News

Brexit legal challenge: Claimants victorious in most important constitutional law case for a generation

By on
152

Leapfrog appeal hangs in the balance as judges put significant roadblock in Article 50’s way

lead1

The High Court, in what has proven to be the most important, emotive and divisive legal affairs story of the year, has ruled that Article 50 CANNOT be triggered without a free vote in parliament.

Addressing a packed courtroom 4 of the Royal Courts of Justice this morning, the Lord Chief Justice — sat between Sir Terence Etherton and Lord Justice Sales — said the court expresses no political views on the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the European Union but considered the question purely as a matter of law.

The court was swayed by the impressive advocacy delivered by Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC, who represented the lead claimant, Gina Miller (video below), at the two-and-a-half day judicial review hearing.

Lord Thomas agreed with the claimant that the European Communities Act 1972 gives UK citizens certain rights and once Article 50 is triggered, the rights conferred by this statute will be lost. Parliament is sovereign and the crown cannot, by exercise of its prerogative powers, override rights laid down by parliament. As a result, Article 50’s invocation must be conditional on parliamentary approval.

Whether this line of reasoning is correct has proved incredibly divisive in the run up to today’s judgment. Just last month, our readers — when asked who they thought would win the Brexit High Court challenge — were split 50/50, an uncanny near re-run of the Brexit referendum itself.

Though we now have judicial authority on this, the Brexit legal challenge saga may not be over. The Supreme Court has said it will accept a leapfrog appeal and has reserved space on 7 and 8 December for a hearing before eleven justices.

However, the possible Supreme Court hearing hinges on whether or not an appeal is lodged. Though this result is expected to produce a significant bump in the road for the UK’s exit from the EU, Joshua Rozenberg QC has speculated the government may not want to risk losing the case twice and will accept the result instead.

UPDATE: 11:38am Thursday 3 November

A government spokesperson has reportedly said:

The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by act of parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum. We will appeal this judgement [sic].

152 Comments

Anonymous

NA will be spinning in his grave

(15)(2)

Jane

Before Bremainers start gloating too much we have to wait for the SC appeal.

And I have a sneaky feeling the SC judges will rule the other way.

(10)(30)

Anonymous

What do I owe you for this powerful insight?

(12)(1)

Jane

It’s free 😉

Though I’m relaxed even if they do – Parliament will almost certainly vote it through.

And may I suggest that when Article 50 is triggered all whinging Remoaners take their whipped arses back to their lentil and avocado stews and get it into their thick skulls that they LOST, and we, the glorious people of the United Kingdom, WON!

(11)(48)

Travelling Gavel

Hello Jane

If I may take the time to respond to you comment clause by clause;

1. You are clearly not relaxed; you feel the need to bolster your fears on here
2. There is nothing certain about Parliament voting this through; the Government has such a small majority even with the whipping system it would struggle and, as this would need to be an open vote the whips would not be involved; you seriously believe that the Remain camp would not mobilise?
3. I am not a ‘Remoaner’, in the same way you, one would presume are not a ‘Brexdick’, ‘Brexshit’ or other such unnecessarily confrontational bile
4. I do not like avocado
5. I hold 2 degrees and am a practicing solicitor; far from the thicko you seem to imagine me to be
6. I too am a citizen of the United Kingdom; I simply disagree with you, as is my right – both as to your political position and indeed your gloriousness.

So shall we now get on with the task at hand as, I believe you either need to put up or shut up – Appeal or put it to parliamentary vote

(57)(7)

Jane

Yawn, Travelling Gavel, just a bit of playground banter. Cheer up.

I am in fact relaxed about the Parliament question. The Commons will vote it through (helped by a large number of Labour MPs who have already declared their desire to represent their the wishes of their constituency).

The Lords may be more troublesome, but if they do try to block a Brexit bill they may be sealing the end of the second chamber. Alternatively May can call an election and get a mandate.

(4)(28)

Anonymous

With a face like May’s it may take more than a general election for her to get a man date *ZING*

(29)(1)

Anonymous

Lentil and avocado stews? Do you even cook Jane?

