High Court ruling on Article 50.

[Mr Patient]

The High Court has ruled that the Government cannot use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50
This will surely make an already complex business even more so...Certainly plenty of work for the lawyers!

[juliesewell]

Being spread all over the internet...
BBC News here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

[Florentyna]

Screw what the MAJORITY of the British people voted for then.

[keving]

Its best that we leave the EU in a lawful manner otherwise there will be arguments for decades to come

There will be almost half the voters wishing to stay in the EU, if the vote was today for sure knowing what we all know now it would be over turned, so why not reconsider this dreadful decision? Jim

[rita sherry]

I agree Keving. There is an appeal to be mounted regarding this decision. Personally I wish to read this judgment in its entirety but I need my dinner first as there is quite a lot to wade through.

Rita

[Mr Patient]

The complexities which have arisen since the vote to leave must have prompted countries like Cyprus and Greece to wonder just how hard and just how lengthy the business of forcibly ejecting a member from the club would be in practice. I imagine they now feel quite secure and able to relax a little!

[ferret]

From Yougov

Brexit ruling results

Interim survey results (unweighted) - survey closes at 04/11/2016 17:00 with final results available shortly after.
1. The High Court has ruled that the government cannot invoke Article 50 to leave the EU without a vote in Parliament. Which of the following actions do you think the government should take in response to this ruling?

The government should accept the High Court ruling and hold a vote in Parliament 53%
The government should appeal to the Supreme Court and seek to have the ruling overturned 40%
Don’t know 7%

2. Thinking about which party you would like to vote for if an early general election was held, would you prefer that this party pledged to carry out Brexit or pledged to hold a second referendum?

Prefer they backed carrying out Brexit 48%
Prefer they backed a second referendum 39%
No preference either way 8%
Don't know 5%

https://yougov.co.uk/opi/surveys/result ... 5056901c24

[explodingaardvark]

I just want clarification.

Does the Supreme Court judgement require parliament to vote on the actual decision to leave EU or only to vote on the actual terms of the exit, or both?

[Happy in Cyprus]

I thought it was the latter, which could of course influence the former. In other words, if the majority of MPs are not happy with the negotiated terms, they could prevent the Prime Minister from declaring Article 50.

[juliesewell]

My understanding is they will need to rule and openly agree on the details of the Brexit, which to my mind means we will still have an open market and also freedom of movement.

Therefore, I assume immigration will remain as is....

[KG]

The vote was to leave the EU. The vast majority of MPs voted in favour of the referendum and to abide by the result. The High Court action is a wrecking tactic. I agree with John Redwood - http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/ that the government should present a one line motion 'This House approves the sending of an Article 50 letter in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in the referendum, any judgement of the courts notwithstanding' and if that is voted down, call a General Election.

How can Parliament possibly agree on the details of Brexit? There are no details. Brexit means leaving the European Union completely. There are no degrees of leaving. The process for discussing what will happen to relationships after Britain has left cannot begin until the Article 50 letter is sent, and it would be madness to declare their hand on negotiating strategy in advance of the negotiations.

[Mike Strand]

Unlike much of Cyprus, the UK is mostly a law abiding country. The High Court found that TM's prerogative power was not in accordance with UK law, so what do people want, anarchy?

[keving]

All of this nonsense about revealing your hand is just that, nonsense.

Let's suppose for a minute that the favoured solution of a majority of MPs in parliament is for the UK, after leaving the EU, is to join EFTA and through EFTA membership be part of the EEA. The so called Norway model.

I see no reason why Parliament should not mandate Theresa May to achieve the best possible outcome under this broad negotiating strategy.

I dont call this giving away our negotiating strategy. Its called getting to the point. After all, when negotiations start, they have to start somewhere, and where better to start than what you would like amicably to achieve.

I see no point in pussy footing about, talking about the weather or cricket before we get down to business. Similarly, I see it as a total waste of time to commence negotiations centred on an alternative model (eg Canada) when this is not our preferred outcome.

[KG]

Its called getting to the point.

No - it's called tying the hands of the negotiators. In any negotiation, particularly a hostile one, you have to be prepared to walk away from the negotiating table. Clearly the government would want to get the best deal for the country on numerous areas, but not at any price. You certainly don't want to be telling the other side what your red lines are. That's the Cameron approach to negotiating and look where that got him.

Any deal that leaves Britain with open borders, paying vast sums to trade and subservience to the European Court of Justice is not a deal worth having. Those who seek to frustrate and block the process will not settle for anything less than remaining fully within the European Union. There is no middle ground, just endless obfuscation.

