Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Article 50 - requires parliamentary approval Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I completely agree with you, I think I did say that in my comment (if I didn't, I should have been more clear). I do believe a clear majority of MPs are in favour of Remain (around 480 out of 650 iirc).

    The thing is, parliament could enact a law prohibiting the government from triggering Article 50. But I highly doubt that would happen; even those who are strongly pro-Remain don't want to be seen as anti-democratic; that's why they want the process in reverse, they want the government to bring an Article 50 trigger bill so they can find petty and technical reasons to vote against it.

    But I don't think a majority of Remainers will go for that. I would be surprised if any Tory MPs would vote to obstruct triggering Article 50, and there is a buffer of euroskeptic MPs on the Labour side to increase that majority. Excepting some of the most fanatical pro-Remain MPs (like Owen Smith), I don't think many of them are keen to try to prevent Article 50 for obvious political reasons
    I think we'll end up like Norway. Technically not in the EU but in the EU in practice. There are going to be 2 or 3 minor terms they'll agree on and they'll exaggerate those to say it's a good deal and that. I don't think there is enough political support to leave the simgle market and it sounds very crazy to do so. Norway joined the Schengen Agreement against the will of their people and Norway is probably the most democratic country in the world after Switzerland.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    I think we'll end up like Norway. Technically not in the EU but in the EU in practice. There are going to be 2 or 3 minor terms they'll agree on and they'll exaggerate those to say it's a good deal and that. I don't think there is enough political support to leave the simgle market and it sounds very crazy to do so. Norway joined the Schengen Agreement against the will of their people and Norway is probably the most democratic country in the world after Switzerland.
    I agree with that assessment. However, I think there will be a deal that limits EU migration for a period of time, say 5 or 7 years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ed Phelan)
    "This really just shows bigotry in its ugliest form. Where is the honesty and integrity in these people?"

    You can apply this even more the Leave campaign, which appears to have been based on misleading people. I agree that both sides need to look at themselves though during the campaign. At the end of the day though the remaining or leaving will not be done with the public at the forefront of their minds.
    I understand your point but to be honest I highly doubt that people based their decisions on said 'lies'.

    I suppose you are mainly talking about the £350m per week EU membership fee figure?

    This is a gross figure which does not take into account EU spending in the UK and the rebate. There were 2 reasons why the gross figure was used. Firstly the rebate is subject to reapproval from the EU in 2018, it is not a guaranteed fee reduction and can be abolished. Second is that we cannot control the EU's spending in the UK, right now it is mainly on the farming industry subsidies.

    Personally I would prefer the net figure of £163m per week but both figures are nonetheless large amounts. I doubt that whether using £163m or £350m would have made a huge difference on the point the campaign was making.

    Another 'lie' is the assumption that the fee saved would be used on the NHS? I must note that this was only a suggestion, as their slogan was 'we send the EU £350m a week, let's fund the NHS instead'. This was not a pledge to spend it on the NHS. The public would also be foolish to assume that it was, because the EU referendum was not a general election.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    I think we'll end up like Norway. Technically not in the EU but in the EU in practice. There are going to be 2 or 3 minor terms they'll agree on and they'll exaggerate those to say it's a good deal and that. I don't think there is enough political support to leave the simgle market and it sounds very crazy to do so. Norway joined the Schengen Agreement against the will of their people and Norway is probably the most democratic country in the world after Switzerland.
    No it didn't.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I still think leaving is a bad idea but we just need to get on with it. These delaying tactics only serve to foster further division.

    Yes the referendum was technically non-binding(in other words a glorified opinion poll), but attempts to subvert it undermine the credibility of the democratic process.

    The cynic in me thinks that we'll end up with a Norway style deal making the whole escapade pretty pointless.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Things have moved on from the old days when Winston could be visited by a couple of chaps in grey suits and an hour later dash off to see the King to be made PM. These days we like to elect our Prime Ministers, constitutional arrangements or no constitutional arrangements. Indeed, as we all know, the general election has become increasingly a presidential beauty contest between party leaders. I hate that, but it's the reality. May has no public mandate as far as most people will be concerned.
    Nope. The people we elected who's judgement we trust decided it was May to be leader.

    You can't be against the EU referendum and then for notion that we need to directly choose who leads us.

    I'm not keen on the public not having elected May and her new Conservative party. But then I'm not as hostile against the EU referendums and refernda as you are.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    and lasts only insofar as that specific distribution of opinions lasted (which, according to polling data from the day after the referendum, was that day only).

    We have a representative democracy because most people are poorly informed about most issues, and thus it is a better state of affairs if they elect informed professionals instead. If you're poorly informed, you're not expressing a democratic will when you vote (incidentally, the frequent, blatant lies of the leave campaign are a third reason why there is no democratic mandate, because someone who is deceived is not expressing a democratic will when they vote).
    Far too early to say that. This is a long term issue (part of why we have a relatively long campaign period, plus the issue was discussed well before then), you can't use a supposed change within 2-3 months as an excuse to override the result. Especially when some polls put the support for both sides the same as at the actual referendum.