(23)(0)

Travelling Gavel

Jane – I would disagree again with your assessment that the Commons will just vote it through; don’t be so sure an MP will vote with anything other than their own conscience… see below from the Press Association

Press Association
Posted at 12:08 on BBC News

“• 480 MPs said they would be voting Remain, including 184 Conservatives
• 159 MPs said they would be voting Leave, including 139 Conservatives
• 11 MPs were undeclared, including four Conservative.

This gives Remain a notional Commons majority of at least 310.

Some 218 Labour MPs said they would vote Remain while just 11 backed Leave.

All eight Liberal Democrat MPs intended to vote Remain, along with all 56 SNP MPs, all three Plaid Cymru MPs, all four Sinn Fein MPs and all three SDLP MPs.

Green MP Caroline Lucas also said she would vote Remain, as did independent MP Sylvia Hermon and the two Ulster Unionist MPs.

The eight DUP MPs said they would be voting to Leave, along with UkIP MP Douglas Carswell.”

(17)(1)

Travelling Gavel

Granted this was in the June 23rd vote however it gives one pause to think doesn’t it…

Anonymous

Commons will vote it through, as will the Lords. It will sail through.

Why? Because of two reasons;
1) when it comes to it, MPs will actually respect the will of the people.
2) Labour MPs don’t want a general election massacre, which is guaranteed if Brexit is voted down.

Anonymous

Mood music from Commons and Lords is it will go through fine.

(1)(2)

Brexshitters beware

Just you wait baby.

Anonymous

practising

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Not rekt:
Rekt: ✅

(4)(0)

Anonymous

I bet when that Welsh Assembly referendum passed with its wafer thin .3% majority and 50% turnout, you were like the Labour and Liberal front benchers all crowing how it was ‘democracy at work’…

(1)(2)

Pantman

And may I suggest that when Article 50 is triggered all whinging Remoaners…

What utter tripe. We all know that Farage & Co, had the referendum result been “REMAIN”, would have continued campaigning for LEAVE – Farage said as much when he prematurely conceded defeat on 23rd June. In fact Farage is probably rubbing his hands together in glee at the thought of the referendum vote being blocked by Parliament – because it gives him something to do for the rest of his life and simultaneously rescues UKIP from the scrapheap of history (what reason do they have to exist with the UK outside the EU?).

Additionally, it is in no way undemocratic to exercise one’s democratic rights to protest, and campaign for change, against a decision one thinks is wrong. Particularly in light of the fact that this wouldn’t be a “decision” that could be reversed at the “next” scheduled referendum five year down the line (ie there is no “next” referendum, unlike the outlook for a general election).

You’d hardly be berating us for protesting some other government policy that we didn’t agree with. I seems reasonable to me that I’m not bound by what my neighbour may or may not think about such issues, so I don’t really see an “democratic” reason why I shouldn’t continue to argue the REMAIN case.

(18)(1)

Jane

You’re wrong in comparing the referendum to ‘government policy’. The whole country does not vote on single items of policy.

If we don’t leave the EU we cannot call ourselves a democracy. It would be a sad day were the political establishment to ignore the people they represent. It was the biggest mandate ever given to a government in the history of this country.

(1)(17)

Pantman

At the moment, you are right, there is no comparison to government policy – because there is no government policy that we can discern, other than ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

Which I think anyone with an ounce of sense would understand to be totally meaningless.

You can’t claim a mandate in the vote, because there was no plan to back-up the LEAVE sentiment. If I took all the things various LEAVE campaigners said in the run-up to the referendum, and formed them into a ‘policy’, I’m pretty sure I could form something whereby the UK would still be in the EU (because the divergence of views was so wide).

What we have at the moment is profoundly undemocratic – the government essentially offering special deals for different business interests. This disenfranchises the person in the street by pandering to corporate pressure. For those campaigning for LEAVE on the basis of an anti-corporate/anti-globalisation agenda it must be a real slap in the face.

(8)(0)

Cockburn

Rekt: ✅

Jane

‘Brexit means Brexit’ is ‘totally meaningless’? I don’t recommend such hyperbole in your next essay.

It means that we *will* trigger Article 50. Was there one, commonly shared vision of what the exact terms of Brexit will look like? Of course not, that would have been impossible.

But whatever the precise outcome, we will no longer be a member of the EU. Get it?

Banker Fatcat

Lol watch out, Jane’s gonna school you on essay-writing as well.

Who knew poor peasants could be so entertaining.

