Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No, it will be immediate
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
And Lagarde proposed to take over the ECB.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Thanks I understand the point you make and it maybe that is the case, I'd have thought that any act going through the UK parliament would be very clear. Maybe as here they deliberately make it vague, so if you can't get out of the door there could be a window open
I believe that in the UK no current government can bind and future government, so your point is a good one
Thanks I understand the point you make and it maybe that is the case, I'd have thought that any act going through the UK parliament would be very clear. Maybe as here they deliberately make it vague, so if you can't get out of the door there could be a window open
I believe that in the UK no current government can bind and future government, so your point is a good one
Its clear as legislation goes as they don’t rely on common sense language. A lot of the longer bills are terribly written as idiots write them and then don’t make any sense at all.
Every Parliament is theoretically sovereign and should not be able to bind another. Entrenching of constitutions was often done in former colonies but rarely practised in Westminster AFAIK.
Parliamentary drafting standards have gone to shit. Which means more work for lawyers.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
On your notion that legislation passing through parliament would be clear, it should be but there's been a great decline in the quality of drafted legislation which broadly coincided with the start of tony blair's administrationThanks I understand the point you make and it maybe that is the case, I'd have thought that any act going through the UK parliament would be very clear. Maybe as here they deliberately make it vague, so if you can't get out of the door there could be a window open
I believe that in the UK no current government can bind and future government, so your point is a good one
1%er
Well-Known Member
One expects more from the mother of Parliaments in this part of the world
Here everything is drafted with a get-out clause so those in the know can get themselves or their friend out of legal troubles.Half the members of both houses here are under criminal investigation for something and they almost always get away with it. Can you believe our last President was made President despite already having been convicted and banned from standing for political office for 8 years, the fact that he was already elected when the court banned him meant he could be President
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
More pertinently, if we default on the £38bn,
A) the EU will sue the arse off us,as that sum is simply our commitments going forward on obligations we have already signed up to and
B) Our credit rating would pretty much fall to "junk', ensuring that our costs for borrowing would skyrocket.
Goodbye, the economy....
Last edited:
The irony of bankers and assorted corporate gangsters bemoaning paying the divorce bill
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
They won’t pay it if they have any personal exposure. It’ll be either be covered by liability insurance or passed on to their customers. Profits are privatised and costs are nationalized.
Last edited:
MAD-T-REX
Well-Known Member
This Act is concerned with the initial notification to invoke the Article 50 procedure and nothing else. Section 1(2) exists to defeat an argument that the notification would be unlawful because it neutralises legislation (and any associated rights) introduced at any time, including legislation introduced up to the point of exiting the EU.
The SI of March 2019 was made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which allows 'exit day' to be changed through an SI - see section 20(2) to (5). There is no conflict with the 2017 Act since moving exit day doesn't undermine the power to make a notification.
teqniq
DisMembered
I'm putting this here for want of anywhere more appropriate.
Ex-MI6 chief: UK going through 'political nervous breakdown'
This bit is somewhat difficult to parse but I think he's saying that Corbyn is not fit to be PM along with the current contenders for the leadership of the vermin. Bit mangled though imo.
Ex-MI6 chief: UK going through 'political nervous breakdown'
This bit is somewhat difficult to parse but I think he's saying that Corbyn is not fit to be PM along with the current contenders for the leadership of the vermin. Bit mangled though imo.
JudithB
Well-Known Member
Supine
Newt Member
Why would bankers give a shit if the government pays its bill?
not-bono-ever
meh
As you can guess, SIS think Johnson is a serious liability. Ex SIS bosses do not come up with this stuff off their own backs- they never leave the service
Because generally they are paying the bill to bankers, and a key factor in interest rates is the reliability of the borrower.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
He's saying Corbyn is worse, irredeemable compared to the other two who might "develop that ("standing") when they become prime minister". To suddenly discover this state of affairs is very Captain Renault of him.
1%er
Well-Known Member
More on the legality of the extension to Article 50
Firstly, I'd like to make it clear I am not interested in the politics around Brexit or the people who have taken this case to court, just the law in this Court case.
Further to my post 28248 about the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, I have now had the chance of a face to face chat with the student who is looking at this for his Masters.
It seems that there has already been one court case and a ruling. The case was brought claiming that the UK government didn't have "statutory authority" to extend Article 50 pasted the 29th March 2019. Interestingly enough, the government "admitted" in documents placed before the court that they [the government] did not have statutory authority to extend Article 50 and that the extension was made by the prime minister under the "Royal Prerogative".
In dismissing the case the judge ruled that the extension to Article 50 was legal under "statutory authority", despite the fact that the government itself said in documents placed in-front of the judge, admitted they did not have "statutory authority" and the extension was granted by "Royal Prerogative". Clearly those who petitioned to the court in the first place find this ruling perverse, and have entered an appeal.
