DS Forums

 
 

Supreme Court Brexit Appeal


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-12-2016, 16:07
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,743
Eadie now trying to use yesterday's motion to help support his case. Thought he would. It's probably why May allowed yesterday to happen as it did.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-12-2016, 16:09
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Ah and May's little dirty number of last night's motion has just been shot down. Nice try though Eadie.

"Are you saying this will help you, if you're wrong about the 1972 and the 2015 Act?"
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:17
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,743
Okay what happens it the government lose at the SC but ignore the judgement - does the government get arrested
They can't ignore the judgement, giving notice would have no legal effect so we wouldn't have given notice even if they did... if you see what I mean.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:17
Aye Up
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,886
Apologies - that should have read Irish constitution (as alluded to by saying consent from all Irish people); the Irish constitution would be irrevocably altered by NI's exit from the EU and that can't happen without relevant consent.
That is a problem for Ireland to deal with, they don't get a say on us leaving the EU. We are not bound by their constitutional decisions, just like they aren't ours. The only issue that will crop up is the CTA and lack of hard borders, both I suspect will be maintained through some special provision in any deal we get with the EU.
Aye Up is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:20
wizzywick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 27,919
Parliament did know Article 50 is about withdrawal from EU' - QC
Posted at
16:01
James Eadie QC, for the government, insists that Article 50 is about withdrawal from the EU.

"We submit that's significant. The Royal prerogative powers which the 1972 act have done nothing to take away, remain," he said.

"It isn't a statutory power - Article 50 - but it involves Parliament and legislation recognising its existence and acknowledging its effect

"And all of that is critical... and what it tells one about Parliament's intention on the division of constitutional responsibility in relation to Article 50. This was the very mechanism by which the very thing which is now challenged was to be done and Parliament decided, as it did, no control."

He added:

It's absolutely obvious that if Article 50 notice is given, the process of withdrawal is commenced, the bullet is fired at the target, with all the potential effects that has on directly effected rights and obligations... The idea that Parliament didn't know that was the effect of Article 50 couldn't be sustained."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-37976580
wizzywick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:21
Aye Up
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West
Posts: 4,886
Okay what happens it the government lose at the SC but ignore the judgement - does the government get arrested
They won't ignore the judgement, else it would fly in the face of making parliament sovereign and establishing the supremacy of our judiciary. The government has said it won't appeal beyond the SC, as that would mean taking it to the ECJ which would be completely contradictory to what they want to achieve. As a further point the Govt pursued the appeal to at least gain clarity as to how prerogative powers can be used in future and also by what nature they need parliaments consent to invoke A50.
Aye Up is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:24
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
That is a problem for Ireland to deal with, they don't get a say on us leaving the EU. We are not bound by their constitutional decisions, just like they aren't ours. The only issue that will crop up is the CTA and lack of hard borders, both I suspect will be maintained through some special provision in any deal we get with the EU.
It isn't as NI is intrinsically linked to the Republic. Do your homework.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:25
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Parliament did know Article 50 is about withdrawal from EU' - QC
Posted at
16:01
James Eadie QC, for the government, insists that Article 50 is about withdrawal from the EU.

"We submit that's significant. The Royal prerogative powers which the 1972 act have done nothing to take away, remain," he said.

"It isn't a statutory power - Article 50 - but it involves Parliament and legislation recognising its existence and acknowledging its effect

"And all of that is critical... and what it tells one about Parliament's intention on the division of constitutional responsibility in relation to Article 50. This was the very mechanism by which the very thing which is now challenged was to be done and Parliament decided, as it did, no control."

He added:

It's absolutely obvious that if Article 50 notice is given, the process of withdrawal is commenced, the bullet is fired at the target, with all the potential effects that has on directly effected rights and obligations... The idea that Parliament didn't know that was the effect of Article 50 couldn't be sustained."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-37976580
Watch the analysis on BBC News right now. Every single expert is in agreement. There is no case for the appeal.

Eadie has majorly messed up this afternoon.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:26
OLD HIPPY GUY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: I survived the killzone!
Posts: 18,265
Actually the UK employment regulations are better than most EU countries, most Employment regulations the EU come up with has an opt out clause rendering them useless.

BIB

No most didn't; some people who voted Remain think we thought that but if you can read minds let me know how you do it - it could come in handy.
Every UK employment law can be discarded at the whim of the government in power at the time, whereas the EU laws could not be,

why do you think so many Tories mention "EU meddling in our employment laws" as one of the reasons for leaving?
I can't remember the name of the Tory minister (I'm sure someone will help) who said that being free from the restraints of EU employment laws was "an exciting prospect"

Boris Johnson has said that "British workers will have to learn to be more flexible" in their attitudes towards employment rights once we leave the EU,

Priti Patel is also on record saying words to the effect of, leaving the EU will free British business from the restrictions imposed by EU employment laws.
She also claims that the average British worker is lazy, it certainly does not bode well for the working poor.