Anonymous

Dear Jane, ‘Brexit means Brexit’ is not a mandate for anything. You can’t claim a mandate, because there is basically no manifesto to back it up.

Great, trigger article 50 – does that actually mean that the UK leaves the EU? I think that you will find that it does not.

Anonymous

Jeez, you really are an ace prat aren’t you

(0)(0)

Anonymous

I love you Jane!

(1)(2)

Anonymous

Most people on Legal Cheek have a ‘sneaky’ feeling about everything. It tends to happen with unsuccessful people you know.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

Weird assumption based on thin air!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

The government is yet to appeal; they may decide to accept the decision and allow parliament to vote

(1)(2)

Michael Shrimpton

I respectfully agree. I have read the judgment and with respect it lacks intellectual rigour. It effectively amounts to judicial amendment of the 1972 Act, which clearly left it to the government to decide to which EEC treaties the UK should adhere. I was junior counsel in the initial stages of the Rees-Mogg challenge, where the courts ruled that the prerogative could be used to accede to EU treaties. A fortiori the prerogative may be used to withdraw from them. The court also wrongly treated Thoburn as rightly decided, when it clearly wasn’t with respect, as no Parliament may bind its successor.

(0)(2)

Thank goodness for the British judiciary!

With respect, from having seen some of your pleadings, appeared in front of you when you were an immigration judge, watched and listened to some of your public appearances on various conspiracy theories and read with interest about your imprisonment for the bomb hoax about the German secret service planting a nuclear device in a hospital to be activated during the London Olympics, I prefer the intellectual rigour of the LCJ, MR and ex-Treasury Devil to your own thoughts.

(1)(0)

Frustrated by sound-bite attention seekers

Michael Shrimpton – is this you (Wikki)? If so, (and apology if it is not you), then I firmly recommend readers of this site and the post, to do a quick Google. Massive entertainment value. Simply massive.

Michael Shrimpton (born 9 March 1957[1]) is a British barrister, immigration judge, and politician noted for his conspiracy theories and hoaxes. A self-described “national security and intelligence specialist”, Shrimpton was convicted in 2014 for falsely reporting that Germany was planning a nuclear attack on the 2012 Summer Olympics.

(0)(0)

Lee Travers

This all reminds me of when me and my mates are arguing about whether we stay in and get a curry or whether we go for some drinks in spoons. Sometimes we argue for so long that spoons closes and the curry house won’t deliber anymore. Lol!

(5)(0)

Anonymous

…. just go to spoons for curry night. Done.

(2)(0)

Not Amused

Speaking purely as a lawyer, thinking only of my own self interest, the best interests of the courts and the continuation of my profession – this is a really bad move.

We’ve basically asked 17.4 million people, plus whatever proportion of Remainers are decent people, to loathe us. I can’t shake the feeling that the truly great judges of old would have somehow wiggled out of even having to make a decision at all.

I have been reading the judgement. I’m not convinced. Maybe the UKSC will save us all. But at the moment the self indulgence of three old men (who we all know voted Remain and go to the tedious dinner parties in London where people bitch about the public being racist) have damned us all.

(I also can’t shake the idea that we’ve killed the House of Lords …)

(12)(101)

Anonymous

Taking it in your stride as usual then NA?

(6)(0)

Anonymous

NA you should read the judgment before you weigh in. It’s about dualism, which you may remember from studying law (if you ever did) is quite important to the constitution.

(32)(0)

Stumped

Judgment, NA, not judgEment. Starting to doubt this person’s invisible creds

(21)(0)

Anonymous

Again, why? Dictionaries list both as correct.

(0)(3)

Interloper

Spell it “judgement” as a law student in an essay – expect to get marked down
Spell it “judgement” in a draft, letter, any other legal document as a solicitor/barrister/paralegal – expect to lose the respect and earn the scorn/derision of your colleagues, opposites and any others of a legal bent

Shouldn’t really matter – but it does…

Your choice old chap.

(2)(1)

Pantman

It’s Americanese, isn’t it. Like draught/draft, sulphur/s-u-l-f-u-r (this browser keeps correcting that!?), through/thru, etc.