    As for "informed professionals", MPs are not necessarily more informed or qualified than the average person on the street for a lot of issues. We do not elect professionals, we elect politicians, many of whom have shown themselves to be clueless on some things at some time or another.

    And for possibly the hundredth time, there were lies and misleading claims on both sides of the campaign. In fact, a parliamentary report of some description during the campaign accused both sides of this and named examples of it. So this "the leave side lied, so there is no democratic mandate, let's ignore the referendum result" argument could easily have been used against the remain side had they won.

    Not to mention that not everyone who voted leave blindly trusted the leave campaign, and there were doubts about certain things expressed quite prominently during the campaign itself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I simply don't think that's true. Anything that had been enacted in primary legislation as a result of directives will obviously remain in place, but everything else will cease to have legal effect. The ECA '72 provides that EU law basically is UK law, and after Art 50 triggering and 2 years elapsed, as a matter of EU law we will no longer be a part of the European Union and EU law will be of no further effect (from the EU's perspective). That means from our perspective the same will be the case..
    I will reply to your other post on this point

    I'm just very skeptical whether the High Court will interpose itself between parliament and the executive where parliament has the positive power to prevent any triggering if it so wishes. Article 50 triggering is a treaty mechanism, which all serious observers have always agreed is a matter for the executive.
    You can add to this that irrespective of Brexit, the case on which the argument rests is very suspect.

    There was a decision in the 1920s that Parliament had created a statutory power to requisition land for defence purposes in the 1840s but tried to use common law powers dating from at the latest the Civil War, because they were cheaper (this was a 5 star hotel in London not an airfield or a fortress). The court said the common law powers no longer existed. Nothing very controversial there.

    About 20 years ago the government changed its mind about introducing a statutory criminal injuries scheme. It changed the previous prerogative scheme but had left the enabling powers for the statutory scheme, unimplemented, on the statute book.

    The court, very oddly, said that the government could have continued the old prerogative scheme or introduced a statutory scheme, but because powers to introduce a statutory scheme existed it could not change the prerogative scheme. It is that case which is said to prevent Brexit without a Parliamentary vote. I do not buy any of it.

    It's entirely possible that the executive is capable of triggering Article 50 while it will require parliament to engage in a significant statutory clean-up process to put things right.
    Which is essentially my position

    I have to trust my own judgment on this. I remember after the High Court case about the Labour Party freeze date, I said the decision was obviously wrong in law (in fairness, the Shambo decision was an easy aid to that judgment). Quite a few senior barristers I spoke to on Twitter didn't agree; when it went to the Court of Appeal I said I was very confident they would overturn it. I was right. I'm just going to have to trust my own judgment, and we can return to the issue when the High Court rules and see who was right and who was wrong.
    I was with you on this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snufkin)
    No it didn't.
    Maybe you are right, I took Nigel Farage's word for that. He said Norway joined the Schengen agreement against the wish of her people and I agree he talks so much ********. The point being was that there isn't enough political support within the legislative to leave the single market and it is pure stupidity to put trade barriers with countries that are ****ing just next to us, have been trading with us for 100s of years and when we have yet 0 bilateral trade agreements with major economies other than those that the EU has trade agreements with. It takes years to negotiate new trade trade agreements with other countries. It is going to be suicide to leave the single market. It's very unlikely
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    By the way, you have to compare like with like. I can see no serious argument for asserting that there was any comparable mechanism to Article 50 in the imperial legal construct that would make it a valid analogy.

    Can you provide an example of which decolonisation statutes you're referring to?
    In 1989 we repealed the legislation which established the Irish Free State. In British but not Irish Constitutional theory everything that happened afterwards down to today in the Republic of Ireland derives from them.

    Although in English law delegated legislation falls if the enabling Act is repealed that doesn't apply to legislation that is immediately spent such as a legislation transferring property or granting independence. Irish independence (in English law) did not rest on the continuing effect of the legislation that granted independence.

    The ECA uses the same language. EU legislation becomes part of UK law by virtue of the ECA. It is not necessary for the ECA to continue to have effect to hold it there. Repeal of the Act would not reverse what the Act does.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Which is essentially my position

    I was with you on this.
    Oh, in that case we are in full agreement. In essence I wouldn't go so far as to say simply triggering Art 50 is enough to deal with the whole exit, we obviously do need a statutory clean up (which in fact will probably take a decade, require the government to put thousands of extra lawyers on the government payroll and ministers will have to be granted unprecedented powers to repeal and amend statutes using secondary legislation).

    As for the previous examples you have provided, I certainly do appreciate the historical detail and I will take a look and respond once I've had an opportunity to research
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TrotskyiteRebel)
    I think we'll end up like Norway. Technically not in the EU but in the EU in practice. There are going to be 2 or 3 minor terms they'll agree on and they'll exaggerate those to say it's a good deal and that. I don't think there is enough political support to leave the simgle market and it sounds very crazy to do so. Norway joined the Schengen Agreement against the will of their people and Norway is probably the most democratic country in the world after Switzerland.
    If we go the Norway model then we're left worse off than before and there was no point in leaving. We will essentially be subject to EU law, have to pay into the kitty, but have no real say.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.