Tag Archive | "Article 50"

The launch of the Great Repeal Bill


In her letter to Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, triggering Article 50, the Prime Minister said that the Government “would bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses.”

Unveiling the government’s white paper on the “great repeal bill”, the Brexit secretary David Davis told MPs that as well as transposing aspects of EU legislation into UK law, the bill would create a new power to “correct the statute book.”

The Great Repeal Bill White Paper sets out the government’s proposals for ensuring a functioning statute book once the UK has left the European Union. It aims to provide the detail about the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, how EU law will be converted into UK law, and how corrections will be made to the statute book.

Davis said: “Once EU law has been converted into domestic law, parliament will be able to pass legislation to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law it chooses – as will the devolved legislatures, where they have power to do so,” he said. The bill will provide a power to correct the statute book where necessary to resolve the problems which will occur as a consequence of leaving the EU.

Davis added that the new powers would be temporary. “I can confirm this power will be time-limited. And parliament will need to be satisfied that the procedures in the bill for making and approving the secondary legislation are appropriate. Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and correcting the statute book in time.”

All this is a very formidable task. The ‘Gazette’ quotes legal information specialist Thomson Reuters saying that a total of 52,741 laws have been introduced in the UK as a result of EU legislation since 1990. Thinktank the Institute for Government has reported that up to 15 new parliamentary bills will be required. As each Queen’s speech introduces an average of 20 new bills, this will leave very little space in the parliamentary calendar for non-Brexit related legislation.

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said the proposed bill gave sweeping powers to the executive to change regulations. “Sweeping, because it proposes a power to use a delegated legislation to correct and thus change primary legislation, and also devolved legislation. Sweeping because of the sheer scale of the exercise.”

There are indications of a very bumpy road ahead. Former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, warned that the government will face a difficult balancing act to get the legislation right, given that it wanted to ensure UK laws were compatible with EU rules to make negotiating a trade deal easier.

The SNP’s Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins said: “It strikes me that the government has pushed the big red button marked Brexit with their fingers crossed and very little idea of what comes next.”

And BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg’s view of the Prime Minister is that “On paper her position looks as unpalatable as any prime minister’s in modern times. A negotiation against 27 other countries, some of whom want to make the UK pay. A deal of mind-bending complexity beckons. A wafer thin majority in Parliament. The Scottish government intent on pushing for a vote to break up the other union.

All this, knowing that one false move could wreak havoc on the economy or unleash demons inside her own party.”

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Lord Chief Justice attacks the Lord Chancellor


Giving evidence to the House of Lords’ Constitution Committee this week, the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, launched a forthright attack on the justice secretary, Liz Truss, for her failure last year to defend judges who were branded “enemies of the people.”

Referring to the article 50 Brexit court case, he told the select committee Truss was “completely and utterly wrong” to say she could not criticise the media.

Last November, the ‘Daily Mail’ ran the headline “Enemies of the people” when the high court, on which Thomas was sitting, found against the government, forcing ministers to obtain parliamentary backing before triggering Brexit.

The lord chief justice told peers: “The circuit judges were very concerned. They wrote to the lord chancellor because litigants in person were coming and saying ‘you’re an enemy of the people…I don’t think it is understood either how absolutely essential it is that we [the judges] are protected because we have to act as our oath requires us without fear or favour.”

Referring to Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the Article 50 case, he went on to say:“It is the only time in the whole of my judicial career that I have had to ask for the police to give us a measure of advice and protection in relation to the emotions that were being stirred up.”

Lord Thomas’s intervention came after Truss told the Financial Times that judges should boost their image because they would come under greater scrutiny post-Brexit. She urged judges to “speak out about the important work they do to ensure that it is widely understood”.

Due to step down in the autumn after four years in office, Lord Thomas said he had intended to wait until a lecture he was planning to give in June to make public his opinions on the matter, but felt the need to do so now because of the lord chancellor’s comments and a newspaper interview she gave.

Pulling no punches he said: “I regret to have to criticise her as severely as I have, but to my mind she was completely and absolutely wrong. And I am very disappointed. I can understand how the pressures were on in November, but she has taken a position that is constitutionally absolutely wrong. It is Truss’s duty, as lord chancellor, to defend the judges.”

