phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, but Art 50 sayeth ...
... which is exactly the other way round.
Might be a bit of friendly lawyering to be done.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Ah, but Art 50 sayeth ...
... which is exactly the other way round.
Might be a bit of friendly lawyering to be done.
Which is exactly what the EU wants to do.
First they want to find out what the future relationship with the UK is then they want to negotiate a trade deal based on that relationship.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Rumormill has it that Rajoy is going for hard and harsh Brexit even if it hits the Spanish economy (and it will) in order to scare the crap out of Catalonian separatists. Plus, new and exciting ways to fuck with Gibraltar.
So France, Germany and Spain. That's three countries out of Europe's G4 out for blood.
What about Italy? Didn't Brexit expose their wonky banks even further?
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Italy seems to be rather approachable so far (it was considered a UK ally in the sense that maybe it could advocate for a soft Brexit). I haven't read anything about it in a while, but I imagine we'll see where they fall within a month or two.
The media ignoring events in the public interest because they run counter to the government's preferred position is a classic example of authoritarianism.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's a pretty significant "because" there.
QuicheFontaine
Member
It was lovely weather for a protest over the weekend
"And if the Tories don't do it, we'll only two line whip whatever their plan is instead of three"
QuicheFontaine
Member
That's a pretty anodyne list of demands. Putting in subjective words like "fair" and "strong" surely means that you can't really test for these?
As far as the last one goes - Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market - I mean, that's obviously not going to happen. So it's a bit silly to demand it.
What's the point of this?
As far as the last one goes - Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market - I mean, that's obviously not going to happen. So it's a bit silly to demand it.
What's the point of this?
Labour trying to look like they're not completely on tory position and instead just look incompetent
Also just seen this:
So the May goverment will be able to change laws like they want without parliament approving it?
That's not how parliamentary democracy works and i wonder how this won't be shot down by the high court?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Henry VIII clauses??? That sounds a little ominous!
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
So the six tests can be carved on a stone and displayed in a car park probably.
Sometimes it is how parliamentary democracy works. the court won't intervene because any such changes will have been authorised by an Act of Parliament.
It's kind of difficult to see how it could be otherwise with the scale of legislation involved - but let's wait and see what the Bill says first, eh?
Roberto Larcos
Member
Nothing says Parliamentary sovereignty quite like the seizure of legislative powers from Parliament.
Theonik
Member
Jeremy Corbyn to be decapitated on Tower Hill for old time's sake now that the UK has taken back control and can legislate that back in.
Nah that is how it works. Parliament can vote on any law it pleases in the absence of a written constitution.
It's how the European communities act worked in the first place.
So what you're saying is when Hitler took away power from the german parliament germany was still a parliamentary democracy because the reichstag approved the law?
It's undemocratic. That's what it is.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Haha, I hope so!
We should go back to a menhir-based system of policy announcements. It was good enough for the druids.
Agreed, but that's not what this is. This is a deliberate writing of a law that removes the implementation of the law from parliamentary oversight and allows the executive to make changes to what was passed by parliament without going back to parliament.
https://twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/846331065891540992
Things going swimmingly in Scotland then.
Things going swimmingly in Scotland then.
Pretty much. Temporary extra powers incase of defence or disaster i can understand. This is the goverment getting the power to permanently change thousands of existing laws without any oversight. Big difference.
They did speak about those issues before the vote. Often infact. They even put forward several amendments to the bill to try and lock in some of those issues.
While I certainly think they should have voted against the bill after those amendments were rejected, this way they can argue against what the Tories are doing in the Brexit negotiations for the next two years, without opening themselves up to the counter of 'they're against the will of the people'
Probably won't amount to anything though. May could probably declare herself Lady Protector of the Realm and her polling figures would just go up.
They announced the 3 line whip before the amendments had been voted on though.
CyclopsRock
Member
Surely parliament have the power still to write new laws where these powers alter them?
I'm no lawyer but from what i've read about the Henry VIII clauses this give May the power to amend laws if they're introduced by parliament and interfere with what is currently covered by EU law (Guess we'll know more about what that is in the bill but EU law is pretty much used in every area) without any interference or oversight by parliament.
Lord judge, former lord chief justice on the topic:
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/20...ry-viii-powers-and-parliamentary-sovereignty/
Maybe it's just me being german but i don't like any politician having the ability to change laws as they want without a parliament approving it.
http://www.nme.com/news/music/john-lydon-brexit-nigel-farage-donald-trump-2028596
I guess he meant it when he said "god save the queen, the fascist regime"
I guess he meant it when he said "god save the queen, the fascist regime"
Roberto Larcos
Member
He's a very outspoken critic of Henry VIII clauses.