(0)(0)

Frustrated by sound-bite attention seekers

Well, NA, if YOU (my emphasis) are “not convinced”, then clearly it must be wrong. After all, what would three of the best legal brains in the UK, having pre-read, listened to three days advocacy, discussed between them then considered the matter for three weeks, composing a considered judgement, possibly have been able to achieve compared to your 15 minute reading of it?

(24)(0)

Bumblebee

Why did you feel the need to clarify that the capitalisation was your emphasis? Whose else could it have been?

(6)(2)

Frustrated by sound-bite attention seekers

Really? that is your (my emphasis) comment? I did not “feel a need” – I just did it. I just ate a biscuit also, but felt no need.

(3)(4)

Bumblebee

Why did you feel the need to say ‘my emphasis’ when there was no emphasis the second time around?

I’m so perplexed. Am I trolling you, or are you trolling me?

(7)(1)

Frustrated by sound-bite attention seekers

Actually, I am trying, yet seemingly failing, to ignore you for the pedant you so obviously are.

(0)(0)

Interloper

Heh heh. Stock-in-trade response from our favourite female LC resident at the Bar there… 🙂

Never fails to disappoint…

(4)(0)

Anonymous

NA, I’m heartened by the fact people such as you still exist.

(1)(0)

Not Amused

Isn’t that nice of you 🙂

(1)(5)

Pantman

Most people who placed a bet backed the loser in the Grand National. Their volume doesn’t make them any less wrong.

(10)(0)

,

Speaking purely as a lawyer, and out of my own self-interest, assessing situations according to what is popular rather than what is accurate is the most sure fire way of undermining the profession. The fact that the populace is increasingly unreceptive to reason is no basis for surrendering to irrationality. As an individual or as a professional.

(8)(0)

Anonymous

It’s comments like this that convinces me that Not Amused is not, as they claim to be, a lawyer at all. “Speaking purely as a lawyer… this is a really bad move.”

What other option did the court have, having come to the conclusion that Article 50 cannot be triggered by royal prerogative? Just ignore that conclusion and declare it lawful nevertheless? Something along the lines of “Oh, it’s completely unlawful and unconstitutional but just go ahead and do it, Mrs M, we’re totes fine with that – otherwise a bunch or raving, lunatic racists like Not Amused will pretend to be lawyers on the internet and complain about it.”

Dipshit.

(4)(1)

Anonymous

Savage.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Gov is definitely appealing; it’s been confirmed just now. 11 strong Supreme Court for the first time ever (not sure UKSC is big enough so will be interesting to see how they handle that).

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Two scenarios:

1) The SC will seek for Preliminary reference from the CJEU

2) They will just uphold the decision of the HC.

The judgment was very pursuasive indeed.

(6)(3)

Neubo

No fuckin way am I sitting on the side

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Maybe (irony of ironies) they’ll go back to the House of Lords as it has more space.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

inb4 Not Amused has a moan…

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Too late

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Sorry, nice try but there literally isn’t a unit of time measurement small enough to describe how long it took NA to get a response in about this.

(10)(0)

Anonymous

…which shows that NA is either sitting at home in front of his/her laptop on JSA, or she’s a decrepit pensioner. No way a barrister can spend so much time chatting shit on LC.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

You’d be surprised…

(6)(0)

Anonymous

The court has gone against the power of democracy and this will have severe repercussions. I hope for the sake of the people that this ridiculous decision is appealed.

(5)(31)

Anonymous

Thanks Nigel.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

It’s okay Stuart.

(0)(0)

Stuart

No it’s not.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

So what, the “people” are OK with Parliament going against constitutional law and procedure and doing what it likes? Why are you against the Courts providing a checks and balances system?

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Yes as I believe the power of democracy is more important then the Constitutional Law. When the people speak we should respect that wish rather then thinking of legal ways to hinder the power of the people.

(2)(15)

Anonymous

Why are you afraid of MPs voting on Article 50?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Parliament is the people: “The judges know nothing about the will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament” (Dicey).

The government is not the people, nor is is Parliament.

Constitutional Law 101.

(3)(2)

Pantman

Then we should have given them a binding referendum vote, rather than an advisory one, and pre-secured the necessary legislation in parliament. ie the legislation for the referendum should have contained a clause allowing the government to trigger article 50 – this would have made the point in this judicial review moot.

Parliament didn’t do those things, and the government didn’t ask for them, so this is where we are at.

