Westministenders. Boris, May and Judgement Day

[RedToothBrush]

Well its finally here. The day America changes forever. Good luck planet earth.

Our day of reckoning is beckoning too.

Tuesday is Supreme Court Judgement Day.

At 9.30 Lord Nueberger and the other ten justices will convene and he will read out their judgement.

Contrary to some suggestions this does not mean the decision is necessarily unanimous. It is normal for the Supreme Court to do this.

Nueberger will read any disagreements out as part of the judgment.
Their ruling will be far reaching in its importance however it goes.

A victory for the government will mean a50 can be triggered as and when Theresa May likes. That could be Tuesday afternoon in theory.

If it’s a victory for the claimants then things get much more complicated. It depends on how far the justices go.

It could rule that parliament need to vote on a50.

It could rule that the Great Repeal Act must be passed before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that the Scottish and NI Assemblies must agree to a50 being invoked.

It could rule that the Good Friday Agreement must be resolved before a50 can be invoked.

It could rule that issues over acquired rights must be resolved before invoking a50.

It could draw other conclusions that we have not thought of.

A strong victory for the claimants could seriously hamper May’s plans for Brexit. Which is exactly why she has laid out her vision and has prepared the battle lines ready for her next round of blame laying.

None of this will be because the government has been short sighted.

If there is a strong victory, remember that May could have avoided the situation by accepting the High Court’s ruling in December that she needed Parliament’s consent to trigger a50. Anything more that makes triggering a50 more difficult is her sole responsibility and she had the power to avoid. Much of the right wing press will tell you differently.

We've heard so much about Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit. We should also talk of Democratic and Undemocratic Brexit. How Brexit is managed and how we conduct ourselves is arguably as important to the future as economics. It is right to oppose Undemocratic Brexit. It is important to make that distinction and all the principles that fall under that concept. What opposition there is need to get their shit together on this principle. Using patriotism to stifle this wholly wrong and unhealthy. Saying Brexit must happen no matter what, regardless of how bad it is and regardless of the cost is wrong.

Make the case for democracy. Keep talking about it. Talk about where it is failing and what we must do to strengthen it, not undermine it.

Here lies Labour's policy on Brexit. "We support Democratic Brexit which is the will of the people. This is how we define this. This is what is needed economic and socially." You can find the necessary slogans from this and start defining it outward from that. So far they have failed to capture this sentiment concisely into a soundbite that people can start to develop and push a left wing liberal agenda on their own terms from. Their PR is shocking and they are incoherent. May owned Corbyn at PMQ earlier this week on these grounds. This is not because they have been misrepresented by the press or been the victim of biased media. Its because they have been shit and have failed to set their own agenda and instead are dancing to everyone else's.

Here’s hoping that democracy will win through the challenges of the next few years. Democracy is about elections and referendums, but it is also so much more. It is about on going debate and the freedom of this debate, freedom of the press, a range of political parties and points of view, the independent judiciary, the right to oppose the state, freedom to exercise your legal rights, freedom of speech, an understanding of equality and an understanding and above all else - respect for of all of the above. It does not bode well that much of the right wing press and right wing politicians are telling us differently.

So much hope about our futures now rests with Angela Merkel one way or another.

Meanwhile Corbyn could face a major rebellion over a50 if he pursues a three line whip rather than a free vote. 60 - 80 Labour MPs are threatening not to tow the party line with shadow cabinet resignations potentially also on the cards.

Brace yourselves the roller coaster is just about to hit a one big drop.

Peregrina - (many) Leavers have demonstrated that they have no understanding at all of the workings of our democracy, starting with the entirely erroneous idea that the EU is undemocratic.

It will be fine. We need to come together now not fight.
IDS has disappointed me - I never liked him as I feel he is very sexist and protective of women, his wife etc - never liked it at all but he has done good work and seemed a good person. However his comments about the independent courts are not sensible at all and these judges decide what the law says. What they think personally is utterly irrelevant to how they decide as most people realise.

It will be interesting to see how the bill goes through Parliament. Interesting times.

