Current Affairs EU In or Out

[allezlesbleus]

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

End of para 2?

 

[Joey66]

Yeah thanks. Took a chainsaw to it a few weeks back, about 18 inches ish now, so will wait till Spring to destroy as you suggested.

Is it the wild cane bamboo or the hybrid varieties from the EU (joke) if it's the wild one maybe a brushwood killer is best PM. Me a picture when it starts growth in early May

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

There is no assurance that can be given as negotiations will not have started, so no one knows what position may be the final outcome. The only thing we do know for certain is that article 50 will have to be initiated to start the process.......

Only there is an assurance that can be give Pete, as I just outlined. If we want to retain single market access we can.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Yeah thanks. Took a chainsaw to it a few weeks back, about 18 inches ish now, so will wait till Spring to destroy as you suggested.

It's not Japanese knotweed is it?

 

[Toffeelover]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...0-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory
Good article on the EU referendum

It is very biased towards remain. here was never any indication to the electorate that it was as the article claims - advisory. By both the government and the electorate it was seen as a mandate. The article also makes unnecessary emphasis on immigration. Does not mention at all what for me and many was to get out from under Brussels and go our own way again.

As I said very biased.

 

[roydo]

Is it the wild cane bamboo or the hybrid varieties from the EU (joke) if it's the wild one maybe a brushwood killer is best PM. Me a picture when it starts growth in early May

Will do mate. In the diary to give you a poke anyrate.

 

[roydo]

It's not Japanese knotweed is it?

No, thank christ.

 

[The Esk]

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

The crux of the High Court judgement is entirely consistent with the above. The HC has determined that it would be unconstitutional for the Government alone to trigger Article 50.

Why? Because by doing so the British citizen loses certain rights, a point conceded by the Government's council - for example the loss of right to stand for, or vote in the European Elections.

Back as far as the English Civil War it has been recognised that Parliament not Government can only take or give rights. Parliament may of course confer to government the right to change legislation but in this case that is clearly not the case.

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.

That is not a substantial issue, the HC was only concerned with who has the right to invoke Article 50 - the government or Parliament.

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.

Au contraire, it is entirely the Courts right to determine if asked, the seperation of powers between Parliament and Government.

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.

Again, respectfully I think you are misinterpreting the judgement. The judgement paragraph 94 very clearly lays out their reasoning.

Indeed if we use your reasoning, because there is no express or implied authority for the Crown to change domestic law or nullify rights under the ECA 1972, then there is clearly no authority to do so. Thus further legislation is required to bring about those changes created by the invoked Article 50.

I really think there's much more important work for the Government and the Courts to be getting on with than an appeal to the Supreme Court. Incidentally the Supreme Court have not yet granted the appeal.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Good and interesting points in the main, above, Esk.

However, if we are subservient (God, I hate that word in respect of what I'm going to write, but anyway) to the law of the EU at present, then Article 50 is quite clear about pulling out of that organisation. And Article 50 states the clear procedures to be gone through with them.

Back to my earlier point: no Judge can impute something into any law that is not there. It is illegal to do so. This is a house. No it's not, it's a tent pitched in your own garden. This is a guitar. No it's not. It's a long shovel with a piece of wire attached to both ends. Ludicrous, I know, but that is by way of illustration. You cannot impute into something that which is not there. And the Judges did. I quoted it specifically...

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Good and interesting points in the main, above, Esk.

However, if we are subservient (God, I hate that word in respect of what I'm going to write, but anyway) to the law of the EU at present, then Article 50 is quite clear about pulling out of that organisation. And Article 50 states the clear procedures to be gone through with them.

Back to my earlier point: no Judge can impute something into any law that is not there. It is illegal to do so. This is a house. No it's not, it's a tent pitched in your own garden. This is a guitar. No it's not. It's a long shovel with a piece of wire attached to both ends. Ludicrous, I know, but that is by way of illustration. You cannot impute into something that which is not there. And the Judges did. I quoted it specifically...

It's really not complicated. By invoking article 50 the Govt is removing the UK from the EU. The 1972 act which took us in has created rights that UK citizens now benefit from - free movement being one. The judgment was that the Govt cannot remove those rights by withdrawing from the EU without following the correct constitutional process. We're a parliamentary democracy and therefore parliament needs to make the decision not the Govt of the day.

 

[bring the ghost on]

If we are subservient to the law of the EU at present, then Article 50 is quite clear about pulling out of that organisation. And Article 50 states the clear procedures to be gone through with them.

As you pointed out yourself a few pages back, Article 50 states that:

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

The point about whether we are subservient to EU is irrelevant on this occassion, because Article 50 is clear that the constitutional requirements of the individual Member State will apply if such MS decides to leave the union.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a long established cornerstone of our constitution, however as has been pointed by by @The Esk and @Foot Long Hot Dog, the constitution does not give the Government the right to take away people's rights, it confers the power in Parliament instead.

Hence, the ruling is simply that Parliament must be involved in the triggering of Article 50 and the manner in which it is done.

I genuinely fail to see why you would find this particularly controversial. It can only be a good thing that our elected officials are consulted on the manner of our leaving the EU given its huge implications.

 

[Joey66]

The crux of the High Court judgement is entirely consistent with the above. The HC has determined that it would be unconstitutional for the Government alone to trigger Article 50.

Why? Because by doing so the British citizen loses certain rights, a point conceded by the Government's council - for example the loss of right to stand for, or vote in the European Elections.

Back as far as the English Civil War it has been recognised that Parliament not Government can only take or give rights. Parliament may of course confer to government the right to change legislation but in this case that is clearly not the case.



That is not a substantial issue, the HC was only concerned with who has the right to invoke Article 50 - the government or Parliament.



Au contraire, it is entirely the Courts right to determine if asked, the seperation of powers between Parliament and Government.



Again, respectfully I think you are misinterpreting the judgement. The judgement paragraph 94 very clearly lays out their reasoning.

Indeed if we use your reasoning, because there is no express or implied authority for the Crown to change domestic law or nullify rights under the ECA 1972, then there is clearly no authority to do so. Thus further legislation is required to bring about those changes created by the invoked Article 50.

I really think there's much more important work for the Government and the Courts to be getting on with than an appeal to the Supreme Court. Incidentally the Supreme Court have not yet granted the appeal.

If we are going that far back only if Oliver Cromwell had took the offer to become King
Or if Guye Fawkes had been successfully in blowing the houses of Parliment up hey holol

 

[The Esk]

I'm staggered that good, reasonable people cannot recognise the significance of the difference between Parliament and Government bestowing or removing the rights of the people.

It is the basis upon which our very liberty in a democracy is based.

 

[Joey66]

I'm staggered that good, reasonable people cannot recognise the significance of the difference between Parliament and Government bestowing or removing the rights of the people.

It is the basis upon which our very liberty in a democracy is based.

Breaking news May to push a simple article 50 bill through in one day in Parliment

 

[gorgeousgeorgeEFC]

Not a Tory but I have a thing for Theresa May. She would make a great Chief Whip.