Here is the Attorney General's skeleton argument defending Gina Miller's judicial review application re invoking Article 50:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/558592/Miller_v_SSExEU_-_Skeleton_Argument_of_the_Secretary_of_State_300916.pdf

It is very long !

Crikey! Will have to pop a good bottle of wine & sit and have a gander before CD & King12345 get back from their UKIP conference.

Crikey! Will have to pop a good bottle of wine & sit and have a gander before CD & King12345 get back from their UKIP conference.

I heard that. Lol..

more current 'transcript' info (warrenb get (lots) more wine in, Major is already back. )

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/santos-and-m-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union-transcripts/

Crikey! Will have to pop a good bottle of wine & sit and have a gander before CD & King12345 get back from their UKIP conference.

Thanks for the link Ford to get both sides of the debate

Thanks for the link Ford to get both sides of the debate

Lord Pannick QC (Blackstone Chambers), and Dominic Chambers QC (Maitland Chambers).....

Andyorch has moved this thread to the Bear Garden.

HB

I remember Lord Pannick gazetted as Baron Pannick of Radlett in the county of Hertfordshire 2008, an area constituency I belong too. A monumentous job to do.

the high court judgment

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/

the appeal case

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supreme-court-printed-case-of-the-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union

the appeal case

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/supreme-court-printed-case-of-the-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union

Royal Prerogative should be used sparingly because if Parliament does not agree to anything agreed by a government minister, it would mean they would have to go back to the EU or relevant body stating they did not have consent of national Parliament to make the change they had negotiated.

Generally, i thought the RP was reserved for situations already covered by acts of Parliament. For example i believe the Lisbon Treaty bill of parliament included opt in/out provisions that a government minister could make a decision on, without having to introduce specific new primary legislation. Also there might be emergency situations where RP could be used, because involving Parliament immediately would not be in the national interest.

The governments case seems to be that they can do anything using RP and can sideline Parliament until a future date of their choosing. This makes Parliament a creature of an executive government which is pretty dangerous.

no, their argument is that it has already been agreed by parliament when the referendum was voted upon and so doesnt need to go back there.

This is consitent with the Bill of Rights, which sets out the contract between the crown (and her ministers), parliament and the people.

according to the briefing paper re the bill (eu ref act), '....It (the ref act) does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution. In contrast, the legislation which provided for the referendum held on AV in May 2011 would have implemented the new system of voting without further legislation, provided that the boundary changes also provided for in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituency Act 2011 were also implemented. In the event, there was a substantial majority against any change. The 1975 referendum was held after the re-negotiated terms of the UK’s EC membership had been agreed by all EC Member States and the terms set out in a command paper and agreed by both Houses...'

parliament.uk

seems then that the (current) govt of the day said itself that it wld have to go back to P for legislation (not RP).

for ref, see Briefing Paper 07212, section 5, re the above post.

I was in favour of referendums before this EU vote, but can now see that they don't really solve a political problem. The country is split and so is Parliament.

No fan of EU lack of real democratic accountability and some of their interference across all countries, but you have to work out pros and cons, to decide on whether membership is beneficial or not. There are tens or thousands ( 30,000+) of EU nationals working in UK healthcare, NHS and care homes. As people live longer with more health/care issues, the UK will need a continuing influx of people to do these jobs. There are also thousands of EU nationals working in scientific research labs across the UK, helping to develop new medicines and other technology. I would hate some UK government red tape on immigration controls stopping people receiving care in the future.

given what the govt said there (which didnt change in the act), it is surprising that the (same) govt is appealing. (though i havent as yet read their case in full )

it is trusted that that briefing is mentioned in court..even if it just ends up showing the hypocrisy

I was in favour of referendums before this EU vote, but can now see that they don't really solve a political problem. The country is split and so is Parliament.

The reason we have MPs is so they act as our elected representatives. The Brexit referendum highlighted the fact that the average citizen is not in a position to make a decision of that kind simply because they don't have a full understanding of the issues involved. Some voted leave because of the promise of cash to the NHS, some because they thought it would curb immigration, others simply because their best mates were leavers. Nobody had any idea of what leaving the EU would actually involve, they still don't know it now.

No fan of EU lack of real democratic accountability and some of their interference across all countries, but you have to work out pros and cons, to decide on whether membership is beneficial or not. There are tens or thousands ( 30,000+) of EU nationals working in UK healthcare, NHS and care homes. As people live longer with more health/care issues, the UK will need a continuing influx of people to do these jobs. There are also thousands of EU nationals working in scientific research labs across the UK, helping to develop new medicines and other technology. I would hate some UK government red tape on immigration controls stopping people receiving care in the future.

That's just one issue of many, and probably one of the least difficult to resolve. The economic and legal implications are enormous.

you give great credit to MP's intellectual superpowers and think very lowly of the sense that the population have collectively. This is only a preposition put forward by the bremoaners though so your colours are very firmly nailed to the mast and as the papers show, dont want to recognise that a referendum was held, let alone its result. I however concede that your admission of not being bright enough to understand what you were voting for maywell be true butboasting about it isnt a good idea. I reiterate, this referendum was by Act of Parliament so result removes the need to go back to parliament.

The other problem with the previous acts of parliament to sign up to all of the EU's bits was they were illegal under UK statute law dating back to the 1820's and earlier but like the Parliament Act of 1911, no-one expects parliament to say every bit of legislation enacted ever since is null and void. The only things that need undoing are the ones where compatibility with english law is an issue and generally these are wrapped up in the treaties that will go anyway.

Ericsbrother

Not sure i understand your last comment. All passing of legislation in Parliament is scrutinised by legal experts ensuring that they are in order. You not only have government department lawyers looking at the legislation, but you have the lawyers in Parliameny who sit in front of the Speaker. You have other lawyers who work behind the scenes. In addition to that, there are quite a lot of senior lawyers sitting in both HOC and HOL. We also have UK courts and ECJ as extra protection for the people, if they have problems with how law has been used against them.

The EU referendum was non binding and therefore did not require any action of government. I think there have only been two referendums which had binding clauses. These were for AV and Scottish independence.

The Supreme Court Judges will decide based on law passed by Parliament and nothing else. Do the government have powers by Royal Prerogative to instigate UK withdrawal from the EU, without either a vote in Parliament or bill being passed ? Governments have negotiated EU treaties using RP before, but under EU laws the treaties only came into effect, if national Parliaments actually passed their own legislation. Some countries have referendum requirements, before legislation. Article 50 exit process is totally different because at the end of 2 years the UK could be forced out of the EU without any involvement of Parliament. For this reason, i expect the Judges to require a full bill of Parliament to be passed, before Article 50 can be triggered.

I reiterate, this referendum was by Act of Parliament so result removes the need to go back to parliament.

That wasn't the Government's case in the JR, or am I missing something?

In any case the court are the ultimate authority on whether triggering article 50 should be referred to Parliament and not even the Government are disputing that.

With the above supreme court judgment due soon, a 'fresh set' of legal challenge has emerged at the high court....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/fresh-brexit-challenge-high-court-leaving-single-market-eea

just some media (smokescreen? ...with a May 'brexit' speech due on tuesday..) news re the forthcoming judgment saying that they '....Cabinet ministers have privately conceded that they are very likely to lose a landmark legal case on Brexit in the supreme court and have drawn up at least two versions of a bill that could be tabled after the ruling....'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/11/government-brexit-supreme-court-theresa-may-article-50

The reason we have MPs is so they act as our elected representatives. The Brexit referendum highlighted the fact that the average citizen is not in a position to make a decision of that kind simply because they don't have a full understanding of the issues involved.

Q1

So your stance is that they can do what they like as long as they don't tell us (or misinform us)?

Q2

You think that the ministers know all there is to know without needing to be informed?

or do you accept that they, like everyone, need to be informed in order to make decisions?

(ignoring any personal biases which might affect the 'interpretation' and use of that information)