[Austin 7]

Absolutely agree with KG - too many people around trying to reverse a clear democratic decision!

[keving]

Its called getting to the point.

No - it's called tying the hands of the negotiators. In any negotiation, particularly a hostile one, you have to be prepared to walk away from the negotiating table. Clearly the government would want to get the best deal for the country on numerous areas, but not at any price. You certainly don't want to be telling the other side what your red lines are. That's the Cameron approach to negotiating and look where that got him.

Any deal that leaves Britain with open borders, paying vast sums to trade and subservience to the European Court of Justice is not a deal worth having. Those who seek to frustrate and block the process will not settle for anything less than remaining fully within the European Union. There is no middle ground, just endless obfuscation.

I never said that the UK negotiators should not be prepared to walk away from the table (or take further direction from parliament). Under a broad strategy (eg Norway model) I have not said that we should reveal what our red lines are before we walk away from discussing that model and falling back on an alternative model.

If the Norway model is Plan A and our preferred outcome, I see no point in opening negotiations by discussing Plan B our fall back position. That is a pointless waste of time.

[coggle123]

The right wing press are currently under fire for vilifying & demonising the 3 judges involved in this decision, much like they vilified anyone in the ' remain ' camp.
The UK is a PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY & as such it is critical that parliament should have a vote in the debate over issues surrounding the manner in which article 50 is to be invoked.
I personally don't have enough faith in Fox, Davis or Johnson or indeed their abilities to carry out that process on their own, they can't even agree on HOW it should be done.
The Brexiteers screamed from the rooftops about democracy & ( sorry to those that got tired of hearing this ) taking back control, well folks, this is democracy in action & thank god for that!, I dread to think what sort of shambles they would have made of it without the intervention of Parliament...... hopefully the ruling won't be overturned.

[Lynsab]

IT IS rare for a court judgment to cause turmoil in the foreign-currency markets. Yet the pound soared on the morning of November 3rd after the High Court in London ruled that only Parliament has the authority to trigger Article 50 of the European Union treaty, the legal route for Britain to leave the EU. The markets’ response reflects the view either that Parliament might choose to block Brexit altogether or, perhaps more plausibly, that it will attach conditions to an act invoking Article 50 that make a “soft” Brexit more likely.

The government is appealing to the Supreme Court, which will take the case early next month. The government still asserts that it alone has the right to invoke Article 50 under the royal prerogative, which gives it sole authority over foreign policy and over the making (and unmaking) of treaties. But the High Court explicitly rejected this line in its judgment. Its argument is that the 1972 European Communities Act, which gives effect to Britain’s EU membership, is a matter of domestic law, not of foreign policy. A decision to invoke Article 50 could lead to Britain’s exit from the EU within two years without any further parliamentary involvement, in effect overturning the 1972 act. The court’s judgment is that any such step requires prior parliamentary approval.

Beyond the arcane issues of Britain’s unwritten constitution and the royal prerogative lie some big political arguments. Although Brexiteers campaigned on the promise to take back powers from Brussels and Luxembourg to Westminster, they have resisted the closer involvement of Parliament in the process because a large majority of MPs in the House of Commons and of peers in the House of Lords backed the Remain side in the referendum. Yet since the referendum produced a clear majority to Leave on a very high turnout, it seems unlikely that Parliament will actually block Brexit.

The prime minister has promised to keep Parliament informed over her plans for Brexit, but not to give a “running commentary” for fear that this will undermine her negotiating position. Yet she has also promised a Great Repeal Bill that will give domestic effect to most EU law after Britain leaves the club. And it is also clear that Parliament will need to approve the terms of Britain’s departure and of its future relations with the EU.

The Supreme Court may well endorse the High Court’s judgment. But even if it does not, the political argument for giving Parliament greater say both in the triggering of Article 50 and in the lengthy negotiating process that will follow now seems unanswerable.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... ck-control

[Firefly]

Seems to me that once again the Government has pulled the wool over the British Citizen's eyes. Who told us before the referendum that actually it didn't matter a damn which way you voted, Parliament, ( that's people who are supposed to carry out the wishes of the people ) can please themselves what will happen. I could be wrong, but I don't recall being told this.

It all stinks to high Heaven.

