s ass”?
Given how much uncertainty there is around who voted where and for what, wouldn't it be much more useful to consider what percentage movement would be necessary for the seat to change hands? This could either be caused by PM style duvet days or actual switching.
This is, after all, the main problem the parties have: if x% of habitual Tory voters don't bother to vote or switch in, say, 50 seats, then those seats are lost; at y% it becomes 100 and so on. By contrast, if x% of Labour voters switch to UKIP or similar, how many marginals go, and so on? Let us discount for the moment any insurgent party hoovering up a lot of votes.
In the 2017 general election, 97 of the 650 constituencies were won by a margin of 5% of the vote or less.
The number of very safe seats also increased in the election. Seats won by a margin of over 50% increased to 35 in 2017, while the number of seats won by a margin of between 45% and 50% increased to 29. So it would take an earthquake to move those.
However, if we look at the Conservative target seats:
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targ...
And Labour:
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targ...
it is interesting how vulnerable both parties are to minor swings against the other in the majority of their own marginals, so keeping faith with the local party (who do the canvassing and organising) and not actively annoying any segment of the electorate is going to prey heavily on minds if there's any risk/prospect of an election this year.
This is, after all, the main problem the parties have: if x% of habitual Tory voters don't bother to vote or switch in, say, 50 seats, then those seats are lost; at y% it becomes 100 and so on. By contrast, if x% of Labour voters switch to UKIP or similar, how many marginals go, and so on? Let us discount for the moment any insurgent party hoovering up a lot of votes.
In the 2017 general election, 97 of the 650 constituencies were won by a margin of 5% of the vote or less.
The number of very safe seats also increased in the election. Seats won by a margin of over 50% increased to 35 in 2017, while the number of seats won by a margin of between 45% and 50% increased to 29. So it would take an earthquake to move those.
However, if we look at the Conservative target seats:
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targ...
And Labour:
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targ...
it is interesting how vulnerable both parties are to minor swings against the other in the majority of their own marginals, so keeping faith with the local party (who do the canvassing and organising) and not actively annoying any segment of the electorate is going to prey heavily on minds if there's any risk/prospect of an election this year.
Mrr T said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
you can play with this as much as you want but 75 % Labour seats voted leave which means Labour will have a massive problem in these seats.
Why would a labour candidate have a problem in a constituency where the majority of Labour voters voted remain but the majority was for leave because 75% of conservative voters voted leave?In my northern constituency, in the 2015 GE UKIP polled 22% of the vote
Labour were narrowly elected
In 2016 the constituency vote massively to leave 67%
In the 2017 GE the UKIP vote collapsed to 4% and virtually all of those UKIP votes went BACK to Labour
It was clear that the Labour voters returned to the fold en masse after getting the Brexit result they wanted, the Tories were never a force at all
Blue62 said:
And it would be the end. Parliament has blocked a no deal on March 29th so you won't get your wish and if we are to leave with no deal it will take a considerable time to organise otherwise it will be chaotic for all Europeans. This is why many leavers wanted no deal from the off, at least that way there was a chance because it looks increasingly likely that a no deal was the only real option, something we weren't told at the referendum by either side.
No, it hasn't. It's the default position.No deal cannot be taken off the table. May reiterated it yesterday (or the day before). Parliament just said it wouldn't like it.
And we've had over two years to prepare for it.
psi310398 said:
On that basis, the same Miller reasoning must apply to negotiating any conditions the EU might wish to discuss. The Supreme Court was quite clear in its judgement that the Government simply has no prerogative powers to agree to any. I'm not sure the Court is actually right about this, and some of the analysis appears to contradict itself, but that is what the judgement says, unless I'm seriously misreading it.
Charles Moore, who is a sensible rather than "enemies of the people" sort of Leaver, said at the time he thought the judges had overreached and he had spoken to lawyers who interpreted it differently.Which then leaves scope for the interpretation to change when it comes to something the establishment wants, rather than what it doesn't want.
JagLover said:
psi310398 said:
On that basis, the same Miller reasoning must apply to negotiating any conditions the EU might wish to discuss. The Supreme Court was quite clear in its judgement that the Government simply has no prerogative powers to agree to any. I'm not sure the Court is actually right about this, and some of the analysis appears to contradict itself, but that is what the judgement says, unless I'm seriously misreading it.
