@RobD Yes we are in a Chicken and Egg situation made more complex b the fact we don't know if either or both of the Chicken and the Egg are revokable. But the Supreme Court ruling answered this. Parliament is Soveriegn. It can make the Egg a Chicken or the Chicken an Egg if it so wishes. And it does so by primary legislation.
@RobD Yes we are in a Chicken and Egg situation made more complex b the fact we don't know if either or both of the Chicken and the Egg are revokable. But the Supreme Court ruling answered this. Parliament is Soveriegn. It can make the Egg a Chicken or the Chicken an Egg if it so wishes. And it does so by primary legislation.
Yes, but the Supreme Court and Parliament have no jurisdiction over the EU.
@RobD But if Parliament legislated retroactively then it wouldn't have been valid at the time. See the Benefits Sanction example. The strange wording of A50 rooting authority in a state's " Constitutional Requirements " is vague at best. All the vaguer in the UK's case where we have an uncodified constitution.
So we are no further forward. In our " constitutional requirements " we can repeal the A50 Act more so we can bizzarely repeal in such a way as to mean it never held the force of law at all even when it did.
The benefits sanction was entirely internal to the UK. To use an extremely simplistic analogy, if we repealed the Statute of Westminster 1931 I'm sure the Australians would tell us to do one.
A worthwhile exercise to test how much sovereignty we've really regained. I trust IDS will table a repeal bill forthwith.
@RobD but the Statute of Westminster example doesn't hold for two reasons. #1 Brexit is an internal UK matter. My statute rights will be stripped from me so I can go to UK courts to ensure Brexit is being undertaken legally as the brave patriot Gina Miller did. #2 Did we set up a standing supranational court to adjudicate Statute of Westminster disputes ? If we had and it ruled in our favour Australia would have to suck it up. As Soveriegn states do all the time when myriadd international tribunals rule.
In your senario we'd be saying " we've changed our mind " and the EU Council would be saying " You can't. Sod off ". In the end the ECJ would adjudicate.
Not that they would tell us to sod off of course. Us leaving is a huge blow to the EU and us changing our mind a huge boost. Why would they ?
@RobD but the Statute of Westminster example doesn't hold for two reasons. #1 Brexit is an internal UK matter. My statute rights will be stripped from me so I can go to UK courts to ensure Brexit is being undertaken legally as the brave patriot Gina Miller did. #2 Did we set up a standing supranational court to adjudicate Statute of Westminster disputes ? If we had and it ruled in our favour Australia would have to suck it up. As Soveriegn states do all the time when myriadd international tribunals rule.
In your senario we'd be saying " we've changed our mind " and the EU Council would be saying " You can't. Sod off ". In the end the ECJ would adjudicate.
Not that they would tell us to sod off of course. Us leaving is a huge blow to the EU and us changing our mind a huge boost. Why would they ?
The act of invoking article 50 is clearly not an internal UK matter. By passing the current bill, Parliament will be effectively legalising Brexit, since it is explicit in A50 that two years after the declaration the country leaves.
And of course they might just decide to ignore the rules. It is the EU after all.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.
Doesn't it bother the French voters that so many of their politicians from the main parties have tended to end up becoming in embroiled in financial scandals of some sort when they become Presidential candidates in recent years?!
It does, hence the current mood of the electorate, getting rid of all "big names": Hollande not even able to be candidate, Sarko and Juppé out in the primary, Valls and Montebourg beaten by a nobody like Hamon in their own primary, now Bayrou will not stad and FIllon is in trouble...
All the main establishment politicians are out or very weakened... but the funny thing is thatit leaves France with two fakeoutsiders as potential présidents, that are actually ultra-insiders: - Le Pen literally inherited the family business from her father, has lived in a gated community all her life and never had a job outside politics. Her extended family (father, mother, sisters, in-laws, companion, niece...) are all elected and have been for years on the public payroll. - Macron is the embodiment of the establishment: never elected, always appointed, ENA, Rotschild Investment Bank, Presidential Advisor, Minister... Apparently his supporters think that his knifing of Hollande after 5 years means that he is a fresh new face... He is also probably the candidate who made the most money in his life even if he is by far the youngest.
