Brexit View

[Shaggy]

Miller's case was entirely predicated upon Article 50 being irreversible. If Article 50 is irreversible, triggering it destroys laws passed by the UK Parliament such as those governing UK elections to the European Parliament. The PM cannot make laws and and cannot destroy laws. Therefore the PM cannot trigger A50 without Parliament's consent. That was Gina Miller's case, simply put.

The government's argument was that the PM makes treaties, not Parliament. So the PM can trigger A50 as part of the powers the PM has usurped from the monarchy.

At the end of the first day of the hearing, the judge stated Miller's case hung on the reversibility of A50. The judge requested to hear submissions on that point and suggested that Luxembourg might end up being the final arbiter.

The government asked to take instructions overnight. On the next day of the hearing, the government stated that it would not make submissions, and the court should proceed assuming A50 can't be reversed.

Now we know that, had the Government addressed the point about reversibility, this case would have been heard in Luxembourg much earlier as part of the Miller case, and the outcome may have been different.

[JohnL]

Shaggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Miller's case was entirely predicated upon Article

> 50 being irreversible. If Article 50 is

> irreversible, triggering it destroys laws passed

> by the UK Parliament such as those governing UK

> elections to the European Parliament. The PM

> cannot make laws and and cannot destroy laws.

> Therefore the PM cannot trigger A50 without

> Parliament's consent. That was Gina Miller's case,

> simply put.

>

> The government's argument was that the PM makes

> treaties, not Parliament. So the PM can trigger

> A50 as part of the powers the PM has usurped from

> the monarchy.

>

> At the end of the first day of the hearing, the

> judge stated Miller's case hung on the

> reversibility of A50. The judge requested to hear

> submissions on that point and suggested that

> Luxembourg might end up being the final arbiter.

>

> The government asked to take instructions

> overnight. On the next day of the hearing, the

> government stated that it would not make

> submissions, and the court should proceed assuming

> A50 can't be reversed.

>

> Now we know that, had the Government addressed the

> point about reversibility, this case would have

> been heard in Luxembourg much earlier as part of

> the Miller case, and the outcome may have been

> different.

The independent article distinguishes won't and can't

We still assume the government won't revoke article 50.

?To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did not rule on the legal position regarding its revocability."

[Shaggy]

The quote is an interesting summary, and one that assumes much prior knowledge:

"To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did not rule on the legal position regarding its revocability.

?Once again, I am grateful to this House for the opportunity to make a statement. I recognise that my comments have caused confusion and I apologise to the House.?

This is true because, on day two of the High Court hearing, the court agreed to proceed on the (untested) basis that Article 50 was irreversible because neither side chose to argue the point, despite the judge asking them to do so.

So the case proceeded, from day two, on a false premise.

I'm not raising a major new point. On day two of the hearing, all of us in court were incredibly surprised to see the government duck a vital point in the case.

They were told, pretty much in terms "If A50 is reversible, you win. Would you like to argue that A50 is reversible?" And the gov said "no thanks".

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Shaggy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Of course, if the UK government had accepted

> > this

> > > obvious conclusion in the first place, Gina

> > Miller

> > > would have lost her case.

> >

> > Why do you say that? Her case was to establish

> > the principle that the UK government could not

> > implement Article 50 without final approval

> from

> > the UK parliament; this ruling states that the

> UK

> > government may abandon Article 50 without

> approval

> > from the EU parliament. Two entirely different

> > cases, one related to internal UK procedures

> and

> > one to international EU law.

>

> Looks like this (retracted) comment by a Lord last

> November

>

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bre

> xit-minister-lord-callanan-apology-article-50-irre

> versible-supreme-court-ruling-david-davis-uk-a8065

> 591.html

[JohnL]

I've got a headache as a non lawyer - seems like Catch 22 - and even more so if for some reason (a second vote) A50 got revoked. :)

[diable rouge]

Once again David Allen Green is the go to person in such matters, check out his Twitter and how he has to correct so called journalists who have wrongly commented on the AG's opinion piece. It's staggering that one BBC journalist said it was a ruling that the UK can unilaterally extend A50...not even close.

DAG also highlights that there are conditions attached with the AG's opinion, e.g. if it is approved by the EUCJ, the UK Parliament will still need to pass an Act to implement the unilateral withdrawal, and also it has to be done in ''good faith and sincere cooperation'', meaning that the UK can't simply stop the clock in order to carry on re-negotiating, otherwise the 2 year cycle could start all over again...and again... and again. The UK must want to cancel Brexit period...