Jackie

[Tallulah Savage]

Talking of those awful leave voters being nasty, I am surprised that none of the remain voters have commented on the woman on QT who made such an impassioned speech about the children of brexit voters getting seriously ill. I think most people understand about being passionate, but to utterly overstep the mark, as she did, is quite disgusting. No doubt there will be some who seek to defend her.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/great ... 87416.html

[coggle123]

Hi Alan,

I don't believe there are any posts on this thread that mention ' nasty leave voters ' as for the hysterical woman on QT I doubt there would be any right minded individual, regardless of their vote that would condone such an outburst!
Sadly, people say & do idiotic & offensive things.....& probably live too regret it later...that's human nature for you.

[KG]

The markets’ response reflects the view either that Parliament might choose to block Brexit altogether or, perhaps more plausibly, that it will attach conditions to an act invoking Article 50 that make a “soft” Brexit more likely.

The pound 'soared by 1.5 cents - more like a minor bump than soaring. The value of the pound is going to be volatile for the next couple of years until Britain actually leaves the EU and the markets can see where the country is heading post Brexit.

There is no 'soft Brexit'. It is a figment of the Remain camp's desperation to overturn the democratic process. There is just Brexit. Brexit, as we were told time and again by the remain camp, before the vote, means no longer being a member of the single market.

The court only said that Parliament had to take a vote on implementing article 50. It said nothing about agreeing terms. There can be no terms to agree until Article 50 has been implemented. The EU will not negotiate until that step has been taken. They will negotiate when they realise the importance of the UK market to the future prosperity (survival even) of the EU. All we have heard so far is a lot of hot air from unelected officials, who have said that they are prepared to damage the EU's prosperity to 'punish' Britain for having the audacity to want to leave. I wonder if the politicians of the affected countries will agree with that view, for they, unlike the officials, are elected to office.

The only issue for the present, is whether Parliament will vote down the motion to implement Article 50. If it does so, then that will create a constitutional crisis of momentous proportions.

It is unheard of for a UK Government to ask the people for a decision, which Parliament voted for by a massive majority, and which they agreed to be bound by the result, then because they don't like the outcome, put it aside. The only way out of that would be to have a General Election.

If Theresa May were to go for a General Election now, on a platform to leave the EU, the general cross party consensus is that she would be returned with a clear majority. Are the remoaners prepared to risk that? If you think people are angry now, you haven't seen anything like the anger that will be displayed, towards those politicians who hold the electorate in contempt, at the ballot box. Politicians whose faces will be plastered over the pages of the newspapers.

[Jim B]

Hi Allan

I must agree with Coggle, no one here has mentioned nasty Br-exit people though there have been many disgraceful comments made both about the plaintive and the sexual orientation of one of the Judges. As Coggle also said we all at some time or other say things we regret and no-one or anything I've read has tried to justify the woman's comments on Question Time.

[KG]

Hi Allan
I must agree with Coggle, no one here has mentioned nasty Br-exit people though there have been many disgraceful comments made both about the plaintive and the sexual orientation of one of the Judges. As Coggle also said we all at some time or other say things we regret and no-one or anything I've read has tried to justify the woman's comments on Question Time.

For once I agree with you. There are knuckle draggers on both sides of the argument.

[Austin 7]

Is my memory failing me, I thought in the run up to the referendum Cameron promised that if the vote was to leave the EU he would immediately trigger Article 50? There was no mention of it waiting for months while frustrated remainers had the opportunity to overturn the country's decision!

[KG]

Nothing wrong with your memory, but Cameron chose to run away instead, because he was so arrogant in his conviction that the public would vote with him that he had been criminally negligent in not planning for a vote against. That is the reason for the delay, as Civil Servants do the ground work for what will need to be changed with Britain leaving. Every cloud has a silver lining and so far Theresa May is proving a better man than Cameron ever managed. It remains to be see how strong her backbone really is.

[Tallulah Savage]

Points well taken Jim & Coggle, however I must disagree. Reading comments on social media, and also in the newspapers who carried this story there are some awful comments from people trying to justify what the lady said.

[coggle123]

Hi Austin 7,

This judgement has absolutely nothing to do with ' overturning ' the referendum outcome, it is solely to do with the
' Rule of Law '...as I previously stated, we are a Parliamentary Democracy & as such Government has no right to just bulldoze it's wishes through without the approval of Parliament, it would hardly be very democratic would it.
Leaving the EU was a monumental decision, & it is going take a colossal amount of clever negotiations over a number of years in order to achieve the outcome we desire.
I'm afraid the current MP's that have been chosen too achieve that aim fall far short ( in my opinion ) of the mark in their capabilities, as the referendum campaign proved to us all.
It is in ALL our interests to have Parliament involved in the process, that way it becomes a more Democratic & balanced procedure.

