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

Brexit: Clause 50 legal challenge now started (link enclosed) Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_new...vement_07_2016


    email: [email protected]
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well, gg remainers rigged
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Well, gg remainers rigged
    Further link details

    http://www.mishcon.com/contact_us/article_50
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Further link details

    http://www.mishcon.com/contact_us/article_50
    Democracy meant to represent the people, not people who are elected by people who don't have the same view.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Alternatively, give your support to these people in order to re-establish the British Constitution and bring back a National Monetary note.

    http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't a legal challenge to reverse the result of the referendum, all it is saying is to ensure that the Government follows the correct processes and goes through Parliament rather than acting unilaterally.

    It's better to get this legal issue clarified now and go through Parliament if that's what it takes, than to risk legal challenge later which could derail negotiations.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ckfeister)
    Democracy meant to represent the people, not people who are elected by people who don't have the same view.
    That would be correct, if Britain did not have a representative democracy.

    Democracy in itself is a very flawed system. Uneducated and easily deceived people can cause irreparable harm without even realising it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    It's an intriguing debate and a lot less academic than people might assume at first glance. The first section of Article 50 states:

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

    That last bit is key, if not done properly a legal challenge could absolutely derail negotiations. Leaving the EU would mean overruling a Act of Parliament and would involve removing rights from the populace, only parliament can sanction this. Unilateral government action would not be in keeping with British constitutional requirements and so would make any withdrawal illegitimate. Normally this would not matter in International law, but since article 50 explicitly states in accordance with constitutional requirements it really does matter here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    It's an intriguing debate and a lot less academic than people might assume at first glance. The first section of Article 50 states:

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

    That last bit is key, if not done properly a legal challenge could absolutely derail negotiations. Leaving the EU would mean overruling a Act of Parliament and would involve removing rights from the populace, only parliament can sanction this. Unilateral government action would not be in keeping with British constitutional requirements and so would make any withdrawal illegitimate. Normally this would not matter in International law, but since article 50 explicitly states in accordance with constitutional requirements it really does matter here.
    Yes I would tend to agree.
    If anything is needed to be debated in parliament it most definitely should be this can of worms - We need to know who is truely remain and who is UKIP.
    This needs to be clear cut by the next election OR next by-election

    You could argue what the nation needs is a couple of by-elections to see what really is what.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    This isn't a legal challenge to reverse the result of the referendum, all it is saying is to ensure that the Government follows the correct processes and goes through Parliament rather than acting unilaterally.

    It's better to get this legal issue clarified now and go through Parliament if that's what it takes, than to risk legal challenge later which could derail negotiations.
    Precisely, but this is common knowledge to law students. It just was not mentioned by the press once the results were announced. I find that part the.most odd.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    It's an intriguing debate and a lot less academic than people might assume at first glance. The first section of Article 50 states:

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

    That last bit is key, if not done properly a legal challenge could absolutely derail negotiations. Leaving the EU would mean overruling a Act of Parliament and would involve removing rights from the populace, only parliament can sanction this. Unilateral government action would not be in keeping with British constitutional requirements and so would make any withdrawal illegitimate. Normally this would not matter in International law, but since article 50 explicitly states in accordance with constitutional requirements it really does matter here.
    The EU did not intend this to be ffor the UK constitution, obviously. It knows it could take years, which is why it is shutting the uk out. It really expected the uk to have everything in place before the vote, Leaving without preparation,mans it's too late for that, is going to demolish the uk and those at need help most will suffer most.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    It's an intriguing debate and a lot less academic than people might assume at first glance. The first section of Article 50 states:

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

    That last bit is key, if not done properly a legal challenge could absolutely derail negotiations. Leaving the EU would mean overruling a Act of Parliament and would involve removing rights from the populace, only parliament can sanction this. Unilateral government action would not be in keeping with British constitutional requirements and so would make any withdrawal illegitimate. Normally this would not matter in International law, but since article 50 explicitly states in accordance with constitutional requirements it really does matter here.
    There is an enormous logical jump in Mischcon's argument.

    It starts from saying, probably correctly, that there must be Parliamentary approval for big decisions to the unwarranted idea that the only way that approval can be given is through an Act of Parliament.

