Supreme Court

[The Rivet]

What is astonishing about these various moves to frustrate the result of the referendum is that the people involved have so little respect for democracy, and so little self-awareness. They arrogantly believe that their minority views should prevail in the face of the clear majority decision of the British people. Many of them seem coloured by the view that people who voted to Leave are stupid, uneducated, xenophobic, racist and live outside London, and accordingly their votes are worth less than their own educated and enlightened votes cast by people such as them in London or (even better) in Hampstead.

It is deeply disturbing that any citizens of this country should be so dismissive of the democratic rights of millions of their decent and intelligent fellow countrymen and countrywomen, who cast their votes in the poll with the highest national turnout for 24 years. The 17,410,000 people who voted to leave the European Union were the highest number ever to have voted in the history of the United Kingdom for a proposition or for a political party.

The astonishing arrogance, petulance, and desperate plotting to negate the democratic decision of the British people which has been displayed since the referendum result was announced is a deeply worrying symptom of the great damage which 40 years of EU membership has done to our sense of national and civic cohesion. The EU has persistently pursued policies which at every level are designed to weaken the bonds which bind us together as a nation. Its technique is to recruit an elite inside each Member State which regards its primary allegiance as being to the EU and not the country, and which is rewarded with power and influence in return for keeping the populace under control.

It is by leaving the European Union that we can begin the long term process of healing our nation from this disease, and re-unify our people once again as members of a proud independent self-governing nation.

 

[Half Time Pies]

I am surprised that leavers wouldn't want the governments plans properly scrutinised before article 50 is triggered. If you voted leave on the basis of getting back control of our boarders or saving the money that we currently contribute to the EU then are you going to be happy with a deal which doesn't deliver on these issues?

This isn't as simple as 'out means out', if it was then we wouldn't need to go through 2 years of negotiation, we have been intwined within this organisation for the best part of 40 years and need to make sure that what we end of with is the best deal for the UK, you can't just leave the EU with a au-revoir and a carriage clock!

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

What is astonishing about these various moves to frustrate the result of the referendum is that the people involved have so little respect for democracy, and so little self-awareness. They arrogantly believe that their minority views should prevail in the face of the clear majority decision of the British people. Many of them seem coloured by the view that people who voted to Leave are stupid, uneducated, xenophobic, racist and live outside London, and accordingly their votes are worth less than their own educated and enlightened votes cast by people such as them in London or (even better) in Hampstead.

It is deeply disturbing that any citizens of this country should be so dismissive of the democratic rights of millions of their decent and intelligent fellow countrymen and countrywomen, who cast their votes in the poll with the highest national turnout for 24 years. The 17,410,000 people who voted to leave the European Union were the highest number ever to have voted in the history of the United Kingdom for a proposition or for a political party.

The astonishing arrogance, petulance, and desperate plotting to negate the democratic decision of the British people which has been displayed since the referendum result was announced is a deeply worrying symptom of the great damage which 40 years of EU membership has done to our sense of national and civic cohesion. The EU has persistently pursued policies which at every level are designed to weaken the bonds which bind us together as a nation. Its technique is to recruit an elite inside each Member State which regards its primary allegiance as being to the EU and not the country, and which is rewarded with power and influence in return for keeping the populace under control.

It is by leaving the European Union that we can begin the long term process of healing our nation from this disease, and re-unify our people once again as members of a proud independent self-governing nation.

History said our miss last season was closer,yet we are where we are,we lost.....perhaps we should go to court.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

None of which has any relevance to what's going on in the Supreme Court.

There are still too many ignorant people who don't understand Parliament, don't understand how the judiciary is enacted and are simply slavering at a way-too-facile notion that 'Brexit Means Brexit'; itself a totally meaningless phrase. Theresa May has NO mandate and no right to bypass Parliament on this, and the Supreme Court is reminding everyone of this fact. It would put her squarely in the role of Dictator, something you believe you've voted against.