Charles Moore, who is a sensible rather than "enemies of the people" sort of Leaver, said at the time he thought the judges had overreached and he had spoken to lawyers who interpreted it differently.Which then leaves scope for the interpretation to change when it comes to something the establishment wants, rather than what it doesn't want.
But, in the context of just over a week to run, as I said, the proposition that they erred in Miller on this point would need to be tested in court. I think any attempt to extend by prerogative would land HMG in court and that is precious little time to argue and arrive at a conclusion.
Furthermore, we need to consider the likely effect of such a challenge on EU MS making the decision of whether or not to agree to an extension of the Article 50 headline. At least one might be tempted by the certainty of veto, rather than a protracted argument about the legality of such a request with an uncertain outcome.
psi310398 said:
JagLover said:
psi310398 said:
On that basis, the same Miller reasoning must apply to negotiating any conditions the EU might wish to discuss. The Supreme Court was quite clear in its judgement that the Government simply has no prerogative powers to agree to any. I'm not sure the Court is actually right about this, and some of the analysis appears to contradict itself, but that is what the judgement says, unless I'm seriously misreading it.
Charles Moore, who is a sensible rather than "enemies of the people" sort of Leaver, said at the time he thought the judges had overreached and he had spoken to lawyers who interpreted it differently.Which then leaves scope for the interpretation to change when it comes to something the establishment wants, rather than what it doesn't want.
But, in the context of just over a week to run, as I said, the proposition that they erred in Miller on this point would need to be tested in court. I think any attempt to extend by prerogative would land HMG in court and that is precious little time to argue and arrive at a conclusion.
Furthermore, we need to consider the likely effect of such a challenge on EU MS making the decision of whether or not to agree to an extension of the Article 50 headline. At least one might be tempted by the certainty of veto, rather than a protracted argument about the legality of such a request with an uncertain outcome.
Earthdweller said:
Mrr T said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
you can play with this as much as you want but 75 % Labour seats voted leave which means Labour will have a massive problem in these seats.
Why would a labour candidate have a problem in a constituency where the majority of Labour voters voted remain but the majority was for leave because 75% of conservative voters voted leave?In my northern constituency, in the 2015 GE UKIP polled 22% of the vote
Labour were narrowly elected
In 2016 the constituency vote massively to leave 67%
In the 2017 GE the UKIP vote collapsed to 4% and virtually all of those UKIP votes went BACK to Labour
It was clear that the Labour voters returned to the fold en masse after getting the Brexit result they wanted, the Tories were never a force at all
The swing from UKIP to conservative is 41%, to labour 11%. Brexit is a Tory problem.
Mrr T said:
As per my post above there are 20/25 labour constituencies where the labour voter majority was for leave. In the majority labour voters mainly voted remain leave won because 75% of conservative voters voted leave.
The swing from UKIP to conservative is 41%, to labour 11%. Brexit is a Tory problem.
By ignoring the collapse of the Lib Dem vote you could be forgiven for thinking that. Please continuing to think as you do though as it was that same complacency that lost remain the referendum in the first place.The swing from UKIP to conservative is 41%, to labour 11%. Brexit is a Tory problem.
Vanden Saab said:
Assuming there is an extension and it was then deemed to be an overreach of powers by the Supreme court, bearing in mind it would be past the 29th what would be the result?
I'm not sure. When I was doing this kind of thing, it was unimaginable that HMG would play fast and loose with major decisions like this. Much policy was made on designing it to minimise the risk of JR, but these are interesting times and TM is backed into a corner.So I am not sure, but I'd guess any JR application would contain a request to stay the seeking of the request to extend precisely because the effect would irrevocable, as the deadline would have passed. In other words, if the JR were ultimately successful, I think the only thing the court can do is state that it was unlawful, but it would be too late in the UK, at least so far as UK law was concerned. Humpty could not easily, under UK law, be put back together again.
However, I'd guess that, in the event that it was established that HMG had requested an extension ultra vires, then an appeal to the ECJ could be mounted on the basis that, as the request from the UK for an extension was not lawfully founded, there was no lawful request for the other MS to agree to, and thus the Article 50 notice period had elapsed. I'm not sure many leaver litigants would have a massive amount of faith in the ECJ's arriving at an unbiased verdict. But the existence of such a risk might inform one of the MS's decision whether or not to veto the requested extension.
In the Miller case, the courts judged before HMG triggered Article 50, so this issue didn't directly arise, although it did prevent HMG from proceeding until it was resolved.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff