The High Court has ruled that the government must get Parliamentary approval before it triggers Article 50. So we are a three-line-whip away from triggering Article 50. Big deal.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Ultimately this will change nothingNovember 3rd, 2016 |
 55 comments to Ultimately this will change nothing |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I wouldn’t be so sure.
It’s quite possible that the Remoaners in the HoC will be willing to bring down the Govt. on this; after all the majority is only 11.
So the really interesting question is what would the HoC look like after the subsequent snap general election.
I would like to say there would be a massive majority then of Pro-Brexit members.
But I don’t expect it. The bbc and the establishment media have done their job too well since the referendum; and UKIP, of course, are (probably always were) a disorganised shower of incompetents, so they won’t be changing anything.
Agree. But one of the gigantic tools that Remain used in the referendum, namely FEAR, has been removed. They can’t use it again. One of the joys of crying ‘Wolf!’ too loud and too often.
People may be in/out, but the borderline out-ers are not afraid anymore. I suspect that would be very telling in a general election campaign. And the harder the Remain camp push at the FEAR button this time round, the stupider tey will look.
Andrew Duffin:Large numbers of non-fanatic remain voters are very likely angry about attempts to set aside a result that the fucking blurb/ballot papers said the state would honour regardless. Those who still believe in non-EU style democracy.
Plus you massively overestimate Tory scum MPs who would be hard-pressed to find work as lucrative as the scam they already have.
As has been pointed out on Tim Worstall’s blog–if the MP remain gang wanted a GE , the legal antics need have nothing to do with it. There are enough of them + ZaNu etc for a vote of No Confidence right now. And have been since 23/6 ( or May’s accession at any rate). They have no stomach for it.
Which means that now is the time to double-down with pressure on the bastards.
This american is confused, I thought that the treaty power was a prerogative of the crown, and thus the government.
This means almost nothing. Good luck to those MPs who defy the whip. They would be history.
Possibly this might be used by May as an excuse to explicitly state that we are staying in the single market, although there isn’t really a viable alternative anyway.
One is accustomed to courts deciding the law is whatever the smart set want it to be but even by the usual low standards that ruling is such a lie! The evil of its being allowed to stand goes well beyond any impact on Brexit.
I agree that it makes no difference. Parliament was always going to have to vote on repeal of the Europe act so in this particular case, the difference is formal, not actual.
We will have to wait and see.
Mr. Ecks, to the contrary, I expect large numbers on non-fanatic remain voters are feeling quietly smug about this right now. “There, we knew it would never happen”, etc etc.
And my over-estimation doesn’t need to be massive: it only takes six “Tory scum MP’s” to vote against the whip, and that’s that.
Legally, constitutionally I suspect the ruling may be correct. We might even get such a vote and find that parliament succeeds in round 1 at frustrating brexit. But then we really do have a massive constitutional crisis and a GE – a GE at which a ‘Brexit means Brexit’ Tory party is going to be fighting Jeremy Corbyn. The resulting blue landslide will then vote again – in a way more to the people’s liking. I reckon the final effect will be merely to have further undermined the statist establishment a bit. And to give May a freer hand in the actual negotiations as she’ll own parliament then.
Somewhere in Hell, Andrew Jackson is quietly chuckling.
I agree Patrick. Bring it on.
Some of you might remember me going on and on immediately after the vote about how we needed to invoke Artcle 50 ASAP. Now do you see why? I’m not as confident as Perry is that this will be no problem.
However, I’m more confident than Andrew is — it will take more than six Tories to vote against the whip, because I expect there will be a lot of Labour MPs who vote for Leave. A Parliamenary vote will cause chaos for Labour.
And I can’t see many Tory MPs voting Remain. What happens if lots do, and Remain wins the vote? An early election, and those Tories who voted Remain will face a real risk of deselection. Even if that MP does get reselected, UKIP will be resurgent, and that MP will most likely lose their seat.
I also expect Labour to officially support a Leave vote. They’d be screwed if they don’t. The bigger worry is Remainers using the vote to exact compromises, and for them to gain control over the exit process.
Andrew Duffin–you are mixing with the wrong crowd.
Also –as said–if these Tory heroes want to duke it out for Remain–what’s stopping the scum? They can have a GE on by the end of next week.
No, it already is a problem. But ultimately it will change nothing. That said, I tend to agree with Patrick’s end-point analysis: this is more likely to end up biting the bad guys harder than anyone else when all is said and done. Of course only time will tell.
Quite so.
Yeah, what Patrick said. Also this is quite good: http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/11/calm-down-dears-article-50-is-still-going-to-happen.html
Also some have pointed out over on Richard North’s blog , this decision confirms that Parliament is sovereign overall and that includes over the EU’s dictat.
So it may not be as bad as at first sight.
Y’all lead rich fantasy lives, don’t you?
As I’ve been saying since the election was still under way, there won’t be any Brexit.
Now the actual pro-Brexiters can have their fight, the fake pro Brexiters can pretend to join, and the Lords can sit on it until it dies.
British democracy, ha.
staghounds, I already have a collection of your comments in draft that I will be publishing on the day we leave the EU 😉
Nicola Sturgeon is gloating today I understand, but surely this must be bad news for her. If parliament grants another IndyRef, and if she wins it, she will (by this logic) still have to get it through parliament too. It’s easy to imagine what the reaction would have been here in Scotland if the country had voted 52-48 to leave the UK, only to be told that Westminster would have to decide…
Staghounds–Brexit is coming and when it does you will feel worse than the day The Monarch of The Glen stepped on your knackers.
You mean that she is not objecting to Scotland’s future being determined by Welsh and English judges? ‘Tis a historic day indeed.
That ignores the point that 70% of LABOUR seats voted for Brexit.
Heh, I distinctly recall someone here opining just a few weeks ago that this lawsuit was nothing but “gross posturing” and the constitutional position was “well defined” (which I inferred to mean that the case was without legal merit). Ah yes, here it is. So I guess at least these few judges thought differently.
Anyone care to handicap what will happen on appeal? My understanding of the British legal system is rather rudimentary, but if I’m correct the appeal is to the HOL, right? Is any further appeal possible, or is that the end of the line?
1. I’m surprised by the judgement. Ignoring Brexit though, it’s actually a nice precedent to have. The government can’t use the Royal Prerogative to take away rights.
2. It’s not just the HoC. I think Davis has said the presumption is that a Act of Parliament is required and that seems to be the logic of the judgment. So the HoL needs to fall in line too.
3. But I agree that if either HoC or HoL blocks Article 50 there’ll be a general election, probably resulting in a large Tory win. And before they are Remainers, Tory MPs are cowards. So there should be no difficulty in passing a Brexit Bill, rapidly followed by a stamp on Tony Blair’s pet HoL Bill.
4. So the likeliest results of the court case are
(a) nothing – Supreme Court reverses
(b) a nice precedent on the Royal Prerogative – SC affirms and HoC and HoL fold
( c) a short delay followed by a large Tory majority, Brexit, the death of the Labour Party and the correction of the Blair stitch up of the Lords.
Seeing that Coke has had a selective airing in this case, I had a look at the Case of Proclamations (1610) and found a choice segment:
Lee, I understand your comments, but my question was purely procedural (albeit, perhaps, a bit snarky 😈 ): in what tribunal does the appeal lie, and is there any further avenue of appeal thereafter?
Mr Ed, I have to confess that I didn’t get anything useful out of that Coke citation. “[T]he King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him.” Well, yes, but isn’t that rather a tautology?
Anyone care to offer an opinion on how the appellate tribunal (whatever that is) will likely rule on this?
The judgment completely glosses over the following points:
1. The power to leave has been enacted by Parliament by enacting the Lisbon Treaty and it is an integral (and novel) feature that the Treaty contained the right to leave. This was subsequent (obviously) to the 1972 Act and it must have been intended by Parliament that the exit procedure could be used as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty.
2. The European Union Act 2011 touched on Article 50 (3) – extension of exit procedure) by introducing ‘restrictions on treaties and decisions relating to the EU’ but not the right to trigger Article 50. Since Parliament considered one part of Article 50 but not the other as being restricted, it must have intended to leave that power unmolested.
3. The effect of Article 50 being triggered would not be to remove any EU rights that citizens have, that would still require an Act of Parliament.
The Court effectively held that the European Communities Act 1972 was a form of ‘super-statute’ that was not to be tinkered with by subsequent legislation, a sort of ‘Basic Law’, until there is another try.
Laird,
The idea was that the King could not pull the law out of his arse. However, it also said that an Act of Parliament that banished Irish people on pain of death was utterly unlawful. Also, the King could not by decree prevent an Act from coming into force (unlike Her Majesty’s Judges, who may do so now, see Factortame.)
If some Tory Remainers do rebel, will they be denounced as “Bastards”, the way that some Leavers once were?
So the treaty allows the EU to bypass the supremacy of parliament but doesn’t allow the EU to bypass the supremacy of parliament when they kick us out :/
Laird
The appeal is to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court. The House of Lords’ judicial functions were abolished about twenty years ago, so now they have a purely legislative function. I suspect the government will be allowed to do a leapfrog appeal direct to the Supreme Court if it chooses.
A quick skim through the judgement indicated to me that the question essentially boiled down to – given statutory silence, when can a restriction on the Royal Prerogative be inferred ? As Mr Ed indicated, statutory explicitness about the need for Parliamentary action on other aspects of Article 50 makes it surprising that the court didn’t consider statutory silence on Article 50’s exit provisions, surprising. Given the question – “what is the law if we see nothing in writing” – it seems to me that the Supreme Court can decide whatever they like. It has to be said that the High Court panel of judges was just about as senior a panel as it was possible to create. These were big legal cheeses, not some joker. Hence my surprise.
Being very clever lawyers they have worded their judgement very wisely politically, as a defence of Parliamentary sovereignty. But they could easily have come down on the other side if they’d wanted to.
“Some of you might remember me going on and on immediately after the vote about how we needed to invoke Artcle 50 ASAP. Now do you see why? I’m not as confident as Perry is that this will be no problem.”
Knowing that a challenge was pending, it would have been rash in the extreme to pre-empt it. What if this decision had come after it had already been invoked? “It’s illegal! Those fanatical Brexiteers have broken the law!” The remaniacs and their mates in the media would have had a field day, the time-limited Article 50 process would be in question, and the Government’s negotiating position weakened.
Early on, I agreed that it should be invoked as soon as humanly possible, but I can see the sense in letting these jerks have their fun. It’s frustrating to have to wait so long, but Perry’s right. In the end it will change nothing, except that if they do succeed in derailing the process completely, even more people will recognise the EU for the conspiracy against democracy that it is.
Indeed, but what if the EU then said to the English High Court that it wasn’t going to take any notice of its view on who is or is not a departing member of the EU?
(As would be consistent with its position as a Superstate).
Dear Mr de Havilland
Such modesty.
As indeed was the Referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785
DP
I’m as confident as I can be that both Lords and Commons will pass a motion to invoke article 50. A bald opposition would bring about a general election, which the Tories at least are committed to fight on the basis of leaving the EU,and given the referendum result Labour would be suicidal to campaign for remain, outside London anyway.
Rather the danger is wrecking amendments- requiring the Government to obtain terms the EU won’t agree to. But what then? Article 50 is irrevocable once invoked. There would doubtless be much huffing and puffing if the required terms were not obtained, but Britain would be out, and Parliament’s writ does not run in Europe.
You folks are projecting. I hope fervently that Brexit happens, but I’m realistic. Almost none of the people who have to actually do the things to make it happen want it to happen. They will seize on every opportunity- to study, plan, consult, delay, forget, be distracted, or just plain refuse- to subvert the will of the people as expressed in the referendum.
As I said at the time, this is like one spouse telling the other, “I know you want to stay married, but I want a divorce! You go file the papers.”
That’s the real lesson- that even when our masters tell us they want our direction, it’s only a trick.
It’s sad to see the myth of British popular sovereignty exposed. And over ensuring that Germans and Frenchmen get to write laws for England.
Wouldn’t it be funny if the Queen issued a Brexit proclamation, carrying out the will of her subjects in defiance of a rogue ministry that refuses them? But of course that’s a fantasy too.
I hope to see that list of comments, but I don’t expect to.
And if anyone would like to put down a wager…
This is what the Clinton gang call “despair trolling”.
Big sigh–” You know I really support Brexit/Trump and I really, really want them to win, I wish they could BUT..” Bullshit “reasons” why not x1000.
Can it Stagtin–you lose.
A while ago I commented that if the vote was for exit, then the powers that be would drag their feet until it was kicked into the long grass (I know. It’s difficult to kick something when you are dragging your feet but …).
People call me a pessimist but I’m analytical enough and cynical enough to understand how things work out. If the stupid bitch had sent notification that Article 50 was being invoked the day after she became PM then it would be an irrevocable decision and once the process had started, then come hell or high water (which neatly covers High Court challenges, votes of no confidence etc.) Britain would be out in 2 years which is what the people voted for. But as she campaigned on a remain ticket, cynical old me thinks that is was the result that she wanted all along. She can now say “Ah, well. How sad. Never mind. I tried …”.
If the MP’s vote against exit or vote for “the same as usual except without any entitlement to vote in the EU” then there WILL be consequences. I would suspect those would be along the lines of “Politician. Lamp post. Rope. Some assembly required”.
I am so glad I am writing this in New Zealand …
“Beware what you wish for”
“Never interfere with the enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Here’s a scenario. Government introduces a motion to trigger Article 50. It gets rejected by Parliament partly by Conservative remainers. The government then puts the whole motion on a motion of confidence. If the Conservative remainers continue to reject it they will lose the whip, would not be able to stand as Conservatives at the subsequent general election and almost certainly disappear into political oblivion. The Conservatives would almost certainly win by a landslide fully committed to Brexit.
Then, the only possible obstruction would be the Lords which I believe still has a delaying power of a year. If it were stupid enough to reject an Article 50 motion the government would have all sorts of options up to and including abolishing the chamber in its entirety.
It is amusing in its way to see British judges decide that the US constitution’s rule, that treaties are indeed a matter for the legislature, should apply to the UK, where treaties have always been of the crown (the executive). Maybe those annoyed by Obama’s Iranian not-a-treaty should ask them to rule that it does indeed need congressional approval. And maybe we could ask these judges to apply the first amendment here. 🙂
Some chance. I recall that someone, commenting soon after my comment (that Laird linked to above) in an old post about this, remarked that in the US the judges’ ruling would be purely political. Sad to see we’re becoming like the US in all the wrong ways and none of the right.
One may hope for more honesty on appeal. In the US, the supreme court has flaws but I’m told some lower circuits are worse still. May our higher court prove better here.
“Knowing that a challenge was pending, it would have been rash in the extreme to pre-empt it.”
Don’t agree. First of all, I said it should have been invoked straight away after the referendum before there was any talk of a legal challenge. Secondly, I think this legal challenge would have faltered if we were already 4 months into the withdrawal process. Thirdly, I doubt that the legal action would have won in this scenario even if it had got to court and been taken seriously — this was a political decision by judges who still think there’s a chance of stopping it, but the same decision would have looked pretty ridiculous had A50 been invoked 4 months ago, people would be over that by now and would be discussing what type of exit we should negotiate. Plus the EU would have accepted it as well (remember that the EU wants us to invoke A50 and clear off — the EU is most definitely not on the Remainiac’s side). Finally, even if the legal action had gone ahead and won, a subsequent Parliamentary vote would be a formality.
The important thing now, if there is to be a vote, is for the government to simply ask Parliament to vote Yes or No on invoking Article 50. That’s all it has to do.
If any Remainiac tries to get a concession, or an amendment, just say no. No details on what we are looking for either. (That’s for later anyway.) The vote is purely about whether or not we invoke Article 50. You either vote Yes, or you vote No. You don’t get a seat on the negotiating board just because you threaten a No vote. You either vote Yes or No, and if it’s No then it’s your local association and voters you will need to face when the early election happens (assuming you aren’t immediately drummed out of your party, which is quite possible if you’re a Tory.)
Sure. £500 that the UK has left the EU within three years of today (4th Nov where I am at the moment, which is Bratislava).
Well given that Cameron (remember him?) who was allegedly the Prime Minister at the time actually did say he would immediately invoke Article 50 if he lost, there is some merit to that notion.
