UK government faces pre-emptive legal action over Brexit decision.

a reply to: smurfy

To be honest, I'm sick of these big law firms ripping off the country. I'm not on my own there either.

a reply to: smurfy

Just so everyone knows.
A vote EXACTLY like this happened in 1974, and didn't go through... plus all the politicians who PUSHED for this to happen are suddenly resigning... it's a goddamn circus. What is going on now? No -one really knows.
Sure 'the people' voted, but it's only an advisory. Now you have multiple top notch lawyers fighting to stay in... I have a feeling England will be left in political and economic struggles for the next two years, scaring away Scotland and Ireland in the process.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: smurfy
The flaw in their case is that the British constitution has never been written down, which makes it hard to turn constitutional issues into legal ones.
If there is no statute which says "Only parliament can invoke Article 50", there is no basis for a court to make a legal ruling.
I believe they're engaging in wishful thinking.

Parts of it have, and in this case toally relevant, part of the English bill of rights 1689, and since William Prince of Orange was not accepted until he swore an oath, here in part,

"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

"Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree"
That act of parliament is still in force. Article 50 is a product without jurisdiction in the house of commons, (the lords don't matter now, not that it makes any difference )Moreover, it also proves that Heath put the UK into the EEC illegally in the first place, and that Harold Wilson's referendum was a useless bit of kit, because it included, 'A wish to remain in the EU' forbye 'leave' since legally we were never in the EU according to the English law Expo Vis-à-Vis the house of commons.

a reply to: smurfy

Interesting.

Let's see if the E.U will accept that.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The problem is that EU law is so complex that untangling ourselves from it is going to be a legal nightmare.

Its probalby worth mentioning that it is even being argued by some that article 50 does not need to be used to split form the EU

Then again could be true that the PM needs parliaments approval but the future PM might just go ahead and do it anyway which could then be challenged in the courts and if the trigger of article 50 is not challenged there will be plenty of other legal challenges that will present themselves in the course of this very messy divorce.

Part of me thinks that Brexit won't really happen not because of any kind of tyrannical act of government but just because of the huge legal and constitutional challenges its going to cause. Right now we are just seeing the immediate fall out of our little spat with Europe once the divorce proceedings get under-way then we are going to see just how difficult this is gong to be.

I can agree with that, even the media has come out with the idea that government will simply do a data dump and transcend it into UK law straight off, then scratch at it, for years and years to come, while the rest of the EU moves on, hence the need to do more scratching..akin to copying if there are particular laws that are good or outstanding, or part of the human bill of rights that we are all signed up to.
As an ex-civil servant I can only see a huuuge programme of civil service recruitment already earmarked by someone, somewhere to do just that, since it has to be done...jeez! I might sign up again! And all this just to satisfy the antics of Blackadder and Baldrick, the Bullindon boys.
However I am not goig to pay for it.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: smurfy

Interesting.
Let's see if the E.U will accept that.

That's part of the problem, I don't think that it is the EU's problem per se, while I'm sure they will have their own legalities over the Heath signing of the treaty, (after all Heath was the head of state after the Queen, who has no influence in the house of commons except in using the Royal prerogative and basically verbal) and the forthcoming treaties afterward.
Funny enough, I do think that the Royal prerogative was used in Scotland yesterday, telling everyone to calm down and reflect. Make what you want out of that, while I do wonder about the next five years remark, as I tend toward that was somebody else's advice, about the UK as a whole or something to with Scotland...hard to know.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: MetalChickAmy

If it happens democracy is dead.
Then we see what happens.

How do you know if [democracy] wasn't already dead long before the EU?

three things there, how do you know democracy is dead? what is democracy? how to play fast and loose with democracy?
All three things may have happened in this referendum for instance, how would you order it, 1, 2 and 3?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: smurfy

To be honest, I'm sick of these big law firms ripping off the country. I'm not on my own there either.

Well, exercise the same rights as they have, a government petition for instance, although I'm not to sure where the ripoff begins and ends in this case, they have been privately hired, and presumably they will be paid by the same.
But sure, they are well paid.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: smurfy

Just so everyone knows.
A vote EXACTLY like this happened in 1974, and didn't go through... plus all the politicians who PUSHED for this to happen are suddenly resigning... it's a goddamn circus. What is going on now? No -one really knows.
Sure 'the people' voted, but it's only an advisory. Now you have multiple top notch lawyers fighting to stay in... I have a feeling England will be left in political and economic struggles for the next two years, scaring away Scotland and Ireland in the process.

Which vote was that?
I agree with the rest, bar that many do know, and are getting offside.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: MetalChickAmy

It may be the kick up the arse for people to realize that it is all crooked.
Thing is many will just accept it but many here will not.
A big test for democracy in the upcoming months.