Truss said she supported freedom of the press and did not feel it was her role to tell newspapers what they should put on their front pages. She told the same committee earlier this month: “I think it is dangerous for a government minister to say, ‘this is an acceptable headline and this isn’t an acceptable headline,’ because I am a huge believer in the independence of the judiciary. I am also a very strong believer in the free press.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and it is the duty of the Lord Chancellor to defend that independence. The Lord Chancellor takes that duty very seriously. She has been very clear that she supports the independence of the judiciary but that she also believes in a free press, where newspapers are free to publish, within the law, their views.”

Image by FruitMonkeyOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

The Supreme Court has ruled


Parliament must vote on whether the government can start the Brexit process, the Supreme Court has ruled. The judgement means Theresa May cannot begin talks with the EU until MPs and peers give their backing, although this is expected to happen in time for the government’s 31 March deadline.

Reading out the judgement, Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger said: “By a majority of eight to three, the Supreme Court today rules that the government cannot trigger Article 50 without an act of Parliament authorising it to do so.

“Withdrawal effects a fundamental change by cutting off the source of EU law, as well as changing legal rights. The UK’s constitutional arrangements require such changes to be clearly authorised by Parliament.”

Attorney General Jeremy Wright said the government was “disappointed” but would “comply” and do “all that is necessary” to implement the court’s judgement. The government had argued that, under the Royal Prerogative (powers handed to the government by the Crown), it could make this move without the need to consult Parliament.

The court also rejected, unanimously, arguments that the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Assembly should get to vote on Article 50 before it is triggered.

Key points of the judgement include the fact that the 1972 Act that took the UK into the then EEC creates a process by which EU law becomes a source of UK law, and so long as that act remains in force, it means that EU law is an “independent and overriding source” of the UK’s legal system. Withdrawal from the EU makes a fundamental change to the UK’s constitutional arrangements because it will cut off the source of EU law. The UK constitution requires such changes can only be made by Parliament.

Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent, writes: “”This momentous judgement is about one thing alone: the rule of law and how the UK, as a champion of that steady, calm form of government, gets on with the business of leaving the EU.

He added: “But what it also makes clear is that membership of the EU is messy in constitutional terms – so only Parliament has the right to pull us out. It can’t be done by the stroke of a minister’s pen.”

BBC Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg detected “sighs of relief” in Whitehall for two reasons. The verdict from the justices doesn’t take away from the reality that having to go to Parliament before triggering Article 50 is a political inconvenience that Theresa May very much wanted to avoid. But “the justices held back from insisting that the devolved administrations would have a vote or a say on the process. That was, as described by a member of Team May, the ‘nightmare scenario’.”

She said: “Second, the Supreme Court also held back from telling the government explicitly what it has to do next. The judgement is clear that it was not for the courts but for politicians to decide how to proceed next.” Explicit instructions from the court about the kind of legislation they had to introduce would have made ministers’ lives very difficult.

David Davis stated that the government supported the right of the judges to come to their conclusion, after the ‘Daily Mail’ argued: “Yet again, the elite show their contempt for Brexit voters.” There followed a statement from the justice secretary, Liz Truss, who faced criticism for not defending the appeal court justices denounced by sections of the media as “enemies of the people” after they ruled against the government.

Truss said: “Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law and is vital to our constitution and our freedoms. The reputation of our judiciary is unrivalled the world over, and our supreme court justices are people of integrity and impartiality.”

The shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti, argued that it was not enough, and that the prime minister should also speak out.

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

How went the battle?


It is quite something when the deliberations of 11 very senior judges is the hottest ticket in town. There should be twelve judges but at the moment there is one unfilled vacancy. Nevertheless this is the first time that that all Supreme Court members have convened to decide a case.

There was standing room only as the battle for Brexit began. At issue is whether the government, through its executive powers, or parliament, can trigger article 50 of the treaty on European Union. The four-day hearing on the divisive constitutional issue was broadcast live. The High Court had ruled that parliament was sovereign in this case and the government was appealing that decision.