    Parliament approved the peace at the end of the Napoleonic Wars by moving An Address to the Prince Regent. Chamberlain sought support for his war policy in 1940 on a motion to adjourn the House of Commons. To Blair sought approval for the Iraq War by a motion in these terms

    That this House notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441; recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security; notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions; regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances; notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today; believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East; in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace between Israel and Palestine.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Surely the question most relevant here is whether we've left once we engage article 50 or do we leave when we ratify our exit agreement (which will contain within, a repeal of the 1972 European Act)).

    My own (perhaps misinformed) interpretation is that the Prime Minister can use the royal prerogative to engage article 50, but that parliament itself will ratify and repeal.

    At any rate, both Labour and the Tories have accepted the result meaning that there is likely to be a parliamentary majority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Surely the question most relevant here is whether we've left once we engage article 50 or do we leave when we ratify our exit agreement (which will contain within, a repeal of the 1972 European Act)).

    My own (perhaps misinformed) interpretation is that the Prime Minister can use the royal prerogative to engage article 50, but that parliament itself will ratify and repeal.

    At any rate, both Labour and the Tories have accepted the result meaning that there is likely to be a parliamentary majority.
    Article 50 operates on an international law level, the 1972 Act on a national level.
    The Prime Minister can invoke Article 50 but even if he did so we would still be bound by EU law under the 1972 Act.
    Only parliament can repeal the 1972 Act, not the government.

    So in essence it will require both the Prime Minister invoking Article 50 to relieve us of our international obligations, but it will require Parliament repealing the 1972 Act to remove the domestic applicability of EU law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Article 50 operates on an international law level, the 1972 Act on a national level.
    The Prime Minister can invoke Article 50 but even if he did so we would still be bound by EU law under the 1972 Act.
    Only parliament can repeal the 1972 Act, not the government.

    So in essence it will require both the Prime Minister invoking Article 50 to relieve us of our international obligations, but it will require Parliament repealing the 1972 Act to remove the domestic applicability of EU law.
    Thus either way the UKIPers might still be defeated by the continuing democratic processes.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Article 50 operates on an international law level, the 1972 Act on a national level.
    The Prime Minister can invoke Article 50 but even if he did so we would still be bound by EU law under the 1972 Act.
    Only parliament can repeal the 1972 Act, not the government.

    So in essence it will require both the Prime Minister invoking Article 50 to relieve us of our international obligations, but it will require Parliament repealing the 1972 Act to remove the domestic applicability of EU law.
    That is the orthodox explanation but this David Pannick setting the argument why an Act of Parliament is required.

    The argument is much more subtle. The prime minister’s power to make an Article 50 notification is an aspect of the royal prerogative, the part of the residual legal powers of the sovereign, exercised on her behalf by the prime minister, and widely used in foreign policy. But as Barber, Hickman and King point out, the courts have stated a legal principle that the prerogative may only be used where the subject matter is not already addressed by an act of parliament so that exercise of the prerogative would frustrate what parliament has itself decided. Here, our membership of the EU, and its impact on domestic law, has been approved by parliament in the 1972 act. A notification under Article 50 would start the process by which that legislation would become a dead letter. Article 50 is a notification of “withdrawal” and does not allow for turning back. Therefore the notification commits this country to new laws that will replace the 1972 act. Therefore parliamentary approval is required for the Article 50 notification.
    There are three problems with this.

    1 By section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972 Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is part of domestic law. Activating Article 50 is not a simple exercise of the royal prerogative, it is a power entrusted by Parliament to the Crown. The Crown does not then need further legislation to enact what Parliament has already provided for.

    2 It is not in accordance with historical precedent. Our membership of EFTA was authorised by the European Free Trade Association Act 1960. We gave notice on 31st December 1971 to leave on 31st December 1972. The 1960 Act was repealed by the European Communities Act 1972 but Royal Assent was not given for that Act until 17th October 1972. On Pannick's argument we would have given notice illegally.

    3 The argument is based on the 3-2 House of Lords decision in this case http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1995/3.html Can I ask you did you celebrate the illegal holiday of Easter this year? That case held that where Parliament enacted a statutory Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme but the provision had not been brought into force, the Crown could not create a Scheme under the royal prerogative. Under the Easter Act 1928 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...19/35/contents Parliament was given the power to fix the date of Easter. Yet the Crown keeps on licensing the production of the Book of Common Prayer claiming the date of Easter is the old moveable date; the government purported to publish an Easter message from David Cameron https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e...merons-message and worst of all the Queen voluntarily attended Easter service on the old moveable date http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...l-Windsor.html
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 5, 2016
  • 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.