The appeal has two prongs, the first is that the judge appears to have ignored the governments admission that they did not have "statutory authority" to extend, and secondly, the judges ruling ignored and failed to mention in any part of his ruling that the extension was lawful because it was made by Royal Prerogative (as claimed by the governments lawyers during the case and was in fact their sole argument for the extension being lawful). The appeal then goes on to talk about the Gina Miller case (remember her?) and the ruling by the supreme court regarding the use of the Royal Prerogative, claiming that this action by the government in extending Article 50 by Royal Prerogative falls foul of the supreme court ruling in that case.
I have a feeling that is going to end up in the supreme court, but maybe not before October the 31st after which it may be irrelevant in any case
Firstly, I'd like to make it clear I am not interested in the politics around Brexit or the people who have taken this case to court, just the law in this Court case.
Further to my post 28248 about the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, I have now had the chance of a face to face chat with the student who is looking at this for his Masters.
It seems that there has already been one court case and a ruling. The case was brought claiming that the UK government didn't have "statutory authority" to extend Article 50 pasted the 29th March 2019. Interestingly enough, the government "admitted" in documents placed before the court that they [the government] did not have statutory authority to extend Article 50 and that the extension was made by the prime minister under the "Royal Prerogative".
In dismissing the case the judge ruled that the extension to Article 50 was legal under "statutory authority", despite the fact that the government itself said in documents placed in-front of the judge, admitted they did not have "statutory authority" and the extension was granted by "Royal Prerogative". Clearly those who petitioned to the court in the first place find this ruling perverse, and have entered an appeal.
The appeal has two prongs, the first is that the judge appears to have ignored the governments admission that they did not have "statutory authority" to extend, and secondly, the judges ruling ignored and failed to mention in any part of his ruling that the extension was lawful because it was made by Royal Prerogative (as claimed by the governments lawyers during the case and was in fact their sole argument for the extension being lawful). The appeal then goes on to talk about the Gina Miller case (remember her?) and the ruling by the supreme court regarding the use of the Royal Prerogative, claiming that this action by the government in extending Article 50 by Royal Prerogative falls foul of the supreme court ruling in that case.
I have a feeling that is going to end up in the supreme court, but maybe not before October the 31st after which it may be irrelevant in any case
MAD-T-REX
Well-Known Member
Sure.Hello could you expand on what this means for the uninformed like myself. Thank you
Parliament has passed a mountain of legislation relating to the UK's membership of the EU and Parliament is the top dog in our legal framework. Taking the UK out of the EU wouldn't formally repeal all of that legislation but would make a lot or most of it worthless. If the Prime Minister could take us out of the EU off their own bat, they would be able to cancel the effect of legislation passed by Parliament, which is supposed to be supreme.
The PM can normally conduct international relations as they see fit and that would include leaving an international organisation, but the effect of leaving the EU on UK legislation is so severe that (as the Supreme Court decided in the Gina Miller case) Parliamentary/statutory authority is needed to do it. In other words, the PM can only undermine all of the EU related legislation passed by Parliament if Parliament say it's OK.
That's where the 2017 Act comes in. Section 1(1) allows the PM to make the Article 50 notification and section 1(2) says that power is not subject to anything in other legislation.
For an example of other legislation, let's say that an Act gives an unquestionable and lifelong right to free milkshakes to all citizens/nationals of EU member states resident in the UK (which is how a lot of EU related legislation is phrased). If we leave the EU, UK citizens in the UK would lose that right as they would no longer be a citizen of a member state. The argument could be made that the PM, by making the notification, would be frustrating Parliament's clear intention to give everyone a free milkshake. Section 1(2) stops this argument dead as nothing in other legislation can prevent the PM making the notification.
Even if Parliament passed the 'Being in the EU is terrific and we should stay it in forever Act', the PM could still make the notification to leave unless that new Act amended or repealed section 1 because section 1(2) prevents it applying to the power in section 1(1).
Argonia
Happy go licky
'30-plus' Tory rebels willing to defy whip and block no-deal Brexit
'30-plus' Tory rebels willing to defy whip and block no-deal Brexit
De Pfefelle Johnson truly is inheriting a poisoned chalice.
'30-plus' Tory rebels willing to defy whip and block no-deal Brexit
De Pfefelle Johnson truly is inheriting a poisoned chalice.
Ming
I shot a man in Reno...
I wish he's stop using rugby terms. The last time i saw him with a ball he was knocking over a 10 year old Japanese school boy. What a tosser.
Boris Johnson: I'll make UK 'match fit' for no-deal Brexit
Boris Johnson: I'll make UK 'match fit' for no-deal Brexit
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
being as he can't make himself 'match fit' i have scant confidence in his ability to make the nation ready to face the catastrophe he insists upon
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
let him adopt the socratic air and drain the vessel of its hemlock contents in one
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Similar threads