[rendelharris]

Shaggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The quote is an interesting summary, and one that

> assumes much prior knowledge:

>

> "To reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the

> Supreme Court proceeded in the Miller case on the

> basis that Article 50 would not be revoked but did

> not rule on the legal position regarding its

> revocability.

>

> ?Once again, I am grateful to this House for the

> opportunity to make a statement. I recognise that

> my comments have caused confusion and I apologise

> to the House.?

>

>

> This is true because, on day two of the High Court

> hearing, the court agreed to proceed on the

> (untested) basis that Article 50 was irreversible

> because neither side chose to argue the point,

> despite the judge asking them to do so.

>

> So the case proceeded, from day two, on a false

> premise.

But you're presupposing that had the government introduced the reversibility argument the Supreme Court would have accepted that reversibility was sufficient to allow A50 to be passed without consulting parliament, and that's in no way guaranteed. Effectively the government would have been saying OK, we still want the right to abolish sovereign UK legislation without consulting parliament but we would retain the right to change our minds. Several legal opinions I've seen have said that would not have been regarded as sufficient.

[Shaggy]

Yep, Rendelharris, you are quite right. I am presupposing that point, though I'm presupposing it because that is what Lord Thomas also presupposed at the start of the hearing, prompting the three judges hearing the case to ask for submissions on the issue. It was a logical assumption on their part, but not a ruling.

You are also quite right that had the (now clearly sensible) issue of reversing A50 been addressed in Miller instead of deliberately being ducked by the Government, the case could have taken a different route to the same result. The act of leaving the EU still destroys domestic law.

But we all would have know three years ago that A50 could be reversed.

[rendelharris]

Fair point.

[JohnL]

So whats the current likely scenarios if Theresa May loses her vote

May deal fails - Hilary Benn has an amendment to ensure no deal is blocked - might pass might fail.

May has 21 days to re-submit something - I hear she may even submit the same thing (after a market/financial crash)

Corbyn will submit his no confidence motion (expected to fail but DUP are unpredictable)

Labour move to support a peoples vote (but there isn't time before end of march)

..

[diable rouge]

Shaggy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But we all would have know three years ago that

> A50 could be stopped.

The Gov with their constant attempts (11 times if I'm not mistaken) to have this A50 revocation case not heard, shows how they didn't want it to be known that A50 could be stopped. Thus it suited them to act as they did during the Miller case. For all their protestations of 'taking back control' and 'sovereignty', May's Gov (the Executive) has continually tried to ride roughshod over Parliament and it's procedures, e.g, the Miller case, the meaningful vote, and even as recent as yesterday with the legal advice debate. I don't think I'm using hyperbole when I say that this Gov has shown fascistic leanings in how it has conducted itself and the contempt it has for Parliamentary procedure since the Referendum...

[JohnL]

Another amendment in similar to Hilary Benn but supported by some of Theresa May's backers and the Nick Boles faction (Norway+). Again about parliament instructing Theresa May.

[diable rouge]

You'll drive yourself nuts John going through all the potential outcomes if May's deal is voted down. Assuming it does get voted down, if the numbers are as big as has been estimated by some, then she may simply quit there and then, and we'll be in an even bigger constitutional crisis than we are now. "Events, my dear boy, events"...

[diable rouge]

Quote of the day... There really is not enough popcorn in the world for the shit that is going to go down in parliament today.

[Alan Medic]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Once again David Allen Green is the go to person

> in such matters, check out his Twitter and how he

> has to correct so called journalists who have

> wrongly commented on the AG's opinion piece. It's

> staggering that one BBC journalist said it was a

> ruling that the UK can unilaterally extend

> A50...not even close.

> DAG also highlights that there are conditions

> attached with the AG's opinion, e.g. if it is

> approved by the EUCJ, the UK Parliament will still

> need to pass an Act to implement the unilateral

> withdrawal, and also it has to be done in ''good

> faith and sincere cooperation'', meaning that the

> UK can't simply stop the clock in order to carry

> on re-negotiating, otherwise the 2 year cycle

> could start all over again...and again... and

> again. The UK must want to cancel Brexit period...

>

DAG also wrote that it would be hard to see an Act of that nature (giving up on Brexit) being passed in time i.e by March 29th.

[diable rouge]

Yep, DAG always states what has to happen legally as things currently stand, obviously things can change e.g. EU approves an extension of time to A50 for passing of such an Act.

On John's subject of amendments, looks like Dominic Grieve has out-trumped them all with his...

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yep, DAG always states what has to happen legally

> as things currently stand, obviously things can

> change e.g. EU approves an extension of time to

> A50 for passing of such an Act.