The law is being carried out - mostly at the wish of those who voted to Leave, and yet those same people patently refuse to understand this very basic point. Christ alone knows what it will be like when things get complicated.

Seriously, learn how the judiciary and British Parliament operates (the system you so cravenly desire). This isn't 'stirring the pot'; this is making sure Sovereignty (something else you voted for) is being enacted. It really couldn't be simpler than that.

Constitutional law is not a spectator sport and is not exciting. But it is important. It is also interesting how the leavers appear to be all in favour of a dictatorship by the executive, and against any scrutiny and holding to account by the people's elected representatives.

The country has lumbered itself with a policy it doesn't understand and to date has little or no idea of how to implement.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

What is astonishing about these various moves to frustrate the result of the referendum is that the people involved have so little respect for democracy, and so little self-awareness. They arrogantly believe that their minority views should prevail in the face of the clear majority decision of the British people. Many of them seem coloured by the view that people who voted to Leave are stupid, uneducated, xenophobic, racist and live outside London, and accordingly their votes are worth less than their own educated and enlightened votes cast by people such as them in London or (even better) in Hampstead.

It is deeply disturbing that any citizens of this country should be so dismissive of the democratic rights of millions of their decent and intelligent fellow countrymen and countrywomen, who cast their votes in the poll with the highest national turnout for 24 years. The 17,410,000 people who voted to leave the European Union were the highest number ever to have voted in the history of the United Kingdom for a proposition or for a political party.

The astonishing arrogance, petulance, and desperate plotting to negate the democratic decision of the British people which has been displayed since the referendum result was announced is a deeply worrying symptom of the great damage which 40 years of EU membership has done to our sense of national and civic cohesion. The EU has persistently pursued policies which at every level are designed to weaken the bonds which bind us together as a nation. Its technique is to recruit an elite inside each Member State which regards its primary allegiance as being to the EU and not the country, and which is rewarded with power and influence in return for keeping the populace under control.

It is by leaving the European Union that we can begin the long term process of healing our nation from this disease, and re-unify our people once again as members of a proud independent self-governing nation.

spot on , priviliged few trying to call the shots, very democratic eh
regards
DR

 

[Gwylan]

If I were a Brexiter, of the views of PPF, I would be pretty annoyed the gun hasn't been fired. What is the point of waiting to develop a negociating path, when the outcome must be Brexit? We fire the gun, then spend the best part of 2 years asking for whatever we can get. That cn be the only plan, surely? Arguably we may have a few things that the Europeans might want to negociate for. I can't think of anything off the top of my head; maybe access to Europe's financial powerhouse - London; but I am sure Berlin, Frankfurt etc would be willing to 'step in'.

Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, there are some massive decisions to be made. Obviously, tariffs are going to be a stumbling block but there are others too. Financial passports for banks, farming subsidies, fishing policies, co-operation with European police forces and security services, academic co-operation, pharmaceutical testing and dozens more. Then there's how much we continue to pay the EU - both David Davis and Boris seem to accept that we'll continue paying something, the question is going to be how much

There are also two big sticking points: the legal status of EU citizens here and of UK citizens abroad and a real, thorny problem that won't be easy to solve: the status of Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement assumes that both countries are in the EU, there's going to be some tricky negotiating there.

The point of the Supreme Court case is that discussions on these will now come before parliament. If the original decision is upheld, there's going to be real scrutiny on all of these and can't be conducted behind closed doors. That's going to be for the benefit of all of us

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

spot on , priviliged few trying to call the shots, very democratic eh
regards
DR

Brilliant irony

You are talking about PM May and co. trying to perhaps ignore the law, yes ?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Brilliant irony

You are talking about PM May and co. trying to perhaps ignore the law, yes ?

600 odd mp's already voted to give us a referendum,twice and passed an act on the understanding it was black or white yes or no remain or leave.......more than Ted Heath......therefore we will shortly be leaving the EU.....

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Brilliant irony

You are talking about PM May and co. trying to perhaps ignore the law, yes ?

no , I'm not
regards
DR

 

[The Rivet]

Brilliant irony

You are talking about PM May and co. trying to perhaps ignore the law, yes ?

