Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LC0112G]

I can't see it ending up in the ECJ though as that would be farcical for the EU's highest court to rule on a member states constitutional arrangements as it's trying to leave the EU!  Unless it's all part of the establishment stitch up to prove to the plebs that we can't live without the EU! 

I agree the ECJ won't get involved in an individual countries constitutional arrangements - indeed they cannot because each countries parliament is sovereign.

However, if the Govt do appeal, and UK Supreme court decided it needs a definitive verdict on some point of EU law (for example whether Art50 is reversible or not), then the only court that can answer that for certain is the ECJ. That's why I think the Govt would be better advised to accept the High Court decision and crack on with consulting Parliament.

 

[LC0112G]

Two articles below give the viewpoint of why the authors think the judges got it wrong.

http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-case/

http://www.ukip.org/high_court_judgement_a_political_not_legal_decision

The easy response is "they would say that wouldn't they", but the first one in particular, puts forward a pretty strong case, in  my opinion.

The problem for those that argue that the court has no jurisdiction until after Art50 is actually invoked and/or ECA72 is revoked (as your second link states) is that both parties agreed that the decision to invoke Art50 is a justiciable matter (which means both parties accept that the court does have jurisdiction). The relevant bits of the full judgment are Paras 4 and 5 where this is stated as common ground.

You can't win an argument on a point that you both agree on. The Govt could change tack and decide it does not think UK courts have jurisdiction, but that just makes them look like a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs, and I can't see the Supreme court overruling the High court on that point alone.

 

[Sir Tigger KC]

I can't see it ending up in the ECJ though as that would be farcical for the EU's highest court to rule on a member states constitutional arrangements as it's trying to leave the EU!  Unless it's all part of the establishment stitch up to prove to the plebs that we can't live without the EU! 

I agree the ECJ won't get involved in an individual countries constitutional arrangements - indeed they cannot because each countries parliament is sovereign.

However, if the Govt do appeal, and UK Supreme court decided it needs a definitive verdict on some point of EU law (for example whether Art50 is reversible or not), then the only court that can answer that for certain is the ECJ. That's why I think the Govt would be better advised to accept the High Court decision and crack on with consulting Parliament.

Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.

Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.

If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.

[LC0112G]

Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.

Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.

No, A50 is basically set in stone. It doesn't require the agreement of the other 27 on anything. It is what it is. If there is question about its meaning or intent, then it's the ECJ that has final say, not the other 27.

The only way that the other 27 matter is if the treaty is changed and that treaty change somehow modifies/repeals/clarifies A50. However, even in that instance, it's not the other 27 - its all 28 including the UK. We are still in the EU till we leave.

If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.

It's actually the opposite. If A50 is reversible, then the Govt could probably use Royal Prerogative to invoke it because at some stage in the future Parliament could vote to revoke the A50 notification - say if it didn't like the terms of the exit deal. If A50 is not reversible then even if Parliament did vote to revoke, it would have no effect, and we would be 'booted' out after the 2 year period like it or not. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Two articles below give the viewpoint of why the authors think the judges got it wrong.

http://www.ukipdaily.com/article-50-case/

http://www.ukip.org/high_court_judgement_a_political_not_legal_decision

The easy response is "they would say that wouldn't they", but the first one in particular, puts forward a pretty strong case, in  my opinion.

The problem for those that argue that the court has no jurisdiction until after Art50 is actually invoked and/or ECA72 is revoked (as your second link states) is that both parties agreed that the decision to invoke Art50 is a justiciable matter (which means both parties accept that the court does have jurisdiction). The relevant bits of the full judgment are Paras 4 and 5 where this is stated as common ground.

You can't win an argument on a point that you both agree on. The Govt could change tack and decide it does not think UK courts have jurisdiction, but that just makes them look like a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs, and I can't see the Supreme court overruling the High court on that point alone.

Assuming all of that to be correct, then it indeed proves that the legal people who compiled the Govt. case actually are a bunch of shambolic part time amateurs.
We are where we are because they are incompetent by the look of it.
So, tomorrow morning they should be clearing their desks, and consigned to duty solicitor duties in provincial courthouses, but of course that wont happen because no-one is ever to blame for anything anymore. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Interesting point that, whether notification under A50 is reversible or not, as there is nothing in A50 which specifically provides for this.

Therefore it's arguable that A50 is reversible, with say the agreement of the other 27 members of the Council of Europe.

No, A50 is basically set in stone. It doesn't require the agreement of the other 27 on anything. It is what it is. If there is question about its meaning or intent, then it's the ECJ that has final say, not the other 27.