Conor James McKinney ‏*@mckinneytweets*

1. The Supreme Court articulates the "fundamental principle" at the heart of this case:

It is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution that, unless primary legislation permits it, the Royal prerogative does not enable ministers to change statue law or common law

1. The bulk of the judgment concerned the 1972 Act passed when we joined the EU. Supreme Court held it was constitutionally "unprecedented".

in constitutional terms the effects of the 1972 Act was unprecedented

1. The 1972 Act made the EU a source of law in this country; a part of our constitution. As such, changing it is a matter for Parliament

we consider that, by the 1972 Act Parliament endorsed and gave effect to the United Kingdom's membership of what is now the European Union under the EU Treaties in a way which is inconsistent with the future exercise by ministers of any prerogative power to withdraw from such Treaties

1. Court rejected the argument that newer laws controlling government powers over EU treaties implicitly left intact a power to leave

The fact that a statute says nothing about a particular topic can rarely, if ever, justify inferring a fundamental change in the law

1. On whether the Sewel Convention gave Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland a saw in triggering Article 50: it's not a matter for the courts

The convention operates as a political restriction on the activity of the UK Parliament. The courts can not adjudicate on the operation of this convention

1. ...despite the fact that the Sewel Convention is mentioned in legislation

it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention We would have expected UK Parliament to have used other words if it were seeking to convert a convention into a legal rule justiciable by the courts

1. This passage explains why the Supreme Court didn't feel it needed to refer the case to the EU court in Luxembourg

In these proceedings, it is common ground that notice under article 50(2) (which we shall call "Notice") cannot be given in qualified or conditional terms and that, once given, it cannot be withdrawn. Especially as it is the Secretary of State's case that, even if this common ground is mistaken, it would make no difference to the outcome of these proceedings, we are content to proceed on the basis that this is correct, without expressing any view of our own on either point. It follows from this that once the United Kingdom give Notice, it will inevitably cease at a later date to be a member of the European Union and party to the EU Treaties.

1. This passage is very Lord Neuberger in its description of the United Kingdom constitution (or lack thereof).

Unlike most countries, the United Kingdom does not have a constitution in the sense of a single coherent code of fundamental law which prevails over all other sources of law. Our constitutional arrangement have developed over time in a pragmatic as much as in a principled way, through a combination of statues, events, conventions, academic writings and judicial decisions. Reflecting its development and its contents, the UK constitution was described by the constitutional scholar, Professor AV Dicey, as "the most flexible polity in existence" - Introduction to the Study of Law of the Constitution (8th Ed 1915) p87

1. Legal academics who published their analyses on @ukcla and similar online platforms get a shout out from the Supreme Court

We are grateful to all the advocates and solicitors involved for the clarity and skill with which the respective cases have been presented orally and in writing, and for the efficiency with which the very substantial documentation was organised. We have also been much assisted by a number of illuminating articles written by academics following the handing down of the judgment of the Divisional Court. It is a tribute to those articles that they have resulted in the arguments advanced before this Court being somewhat different from, and more refined than, those before that court. 10. And finally, one for @Lawandpolicy: statements of government policy are not law. Judges decide what the law is, thank you very much Whether or not they are clear and consistent, such public observations, wherever they are made, are not law: they are statements of political intention

Some reflects on this. I was very keen that the Court uphold the argument about the devolved assemblies. However I can not argue with their ruling. If the government failed in making the referendum legally binding the SNP and NI Parties equally failed to make the position of the devolved assemblies to veto government, if they so wished, legally binding.

I also note the loud message that things written on leaflets by government are political messages that are not legally binding. Statements that Brexit is Brexit, are purely political and it is for parliament to decide what Brexit looks like. Important to control a rampaging dictatorial Conservative party (equally would be true if another party in control)

Its a fair ruling.

Red what is the power of the Select Committee?

I can only agree with they are saying. It very much feels like a voice of reason in the middle of chaos.
But it also looks in opposition to most of what TM has been saying so far.

So how is the balance of power there?
And who are the people who write that (Remainers, Leavers, tories or labour?)??

The Select committee is cross party and cross leave/remain and their job is to scrutinise the approach taken by the government and hold the govt to account. Hopefully they'll have time to do so.

On Farage's point - I'd certainly heard a lot less chatter about marching / demonstrating pro- Brexit from leaver 'friends' on fb etc. I wonder if it's the time of year, or whether enthusiasm has started to wain just s bit.

I came on to say I was disappointed about the decision on the devolved authorities, but now I think I'm quite glad they've got something to fight for. Hope it puts some fire in their bellies, not that Sturgeon really needs any more.