BS......here is another viewpoint.

The law on invoking Article 50

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union was inserted into that Treaty by the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. It is often (inaccurately) referred to as “Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon”. It entitles any Member State to withdraw from the European Union and sets out (in broad outline) the procedure to be followed. Article 50(1) and the first sentence of Article 50(2) set out in very simple terms how the process of withdrawal is begun:
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ...”
As paragraph 1 above confirms, the constitutional law of each Member State governs how that State shall take a decision to withdraw and who, under its national law, has power to take such a decision. The procedure by which this will done will vary from State to State. For example, where, as in the case of some States, membership of the EU has been embedded into the national constitution, it might be necessary to amend that constitution by some special procedure in order for the State to make a valid decision to withdraw.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which spells out who has the power to take a decision to withdraw from the EU and communicate that decision to the European Council. Therefore, one starts by looking at the general law on who has the power to conclude and withdraw from international treaties. And the general rule is quite clear. Under the UK’s constitution, it is the Crown (the Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative in practice on the advice of government ministers) which has the power to enter into and withdraw from international treaties.

Before 2010, there was no legal requirement for Parliament to approve the ratification of treaties or even to be consulted, although there was a constitutional convention (the “Ponsonby rule”) under which the government undertook to lay treaties in front of Parliament 21 days before ratification. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, sections 20 to 25, put the Ponsonby rule on a statutory footing and empowers the House of Commons (but not the House of Lords) to block the ratification of a treaty by passing a resolution against it.

Many international treaties contain provisions similar to Article 50 which allow notice to be given withdrawing from or terminating the treaty. The 2010 Act applies to the initial ratification of a treaty, but does not apply to the giving of a notice withdrawing from it or terminating it, or indeed to measures or decisions made under it (as made clear by section 25(2)). Accordingly, the giving of a notice of termination or withdrawal of a treaty in general remains part of the prerogative powers of the Crown untrammelled by any legal requirement for the approval of Parliament.

In the Miller case, the judgment of the Divisional Court argues that there is an exception to this general rule in the case of the EU Treaties because they give rise to legal rights. This argument is now subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Although the Crown has extensive powers over international treaties which as a matter of law can be exercised without reference to Parliament, it has no power to alter the internal laws of the United Kingdom. This can only be done by Parliament, or under specific powers granted by Parliament. This means that the Crown is in practice unable to ratify international treaties which contain obligations to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom without Parliament first having made the necessary changes in the law, or at least being very confident that Parliament will make the required changes, or it would end up in breach of its international treaty obligations.

It is sometimes loosely said that Parliament has “ratified” a treaty when it passes an Act which gives effect to a treaty in the UK’s internal law. But this is inaccurate - Parliament enacts the necessary changes in the law and the Crown then ratifies the treaty under its prerogative powers. They are separate acts, one by Parliament the law-maker, and the other by the Crown exercising its international treaty powers.

Parliament has made the necessary changes in the UK’s internal laws to give effect to the European Union treaties, mainly through the European Communities Act 1972. This was passed in 1972 in order to give effect to the Treaty of Rome which applied to the United Kingdom from 1 January 1973. Whenever the Treaty of Rome has been amended, Parliament has passed another Act amending the 1972 Act in order to give the necessary effect in the UK’s internal law to the European treaties as amended.

But the fact that the European Communities Act 1972 gives effect to the European treaties in UK internal law does not exclude the prerogative powers of the Crown in relation to the operation of those treaties on the international plane. And actions taken by the Crown on the international plane will have consequential effects of altering legal rights and obligations within the UK. For example, if a Minister votes in the Council of Ministers in favour of a Regulation which is directly applicable inside Member States, that Regulation will then alter legal rights and obligations which are available in the UK.

