The Brexit process

[andysays]

Did the voters not specifically choose to elect a known misogynist? How direct a referendum do you need it to be? And what levels of contempt and empathy for that are respectively permitted and due, in your opinion?

I don't think this is particularly useful or broadly politically relevant, by the way. I just feel suddenly inclined to poke at the boundaries that some people's pro-Brexit 'sanctity of democracy' argument operates within. I can't imagine it stretches all that far. One might wonder if it stops at winning.

You're the one who chose to take the discussion along this bizarre route, not me.

And neither have I said anything about the "sanctity of democracy" in relation to the Brexit referendum or anything else.

I'm merely pointing out that the decision by various MPs to vote against any implementation of A50 has potential consequences contrary to what what of those MPs would claim to want, suggesting that they still haven't woken up to actual political realities.

If you really want to discuss the so-called sanctity of democracy or even the supposed democratic legitimising of misogyny and sexual assault, maybe you should find a more appropriate thread to do it on, or even start one for that specific purpose.

Or you could just avoid bringing that shit up here in response to a post which had precisely fuck all to do with it.

 

[kabbes]

If you want to be national about it rather than constituency based then the Scottish and NI MPs definitely have a mandate to vote against A50, since their respective countries' electorates both voted against Brexit.

 

[Diamond]

Interesting to read in the Granuiad today about the government potentially running arguments around an article 50 notification being revocable:

Article 50 could be reversed, government may argue in Brexit case

Para 10 of the High Court decision makes clear that it was common ground between the parties that notification is irrevocable. Consequently this element has not been tested in court.

The point turns on whether an article 50 notification automatically entails the loss of rights (the decision adopts a rough distinction between three varieties of right at paras 58-61 which is worth a look to understand a bit more about the technical details) granted by an Act of Parliament (ECA 1972).

If the article 50 notification is irrevocable then it will necessarily entail the automatic loss ECA 1972 rights.

If the article 50 notification is revocable it will not necessarily entail the automatic loss of the ECA 1972 rights.

In the former situation, an article 50 notification made by the Royal prerogative would be illegal as it would involve the automatic loss of rights granted by Parliament without the government having a Parliamentary mandate to do so.

In the latter, the revocability of the notification and the corresponding prospect of the maintenance of the rights granted may allow May to march on unhindered with her March timetable without substantively consulting parliament or the people at large.

However, and this is purely my own speculation, a smooth acceptance of that new position would require the Supreme Court to be content with making a finding on a point of pure EU law (the revocability of an article 50 notification) in a situation where the relevant treaty provision is totally silent.

Reading article 50 again, it is very difficult to see how you could construct an argument in favour of a revocable article 50 notification from the text itself.

Then, more widely, allowing for revocable article 50 notifications would strike at the heart of the ability of the EU to maintain its own integrity and ability to do day-to-day business - for instance, it would open up the prospect of any MS, presumably then in thrall to its own variety of popular euroscepticism, tabling a revocable article 50 notification when the MS wanted a better deal for itself (which is really the kind of ideal place that May wants to get us to - if she could somehow transform the referendum result into a brilliant negotiating tactic for improved membership terms that would be ideal).

So if the government were to run that argument, it increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court would need to seek a preliminary reference decision from the ECJ to move the case forward, with all the political, legal and constitutional consequences that that would entail.

 

[gosub]

If it uses that arguement in the Supreme court. This government will fall.

 

[andysays]

Interesting to read in the Granuiad today about the government potentially running arguments around an article 50 notification being revocable...

Much of that was discussed on this very thread in the immediate aftermath of the original high court decision.

Feel free to look back and see what's already been said, including some fully informed and qualified opinion, which I certainly wouldn't claim to be.

 

[Diamond]

Much of that was discussed on this very thread in the immediate aftermath of the original high court decision.

Feel free to look back and see what's already been said, including some fully informed and qualified opinion, which I certainly wouldn't claim to be.

Is there any need for that?

Your passive-agressiveness is limited to saying that other people talked about that on another occasion...

So what?

It shouldn't be discussed now?

 

[Diamond]

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.

That alone is remarkable given that we have already spend 38 pages discussing Brexit process and suggests that I might be introducing new things...

 

[Pickman's model]

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.

That alone is remarkable given that we have already spend 38 pages discussing Brexit process and suggests that I might be introducing new things...

And your point is?

 

[gosub]

Royal Navy has nuclear submarines. Belgium doesn't. Another new thing to introduce to the debate.... Largely irrelevant.

 

[Diamond]

And your point is?

That we might have three phases of involving the ECJ in the case, each with their own implications, namely:

(i) a preliminary reference by the Supreme Court to the ECJ seeking a ruling on the irrevocability/revocability of an article 50 notification under EU law;
(ii) the application of that preliminary reference ruling of the ECJ by the Supreme Court to the instant case; and
(iii) the prospect of an appeal of that application by the one of the parties to the ECJ for a final ruling.

And then, on top of that, and/or running parallel, there might be HRA actions trundling on alongside.

 

[andysays]

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ...

Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16

Then ECJ?

Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up

Could the Article 50 litigation result in a reference to the European Court of Justice?

High Court rules that Government cannot invoke Article 50 under the Royal Prerogative

 

[brogdale]

Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16


Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up

Could the Article 50 litigation result in a reference to the European Court of Justice?

High Court rules that Government cannot invoke Article 50 under the Royal Prerogative

 

[mauvais]

Not that I want to prop up Diamond or anything, but those are two different matters - issuance vs revocation. More to it than that, and certainly some relationship, but distinctly different.