[coggle123]

Hi Alan,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is no justifying the unjustifiable

[KG]

That's all very well, but there is no 'bulldozing' involved. Parliament has already voted on this before the referendum. They voted with a massive majority to have the referendum and abide by the result. The result is to leave the EU. The government has to start that process by sending the Article 50 letter. Now parliament is to have another vote on the sending of that letter. What did they think they were voting for when they voted for the referendum?

Politicians will not be conducting the negotiations. That will be done by civil servants ... after the process has begun.

[Mike Strand]

Back to the OP, the Court ruled that TM was usurping her power by not putting the matter before parliament; that's all. A matter of law.

[coggle123]

Hi KG'
I am aware that the negotiations will be carried out by the hoardes of civil servants they have yet to muster, but as a UK citizen, I would like SOME idea of what their intention is......this is a humongous decision, the future direction of the UK is in the balance & therefore it is only right & proper that our ELECTED representatives oversee the decision making, I don't believe that it is too much to ask.

[Tallulah Savage]

Hi Alan,

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but there is no justifying the unjustifiable

Hi Coggle, I couldn't agree more. What really saddens me is the vitriol, on both sides, constantly. Debate is wonderful but a lot of it is just mud slinging and nastiness. Anyway, it is what it is and we do our best!
Jim B , I saw the comments about the judges sexuality and was astounded. Yet more vileness and completely irrelevant and uncalled for.
Anyway, its 5pm so I reckon time for a gin & tonic!

[coggle123]

ENJOY Allan

[Mike Strand]

The Brexiteers wanted out of the EU so we can be governed by our own laws, not EU ones. Isn't that what they wanted & now they've got it, they don't like it!!!!

Anyway, I foretell a General Election in 2017 (i.e., a 2nd referendum in all but name)

[KG]

Be careful what you wish for. A referendum is a national vote. A General Election is a constituency vote. It is widely believed across parties that were the Conservatives to go to the country on a platform to leave the EU, they would have a landslide victory. There is no opposition worthy of the name. I agree that an election is now probably inevitable ... unless May wins her appeal at the Supreme Court. It would be ironic if she was to win and the wreckers were to appeal to the European Court of Justice.

[ferret]

KG---The polls indeed show that May would return with a large majority and a mandate to leave the EU. However there are other effects also, UKIP are in disarray but I can see Farage returning from another retirement and his party re-focused. No party would want that. He would place candidates in constituencies where Labour MP's voted against leaving. The Conservatives would be given a free pass. The Labour party I understand would also have to deal with the boundary changes which do not favour their party. Corbyn would need a new base--- I believe. I suspect therefore that Labour would vote to leave to stop any election.

[Firefly]

MS

Yes we do want to be governed by our own laws, but the point is actually we DON'T have it yet. My grouse is not with the law of the land, but that we were kept in the dark, and lied to by default. Unless one has a full working knowledge of the law, and most people do not, how were we to know that the majority vote could be overturned by a handful of people ? That's democracy ? I think not !

According to today's news TM will go ahead anyway, and good for her.

Jackie

[Steve - SJD]

Parliament has already voted on this before the referendum. They voted with a massive majority to have the referendum and abide by the result

No they didn't - they voted for a referendum that specifically stated it was advisory. Perhaps in future it would be better to change the law so that referendums are legally binding. I accept that having now had the referendum and the result it would be unlikely that Parliament would completely block an exit.

The whole thing has been badly handled from the start on both sides - too much populism and too few facts. However we are where we are and I think we should move forward and forget the appeal.

Cheers

Steve

[Maramike]

No they didn't - they voted for a referendum that specifically stated it was advisory. Perhaps in future it would be better to change the law so that referendums are legally binding.
Steve

It was the same as with any manifesto item - none are legally binding, but the electorate should be able to trust the elected government to abide by their wishes.

[Austin 7]

No they didn't - they voted for a referendum that specifically stated it was advisory.

If that was the case why did Cameron promise to issue Article 50 immediately following an 'out' vote?

[Steve - SJD]

No they didn't - they voted for a referendum that specifically stated it was advisory.

If that was the case why did Cameron promise to issue Article 50 immediately following an 'out' vote?

Because he was an idiot and badly advised??