>

> On John's subject of amendments, looks like

> Dominic Grieve has out-trumped them all with

> his...

and looks like it could be voted on today - which just adds to my confusion :)

[diable rouge]

Help! I'm running out of popcorn!! :)

Gov to publish legal advice after being found in contempt of Parliament.

Grieve amendment passed, it's similar to what he wanted earlier in the year, but backed down when May said it would affect her negotiations. Reported that Damian Green and Michael Fallon voted for it....et tu Brute!

I do like it when Parliament takes back control...

*Munch, munch, munch...*

[JohnL]

"Leadsom, the leader of the House, said any MP who had ambitions of being in government at some point in the future would ?live to regret? the contempt vote that forced the government to publish its full Brexit legal advice."

The government still haven't got the message :)

[malumbu]

Ideal sketch material

TM: This deal honours the result of the referendum

Me: The referendum shows that the public were split, and it was not clear exactly what what was being voted on

TM: No it didn?t

Me: yet it did

TM: no it didn?t, the British Public clearly voted to leave the European union

Me: The referendum showed that the public were split between those that wanted to stay and those that want?t to leave

TM: no it didn?t

Me: yes it did

TM: no it didn?t

Me: This is not a debate, a debate involves a series of statements intended to establish a proposition

TM: no it doesn?t

Me: You are just taking up a contradictory position

TM: No I am not

Me: a debate is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

TM: no it isn?t

(warning anyone under 40 will be lost on this post)

[Sue]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ideal sketch material

>

> TM: This deal honours the result of the

> referendum

> Me: The referendum shows that the public were

> split, and it was not clear exactly what what was

> being voted on

> TM: No it didn?t

> Me: yet it did

> TM: no it didn?t, the British Public clearly voted

> to leave the European union

> Me: The referendum showed that the public were

> split between those that wanted to stay and those

> that want?t to leave

> TM: no it didn?t

> Me: yes it did

> TM: no it didn?t

> Me: This is not a debate, a debate involves a

> series of statements intended to establish a

> proposition

> TM: no it doesn?t

> Me: You are just taking up a contradictory

> position

> TM: No I am not

> Me: a debate is an intellectual process.

> Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of

> any statement the other person makes.

> TM: no it isn?t

>

> (warning anyone under 40 will be lost on this

> post)

:)) :)) :))

[JohnL]

Not even sure I believe some of this from @campbellclaret :)

"One of those memorable moments in life. In a cafe with @Jacob_Rees_Mogg An NHS consultant comes over, tells us the story of how his German wife, a Doctor, left him because he voted Leave (which he did because he thought it would mean more money for the NHS). Heartrendingly sad"

[Charles Martel]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not even sure I believe some of this from

> @campbellclaret :)

>

> "One of those memorable moments in life. In a cafe

> with @Jacob_Rees_Mogg An NHS consultant comes

> over, tells us the story of how his German wife, a

> Doctor, left him because he voted Leave (which he

> did because he thought it would mean more money

> for the NHS). Heartrendingly sad"

It was part of a Channel 4 news piece. As it happened:

How could any grown up adult be naive enough to believe a politician promises?

The issues around Britain's position in the EU as opposed to the EEC have been discussed over and over and over again in the last thirty years. This was the issue that led to the ousting of Mrs. Thatcher in 1990. In this snippet of a commons debate from Oct. 1990 you can hear all the issues

Given the longevity of this issue in British politics it is absurd to claim that rational people would have made their decision based solely on the few months of the campaign. It is equally absurd that given the length of time that some politicians have been agitating for the UK to leave the EU none of them would have worked out a credible plan to do so.

[Alan Medic]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not even sure I believe some of this from

> @campbellclaret :)

>

> "One of those memorable moments in life. In a cafe

> with @Jacob_Rees_Mogg An NHS consultant comes

> over, tells us the story of how his German wife, a

> Doctor, left him because he voted Leave (which he

> did because he thought it would mean more money

> for the NHS). Heartrendingly sad"

>

>

> https://twitter.com/campbellclaret/status/10703216

> 26896613379?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp

> %7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Which bit are you not sure to believe? Someone else on twitter posted a picture of the exchange and it looked like there was a camera crew there.

[JoeLeg]

If you haven?t seen the footage it does sound pretty fanciful - the idea that someone voted Leave to help the NHS and lost his marriage because of the result. Exactly the kind of sob story that makes the pro-EU position look callous.

The bit I find hard to believe is that someone like a consuslrant genuinely thought the NHS would see more money and wouldn?t be sold down the river to American private healthcare.

[diable rouge]

1900...