Fortunately for me I shall be claiming my old age pension by the time we are out, although the signs are that pensioners are being set up to be the next Tory targets for the "scrounger" treatment.
OLD HIPPY GUY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:28
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Every UK employment law can be discarded at the whim of the government in power at the time, whereas the EU laws could not be,

why do you think so many Tories mention "EU meddling in our employment laws" as one of the reasons for leaving?
I can't remember the name of the Tory minister (I'm sure someone will help) who said that being free from the restraints of EU employment laws was "an exciting prospect"

Boris Johnson has said that "British workers will have to learn to be more flexible" in their attitudes towards employment rights once we leave the EU,

Priti Patel is also on record saying words to the effect of, leaving the EU will free British business from the restrictions imposed by EU employment laws.
She also claims that the average British worker is lazy, it certainly does not bode well for the working poor.

Fortunately for me I shall be claiming my old age pension by the time we are out, although the signs are that pensioners are being set up to be the next Tory targets for the "scrounger" treatment.
Regardless of all of that, - large amount of domestic employment legislation would be nullified by exiting the EU. It can't happen without Parliament.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:36
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,743
Strikes me that the Miller case is essentially simple and basic: Only an Act of Parliament can remove an Act of Parliament fundamentally altering domestic law.

On the other hand the Government's case amounts to a whole load of "yes but no but yes but no but..." .

Hopefully the SC will cut right though all the Government obfuscation and go straight to the heart of the matter: Can ministers remove an Act of Parliament of this kind without the specific authority of parliament. The answer will be, with a bit of luck, a firm 'no'.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:38
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,814
Okay what happens it the government lose at the SC but ignore the judgement - does the government get arrested
An Art 50 application can only be valid if given in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the (relevant) member state. Therefore if the Government acts contrary to the SC ruling on our constitutional situation, any art 50 application would be invalid.

Mind you, that wouldn't surprise me...
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:40
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
Everyone has a right to assume anything given thoughtcrime isn't illegal. However that is no guarantee that said assumptions are right.

Having a right to assume is not the same as being right to assume .

Obviously the lack of a sarcasm emoticon means I'm reading something into what you're saying that may not be intended.
Correction; anyone can assume anything but assumptions are not always right.

There isn't any 'rights' involved in it other than freedom of choice and actions unless it breaks the law.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:42
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,761
Every UK employment law can be discarded at the whim of the government in power at the time, whereas the EU laws could not be,

why do you think so many Tories mention "EU meddling in our employment laws" as one of the reasons for leaving?
I can't remember the name of the Tory minister (I'm sure someone will help) who said that being free from the restraints of EU employment laws was "an exciting prospect"

Boris Johnson has said that "British workers will have to learn to be more flexible" in their attitudes towards employment rights once we leave the EU,

Priti Patel is also on record saying words to the effect of, leaving the EU will free British business from the restrictions imposed by EU employment laws.
She also claims that the average British worker is lazy, it certainly does not bode well for the working poor.

Fortunately for me I shall be claiming my old age pension by the time we are out, although the signs are that pensioners are being set up to be the next Tory targets for the "scrounger" treatment.
if they tried that, it would play right into the hands of the labour party whos popularity would incease, union strength and strikes could ensue.

im not sure the tories would risk their current dominance by restricting workers rights
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:48
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
Say that again please. What would you like me to back up?
Well you asked if I could back up my statement contradicting HG well I don't actually need to so I assume with your post you agree with HG so back his statement up to contradict me.

It is a simple request and after all you are the HR Guru I am willing to be educated by you oh great one.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 16:52
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Well you asked if I could back up my statement contradicting HG well I don't actually need to so I assume with your post you agree with HG so back his statement up to contradict me.

It is a simple request and after all you are the HR Guru I am willing to be educated by you oh great one.
You claimed:

Actually the UK employment regulations are better than most EU countries, most Employment regulations the EU come up with has an opt out clause rendering them useless..

So I asked for the bit in bold. I know there isn't any apart from the Working Time Regulations 48 hour/week rule which only the UK has an opt out to because we wanted one.

So again, please give us some examples to back up your claim.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 17:03
Kiteview
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,814
if they tried that, it would play right into the hands of the labour party whos popularity would incease, union strength and strikes could ensue.

im not sure the tories would risk their current dominance by restricting workers rights
That's rather muddled thinking.

Based on that logic, if we desire increased support for employment rights in the country, we should all vote for a party dedicated to destroying those rights in the hope we'd create a backlash that would lead to increased employment rights. Equally, the same logic (in reverse) would apply if we desire increased pro-business rights.

So a Labour Party supporter should vote Conservative and vice versa.