(8)(0)

LD

Funny that, sounds like the reasoning of the Third Reich

(2)(0)

Stumped

All this is making an answer to the Times Law Award question harder and harder…

(7)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

*merchant rubs hands with glee*

(0)(5)

Anonymous

Ok.

(0)(0)

Ciaran Goggins

You are catching the Irish disease. National referendum, voted leave. M.P’s think you made the “wrong” decision (subtext, white working class rednecks comme moi meme too stupid to know the ramifications). As with Lisbon treaty you must return to vote “correctly”. Any other nation would be in uproar? You? Baaaaa baaaaaa. “Finest men in the world, they beat the Kaiser” (Macmillan).

(7)(20)

Anonymous

Cool story brah, changed my loyf.

(18)(3)

Ciaran Goggins

Argo.

(0)(2)

Fionna

You appear to have overlook that there have been several referenda in Ireland that have been part of a learning process and led to reformed referendum questions. Eventually this led to a series of ‘yes ‘ votes and a very comfortable (unlike in the U.K.) recent vote to remain.

Referenda that were advisory were treated as advisory..a signal that the then government had to improve conditions suggested ..and they then reverted to the electorate with improved conditions on which they were then invited to vote again.

Would that would happen here. (See a link at the end of this post if you wish to read more).

I am surprised and alarmed to read the quality of responses to this and other columns on Legal Cheek. in particular there appears to be a very incomplete understanding of both facts and law by many responding.

I am especially surprised at the personal tone of responses including deep discourtesies and sometimes active abuse of many of the responses. If these are examples of the advocacy skills of those responding I would not be willing to pay a penny for such representation.

For those interested in the Irish processes here is a link to an LSE blog that is informative.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/04/27/what-the-uk-could-learn-from-irelands-eu-referendum-campaigns/

(2)(1)

Ciaran Goggins

Smaller nations can and do carry off referenda. Pog ma thon.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

Hush now Paddy.

(0)(0)

Legal Cheeky Nandos

Brexit has failed time so to move to North Korea where they seem to understand democracy better then the UK does.

(5)(0)

Chestbrah

U what brah?

(7)(0)

Anonymous

Mirin bodybuilders against tipping website.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Racist.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Funny how this racist comment stays up for hours, whereas one jokingly referring to a relationship between LC staff gets removed within minutes. As did a comment referring to the removed comment!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

What did the deleted comment say? 🤔

(0)(0)

Kim Jong Dead

It say we ha’ no erections in Norf Koleea!!!

(2)(0)

Question?

So what happens if we never actually leave? At least it’s clearer than ever that the UK cannot put up with the current state of affairs and will continue to moan and push for reform. Do we think the other EU countries will finally agree that it *is* time for reform? Will we FINALLY see a return to free movement of labour, rather than this free movement of people trend that Merkel errouneously claims to be infallible and which is essentially getting poorer EU countries off the hook for putting their own houses in order? Mess mess mess

(2)(1)

Pantman

There’s no bar on the UK seeking reform from within. Perhaps that’s the message from the referendum? One of the “draws” to the UK for migrants is supposedly our social security system. There’s a relatively easy way around that: no social security without four years of work (with some exceptions). School leavers qualify for benefits if they have spent at least the previous four years in education in the UK.

(7)(0)

Anonymous

The EU’s already stamped on any suggestion of constructively differential rules for benefit payments.

If a person in the UK could qualify by having worked in the last four years in the UK, the same must apply to an EU national who’s worked anywhere in the EU. If a UK school leaver is exempted by four previous years in education, then an EU national who’s been in education for that period anywhere in the EU must be similarly exempted. And so on. (As it happens, I believe the figures show that very few EU migrants do claim benefits.)

But the principle of losing control of self-determination in matters like these was always the problem for Remainers (I’m one) and it is difficult to argue that the sort of reciprocity the EU imagines to be beneficial to the EU as a whole is actually in the UK’s interests or in some other member states’ interests. Part of the difficulty is that other states simply ignore EU rules (looking at you France) but have sufficient clout and other national interests to be allowed to get away with it.

(4)(0)

Pantman

You may be right on the school leavers issue, but I think you are wrong on the workers issue. The basic reason is that you would construct the scheme so that NI ‘contributions’ were the measure of your entitlement. Therefore it doesn’t matter what you did in another member state.

