see here

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?470791-Government-Brexit-Skeleton-Argument

Ford, there seems to be some confusion as to which government skeleton argument we are talking about.

I was asking for the one for the forthcoming appeal to the Supreme Court not for the judicial review.

You provided it a day or two ago, but it seems to have disappeared from this thread.

Here is the latest on the parties to the government's appeal to the Supreme Court re Brexit:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/interveners-article-50-brexit-case.html

It looks like the role of the devolved parliaments is going to be important as the high court's judicial review judgment seemed to subtly indicate.

I heard on the radio that the government has published its skeleton argument for the appeal to the Supreme Court and that the arguments remain much the same as they were in the judicial review.

I've hunted for the skeleton argument but can't find it.

BBC Radio 4's Law in Action currently has available via the website "Brexit in the High Court". It was broadcast yesterday (Thur 10 Nov) evening.

I found it really interesting and illuminating and not in the least bit dry. The two lawyers interviewed obviously really know what they are talking about.

One point they made was really powerful. They said that the devolved parliaments have the power to block Brexit. SNP are now joined in the Gina Miller case that will be before the Supreme Court on 5 December. It will be a 4-day hearing before all 11 Supreme Court judges.

Reading the Gina Miller judicial review judgment it seems to me that the lord justices strongly hinted that it would do no harm if the devolved parliaments got involved.

We live in interesting times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081lkmf

unclebulgaria, you say the government's majority in the House of Commons is very small and that they might not get matters relating to Brexit passed.

But current MPs, of all parties, are terrified of the high feelings of the Brexiters and fear for their seats and even for public order. That is why they keep saying that the referendum must be respected.

Of course, though, they have their fingers crossed that something will come along to prevent them from voting the nation to its doom.

It seems to me that the rush Theresa May is engaged in to invoke Art 50 is to do with the elections to the European Parliament in June 2019. We need to know a good 12 weeks earlier if we are going to field candidates and also to establish our electoral register for the said election.

My feeling is she should stop rushing. It is not in our interest. She should invoke art 50 only after the European Parliament elections in which we field candidates as normal.

There are 2 main groups that are trying to rush her (1) European leaders. We have defecated in the EU nest and they want rid of us as soon as possible. (2) The OUT NOW Brexiters who seem blissfully unaware of how damaging rushing would be.

Mrs May should take her time. It is a good strategy in any event.

unclebulgaria, I agree with you about different immigrants likely replacing EU ones.

Theresa May's recent/present trade mission to India revealed precisely that. They are demanding more visas for Indians travelling to the UK as part of any trade deal. Further they have protectionist laws regarding trade in services. Any deal will involve our asking them to change their law.

Brexiters have fantasies about the trade deals we are going to get. The fact is it's a tough world on our own outside the EU.

Warrenbuffet, I am puzzled about what point you are making when you say the UK has no written constitution.

You seem to be saying that a written constitution is superior to an unwritten one.

That is surely not the case. It is only young countries (e.g. USA) and countries liberating themselves from some sort of oppression or occupation (e.g. Eastern European countries that threw off communism) that have written constitutions.

Our constitution is partly written and partly unwritten. It works amazingly well it seems to me.

The only anomaly, is our constitutional monarchy, which does not fit well with our being in the EU. We would need to become a proper Scandinavian-style "bicycle monarchy" in order to become more compatible with EU norms I would say.

Rumour has it that the Queen is a Brexiter. I can believe that. The whole point of being a monarch is to be the only one, i.e. the only Queen on the scene. But there are (six) other monarchies in the EU.

Uncle Bulgaria, it would be amusing seeing Nigel Farage campaigning for election to the European Parliament of 2019.

Uncle Bulgaria, re general elections the big question is the 2019 elections to the European Parliament which we could scupper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2019

Eric's brother: I haven't read through the posts but understand that the referendum was only every advisory and consultative.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/11/article-50-ruling-eu-referendum-was-only-ever-advisory

Personally, as a Remainer, I believe that just because we've already bought the pills for the overdose doesn't mean we have to take them.

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 !

arimat on my reading of your post the problem is with the insurance business. As always they simply don't want to pay out.

Unreliable Evidence, BBC Radio 4 Wednesday 14 September at 8.00 pm. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07v2mf5

Peter, a new solicitor might not want to use the opinion, or indeed the services in court, of the present barrister. S/he might have his own preferred barrister who he knows gets results in court. I can understand that you want to avoid actual litigation but a soft approach does not help in the early stages of a dispute ! As regards the solicitor's level of knowledge winning a case involves much more than knowledge of the law. There is tactics, procedure etc etc and a solicitor who has been there many times before in a given type of case is almost always the best bet.

Peter, a solicitor that specializes, or at minimum, handles many of a given kind of case is always the best bet. Personally, I would never go for a sole practitioner. They have limited time and only their own areas of expertise to rely on.

Do DAS know you wish to change practitioner ? They are paying after all.

Sparks, you should have been given the details about the deposit protection service used etc. Once you know that you can read the terms and conditions. The Deposit Protection Service (for instance) says it keeps the interest as income for its service.

freddyflintstone, what do you mean by "the original defendant" ?

I meant to say European UNION Referendum Act 2015.

mrkjd, unless I have missed it you have not said whether you are challenging the eviction and whether your claim for penalties is actually a counterclaim in response to the LL's possession claim.

Incidentally a managing agent cannot obtain a possession order.

Only the LL can do that. (Chesters Accomodation Agency v Abebrese (1997) The Times 28 July CA).

You say you have sued the LL.

S/he can join (add) the agent as a defendant or choose to later claim any penalties from the agent whose responsibility the PI was. Or the procedural judge may give directions as to defendants.

Gina Miller's legal challenge on the whole Brexit matter, which is scheduled for a hearing in mid-October, should be interesting and might go to the Supreme Court: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-legal-idUKKCN10119V I'm also wondering whether, before the referendum, the government complied with s7(1) of the European Referendum Act 2015 by supplying all the information the electorate needed in order to make its decision: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/section/7/enacted

From what I have seen in the county court technical defences to possession claims such as you have described don't work. What does work is defects relating to service of section 21 notice and the protection of deposits. But there are fewer defences than there used to be regarding the former for tenancies that began after 1 October 2015. It must be remembered that, in the final analysis, the landlord owns the property and has a right to recover possession. Therefore a tenant must come up with a good defence if s/he is to defeat a possession claim. But, even if a defence is successful, the landlord can just try again.

Incidentally, there was a trail of Brexit the Leavocrats on Radio 4 yesterday. Gus O'Donnell was interviewed.

He was of the opinion that we need a firm idea of what kind of entity we wish to be outside of the EU before we start negotiating.

He basically said that we don't yet have a clue as to what we want !

That makes sense given that Brexit was essentially an "I hate all foreigners" campaign.

Apologies for the way my text won't come out in paragraphs. I've tried everything.

Here is a link to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty: http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

A programme is coming up on BBC Radio 4 that sounds as if it will be genuinely informative about Brexit. It's "Brexit, The Leavocrats". In it former head of the Civil Service, Gus O'Donnell, goes behind the scenes at the Department for Exiting the EU to find out what's going on. The programme airs on Wed morning (31 Aug) at 11.00 a.m. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07qbcb6

Yes, it's a scandal. But, until the government changes the law, there are surely ways around the problem. As a non-lawyer I can see at least one way and that would be to exchange contracts and complete on the same day.