The only way that the other 27 matter is if the treaty is changed and that treaty change somehow modifies/repeals/clarifies A50. However, even in that instance, it's not the other 27 - its all 28 including the UK. We are still in the EU till we leave.

If A50 is not irreversible, then it follows that it is perfectly reasonable and legal for the government to invoke A50 using the Royal Prerogative, as it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law.

It's actually the opposite. If A50 is reversible, then the Govt could probably use Royal Prerogative to invoke it because at some stage in the future Parliament could vote to revoke the A50 notification - say if it didn't like the terms of the exit deal. If A50 is not reversible then even if Parliament did vote to revoke, it would have no effect, and we would be 'booted' out after the 2 year period like it or not.

No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. 

To my earlier point that there is nothing in the text of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not.  That point is clearly not set in stone as it is open to interpretation.  The 2 year negotiation period can be extended with the agreement of the 27, so I think that with the agreement of the 27 a member state could withdraw it's A50 notice. However, given it is uncharted territory a ruling from the ECJ might be necessary.

[Doctor Gollum]

There won't be a mechanism for reversal as it was deemed than noone would ever dare imagine to leave the Union of harmonic love...

By that I mean have the 'dangle berries' to invoke Article 50...

[LC0112G]

No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. 

'Fraid not. IMHO 

If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.

It's largely irrelevant whether it's reversible or not though because the Govt won't want to go down that route. Doing so is virtually bound to result in a referral to the ECJ which will delay things for 2+ years. Hence the Govt won't do anything that risks a ECJ referral.

To my earlier point that there is nothing in the text of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not.  That point is clearly not set in stone as it is open to interpretation.  The 2 year negotiation period can be extended with the agreement of the 27, so I think that with the agreement of the 27 a member state could withdraw it's A50 notice. However, given it is uncharted territory a ruling from the ECJ might be necessary.

I meant A50 itself is set in stone - It's part of the treaties and the text ain't going to be modified. I agree that the meaning/intent of A50 pertaining to whether it is reversible or not is unclear, and therefore open to interpretation. The only body that can make that interpretation is the ECJ. The other 27 have no direct say, bar making representations to the ECJ as to why they think it is/is not reversible. I suppose if all 27 stand up in the ECJ and state that they accept it is reversible it may sway the court's decision, but it's a very, very high risk strategy. Anyway, ECJ verdicts typically take 2 years, so a March A50 notification via that route is virtually impossible.

[Sir Tigger KC]

No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. 

'Fraid not. IMHO 

If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.

Look my original post where I said " If A50 is not irreversible..."

You disagreed but went on to say the same thing but using the term " reversible "

Not irreversible and reversible are the same thing, so we agreed! 

[LC0112G]

No you're agreeing with my point that if A50 is reversible or not irreversible whichever way you look at it, then it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, as it could be revoked by Parliament. Thus the Royal Prerogative could be used. 

'Fraid not. IMHO 

If A50 is reversible then invoking it doesn't necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can be used to invoke it.
If A50 is irreversible then invoking it does necessarily alter domestic law, so Royal Prerogative can not be used to invoke it.

Look my original post where I said " If A50 is not irreversible..."

You disagreed but went on to say the same thing but using the term " reversible "

Not irreversible and reversible are the same thing, so we agreed! 

Ahh, yes sorry - I misread your double negative "not irreversible". Blame the bottle of Bordeaux consumed over my roast Lamb, roast tatties and all the veg dinner.

[STEMO]

Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.

[LC0112G]

Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.

So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years

Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.

[Doctor Gollum]

Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.

So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years

Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.

No import concerns with those last two

[Sir Tigger KC]

Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.

So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years

Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.

No import concerns with those last two

Chinese rice wine is quite good, either that get used to Chilian plonk, they'll do a trade deal with anyone! 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Bordeaux will be banned when we leave the EU, it'll be a bottle of tiger beer to support the economy of our new Indian friends.

So two years for the Lord Opti and I to stock up our cellars with vintage European classics before the Brexiteers finally work out how to cast us adrift. Not sure what to do about the Rochfort cheese, the cellar is going to get a bit whiffy with several tons of cheese stored in there for years

Tiger/Cobra beer only seems to work down the Curry house with a Bhuna. Much prefer a Tanglefoot or Hobgoblin at other times.

Last night I took solace in several 500 ML bottles of Henry Westons oak aged vintage cider. A tasty drop, and with Alcohol rated at 8.2% volume Brexit suddenly lost all complications and became blindingly clear.

I shall experiment again tonight with a larger dose.