"You can be sure that when these "Henry VIII" clauses are introduced, they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty: 'It is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves.' "
- Lord Judge
However, people in the UK are timid, and the newspapers will tell us not to care. Even in this thread we're told that protests are pointless and shouldn't be covered - if what the government's doing is legal, we don't have the right to demand change, and we ought not be listened to.
Spoiler alert,
it's all legal.
"The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely, that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."
- A.V. Dicey
- A.V. Dicey
The reason lawyers voted in droves to stay isn't out of some unwavering love the EU - it's borne out of an understanding of the terror of Parliamentary sovereignty.
Holy Shit. So are you seriously telling me that under English law, Parliament can create or remove any law that it chooses and no one is able to override what they do no matter what despite said law being an absolute disaster for the public? That's insane.
Halph n Halph
Member
Protest generally isn't pointless. This particular protest on the other hand was. The people of the country voted and got what the majority voted for. What the hell is there to protest?
They just strike me as bunch of entitled brats who cannot accept that not everyone thinks the same way they do or want the same things.
I didn't get what I voted for but I am now fully behind the direction we are going and want our government to fight for the best outcome for the UK.
AHA-Lambda
Member
wow...
That's the conservative candidate for East Nuek & Lanward
That's the conservative candidate for East Nuek & Lanward
You're looking to the wrong government for that, because everything so far points at them doing exactly the opposite to that.
Is it filled with fat middle aged people asking when we'll finally be able to kick scary brown people out of this country?
CyclopsRock
Member
I've literally never seen a less appealing line up in my life.
JonathanEx
Member
I'd rather tear off my own nipples with a rusty spoon.
..oh wow, I didn't realise I disliked QT so much. I'd shout at the TV too much and damn it that's just what they want. They want to feed off my 'FUCK OFF IS THAT RIGHT' and 'YES FUCKING SAY IT AS IT IS' to no benefit of anyone but viewing figures.
Oh wow. Aside from the East Midlands, there's a drop in expectations across the board. More and more people expects things to go south judging from this. This is serious.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Nick Clegg got applauded.
In Birmingham.
By young people.
I thought it was quite good, personally. (I'm biased as hell though.)
But yeah, the economic reality is starting to hit home for a lot of people - especially those in industries affected by Brexit.
Roberto Larcos
Member
Pretty much, yep. They even can make (and have made) retroactive law. No entrenched constitution, everything is up for change.
Yep. It's beginning to dawn on more and more people about just how fucked we are.
Absolute power on as little as 32% of the 60 odd percent who bother to vote. And they call the EU undemocratic.
I thought the high court has a similiar role like the german or US supreme court and can stop laws?
No. Not even the UK Supreme Court can overturn primary legislation coming from the Houses of Parliament. It can overturn secondary legislation and declare something incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but it can't stop primary legislation, i.e. Acts of Parliament.
Roberto Larcos
Member
It's complicated and untested. All we know for certain currently is that UK courts can suspend primary legislation only if it is contravention to EU law (does not include the ECHR).
However, in Jackson v A-G, Lord Steyn stated the following:
"In exceptional circumstances involving an attempt to abolish judicial review or the ordinary role of the courts, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords or a new Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a complacent House of Commons cannot abolish."
So... maybe, but so far, never. The courts haven't crossed that line for post-facto legislation, nor for increased surveillance measures, counter-terrorism legislation, conscription laws, anti-union legislation, homophobic legislation - so really, it seems like it will only serve to save itself - if it even does that. As I said, it's untested. Echoing Uzzy, post-Brexit, Parliament will have no limits.
JonnyDBrit
Member
Well, it's similar to the US Supreme Court in that for a law or execution of the government to be deemed illegal, it has to be judged as incompatible with other, presumably more paramount laws. Thing is, because the UK lacks a fundamental constitution or other similar founding keystone document from which all other powers and laws are derived and must be adhered to at a minimum level, parliament can - in theory - just change whatever law it is makes things so inconvenient for them, and then just reintroduce the law that was illegal - but now is completely legal - unchanged. That or just decide that the new law automatically overrides any old but potentially contradicting law; that's why no you cannot get away with murder because law about crossbows on a Sunday or whatever.
Now, nominally this wouldn't actually be too much of an issue, as of course the creation and alteration of law requires parliamentary approval. Unfortunately, over the centuries we developed this rather curious notion: Political parties, to ease being able to totally control the governance of this country. Better yet, we have never reworked our system to get around the fact that yes, 30-40% of the population voting for you can result in more than 50% control of seat of power. Thus, unless an issue is particularly contentious enough that people will defy their party, most changes to the law can be expected to pass without worry, particularly if the change in question is of a Conservative nature.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked