Brexit.

[seafoid]

Article 50 notification is taken out of Theresa May's hands
The rights of citizens can only be extinguished by legislature
David Allen Green

https://www.ft.com/content/e22dd71e-a1b6-11e6-aa83-bcb58d1d2193

The High Court ruled on Thursday that it would be unlawful for the UK's prime minister to send the Article 50 notification to start the process of leaving the EU without an Act of Parliament. Unless and until this judgment is appealed, this is the law of the land. The matter is out of Theresa May's hands. She cannot by herself send the notification, even if she wanted to do so. It would be against the law.
A court of the UK has determined that the notification has to be authorised by parliament. The use of the so-called "royal prerogative" (a grand but misleading term for the unilateral legal powers of the British executive) is insufficient. If the government wants to make a decision that would directly lead, in two years or so, to 45 years of EU law being undone and the rights of citizens being extinguished then it has to be done by the legislature and not by fiat of the prime minister.
The High Court decision is a good one and it should be welcomed, even by those who ultimately want the UK to leave the EU. It puts parliament centre stage. If Brexit is to go ahead and be made a success then it will be because it was driven through by a sovereign parliament, rather than by ministers using executive powers. This is what "taking back control" should mean.
The judgment looks, at early glance, to be almost appeal-proof. It was made unanimously by three experienced appeal judges, sitting exceptionally at first instance: they are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the leading public law judge at the court of appeal. It is reasoned and detailed. At one point, the court appears to hold that the government's case was too weak to win on its own terms, regardless of the claimants' case.
Why did the government lose? It seems that the crucial issue is the impact on the rights of citizens. If the Article 50 notification is irrevocable then the argument is that these rights will be removed automatically in due course. This cannot be done, other than by an Act of Parliament.
The government could have side-stepped this difficulty by not accepting that the notification was irrevocable (and many, including Lord Kerr who wrote Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, say a notification must be revocable). But it saw this legally sensible move as politically unacceptable. Looking at the judgment, the impression is that the government's concession on this crucial point determined the outcome of the case.
That said, the decision on Thursday was not a foregone conclusion. The courts are usually reluctant to encroach into political matters, and there is often judicial deference to the royal prerogative. For every decision like the one made on Thursday, there are many others where judges nod like lambs before the throne at unpleasant exercises of executive discretion. One could imagine a court deciding this case differently.
The government has announced that it will appeal against the court's decision. If so, that will be heard before the Supreme Court, probably early next month. All 11 current justices of the court will hear the case and at least one, Lord Sumption, can be expected not to be indulgent to the claimants' case, as he has expressed strong views that the courts should not determine political questions.
Next time round, the government will have the benefit of knowing how the case will be argued against them. At first instance, the claimants' lead advocate Lord Pannick QC gave a stunning and powerful "reply" to the defence: at the Supreme Court, the government's lawyers will be more ready for his submissions.
The problems caused by Thursday's defeat were entirely the prime minister's creation. Mrs May determined that the notification had to be done by prerogative and she even set a deadline of March next year. Both were her decisions. No doubt she regarded any advice that it should be done by a parliamentary vote as unhelpful.
But there is only so much any prime minister can do, even with the British constitution, by putting one's head down and charging. The rules of reality are always there.
The referendum result was clear: the majority of those who voted want the UK to leave the EU. But nothing else is clear, including the means by which that momentous exercise is done, the timing of the exercise and what replaces the current relationship. In a parliamentary democracy, it is right that these matters be debated and decided openly by parliament, not determined privately by the executive.
This is what real sovereignty looks like.
The writer is a lawyer and journalist, and author of the Financial Times law and policy blog

[No wides]

Did Norn Ireland high court not deem it was lawful!!

[screenexile]

Did Norn Ireland high court not deem it was lawful!!

Arlene's mates likely!!

[Milltown Row2]

Article 50 notification is taken out of Theresa May's hands
The rights of citizens can only be extinguished by legislature
David Allen Green