The giving of notice under Article 50(2) of the Treaty of European Union is an act on the international plane, which alters or affects the UK’s international treaty obligations by bringing the UK’s adherence to the EU treaties to an end after a maximum 2 year period. Clearly this will then produce a consequential effect on legal rights and obligations available in the UK, since once we leave the EU, its various laws and rules will cease to apply internally in the UK. But the primary effect is on the international plane, and the subsequent effect on domestic law is consequential.

The Miller judgment suggests that Parliament by enacting the 1972 Act has (by implication) restricted the exercise of the royal prerogative, so preventing the Crown from giving notice under Article 50 without the consent of Parliament. The argument has to be based on implication because there is nothing in the express words of the 1972 Act or any Acts of Parliament which follow it which restrict the Crown’s right to exercise this international treaty power.

There are however three answers to this argument.

First, there is no coherent or logical basis for arguing that Parliament has not impliedly restricted the exercise of the prerogative where a Minister of the Crown takes an action which increases EU powers, for example by voting for a new Regulation in the Council of Ministers, but arguing that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of the prerogative power in a case where (under Article 50) the exercise of the power results in a reduction of EU powers.

Secondly, the proposition that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of prerogative powers under the European treaties has been rejected by the courts. In R v Foreign Secretary ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 (Lord Rees-Mogg’s unsuccessful challenge against the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty), Lord Lloyd giving the judgment of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court rejected an argument that the European Communities Act 1972 impliedly restricted the exercise of the Royal prerogative under the European treaties. He said: “When Parliament wishes to fetter the Crown's treaty-making power in relation to Community law, it does so in express terms, ...”

Thirdly and compellingly, the argument that Parliament has impliedly restricted the prerogative power of the Crown under Article 50 is impossible to reconcile with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act was passed to enable the UK to adhere to the Lisbon Treaty by adding it into the list of European treaties in section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972. As pointed out above, the Lisbon Treaty amended the Treaty on European Union by inserting Article 50 into it, as well as making a large number of other amendments to that Treaty and to the Treaty of Rome (which it renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or “TFEU”).

But nowhere in the 2008 Act in there any restriction upon the exercise of the Royal prerogative to give notice under Article 50. By contrast, section 5 of the 2008 Act imposed an explicit restriction on the Royal prerogative by requiring that any amendment of the founding treaties under the Ordinary Revision Procedure of Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union cannot be ratified unless approved by Act of Parliament. In addition, section 6 imposed a requirement of Parliamentary approval (by resolution of both Houses) on a number of prerogative actions by Ministers of the Crown under certain other Articles of the Treaty on European Union and of the TFEU.

So Parliament in the 2008 Act created a detailed scheme under which Crown prerogative actions under certain specified Articles of the Treaties were explicitly made subject to Parliamentary control, either by a requirement for an Act of Parliament or for resolutions of both Houses. Since Parliament did NOT include Article 50 among the Treaty provisions where the acts of the Crown or of Ministers require Parliamentary approval, it is quite illogical to argue that such a restriction of the Royal prerogative arises by implication in the case of Article 50 and of other Treaty articles where Parliament has chosen to impose no such restriction.

In conclusion, the power in law to give a notification under Article 50 is a prerogative power of the Crown which may be exercised by the government without the need for Parliamentary consent or approval.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

BS......here is another viewpoint.

The law on invoking Article 50

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union was inserted into that Treaty by the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. It is often (inaccurately) referred to as “Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon”. It entitles any Member State to withdraw from the European Union and sets out (in broad outline) the procedure to be followed. Article 50(1) and the first sentence of Article 50(2) set out in very simple terms how the process of withdrawal is begun:
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. ...”
As paragraph 1 above confirms, the constitutional law of each Member State governs how that State shall take a decision to withdraw and who, under its national law, has power to take such a decision. The procedure by which this will done will vary from State to State. For example, where, as in the case of some States, membership of the EU has been embedded into the national constitution, it might be necessary to amend that constitution by some special procedure in order for the State to make a valid decision to withdraw.