Emotions are running high. Ukip has accused those behind the claim of being “arrogant federalists” intent on blocking Brexit, the Daily Mail has branded the high court judges who found against the government in the first round as “enemies of the people”, and individual challengers – such as Gina Miller – have received death threats.

Before legal argument began the president of the Court, Lord Neuberg, stressed the court’s determination to assert its impartiality in the proceedings. He went on to say “various individuals have received threats of serious violence and unpleasant abuse on emails.” He warned that there are “legal powers designed to ensure that access to the courts is available to everyone.”

Labour’s shadow attorney general, Shami Chakrabarti, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “the political aspect of the case had been hyped in parts of the media.” She said: “This is about process. It is not about outcomes.” She said it was unfair for newspapers to delve into the personal lives or supposed opinions of the judges.

Opening the government’s submission, the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC and MP, said that royal prerogative powers were an essential part of the UK’s unwritten constitution and the high court had been wrong to rule last month that article 50 could only be triggered following a vote in Parliament.

Wright was followed by James Eadie, known as the Treasury Devil, but he ran into a barrage of queries from the justices in the court challenging the source of the royal prerogative.

Lord Pannick, QC, opening the argument on behalf of the lead claimant of the case, Gina Miller, dismissed as “inherently implausible” the government’s assertion that it was entitled to deliver notice of the UK’s intention to leave the EU under article 50. He described the referendum as “plainly an event of considerable political significance”, but was not a matter for the court because “it was irrelevant to the legal issue of whether ministers enjoy prerogative powers to set aside the 1972 Act.”

‘Guardian’ sketch writer John Crace had fun with the performing personnel. Of Lord Pannick he said: “Seldom has a man been less well named…a Pannick attack is a thing of zen like beauty.” Lord Keen, for the Scots, was described as being “breathless in a way that only a tortoise could ever know. Glaciers move more quickly than Lord Keen.” John Larkin, attorney general for Northern Ireland “dropped his bundles and lost his place to deliver one of the more hapless performances ever witnessed by the supreme court. Still his job was done. By making himself appear so useless, he might just have made Eadie and Keen look a little better.”

Judgement is expected mid- January.

Posted in Case Law, Law UpdatesComments (0)

Enemies of the people


As the ‘Observer’ rightly said, “Our judges do not do politics. They do law. They are selected to be judges on their legal ability.”

The high court’s ruling on article 50 sent the clear message that the government does not have free rein to sweep away any legislation it finds disagreeable.

But the quality and impartiality of this judgment finds no favour with the Brexit media, led by the ‘Daily Mail’, which, under the infamous headline “Enemies of the people”, mounted a vicious assault on the three high court judges who ruled in the case. The government appeared to be fuelling this attack. Sajid Javid, the local government secretary, described the judges as seeking to “thwart the will of the people”. Read the full story

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Parliament alone has the power to trigger Brexit


The High Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU. This means that the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on its own.

One of the most important constitutional court cases in generations, it has created a nightmare scenario for the government. The decision has huge implications, not just on the timing but also on the terms of Brexit. Read the full story

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

Brexit in the High Court


Last Tuesday the High Court concluded its hearing of the legal challenge over Brexit. Opponents are fighting to stop Theresa May triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the European Union without a vote from MPs in Westminster. Government lawyers argued before three judges that the Prime Minister is legally entitled to use the royal prerogative to commence Britain’s exit from the EU.

A number of campaigners have mounted legal challenges against the Prime Minister’s strategy for Brexit in what has been described as one of the most important constitutional cases in generations.

At stake is the question of whether the government is within its rights to begin the process of leaving the EU by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty without the consent and authorisation of Parliament. It was established on both sides that the issue was justiciable, falling within the auspices of the courts to decide upon.

Lord Pannick QC represented the lead challenger, Gina Miller, in the claim. He argued that the inevitable consequence of triggering Article 50 is that statutory rights enjoyed by some UK and EU citizens will be taken away. That can only be done by Parliament, and not by the executive using the crown prerogative.

