This is potentially a game-changer!

[pensivepolly]

Breaking news from the High Court on Article 50: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/parliament-must-trigger-brexit-high-court-rules

You ain't seeing nothing yet missmoon. The blame game will be astonishing in its scope, its unfairness, and its fury.

Yep, its only just starting and for some it serves their purposes to crank it all up.

Evening!

So quick question mismoon, vulpe , anyone, .....
So DC issued notice (A50) on Friday 24 June just as he had notified the nation and more importantly, Parliament, and the EU Council he was going to do. EU of course receives that notice from the head of the UK government, the highest representative we have. Under Lisbon, its 100% legally binding in the EU court.

Do the UK judiciary wait for someone to complain it wasnt legal issued?

Do the UK judiciary wait for someone to complain it wasnt legal issued?

Yes

They'd have to, but I imagine it would have been brought.

Or it may have rendered that invoking of Art 50 invalid under EU law as art 50 stipulates that the constitutional process of the country has to have been followed.

It would have gone straight to the ECJ wouldn't it?

Not sure, I think if he'd done it straight away there may have been objections from the commons or lords and action that way.

But then speculation is all isn't it.

I'd have respected Cameron some more if he'd managed this properly. Stood up and said something like: " This is a very close result and we need time to decide what will happen one way or another as the referendum is advisory" etc.

However he'd have been hounded from office by the press so I see why he went.

Im not trying to be cute, as this I dont know either. But, and heres the rub, he could have issued A50 on the friday as pledged. No one had told him, definitively, he couldnt. If they had, then he had deceived us, Parliament and the EU council of his intention.

If that then was found to have been issued illegally by a subsequent judgment in UK courts, the UK would have had to notify the EU that the A50 was illegally issued and must be disregarded.

Except, that it wasnt. And we couldnt.

Under Lisbon, A50 and the decision to issue it is a matter for the constitution of the member state.
At the time of issuing, DC was acting legally. Only at the subsequent time of UK judgment, was DC then deemed to have acted illegally. The ECJ would not be concerned with any post notice domestic judgments of a member state, and certainly not any constitutional spats.

OR did DC, only receive a phone call from the sniggering judiciary, on the morning of Friday 24th? And if that was the case, did he leave a message on the fridge for the next occupant?

(not really wanting to flog this dead horse too much.....but we're all in limbo awaiting the final chapter of the Trump)

This is only hypothetical Chris isn't it.

Cameron wouldn't have been acting legally if he'd declared art 50 after the vote, it would have been pulled.

pulled by who vulpe?

There is no sniggering judiciary - the judiciary rules on cases brought before them in a court of Law.

By other MPs challenging it.

Its a bit facetious to say that there wouldn't have been one, or from the lords ( who would have been able to call on the Legal Lords advice), even the EU might have said that process wasn't followed.

The way I see it, call me old fashioned, but there was a vote to "stay" or "leave" the "leave" won fair and square, so what happens now? they overturn the vote because it's not what they wanted? Democracy hey? Who'd have it.

David Cameron knew he (probably, as it hadn't been tested in court) couldn't issue A50 without parliamentary approval. And that's why he didn't do it.

"By other MPs challenging it. "

But other MPs hadnt challenged it. Hed presented his position to Parliament, and repeated ad infinitum for months his intention. No one challenged him. Indeed, they accepted his position and both remain and leave enforced his position.

"David Cameron knew he (probably, as it hadn't been tested in court) couldn't issue A50 without parliamentary approval. And that's why he didn't do it."

If indeed he knew, then he knowingly broke the law under the 2015 EU Referendum Act. Indeed, so seriously its a lock up and throw away the key offence. This wasnt 'electioneering'. This wasnt manifest whitewash. This was a clear statement of intention in the event of a leave result. The Electoral Commission allowed it, as indeed it was a factual consequence of a leave win. Thats how serious the electorate were to take this decision.

"But other MPs hadnt challenged it. Hed presented his position to Parliament, and repeated ad infinitum for months his intention. No one challenged him. Indeed, they accepted his position and both remain and leave enforced his position."

Other MPs all accepted, as with the advice prior to the vote on the referendum that the vote was advisory.

The only thing the referendum act did under law was promise to have a referendum

ismyusername, they havent overturned the vote. But I get your sentiment. Democracy indeed. Perhaps we should have made a bigger fuss when 'they' shafted us on Boaty McBoatface. (Im being serious) Theres an elitist view that says, we're going to let you decide. Oh well thats a silly name. We know what sort of name is far more suitable so to save you from your selves, we'll use ours. Here though, heres a life raft called Boaty McBoatface. Be Happy we gave you that.

Vulpe, "Other MPs all accepted, as with the advice prior to the vote on the referendum that the vote was advisory."

Havent we had this bun fight? The Feb 2016 briefing? The leaflet to every household?

MPs had accepted the result was final. (and to be fair....most MPs are still standing by that position even after Miller.............., she said, in a desperate attempt to move this argument on)

The leaflet to every household isn't legally binding.

The note of Feb 2016 doesn't count on anything to do with the act, because the act was passed in December 2015. So prior to the act being passed all MPs knew that the act was advisory.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's been thinking about Boaty McBoatface this week!

Advisory!

Vulpe, but no one then challenged the Feb 2016 briefing, despite it being so contradictory to what (if we agree with your position) all the MPs understood the referendum to be.

It wasn't contradictory. It just missed out important phrases that the writers assumed were taken by the reader as being there.

We promise that we will [try our best to] do x [as long as it's legally possible for us to do it]. [That's a firm promise, just as long as it suits our political agenda to keep it].

Cynical? Me?

Two things remind what the feb 16 briefing said and....

Whatever was said in the Feb 16 briefing bares no legal significance because the act was not amended

It was pointed out by lots of outlets that the ref was advisory prior to the vote.

I do think Cameron's brinkmanship has caused this, not any sense of anti democracy amongst the remain side.

Purely as a reminder this ;

2.1 The result of the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union will
be final.

However, we truly flogged this to death yesterday.... To argue the "advisory" case, means the result of the referendum was far from final. We have done this to death.....

Can I say, I respect your opinion. I dont agree but I respect it. Can we move on so....

Whose marching on December 5th?