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution which spells out who has the power to take a decision to withdraw from the EU and communicate that decision to the European Council. Therefore, one starts by looking at the general law on who has the power to conclude and withdraw from international treaties. And the general rule is quite clear. Under the UK’s constitution, it is the Crown (the Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative in practice on the advice of government ministers) which has the power to enter into and withdraw from international treaties.

Before 2010, there was no legal requirement for Parliament to approve the ratification of treaties or even to be consulted, although there was a constitutional convention (the “Ponsonby rule”) under which the government undertook to lay treaties in front of Parliament 21 days before ratification. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, sections 20 to 25, put the Ponsonby rule on a statutory footing and empowers the House of Commons (but not the House of Lords) to block the ratification of a treaty by passing a resolution against it.

Many international treaties contain provisions similar to Article 50 which allow notice to be given withdrawing from or terminating the treaty. The 2010 Act applies to the initial ratification of a treaty, but does not apply to the giving of a notice withdrawing from it or terminating it, or indeed to measures or decisions made under it (as made clear by section 25(2)). Accordingly, the giving of a notice of termination or withdrawal of a treaty in general remains part of the prerogative powers of the Crown untrammelled by any legal requirement for the approval of Parliament.

In the Miller case, the judgment of the Divisional Court argues that there is an exception to this general rule in the case of the EU Treaties because they give rise to legal rights. This argument is now subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Although the Crown has extensive powers over international treaties which as a matter of law can be exercised without reference to Parliament, it has no power to alter the internal laws of the United Kingdom. This can only be done by Parliament, or under specific powers granted by Parliament. This means that the Crown is in practice unable to ratify international treaties which contain obligations to alter the internal law of the United Kingdom without Parliament first having made the necessary changes in the law, or at least being very confident that Parliament will make the required changes, or it would end up in breach of its international treaty obligations.

It is sometimes loosely said that Parliament has “ratified” a treaty when it passes an Act which gives effect to a treaty in the UK’s internal law. But this is inaccurate - Parliament enacts the necessary changes in the law and the Crown then ratifies the treaty under its prerogative powers. They are separate acts, one by Parliament the law-maker, and the other by the Crown exercising its international treaty powers.

Parliament has made the necessary changes in the UK’s internal laws to give effect to the European Union treaties, mainly through the European Communities Act 1972. This was passed in 1972 in order to give effect to the Treaty of Rome which applied to the United Kingdom from 1 January 1973. Whenever the Treaty of Rome has been amended, Parliament has passed another Act amending the 1972 Act in order to give the necessary effect in the UK’s internal law to the European treaties as amended.

But the fact that the European Communities Act 1972 gives effect to the European treaties in UK internal law does not exclude the prerogative powers of the Crown in relation to the operation of those treaties on the international plane. And actions taken by the Crown on the international plane will have consequential effects of altering legal rights and obligations within the UK. For example, if a Minister votes in the Council of Ministers in favour of a Regulation which is directly applicable inside Member States, that Regulation will then alter legal rights and obligations which are available in the UK.

The giving of notice under Article 50(2) of the Treaty of European Union is an act on the international plane, which alters or affects the UK’s international treaty obligations by bringing the UK’s adherence to the EU treaties to an end after a maximum 2 year period. Clearly this will then produce a consequential effect on legal rights and obligations available in the UK, since once we leave the EU, its various laws and rules will cease to apply internally in the UK. But the primary effect is on the international plane, and the subsequent effect on domestic law is consequential.

The Miller judgment suggests that Parliament by enacting the 1972 Act has (by implication) restricted the exercise of the royal prerogative, so preventing the Crown from giving notice under Article 50 without the consent of Parliament. The argument has to be based on implication because there is nothing in the express words of the 1972 Act or any Acts of Parliament which follow it which restrict the Crown’s right to exercise this international treaty power.

There are however three answers to this argument.

First, there is no coherent or logical basis for arguing that Parliament has not impliedly restricted the exercise of the prerogative where a Minister of the Crown takes an action which increases EU powers, for example by voting for a new Regulation in the Council of Ministers, but arguing that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of the prerogative power in a case where (under Article 50) the exercise of the power results in a reduction of EU powers.