@RobD Well we've taken this discussion as far as we can then. I don't think there is anything at all in A50 that makes it " explicit " we leave after two years. There are numerous practical ways in which we. can change our minds.
@RobD Well we've taken this discussion as far as we can then. I don't think there is anything at all in A50 that makes it " explicit " we leave after two years. There are numerous practical ways in which we. can change our minds.
Clause 3:
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
@RobD That just takes us back to ' Notification ' which we've discussed at length. And the ' Notification ' has be in accordance with our ' Constitutional Requirements '. And Parliament is Soveriegn. So we are back to square one. Is the notification Revocable ? What are our Constitutional Requirements ? What happens if our Constitutional Requirements require the notice to be revocable ? Or simply revokes it before we test it's revocability ?
Stoke Central is 82nd on the Tory target list for 2020, if May won it she would be heading for a bigger Tory majority than Thatcher got in 1983 and the biggest Tory win since that of Baldwin's Tory dominated National Government in October 1931 http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Not an impossible GE scenario against Corbyn, but in any case there's the complicating factor of UKIP in Stoke Central. It's possible to see how a Tory win might happen here tomorrow on a low turnout - a combination of 2015 Labour voters either staying at home or switching to UKIP, and some UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, and the Conservative vote holding up relatively well because of the current good ratings of the party.
Still, I'm not saying that's likely; more likely a Labour hold by a reasonable margin.
Have to agree with most of your analysis Richard, only bit I would disagree with is the suggestion that the Conservative vote is holding up relatively well because of their current party poll ratings. I suspect it has more to do with Theresa May's personal ratings, that and the fact that the Government are still on course to trigger Article 50 at the date of their choosing despite the recent court cases.
Stoke Central is 82nd on the Tory target list for 2020, if May won it she would be heading for a bigger Tory majority than Thatcher got in 1983 and the biggest Tory win since that of Baldwin's Tory dominated National Government in October 1931 http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative
Not an impossible GE scenario against Corbyn, but in any case there's the complicating factor of UKIP in Stoke Central. It's possible to see how a Tory win might happen here tomorrow on a low turnout - a combination of 2015 Labour voters either staying at home or switching to UKIP, and some UKIP voters switching to the Conservatives, and the Conservative vote holding up relatively well because of the current good ratings of the party.
Still, I'm not saying that's likely; more likely a Labour hold by a reasonable margin.
Have to agree with most of your analysis Richard, only bit I would disagree with is the suggestion that the Conservative vote is holding up relatively well because of their current party poll ratings. I suspect it has more to do with Theresa May's personal ratings, that and the fact that the Government are still on course to trigger Article 50 at the date of their choosing despite the recent court cases.
Even if there has to be another vote in the HoCs to agree on whether we face a successful or failed messy EU Brexit deal following negociations with the EU. It would be a brave Opposition party that chose not to back the Government, and therefore the best interests of UKplc on Brexit as we draw nearer to the currently planned GE date. The Labour party would have to be in a very strong polling position then to risk the threat of a snap GE earlier than planned.
@RobD That just takes us back to ' Notification ' which we've discussed at length. And the ' Notification ' has be in accordance with our ' Constitutional Requirements '. And Parliament is Soveriegn. So we are back to square one. Is the notification Revocable ? What are our Constitutional Requirements ? What happens if our Constitutional Requirements require the notice to be revocable ? Or simply revokes it before we test it's revocability ?
Because Parliament will pass a law allowing the PM to invoke article 50. That will easily satisfy the constitutional requirement clause. There is no current act saying that the PMs invocation of article 50 is irrevocable, therefore I fail to see how it is a constitutional requirement.
I despise Le Pen's programme, but the "I'm not wearing a headscarf for no Mufti" stroke she pulled in the Lebanon was masterful.
She would also probably chew Macron's nuts off in any televised debate.
Macron has pushed back his budgetary Framework announcement to the end of next week.
Le Pen's incident in Lebanon was quite obviously staged but went down well. The fact that her chief of staff was arrested and indicted yesterday, less so.
Still, the press is not pushing her that much on her Financial scandals. They have apparently decided that the public does not care about scandals when it's about le pen.
I agree that she would destroy Macron in a debate.