Shouldn’t it be June 23, 2019, three years after the people spoke?
So you are taking the bet then, Staggtin?
With the resignation of the Member of Parliament today this is looking more and more like a grand conspiracy.
I hope not.
As if the “liberal” elite really are plotting against the British people (seeking to make our independence meaningless – keep us under E.U. regulations) there will serious trouble.
Want MP? What are u talking about?
This Stephen Phillips dick–saves his local party the trouble of de-selecting him.
May should also make it clear to him that he will leave the HoC without any compensation whatsoever and that his pension will be confiscated.
If administrative law cannot do that directly it could be used to bring in a discretionary Selective Higher Income Tax that could be used to the same end. If any monies “due” him can’t be stopped by direct admin decree then he is paid the cash but never sees a penny because Selective Higher Income Tax is applied to his payouts at a 100% rate. Or possibly higher.
With all the nonsense of the Remaniacs claiming that the dignity of Parliament must be preserved (a good joke, considering how Parliament has seen its powers eroded by various forces, including the EU, in recent years), surely the point has to be made that this referendum was presented, by Cameron et al, as not merely a giant public opinion survey, but as a referendum the consequence of which would, if the vote was for leave, trigger an exit. The Cameron government had a majority of MPs in the HoC; they approved this referendum and its terms of reference. There can be no attempt at convenient amnesia on this point.
The fine details of exactly how an exit will be achieved can be for the lawmakers in the Commons and Lords to decide, but the binding nature of the ref. result is not a matter of debate. By a clear majority, it was for Brexit.
Had the ref. result been for Remain, you can bet that the Remainers would have said the outcome was a settled one, and that no further attempts to hold such a Referendum should be held for many years. That is, after all, the position taken on the Scottish Referendum result by the victorious (“unionist”) side. And they are right to do so.
What this whole saga shows is a high-handed disdain for the result of the largest number of voters choosing a course of action in many decades. And consider this – the outcome was a clear majority, of over a million people; that contrasts with how, under our first-past-the-post system, a government can wield power based on the votes of a minority percentage of the voting population. This point is one that needs to be made, given the clear imperfections of our FPTP system.
I don’t think referenda should be used a great deal, and should be reserved for special occasions. I agree with the old Edmund Burke point that MPs are representatives, not just delegates and ciphers of the electorate, but that is an argument that like such arguments, has its limits, particularly when the views of most MPs are clearly at odds with the majority of the adult voting population.
To leave or not to leave the EU was such an event requiring a referendum, and its result must be respected, or else there will be a need for lots of rope and stout lamposts in the next few weeks. I am not joking when I suggest that a failure to deliver Brexit will lead to political extremism of a sort we haven’t seen in our lifetimes.
I don’t know What business it is of yours, Mr.Ecks, unless you want to put your money where your mouth is too.
I’ll take the bet, but the date I’ll offer is the third anniversary of the Referendum. That’s two years and three months after “Any Year Now” May says she’ll launch an Article 50. A year is enough legitimate delay.
I suspect that I don’t have anything like the cash of the patrician Mr de H but I’d like to see a despair troll like you out £1000 rather than just £500.
I’ll take the bet on your terms–that is Article 50 banged in on or within 3 years from 23/6/2016.
In my case you can send my winnings to the Dogs Trust. Give me an address/charity whatever I can send the cash to in the unlikely event I lose.
I don’t think “Article 50 banged in on or within 3 years from 23/6/2016.” is clear.
I mean, “No part of the United Kingdom, as it existed on June 23, 2016, is a member of the European Union on June 23, 2019.” I’ll take your thousand pounds bet on that being true.
The as it existed is in case there’s some special rule for the Scotch or something, which would not be a Brexit but some other thing. The referendum was for the exit of the United Kingdom, not bits and pieces.
And I’m not a despair troll. I hope I lose.
To me, the big story here isn’t Brexit vel non, it’s that both big political parties in Britain are openly and obviously defying the popular will they asked for. I can’t recall such an overt spurning of a direct democratic mandate in a free republic, ever. There ought to be a revolution over it, led by the Lords and the Queen.
So you don’t want to bet then?
Oh well.