Current Affairs EU In or Out

[The binman chronicles]

They could easily debate and vote for something akin to the Norway model.

I don't think the Brexiteers would be too keen on that, could well see riots. I would be ok with it

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I don't think the Brexiteers would be too keen on that, could well see riots. I would be ok with it

It's probably the best of a bad situation.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I don't think the Brexiteers would be too keen on that, could well see riots. I would be ok with it

I doubt the blue rinse set would take to the streets, and Wayne and Waynetta wouldn't be arsed enough to get off the couch lol

 

[Toffeelover]

Yep, Southwark. An all Labour borough funnily enough (not that I voted for 'em like).

Naturally!

 

[Toffeelover]

Try going around speaking Polish for a bit and you'll probably get told a few times

Bruce I find the things that have happened to be utterly deplorable and am disgusted with the behaviour of these people. We all know that our country is not perfect that there is such discrimination. Having said that we are not as bad as the USA where there has been such ill feeling not just for decades but centuries. Thank goodness.

 

[roydo]

I doubt the blue rinse set would take to the streets, and Wayne and Waynetta wouldn't be arsed enough to get off the couch lol

More likely to riot if their deliveries are late/lost/broken.

In my experience.

 

[Toffeelover]

It seems to me that there is little we can discuss or ponder over for a while until we get nearer early December.

 

[Old Blue 2]

So OB2 who rules and interprets the constitution if it is not the Courts?

One of the first lessons when studying law is that Parliament legislates and the Courts interpret. Would you not agree?

Esk,
Here is what Article 50 states (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html):

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

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.


There is nothing in the above which says that the State seeking to withdraw from the Union must have the issue debated/voted upon in its parliamentary assembly.

As I have said before, the judiciary rules on criminal and common cases in the courts. The judiciary rules on interpretation of the words and phrases in legal matters (I say 'legal matters' because they rule not only on Acts of Parliament, but also on decisions made by others in the whole appellate process, including other judges where their decisions are perceived to have set precedent). However, I do not believe the judiciary's role is to direct the Government of the day, Leadership of the country (call it what you will), what it can/cannot or should/should not, do.

Another legal point, which I think the Judges in their judgement got wrong a few days ago is this:
"...The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent on the question of what happens to EU rights in domestic law if the Crown seeks to take action on the international plane to undo them..." Now, in my training on legal matters, it was hammered home that one cannot impute, imply, or claim that something is in a statute if it is not there. Therefore, in my opinion, to state thate 'The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent' is an error in law, because those Judges ARE saying that something that is NOT in the ECA 1972 should be taken as being in there (i.e. it IS silent, but they are saying it cannot be - that is an error in law). And therein lies the legal case for a successful appeal to higher authority, in my view.

So Esk, I would qualify your second paragraph that I have quoted above by saying there are some things they are not competent to comment on (competent in the sense of being outwith the ambit of their authority), as I have outlined in my above paragraph.

I will close first by apologising for a somewhat tardy reply - I've been watching the football all afternoon as well as having my evening meal. Not the best of week-ends given the results...

I will also say I find the exchanges fascinating re the legal side of things, the the points you raise.

Finally, apologies for along post again, but I hope it is interesting for those who plough through the whole thing.

 

[peteblue]

The vote won't be just, can we invoke article 50 please chaps?

They'll have to put forward their strategy and what the prime objectives are.

If they put forward a back of cig packet bill then they'll be asking for it to be kicked back by the House or the Lords demanding that they provide more detail of what Brexit they're intending to deliver before article 50 is involved

The vote will probably be just that. There was nothing in the court case that said the government had to spell out its strategy or negotiating position, merely that it had to put its request for initiating article 50 before parliament. If the Supreme Court backs up the first judgement I expect the government to put forward the simplest of questions, and I expect the MP's to vote it through. Of course if the SC backs the government then I would still hope that the PM puts it before parliament in order to let the electorate see for themselves what our MP's are about, either with the people or against them......

 

[The Esk]

Esk,
Here is what Article 50 states (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html):

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

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.


There is nothing in the above which says that the State seeking to withdraw from the Union must have the issue debated/voted upon in its parliamentary assembly.

As I have said before, the judiciary rules on criminal and common cases in the courts. The judiciary rules on interpretation of the words and phrases in legal matters (I say 'legal matters' because they rule not only on Acts of Parliament, but also on decisions made by others in the whole appellate process, including other judges where their decisions are perceived to have set precedent). However, I do not believe the judiciary's role is to direct the Government of the day, Leadership of the country (call it what you will), what it can/cannot or should/should not, do.