Doesn't it bother the French voters that so many of their politicians from the main parties have tended to end up becoming in embroiled in financial scandals of some sort when they become Presidential candidates in recent years?!
It does, hence the current mood of the electorate, getting rid of all "big names": Hollande not even able to be candidate, Sarko and Juppé out in the primary, Valls and Montebourg beaten by a nobody like Hamon in their own primary, now Bayrou will not stad and FIllon is in trouble...
All the main establishment politicians are out or very weakened... but the funny thing is thatit leaves France with two fakeoutsiders as potential présidents, that are actually ultra-insiders: - Le Pen literally inherited the family business from her father, has lived in a gated community all her life and never had a job outside politics. Her extended family (father, mother, sisters, in-laws, companion, niece...) are all elected and have been for years on the public payroll. - Macron is the embodiment of the establishment: never elected, always appointed, ENA, Rotschild Investment Bank, Presidential Advisor, Minister... Apparently his supporters think that his knifing of Hollande after 5 years means that he is a fresh new face... He is also probably the candidate who made the most money in his life even if he is by far the youngest.
Chris, thanks for that fascinating insight into current state of French politics during this Presidential campaign.
I think the issue of EU citizens' rights, including UK citizens, is why the discussion around acquired rights is much more complicated than is portrayed by most Brexiteers.
Pretty much everything is much more complicated than is portrayed by most Brexiteers.
@RobD Yes it can if the ECJ plays ball. A50 refers to a member state's " constitutional requirements ". So if the UK Supreme Court rules that something is or isn't a valid withdrawal and the UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament is Soveriegn.....
The legal potentialities are rather fascinating with all scenarios, but it is hard to envisage a political scenario where they might be used. For our elite and the eu the rubicon has been crossed. Theoretically we could all roll back from this, ways could be found to enable that, but for the public to shift so dramatically in view to lead to a parliamentary reversal and for the eu to play ball, well, it's hard to imagine, particularly given the general stubbornness of people not wanting to admit they were wrong.
As for the shityness of towns like stoke....I'm afraid there shittyness will continue as big reginal cities like manchester, birmingham and leeds continue to suck in talent, jobs and investment. This is a deliberate policy by both parties to centralise things to make them "hubs" because it worked for london so it will work everywhere else......so dumb.
Indeed.
Its a policy created by people who judge success by the number of posh shops, expensive restaurants and 'luxury' apartments a place has.
The Government is under pressure to prove that none of the £20 million paid to British terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay ended up in the hands of Isil.
It has emerged that four of the 17 British detainees thought to have been given compensation have been accused of links to Islamist groups or individuals in Syria.
One of the men went on a trip with “Jihadi John”, the hostage killer, to Portugal less than a year after the compensation deal was granted, while another has seen three of his nephews fight in Syria.
Apparently Cuddly Ken Clarke was the one who did this deal.
Whatever. If people were unlawfully detained or unlawfully treated (I've not followed it closely), they should be compensated, regardless of their views or later (or even earlier) behaviour. Otherwise we are in Putin country - be nice to the Government and get well treated, be nasty and find the corts throw your case out.
As a Tory I, and i know many others, do seriously wonder if we have really read this correctly or has someone finally come along who will actually get the young to vote?
Because if he has -then 2020 really could be a completely different contest to the one conventional thinking currently expects.
Yes, I wonder too. Polling companies have a history of always fighing the last war, and the last war here is that young people don't vote so their voting intentions should be downgraded. The raw data in most polls is significanly better for Labour, and is being drastically shifted to allow for the assumptions. That said, a structural problem for young voters is that they often don't even REGISTER.
Comments
In your senario we'd be saying " we've changed our mind " and the EU Council would be saying " You can't. Sod off ". In the end the ECJ would adjudicate.
Not that they would tell us to sod off of course. Us leaving is a huge blow to the EU and us changing our mind a huge boost. Why would they ?
And of course they might just decide to ignore the rules. It is the EU after all.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Its a policy created by people who judge success by the number of posh shops, expensive restaurants and 'luxury' apartments a place has.
I'm not entirely joking! I love anchovies on pizza, and I've met people who are Genuinely Offended By the Thought.