https://www.ft.com/content/e22dd71e-a1b6-11e6-aa83-bcb58d1d2193

The High Court ruled on Thursday that it would be unlawful for the UK's prime minister to send the Article 50 notification to start the process of leaving the EU without an Act of Parliament. Unless and until this judgment is appealed, this is the law of the land. The matter is out of Theresa May's hands. She cannot by herself send the notification, even if she wanted to do so. It would be against the law.
A court of the UK has determined that the notification has to be authorised by parliament. The use of the so-called "royal prerogative" (a grand but misleading term for the unilateral legal powers of the British executive) is insufficient. If the government wants to make a decision that would directly lead, in two years or so, to 45 years of EU law being undone and the rights of citizens being extinguished then it has to be done by the legislature and not by fiat of the prime minister.
The High Court decision is a good one and it should be welcomed, even by those who ultimately want the UK to leave the EU. It puts parliament centre stage. If Brexit is to go ahead and be made a success then it will be because it was driven through by a sovereign parliament, rather than by ministers using executive powers. This is what "taking back control" should mean.
The judgment looks, at early glance, to be almost appeal-proof. It was made unanimously by three experienced appeal judges, sitting exceptionally at first instance: they are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the leading public law judge at the court of appeal. It is reasoned and detailed. At one point, the court appears to hold that the government's case was too weak to win on its own terms, regardless of the claimants' case.
Why did the government lose? It seems that the crucial issue is the impact on the rights of citizens. If the Article 50 notification is irrevocable then the argument is that these rights will be removed automatically in due course. This cannot be done, other than by an Act of Parliament.
The government could have side-stepped this difficulty by not accepting that the notification was irrevocable (and many, including Lord Kerr who wrote Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, say a notification must be revocable). But it saw this legally sensible move as politically unacceptable. Looking at the judgment, the impression is that the government's concession on this crucial point determined the outcome of the case.
That said, the decision on Thursday was not a foregone conclusion. The courts are usually reluctant to encroach into political matters, and there is often judicial deference to the royal prerogative. For every decision like the one made on Thursday, there are many others where judges nod like lambs before the throne at unpleasant exercises of executive discretion. One could imagine a court deciding this case differently.
The government has announced that it will appeal against the court's decision. If so, that will be heard before the Supreme Court, probably early next month. All 11 current justices of the court will hear the case and at least one, Lord Sumption, can be expected not to be indulgent to the claimants' case, as he has expressed strong views that the courts should not determine political questions.
Next time round, the government will have the benefit of knowing how the case will be argued against them. At first instance, the claimants' lead advocate Lord Pannick QC gave a stunning and powerful "reply" to the defence: at the Supreme Court, the government's lawyers will be more ready for his submissions.
The problems caused by Thursday's defeat were entirely the prime minister's creation. Mrs May determined that the notification had to be done by prerogative and she even set a deadline of March next year. Both were her decisions. No doubt she regarded any advice that it should be done by a parliamentary vote as unhelpful.
But there is only so much any prime minister can do, even with the British constitution, by putting one's head down and charging. The rules of reality are always there.
The referendum result was clear: the majority of those who voted want the UK to leave the EU. But nothing else is clear, including the means by which that momentous exercise is done, the timing of the exercise and what replaces the current relationship. In a parliamentary democracy, it is right that these matters be debated and decided openly by parliament, not determined privately by the executive.
This is what real sovereignty looks like.
The writer is a lawyer and journalist, and author of the Financial Times law and policy blog

So personally how does that sit with you?

[seafoid]

MR I think it is all chaotic. From an Irish point of view it is weird to see England going postal.
I don't think Brexit will solve anything.
The UK needs payrises.
It is all very sad.

I think Brexit might be an attempt at a right wing coup.

[Rossfan]

Hopefully the Scots will get the courage to go Independent and bring an end to the so called "United Kingdom" which is and has always been "Grossengland".

[armaghniac]

Hopefully the Scots will get the courage to go Independent and bring an end to the so called "United Kingdom" which is and has always been "Grossengland".

Sadly, I don't think they will. Although these events hardly do anything to bring Scotland and England together, the economics are problematic. A bit like this island.

[passedit]

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

[seafoid]

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/794474117156237312

class

[seafoid]

Pure chaos

A Guardian article on the Daily Mail's vile headlines today has over ten thousand comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/04/enemies-of-the-people-british-newspapers-react-judges-brexit-ruling

[seafoid]

It will hurt down South but will be even more painful in the occupied territories. England is toxic

http://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/a-hard-brexit-will-wipe-12bn-off-our-economy-experts-warn-35193652.html

[No wides]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/08/toblerone-gap-brexit-falling-pound-2016

[muppet]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-08/india-pushes-u-k-to-figure-out-its-economic-future

The best thing about Brexit, is that it may just have saved us from Trump.

[LeoMc]

Did Norn Ireland high court not deem it was lawful!!

They deemed that the particular claim made was without merit, that the clauses in the GFA were not intrinsically linked to EU membership.

[armaghniac]

Join the elite! A £5 treble on Leicester to win the football, us to vote Brexit and Trump to win would have returned £5million.