So I need to work on what we do for school leavers – I think we don’t do much for them now, do we, so it’s not a real issue. But either way I seem to have a better solution than the government can manage.

Whether it is a live issue for EU workers or not is not really the point, the problem is whether it is a live issue for the public. It was certainly an issue from LEAVE campaigners during the referendum.

BTW, I gave you a thumbs up! 😉

(5)(0)

Food for thought

If only the debate surrounding the whole Brexit charade in June was as constructive as your discussion, gentlemen. It’s the lack of well-reasoned, pragmatic decisions, both in the EU and in the U.K., that sadly lead to such knee-jerk reactions like the Brexit vote to leave.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

And I returned the favour Ms/Mr Pantman.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Of course, in the midst of all of this, Germany wants to make sure that EU migrants who haven’t lived and paid tax in Germany for at least 5 years cannt gain access to benefits. One rule for the Germans, another for the rest of us, eh?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It’s not another rule, it’s another interpretation as to how social security should be funded. The rest of the continent does not understand our method of universal access – because most of them require some ‘paying-in’ to the system.

The solution is either to flounce off with our football, or to adopt a system that requires some ‘paying-in’. The latter is surely more pragmatic and less painful.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Do you think that removing entitlement from large numbers of UK citizens who haven’t paid (enough) in will be politically attractive? No government would do this. It’s an absurd suggestion.

This is part of the problem with EU membership. The pursuit of equal entitlements for all EU citizens leads to undesirable tensions between citizens of some states and of others. If the Commission and Council had been less doctrinaire about the ‘European dream’ we’d have voted massively to stay in (although there wouldn’t have needed to be a referendum on the question at all in that case).

(1)(0)

Pantman

I think if you construct the scheme properly then you don’t remove entitlement from many, if any.

here’s what that numbskull Cameron was saying in 2013:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10349752/Under-25s-would-not-be-able-to-claim-benefits-under-all-Conservative-government-David-Cameron-says.html

(0)(0)

US firm "that should pay much more" associate

But the brexit will still occur. (Whether people like it or not)

(2)(14)

Anonymous

I know who dis is.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

‘The Brexit’ eh?

Your ‘US’ firm must be blessed to have such a talented employee.

(8)(2)

Mid tier lawyer, down to earth, human.

Yes because I am sure a person’s overall talent is determined by them including a definite article into a made-up word.

Well done.

(1)(7)

Anonymous

Exactly, presumably he means “the British exit”

(3)(8)

Anonymous

At the end of the day all words are ‘made up’.

(1)(4)

Pass me the blunt

Bruh, that’s deep

(7)(0)

Michael

The Government respects the result of the referendum. How about the Government bloody well respects the judgment of the High Court? This judgment does impact the power the executive thinks it is able to wield and the timetable it is working to.

(10)(1)

Michael Maus

Quite so.

Three judges know better than the majority of the electorate who voted.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Daily Mail comments section
————————————–>

(8)(0)

Anonymous

It has been some time since I looked at public/administrative law, but what would be the status quo if the government disregarded the judgment and proceeded down the same route in any event?

(1)(1)

Disgusted

Disgusting how the vote of 17.4 million people can be reduced to a decision of 650 MPs. They don’t want to regain sovereignty because they do not possess the knowledge, expertise or will to govern their own country. They would rather continue to go against their constituents’ wishes whilst pocketing 70k per year courtesy of the taxpayer, read the times in their office all day, fiddle some expenses, cheat on their wife, maintain their facade and then when the merry go round is over take that private lobbyist job at Goldman Sachs. They better do the right thing otherwise the public will absolutely riot and they will never be left alone again

(4)(25)

Stallone

Cool story brah, made me go get my pitchfork.

(13)(0)

Anonymous

Someone’s been reading their UKIP manifesto.

(3)(0)

Pantman

You are so right, we should all be sitting at home with a little “UK controller” pad, voting on the issues of the day:

Lower taxes?

Cheaper fuel?

Hang Philip Green?

(12)(0)

Interloper

“UK – Press your buttons NOWWWW !!!”

Shame Mike Reid isn’t still around to compere….