Another legal point, which I think the Judges in their judgement got wrong a few days ago is this:
"...The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent on the question of what happens to EU rights in domestic law if the Crown seeks to take action on the international plane to undo them..." Now, in my training on legal matters, it was hammered home that one cannot impute, imply, or claim that something is in a statute if it is not there. Therefore, in my opinion, to state thate 'The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent' is an error in law, because those Judges ARE saying that something that is NOT in the ECA 1972 should be taken as being in there (i.e. it IS silent, but they are saying it cannot be - that is an error in law). And therein lies the legal case for a successful appeal to higher authority, in my view.

So Esk, I would qualify your second paragraph that I have quoted above by saying there are some things they are not competent to comment on (competent in the sense of being outwith the ambit of their authority), as I have outlined in my above paragraph.

I will close first by apologising for a somewhat tardy reply - I've been watching the football all afternoon as well as having my evening meal. Not the best of week-ends given the results...

I will also say I find the exchanges fascinating re the legal side of things, the the points you raise.

Finally, apologies for along post again, but I hope it is interesting for those who plough through the whole thing.

Will answer later OB

 

[edge]

If parliament says we want this or that, before activating article 50, we go to the EU, they say no do one,
What happens then , we haven't got what parliament wanted but we can't leave either,
i am more than likely missing something but it doesn't seem right to me.

 

[peteblue]

Esk,
Here is what Article 50 states (http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html):

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

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.


There is nothing in the above which says that the State seeking to withdraw from the Union must have the issue debated/voted upon in its parliamentary assembly.

As I have said before, the judiciary rules on criminal and common cases in the courts. The judiciary rules on interpretation of the words and phrases in legal matters (I say 'legal matters' because they rule not only on Acts of Parliament, but also on decisions made by others in the whole appellate process, including other judges where their decisions are perceived to have set precedent). However, I do not believe the judiciary's role is to direct the Government of the day, Leadership of the country (call it what you will), what it can/cannot or should/should not, do.

Another legal point, which I think the Judges in their judgement got wrong a few days ago is this:
"...The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent on the question of what happens to EU rights in domestic law if the Crown seeks to take action on the international plane to undo them..." Now, in my training on legal matters, it was hammered home that one cannot impute, imply, or claim that something is in a statute if it is not there. Therefore, in my opinion, to state thate 'The ECA 1972 cannot be regarded as silent' is an error in law, because those Judges ARE saying that something that is NOT in the ECA 1972 should be taken as being in there (i.e. it IS silent, but they are saying it cannot be - that is an error in law). And therein lies the legal case for a successful appeal to higher authority, in my view.

So Esk, I would qualify your second paragraph that I have quoted above by saying there are some things they are not competent to comment on (competent in the sense of being outwith the ambit of their authority), as I have outlined in my above paragraph.

I will close first by apologising for a somewhat tardy reply - I've been watching the football all afternoon as well as having my evening meal. Not the best of week-ends given the results...

I will also say I find the exchanges fascinating re the legal side of things, the the points you raise.

Finally, apologies for along post again, but I hope it is interesting for those who plough through the whole thing.

I also like the fact that it mentions the European Council and not the European Commission or the European Parliament....

 

[Old Blue 2]

Damn, a couple of typos in my above post #12366, that I cannot now correct.
1. thate = that
2. "I will also say I find the exchanges fascinating re the legal side of things, and the points you raise."

 

[peteblue]

If parliament says we want this or that, before activating article 50, we go to the EU, they say no do one,
What happens then , we haven't got what parliament wanted but we can't leave either,
i am more than likely missing something but it doesn't seem right to me.

Its all about steps and process. The first step is initiate article 50, we cannot negotiate before that, first we have to press the button so what is wanted or not is irrelevant. Then we spend two years negotiating and end up with a position that we either accept or not, either way after two years, unless the EU Council and ourselves unanimously agree to extend it, then we are out with or without a deal...........

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Its all about steps and process. The first step is initiate article 50, we cannot negotiate before that, first we have to press the button so what is wanted or not is irrelevant. Then we spend two years negotiating and end up with a position that we either accept or not, either way after two years, unless the EU Council and ourselves unanimously agree to extend it, then we are out with or without a deal...........

That's the way I understand it.