And the Leave voters must therefore all be pro-EU and the Remain ones anti-EU.
Kiteview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 17:15
DinkyDoobie
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 17,092
Strikes me that the Miller case is essentially simple and basic: Only an Act of Parliament can remove an Act of Parliament fundamentally altering domestic law.
Do you mean an act that fundamentally alters domestic law or that the removal will fundamentally alter domestic law?

Because they seem to me to be of the opinion that Government can alter rights but can't remove them which seems odd.
DinkyDoobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 17:16
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,231
Strikes me that the Miller case is essentially simple and basic: Only an Act of Parliament can remove an Act of Parliament fundamentally altering domestic law.

On the other hand the Government's case amounts to a whole load of "yes but no but yes but no but..." .

Hopefully the SC will cut right though all the Government obfuscation and go straight to the heart of the matter: Can ministers remove an Act of Parliament of this kind without the specific authority of parliament. The answer will be, with a bit of luck, a firm 'no'.
the government case is that we can do it - unless Parliament says do it another way. If they wanted it done another way, they would have said so.

the opposing case is that the prerogative is very limited, and can't be used here , unless thats decided by Parliament

That comes down to lots of aging preceedents , because lawyers make their money by counting angels on pin heads , and reading what some long dead member of the brotherhood wrote - rather than applying logic , or common sense, or researching and reading intent.

Its going to come down to what the lady QC this afternoon was talking about - what lawyers said about Henry 1Vs, and William 111 proposals to change laws. Also mention of Ross Mcwhirter's case against EU entry - final victory for him perhaps - but for the other side. on EU membership..

No idea what happens to the Welsh and Scottish requirement for their consent. Difficult to see how they can be not trying to stop brexit , or how the Scots could possibly consent. Too little said, though, to know whats going on with that case, that looks a bigger show stopper.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:06
clinch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,626
What to make of this?

During evidence, Lord Neuberger said: “To the man in the street it sounds a bit odd if one says to the Government you have to go back to Parliament to have an act of Parliament passed to show what Parliament’s will is when you have already been to Parliament and had a motion before both Houses which serves the notice.

“It does seem a bit odd doesn’t it?”

He was speaking as Lord Pannick QC, the lawyer for pro-EU campaigner Gina Miller, claimed the motion voted on by MPs tonight would not be good enough.

Lord Pannick said: “The law of the land is not altered by a motion in Parliament. This is a basic constitutional principle.”

But another of the Supreme Court’s 11 judges, Lord Carnwath said it was “a point that’s been troubling me”.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/235262...k-brexit-plan/
clinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:12
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Of course the Sun left the rest out; I.e. That the judges agreed the motion had no impact and does not replace an Act, should they rule it necessary.

Or indeed the fact that they told Eadie in no certain terms that the motion is irrelevant at the end of his coding statement.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:14
Mr Oleo Strut
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,334
Very interesting. What it has confirmed for me is the totally unsatisfactory nature of the British constitutional arrangements, especially use of the Royal Prorogative and manipulation of political procedures to bypass Parliament. It is all a shabby, devious throwback to murky medieval times, and it must be cleaned up now. If the establishment don't like it they can pack their bags and clear off to their tax-havens as soon as they like. The U.K. Is no longer the private plaything of the Monarchy and their cronies. The UK desperately needs a proper written constitution to protect us from predatory and devious politicians.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:14
clinch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,626
Of course the Sun left the rest out; I.e. That the judges agreed the motion had no impact and does not replace an Act, should they rule it necessary.

Or indeed the fact that they told Eadie in no certain terms that the motion is irrelevant at the end of his coding statement.
Should they rule it necessary.

This was also interesting in the Guardian.

Pannick tough questioning on the legal effect of the 2015 act with the court’s president, Lord Neuberger, who suggested it may have been sufficient for the government to say it has ceded power to the people. “It would be a bit surprising if the referendum act and the referendum had no effect in law,” said Neuberger.
clinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:19
HR Guru
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,670
Should they rule it necessary.

This was also interesting in the Guardian.
I'm predicitng now that the appeal will not be upheld. I was right about the HC and I'm more confident about this one. Notwithstanding further issues re devolution.

As for you second bit - it was later concluded that the Ref Act has done its job; to hold the referendum legally. It has no further content or use.
HR Guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2016, 18:23
luckylegs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Parliment Sq waving a banner
Posts: 3,300
There isn't anything to defend really, the devolved institutions don't get a say on foreign policy, that is reserved for Westminster of which all constituent nations have representation. Its funny how Scotland is arguing for a say yet didn't push for a one when the Lisbon treaty was agreed and enacted. They didn't argue for a say when Westminster backed a motion for military action in Syria. Holyrood can't just pick and choose what legislation or motions they want to scrutnise.

Invoking A50 is a foreign policy issue and Scotland, Wales, NI have sufficient representation in Westminster to hold the government to account.
Indeed they do.
luckylegs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:39.