He contended that there was a direct causal link between the irrevocable triggering of Article 50 and the ultimate stripping away of statutory rights, such as that of UK citizens to stand and vote in European elections, to petition the European Court of Justice and to seek the European Commission’s intervention to uphold competition law.

The Government case, led by attorney general Jeremy Wright, argued that the mandate to trigger Article 50 is clear from the referendum. As Parliament did not take the opportunity to prevent a restriction on the use of royal prerogative for the triggering of Article 50, the executive has the power to trigger as it pleases. He said the “notification – once given – will not be withdrawn. It is our case that Parliament’s consent is not required.”

He told the court that the power to activate Article 50 was a “classic example of the proper and well established use of royal prerogative” with regard to treaty making and breaking.

Sky’s Faisal Islam wrote that “The concerning news for the Government is that the three High Court judges appeared far more sceptical about its case than many had expected. The Lord Chief Justice said twice that their argument ‘baffled’ him. It is entirely plausible that the Government will lose this case, which might come as a shock to Westminster.”

It depends on the three judges. The 582-page transcript of the High Court hearing is a formidable hurdle to a quick ruling. “We shall take time to consider the matter and will give our judgements as quickly as possible,” said Lord Chief Justice John Thomas, Britain’s most senior judge, who has been hearing the case with two other leading justices.

Whichever side loses will almost certainly appeal to the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest judicial body, which will give a final verdict in December.

It is not impossible that the Supreme Court could refer the case to the European Court of Justice. Now that would be ironic.

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)

The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament


The influential House of Lords constitution committee has published a report declaring that it would be “constitutionally inappropriate” for the prime minister to act on an advisory referendum without referring back to parliament.

Ian Lang, the Conservative peer and chairman of the House of Lords constitution committee, said:” Our constitution is built on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the decision to act following the referendum should be taken by parliament.

“Parliament should be asked to approve the decision to trigger article 50 – a decision which will start the formal process of the UK leaving the EU and set a deadline for the UK’s exit. Parliament’s assent could be sought by means of legislation or through resolutions tabled in both Houses of Parliament.”

The report says: “In our representative democracy, it is constitutionally appropriate that parliament should take the decision to act following the referendum. This means that parliament should play a central role in the decision to trigger the article 50 process, in the subsequent negotiation process, and in approving or otherwise the final terms under which the UK leaves the EU.”

The question of whether parliament or the prime minister has the authority to trigger article 50 is the central issue in a legal challenge against the government. Last week the High Court began a hearing of the legal challenge over Brexit in what has been described as the most important constitutional case in generations. Opponents are fighting to stop Theresa May triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the European Union without a vote from MPs in Westminster.

Recognising the possibility of conflict with this legal action, the consultation committee said: “We do not intend therefore to express a view as to the merits or otherwise of the differing legal arguments…Rather we consider whether, and if so how, it would be constitutionally appropriate for Parliament to be involved, irrespective of whether the courts decide that parliamentary involvement is a legal requirement.”

The report goes on to say: “It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament… We consider it constitutionally appropriate that the assent of both Houses be sought for the triggering of Article 50.”

The committee goes on to recommend that: “Any legislation or resolution should clearly set out Parliament’s recognition and acceptance of the referendum result, but should seek to make clear the distinction between that acceptance and the decision as to when Article 50 should be triggered. Article 50 should be triggered only when it is in the UK’s best interests to begin the formal two-year negotiation process.”

For the future, the constitution committee concludes that: “The focus must now be on how Parliament and the Government will work together to that end. That co-operation should start now. Parliament and the Government should, at this early stage, take the opportunity to establish their respective roles and how they will work together during the negotiation process. The constitutional roles of each—the Executive and the Legislature—must be respected, beginning with parliamentary involvement and assent for the invoking of Article 50.”

The full text of the constitution committee report ‘The invoking of Article 50’ can be found at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldconst/44/4407.htm

Posted in Law UpdatesComments (0)


Be first to get Legal News

Full Name
Email *
Enter the following to confirm your subscription *
advert

Follow Us on Twitter


Archives

Article Categories

Tags

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