Edit: actually the two combined did get discussed of sorts, way later in the thread

 

[gosub]

Not that I want to prop up Diamond or anything, but those are two different matters - issuance vs revocation. More to it than that, and certainly some relationship, but distinctly different.

But its i^2=-1 stuff. If government lawyers argue that in court, then "good faith" goes out the window in terms of the negotiation - and it turns into make the deal as shit as possible for the leaver so they crack. Plus the government's entire political argument that "they don't want to weaken their negotiating position" flies out the window. They will have done just that and not even in a sovereign parliament. An election would follow in short order.

 

[mauvais]

Oh sure, it's only of any value in blocking the government.

 

[not a trot]

Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite

 

[brogdale]

Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite

All?
Not Nissan...or any other corp. extracting 'assurance' from the state.

 

[Diamond]

Obviously your search was a little too quick. Started here on page 16


Then took in discussion of some actual legal opinion, found here if you can't be bothered to read the whole thread and want to catch up

Could the Article 50 litigation result in a reference to the European Court of Justice?

High Court rules that Government cannot invoke Article 50 under the Royal Prerogative

Why do you keep on quoting me selectively?

It's a pathetic form of trolling isn't it, to turn this sentence:

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ preliminary reference procedure before I brought it in to the discussion above.

...into this...

And... a quick search reveals that no-one on this thread has mentioned the ECJ...

The largest part of my post is about the ECJ preliminary reference procedure - not the ECJ alone - the ECJ preliminary reference procedure

Why do you do that? Why do you cut up my words so that they are misrepresented?

Is it because you simply don't understand the difference between the broad subject of the ECJ and the very narrow subject of the ECJ preliminary reference procedure?

No-one had mentioned this before in the thread and if it comes into play, as it looks like it almost certainly will do upon appeal the Supreme Court, it is worth going through in detail as each stage will have its own nuances which may well be intimately woven into our Brexit politics over the coming months. Consequently it is worth considering - the ECJ preliminary reference procedure, that is

 

[Pickman's model]

Let's face it people. It's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite

No change there then

 

[andysays]

 

[gosub]

Germany named as possible post-Brexit ally for Ireland

 

[brogdale]

Things seem to be crowding in a little on May at the moment; Murdoch's clearly not impressed with progress...

 

[brogdale]

Potentially, more bad news for May; a simple act not enough?

 

[CrabbedOne]

Just how the UK should attempt a Brexit is a very hard thing even for euro-skeptic Tories to agree on.

Firstly they evidently didn't really know what they were letting themselves in for. They didn't understand the Constitutional Law implications or the insane complexity of trade deals.

Secondly there's a wide variety of opinion some wanting a tight relationship with the Single Market; the softest of soft Brexits. Others wanting as little to do with bloody Brussels as possible. Business friendly Tories in safe seats mostly see lots of immigration as a good thing just as they do low tariff trade. Those quivering in fear of UKIP and a Enoch was right party base may veer towards protectionism. Some do seem to have been under the impression the best of both worlds was possible due to mighty British clout only to find that squeezed into the Article 50 waste disposal unit. Any deal being done being hostage to gaining a near consensus between a bunch of countries with varying interests led by folk who often are as ill prepared as the three Brexiteers.

Thirdly conditions change. Trump may well mean a possible dreamed of cosy relationship with the US perhaps via Farage or having the US barge to the front of the log jam in trade talks and get very nasty with Singapore On Thames's great hope Beijing. He might even pull the plug on NATO leaving Europeans scrambling for alternatives. Merkel and other important players might also disappear during the process.

And finally as the EU countries won't talk to the UK about what might be acceptable Article 50 terms May is in the dark as to what hand she might successfully play. It's hard to come out of this without the appearance of losing your shirt at least initially.

 

[andysays]

Potentially, more bad news for May; a simple act not enough?

Doesn't look like the government are too concerned and will be seeking to get something very simple through with the minimum of fuss

Government 'prepares three-line Brexit bill'

The government has prepared a short three-line bill to begin the Brexit process - so Theresa May can meet her March deadline, it is understood. Sources say they believe the legislation is so tightly drawn it will be difficult for critical MPs to amend. Ministers have drawn up the legislation in case they lose their appeal to the Supreme Court - which would force them to consult Parliament.

Still serious questions about if this will work

 

[andysays]

Will the Supreme Court have to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU in Miller?: further thoughts

There has been much excitement generated by the possibility that, in order to resolve the Miller case, the Supreme Court might have to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the EU (“ECJ”)...

 

[Pickman's model]

Doesn't look like the government are too concerned and will be seeking to get something very simple through with the minimum of fuss

Government 'prepares three-line Brexit bill'

Still serious questions about if this will work

come on you filibusters

 

[ska invita]

interesting if true
Angela Merkel suggests she is willing to compromise on free movement in the wake of Brexit

and also "Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, suggested he is open to rejoining the Conservative Party in a bid to hold the party to account over Brexit." (lol)

 

[gosub]

interesting if true
Angela Merkel suggests she is willing to compromise on free movement in the wake of Brexit

and also "Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, suggested he is open to rejoining the Conservative Party in a bid to hold the party to account over Brexit." (lol)

As the Irish Times said, it won't be the Germans that are the problem. Any shut down of borders, particularly in the wake of the migration crisis in the Med, will impact most on Med countries. Any deal that the likes of Farage would like, would make harder these countries call for the rest of the EU to share the burden.

 

[bimble]

Boris Johnson's diplomacy will save the day:

"“He basically said: ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market,’” he told Bloomberg. “I said: ‘No way.’ He said: ‘You’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said: ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’ Putting things on this level is a bit insulting.”
European ministers ridicule Boris Johnson after prosecco claim