MPs voted by six to one for the referendum to be held, but the judgement says that the referendum bill, and background briefings, made clear that the referendum was advisory rather than mandatory. So even though MPs voted for the referendum, the way it was worded did not hand over the authority to trigger Article 50, in its view

Cheers

Steve

[KG]

Where were all those supporters of the rule of law when the Treaty of Maastricht, which took away powers from Parliament, was enacted using the Royal perogative? Jacob Rees Mogg took the matter to court in 1993, but the court then ruled in favour of the government. So Parliament doesn't need a vote to relinquish its powers to the EU, but it does have to have a vote to get them back?

[juliesewell]

European Union Referendum Act 2015

The Act
The act legislated for a referendum to be held in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on whether to remain a member of the EU, to be conducted by the Electoral Commission and overseen by an appointed "Chief Counting Officer" (CCO) and a "Deputy chief counting officer" (DCCO) who will declare the final result for the United Kingdom and by regulation orders the Secretary of State to appoint a date for the holding of the referendum under the following circumstances:

The Referendum must be held no later than 31 December 2017.
The Referendum cannot be held on 5 May 2016 or 4 May 2017.

The Electoral Commission is the public body under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that was given the task to raise public awareness ahead of polling day, and to oversee the conduct of the referendum.

And here's the IMPORTANT bit:
The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government *******

And a whole load of other "stuff" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... m_Act_2015

[Firefly]

I think as Steve has suggested, the result of any referendum should be legally binding, we need a new act methinks. If it turns out that the referendum result it over turned, what was the point in spending a vast amount of tax payers money on having it in the first place. Maybe if it proves to be the case, The Government should be held accountable for that waste.

That said, I can't imagine that Parliament would be so foolish, they could find that the silent majority won't be so silent any more.

Jackie

[tonee]

Hi Lets have a General Election,the majority of the folk who voted to leave were from the northern Labour constituencies,I would look forward to the likes of Milliband and his like, who have been outspoken about Brexit, totally opposed to it,yet,his costituency in Doncaster voted 62% to leave.Dont think they will be welcoming him with open arms.
Bring it on!Also a chance to get a decent majority and keep wee Burney and her Scottish nationalists quiet!

[Mr Patient]

Juliesewell- thank you for the link to Wikipedia.

The remainder of the paragraph which you quoted is quite interesting:

"The act made no provision for the result to be legally binding on the government or on any future government. The result of the referendum was to be a single majority vote of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar with no super majorities, double majorities of the constituent countries or any minimum turnout threshold required for the vote to pass. The act did not specify any specific consequences that would follow the result of the referendum. In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU.[10] European Union law would remain enforceable in the United Kingdom until or unless the European Communities Act 1972 were repealed.[7]"

N.B." In the event of a "Leave" vote, the government would decide whether, when, and under what circumstances, the UK would invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union to begin a two-year process of negotiations for Britain to leave the EU." The Government (it seems to me) have done, or are in the process of doing precisely what they were mandated to do. The key word is "the government" and not any other group who happen to be disaffected.

[rita sherry]

KG

I congratulate you on your various posts relating to this topic which sum up the situation most accurately. I, as stated earlier, did read the whole of the judgement (twice) of the Divisional Court which contained many many paragraphs and you have summed up their Lordships decision and the basis for same more than adequately in my opinion. They could not have made it clearer that it was not their intention to decide upon the merits of the Referendum vote result but purely as a matter of the rule of law relating to the use of the prerogative powers, finding, as they did, that in their view the Government of the day exceeded same.

This evening on the BBC News Mr Corbyn has stated that the Labour Party will not vote against the Government relating to the actioning of Article 50 but will wish to know some of the detail regarding what is to be negotiated. This decision of Mr Corbyn does not surprise me as neither he or the late Anthony Wedgwood Benn ever voted in favour so far as European matters were concerned in the whole of their parliamentary careers. Bit difficult to do so now me thinks.

Lynsab

Very good post

The UK has the most independent Judiciary in the world and those people who are complaining of the system should both read the judgement and, more importantly, some of the transcripts of the precedent cases referred to in reaching their determination and be grateful we have such a system in place to curb any excesses of Parliament or other governing bodies. In a great many countries the lady who initiated this case would either now be in prison for the rest of her life or dead.

Well done KG keep it up.

Rita

[Wee Stumpy]

Well Done Rita for wading through it twice and also some of the other decisions it alluded to! I have to say that I tried but it was a bit too complex for me.

[Mr Patient]

Rita Sherry- thank you for your informative post based on your research and experience- quality input!
I am always eager to read the measured posts contributed by KG, and invariably I learn something!
I am extremely cautious about believing anything stated in the "media" irrespective of its putative "impartiality".