Secondly, the proposition that Parliament has impliedly restricted the exercise of prerogative powers under the European treaties has been rejected by the courts. In R v Foreign Secretary ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] QB 552 (Lord Rees-Mogg’s unsuccessful challenge against the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty), Lord Lloyd giving the judgment of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court rejected an argument that the European Communities Act 1972 impliedly restricted the exercise of the Royal prerogative under the European treaties. He said: “When Parliament wishes to fetter the Crown's treaty-making power in relation to Community law, it does so in express terms, ...”

Thirdly and compellingly, the argument that Parliament has impliedly restricted the prerogative power of the Crown under Article 50 is impossible to reconcile with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. That Act was passed to enable the UK to adhere to the Lisbon Treaty by adding it into the list of European treaties in section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972. As pointed out above, the Lisbon Treaty amended the Treaty on European Union by inserting Article 50 into it, as well as making a large number of other amendments to that Treaty and to the Treaty of Rome (which it renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or “TFEU”).

But nowhere in the 2008 Act in there any restriction upon the exercise of the Royal prerogative to give notice under Article 50. By contrast, section 5 of the 2008 Act imposed an explicit restriction on the Royal prerogative by requiring that any amendment of the founding treaties under the Ordinary Revision Procedure of Article 48(2) to (5) of the Treaty on European Union cannot be ratified unless approved by Act of Parliament. In addition, section 6 imposed a requirement of Parliamentary approval (by resolution of both Houses) on a number of prerogative actions by Ministers of the Crown under certain other Articles of the Treaty on European Union and of the TFEU.

So Parliament in the 2008 Act created a detailed scheme under which Crown prerogative actions under certain specified Articles of the Treaties were explicitly made subject to Parliamentary control, either by a requirement for an Act of Parliament or for resolutions of both Houses. Since Parliament did NOT include Article 50 among the Treaty provisions where the acts of the Crown or of Ministers require Parliamentary approval, it is quite illogical to argue that such a restriction of the Royal prerogative arises by implication in the case of Article 50 and of other Treaty articles where Parliament has chosen to impose no such restriction.

In conclusion, the power in law to give a notification under Article 50 is a prerogative power of the Crown which may be exercised by the government without the need for Parliamentary consent or approval.

With respect to whoever your quote is from, the supreme court will decide whether or not it is "BS".

That is the whole point.

 

[The Rivet]

With respect to whoever your quote is from, the supreme court will decide whether or not it is "BS".

That is the whole point.

Not only do I think you didn't read that but I don't think you can even understand it. Bs indeed!

 

[daveinprague]

'Parliamentary Democracy'. Clue is in the name.

 

[sir albion]

Will be glad when we can bloody move forward and depart in style as I'm bored shitless of these remoaning plonkers blabbering on.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

With respect to whoever your quote is from, the supreme court will decide whether or not it is "BS".

That is the whole point.

what are you scared of
regards
DR

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

what are you scared of
regards
DR

Good question. Not death for sure.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Not only do I think you didn't read that but I don't think you can even understand it. Bs indeed!

I didn't read it, no. Too long.

So no idea if I could understand it.

I was referring to your first few words.

 

[The Rivet]

I didn't read it, no. Too long.

So no idea if I could understand it.

I was referring to your first few words.

What definitive result do you want from leaving the EU? We are going to leave.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Good question. Not death for sure.

so you'll be happy to see the back of the EU then
regards
DR

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No it wasnt but it was her who pushed the out of touch judges to make a decision that wasnt needed as the people have spoken and I was a remain supporter, but dont agree with her motives.

The Judges are not there to be in touch or out of touch. It is a decision that needs to be made because although the people have spoken, this is about whether the Government or Parliament makes the decision as to when to invoke Article 50. The Supreme Court Judges are there because they know about the law! They are not there to decide whether article 50 is invoked, their sole task, as I understand it, is to decide who invokes it, in order to make sure it is all done right according to British law (Sovereignty!!!!)