(0)(0)

Mr Person

Hmm…

If that was so we would have:

– Lower taxes
– Higher public spending
– Higher minimum wage
– Lower prices
– No immigration
– World class NHS
– Oh, and capital punishment.

What’s not to like?

(1)(0)

Dump Trump

Go away fascist.

(0)(1)

Mr Person

Dump Trump, sorry you didn’t get the irony of my comments.

Point being you CAN’T have lower taxes and higher spending, or no immigration and a world class NHS.

Sorry I had to spell it out to you.

Back to school!

#epsilonminus

(2)(0)

Pantman

But we’re getting the ‘runaround’ aren’t we? 😉

(1)(0)

,

Because the 650 MPs represent the whole population of the UK, and not just the third that voted leave.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

I love the EU. It’s so curvy, so supple, so sensuous…mmm.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Factortame will always be my favourite case.

(0)(0)

Gus the Snedger

Which one?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Sequels are never as good as the first…

(0)(0)

Pantman

GBP is up, to about the highest it’s been in the past three weeks.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Good Boy Pants?

(1)(0)

LD

I myself blame bankers’ bonuses

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Order 66 on the High Court! Who the hell do t they think they are, these rich high court judges? They think they can stomp all over the DSL, Dark Lord Spaniard, the man, the man in motion, the myth, the legend, the fricken go getter…

(1)(3)

Anonymous

Thanks for that, wingnut.

(0)(0)

Byron

The more comments I read on LC made by people who voted Leave, the more convinced I get they’re all inbred retards. Who knew?

(3)(0)

Dublin BL

Three things:-

(1) We now have conflicting opinions on this matter from 2 separate UK High Courts. The judgment last week from Northern Ireland which ruled against the lead claimants, was predicated almost entirely on the same arguments as the Miller action. An interesting insight to judicial consistency.

(2) This judgment is not about bemoaning. It is about maintaining standards of public international law when it comes to the ratification, or in this instance, withdrawal from international treaties. It is just and proper the opinion sought in the recent plebiscite (which was advisory only) be scrutinised by and subject to parliamentary oversight.

(3) The Government will not win the action in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General never effectively addressed the international law position in his submissions and in this matter was simply outclassed by superior legal analysis and advocacy.

(10)(1)

Not Amused

“(2) This judgment is not about bemoaning. It is about maintaining standards of public international law when it comes to the ratification, or in this instance, withdrawal from international treaties. It is just and proper the opinion sought in the recent plebiscite (which was advisory only) be scrutinised by and subject to parliamentary oversight.”

Re-read the case.

The judges, wrong though I think they be, didn’t go this far. Nor would, could or should they (had they then I would be angry rather than disappointed). Treaties are very much still prerogative powers. The problem was the domestic legislation.

(0)(8)

Dublin BL

With respect, you need to consider the difference between ratification and incorporation.

You are correct the ratification of a treaty is a sovereign power, which vests in the prerogative. However, the incorporation of the treaty in municipal law is very much so a parliamentary power – and always has been.

No treaty that fundamentally alters the rights of a citizen has been incorporated without parliamentary consent and debate.

(5)(0)

Not Amused

It remains a prerogative power to withdraw from or enter in to international treaties. That was my point. In response to the misleading things you typed. Your respect, or frankly implicit lack thereof, is not material.

I don’t know what BL stands for. However if you are an Irish lawyer then I pity you. The EU has made it quite plain that the Republic will have to leave it or lose its economy. Given how emotionally pro-EU the populace is, that will be an exceedingly hard decision. I’m sorry for that. Just as I am sorry that they forced us out. But international trading clubs are not religions. Sometimes you do have to leave one when it is preferable to do so.

(0)(2)

Dublin BL

Respect aside then, you are quite frankly incorrect. There is a fundamental difference in international law between the “entering into of a treaty” and the “incorporation” of a treaty. There is nothing misleading in that at all. Actually it is rather quite simple. The former is exercised as a matter of sovereign power and the latter is exercised at the consent of the people, which in most constitutional democracies, including the UK, is by way of parliamentary vote.

I am an Irish Lawyer, and I do not need your pity.