Indeed, but perhaps in a diffferent way than you'd imagine. Brexiteers seem to think that a very scarce majority is sufficient to sway parliament towards a Brexit. Cameron certainly suggested this but he's a lame duck now.

The real test for democracy is to see how Parliament handles this. I'd exect them to debate this, then order the civil servants and political parties to make a plan (or plans) on HOW to get out and WHEN to get out. This involves trying to figure out the benefits versus the negative effects. When a plan (or series of plans) is (are) made that is (are) acceptable to Parliament it (they) can be discussed and voted on.

A simple yes or no is .. well, too simple. That's not democracy, that's populism. Populism can be used by politicians, and they do (as was painfully clear recently), but it's a means to an end, the end being parliamentary debates and votes.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: smurfy

To be honest, I'm sick of these big law firms ripping off the country. I'm not on my own there either.

Well, exercise the same rights as they have, a government petition for instance, although I'm not to sure where the ripoff begins and ends in this case, they have been privately hired, and presumably they will be paid by the same.
But sure, they are well paid.

The ripoff comes from the time and money it costs to defend these cases. We saw the same with that firm which launched spurious cases against military personnel who served in Iraq and were falsely accused of maltreatment of prisoners.
35 million that cost.

Petitions in this case are pointless against these toxic parasites.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: smurfy
The flaw in their case is that the British constitution has never been written down, which makes it hard to turn constitutional issues into legal ones.
If there is no statute which says "Only parliament can invoke Article 50", there is no basis for a court to make a legal ruling.
I believe they're engaging in wishful thinking.

Not exactly true.

The relevant wording in Article 50 is:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

The word "constitutional" is the issue. We have documents that are afforded a constitutional status, principles that are afforded a constitutional status, but no actual constitution. I would argue that we only have a sole truly constitutional principle: that Parliament, being Sovereign, may not bind itself or future Parliaments. Any attempt to legislate this away would almost certainly be found void ab initio as it denies Sovereignty. Everything else that we afford a quasi-"constitutional status" can still be changed or repealed by a simple Act of Parliament.

The argument is whether those existing principles would require Parliament to vote on the Article 50 application.

There are, to my mind, two bits of law to consider. The European Communities Act 1972 is the "gateway" Act that underpins our membership of the (then EEC, now EU). The Treaty of Lisbon sets out the Article 50 process. Both of these were voted on, and passed, by Parliament.

Legislation tends to be explicit when it derogates a power to the Executive - "The Secretary of State may do such and such" - but there is nothing (to my recollection) that derogates the power to make the application, therefore it would appear that Parliament itself must direct the application be made. This would make sense, as the application would essentially trigger the repeal of both pieces of legislation. The power to repeal is a power reserved to Parliament unless explicitly stated - and even then, it's still actually at the direction of Parliament as it would be a power granted under an Act.

On that basis, I believe it to be correct that Parliament needs to vote on making the Article 50 application.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Thanks for that E-Bob, and well stated. And thanks to all those who made a contribution here.
Maybe the thing is that nothing is so simple as it looks. In fact times have changed, as we all evolve, and the grand argument is it for the better, or for something else and besides, how many arguments are based on fact? there is a need to know, just how much is real and what is fantasy.
Right now I am asking a question that we may also need to deal with after this referendum, that is the question of the European Convention on Human Rights which includes freedom of movement in one of the protocols, protocol 4..which I guess the UK is a signee..well it is, but has never ratified it. However, freedom of movement was just about the biggest gripe of the EU referendum putting the blame on the need for Britain to, (1) have control of it's borders, (2) limit the amount of immigrants, so I guess that has nothing to do with the EU, or that the reasons Britain never ratified protocol 4 were singular in fashion, and again I guess, was free to do something about a need to control borders, and limit immigtation, overall.

Because something is hard is not an argument. Combining into a non-democratic non-republic supra-state is hard yet it was done.

From what I've seen everything is binded to the EEC act of 1972. Repeal that and we are off. The Brexiteer leaders will be back when Parliament says they will remain in 6-12 months.
It's not over. All part of the Brexiteer masterstroke. populism will demand they come back. By mandate of the majority brexiteers sweep into parliament next mp election.
parliament not doing anything will create a lot of passionate anger at parliament.

Stalling gives power to those who they do not want to give it to.

Farage will be back once parliament sits on it.

On a lighter note, One last thing is this whole thing a conspiracy?








I think Obama started all this....well not him particularly...some spook way back in the 1940's

originally posted by: smurfy
On a lighter note, One last thing is this whole thing a conspiracy?

(seems like someone didn't like that second video) so here it is again.

I think Obama started all this....well not him particularly...some spook way back in the 1940's