I regrettably say this as someone who has both agreed and disagreed with you on this forum. If we are entering into the territory of attributing pity, then it is I who pities the fact that a purported lawyer like yourself, is unable to conduct a debate in a mannerly fashion, without resorting to personal attacks (as ridiculous as they may be). However, that is your prerogative. *pun intended*

(7)(0)

Not Amused

Well then, let us say that our disagreement is lost in our understanding of diplomatic French. French, of course, is the language of inter nation discourse and (of course, as a filthy leaver) I am ignorant of it.

I do not pity the Republic in a mean or unkind way. I want you to have the economy you have all worked so hard to have. After that adoption of austerity (which no one else adopted) you deserve accolades – not anti Apple judgments. A long time ago I was a federalist. Yet I was unable to adopt the blinkers which the Remainers felt able to adopt during the referendum.

We are where we are. The EU let quite a lot of us down – it has and will let your people down. No amount of silliness will change that.

We may ignore it, but not even the most die hard Remainer couldn’t support joining the Euro …

(1)(9)

Pantman

We may ignore it, but not even the most die hard Remainer couldn’t support joining the Euro …

I am having some trouble decoding that sentence. If you mean that there are no REMAIN voters who would support the UK adopting the euro, then you are wrong.

(1)(0)

Not Amused

“If you mean that there are no REMAIN voters who would support the UK adopting the euro, then you are wrong.”

Good. Good.

And you should all make that clear. Perhaps you could adopt special hats to help us all identify you. Tall pointed ones will be fine.

Definitely Amused

If you want a concrete example, Tony Blair has questioned why the UK did not join the euro on several occasions.

Anonymous

Not Amused, when you say you want us Remainers to wear a hat to mark us out in public, wouldn’t it be easier for us to wear a smaller symbol? Something stitched onto every piece of clothing so it would always be visible and couldn’t be taken off? I’m thinking a yellow star or something like that.

Pantman

NA, is that really the best you can do? Here, I can equal it:

Naah-naah-na-naah-naah!

Interloper

It’s a shame you feel like that. French is such a beautiful language – it really is !

(1)(0)

Pantman

‘It remains a prerogative power to withdraw from or enter in to international treaties.’

True enough. But if government creates domestic law that flows from the obligations of those treaties it cannot simply bin that law if it decides to withdraw from a particular treaty. The laws have created rights and obligations, and those cannot be dispensed with by the use of the prerogative.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

It’s all academic. Commons will vote it through no problem. Why? Because labour MPs don’t want a general election massacre.

Brexit is happening still.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Commons will vote it through. But what about the Lords? It seems to me implicit in the judgment that a statue is needed, not just a Commons vote.

(0)(0)

Pantman

I don’t see that Labour MPs have a particular aversion to a quick general election. The quicker they have one the quicker they will be rid of Corbyn. The pragmatic decision could well be: have an election now and lose, then have a chance in five year’s time. Rather than wait till 2020 and lose, and then wait another five years for that chance.

(1)(0)

Bungo Ferry

Suck it up whiners. Out means out!

(3)(3)

Lord Cockburn

Hush now little peasant, us plutocrats will ensure we remain.

(1)(2)

Pantman

Sounds like the dying cry of a Scargill.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

We’re seeing lots of sh1t from the Brexitears, as we have every day since the referendum.

No vitriol from the Remainers.

(1)(2)

Anonymous

This was a weak and illogical decision. Here’s the correct analysis for those with open minds: http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/referendum-article-50-case.shtml

“The judgment argues that this feature of the 1972 Act means that the Crown has no power to withdraw from the EU treaties, because doing so would have the effect of altering domestic law, which only Parliament can do.

This argument is illogical and does not hold water. There are many acts which the government can carry out on the international plane under the European treaties which have the effect of altering UK domestic law, and in doing so either confer rights on people or deprive them of rights. Whenever the UK representative on the Council of Ministers joins in passing into law a directly applicable EU Regulation then the Crown in using the prerogative power to alter internal UK law without that alteration of the law going through Parliament.”

(3)(4)

Pantman

Some concrete examples please? The 1972 Act is not the government signing up to a treaty is it? The regulations flow from the Act, not the signing of the treaty.

(0)(0)

Dont Pannick

Doesn’t this article make the same mistake as the newspapers? The judgment surely makes clear that what is required is no mere Commons vote but the passing of a statute repealing ECA 1972 approved by both houses following debate. A real “spanner in the works”. Delay and uncertainty.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.