My first thought - to Leavers who complain would be 'What part of democracy don't you understand?' How childishly satisfying to be able to turn that infuriating meme back in their faces.

SNP to table 50 amendments including a requirement for a white paper

Labour position:
Faisal Islam ‏**@faisalislam**
Labour a50 amendment: to prevent "tax haven" threat, maintain "tariff-free" single mkt & "meaningful vote" final deal

Faisal Islam ‏**@faisalislam**
Chuka Umunna tells me he wants amendment to A50 Bill or Great Repeal Bill giving "£350m a week to NHS". Says many Leave voters voted for it

Lib Dem position:
Tim Farron ‏*@timfarron*
The @libdems are clear, we demand a vote of the people on the final deal and without that we will not vote for A50

Steve Peers ‏*@StevePeers*
And LibDems will vote against Article 50 bill if no referendum on the final deal. Assumes Article 50 notice is revocable.

This has to potential to completely change the eventual outcome of Brexit.

I think the LD position is the one least likely to succeed, but its worth noting that depending on how the negotiations have to be approved in the EU, a situation could arise where some EU citizens get to vote on the deal but we don't. That might be a situation which becomes untenable politically. How can the government justify not giving us a vote, when people in Belgium are getting a vote on our future?

The reversibility of a50 is also something which is not yet definitive. There is a legal challenge going through in Dublin which seeks to establish this. At present it is not politically reversible but if it was determined that was legally possible, it changes the politics and put the Lib Dems in a stronger position.

I do think that the SNP have a right to exert their position through a huge number of amendments, considering the Supreme Court assertion that they have no veto and this is the only way to make a case for Scotland. Most will be unsuccessful but I do think a couple will have a good chance of defeating the government. The White Paper is the one I think that has a good chance of success - it has appeal cross party and cross remain/leave lines.

Labour's positions are less clear. A meaningful vote on final deal, I assume is a parliamentary vote rather than another referendum. In all honesty, like the Lib Dems this may need a50 to be reversible. Labour is also broadly in line with the SNP in several aspects. Chuka Umunna suggestion is cheeky but hell yeah. Lets see MPs argue against it. Lets see which ones do. Bring on the Battle of the NHS. Its a very smart idea. Hold Johnson to account on that one.

Ian Dunt does make the following point though:
Unfortunately, Crobyn's amendments are actually below the standard the government has set itself. He wants only tariff-free access to the single market, which is short of the goals of removing non-tariff barriers and securing freedom for financial services that May and David Davis have set.
www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/01/24/may-will-be-pleased-with-the-supreme-court-brexit-judgement

What will be most crucial is what Leave Labour MPs will do and how many rebel Conservative MPs there are. There were about 50 - 60 potential Conservative rebels, who although the majority will vote for a50, still want parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Leave Labour MPs are a bit more of an unknown quantity. Kate Hoey has been jumping up and down like a rabid bunny about a50 this morning going on about how voters won't accept it and doesn't represent voters. That's Kate Hoey of one of the most remain constituencies in the country.

Also going back to the Guardian article, it looks likely the government are going to HAVE to seriously consider accepting amendments in order to prevent themselves from being subject to new legal challenges in other areas at a later date if clarity over particular rights are not adequately and directly addressed. This is to formally establish what rights various groups will have post Brexit.

Gina Miller has done more for parliamentary sovereignty than any of these Brexiteers who only like it, if it fits with what they want. Ironic.

I agree, RedToothBrush, that the likelihood of British voters getting a say on the deal is pretty much dependent on whether other EU countries put the deal to referendum. Whether they do may be for political imperatives of their own. I tend to think Ivan Rodgers was right to suggest that negotiating Brexit might take up to 10 years. Ivan Rodgers is far too much of an EU insider to be as startlingly naive as TM and her gang.

Losing the devolved argument forces Scotland to work with England and NI MPs rather than serving just their own interests. That in itself is good for the UNITED Kingdom.

The power of the Select Committee is that it's job is to gather evidence about the implications of Brexit and seek to minimise damage or potential problems. Therefore its findings carry political weight and help guide other MPs who perhaps have less idea of the details. It can highlight problem areas and try and ensure that the government acts to resolve these issues in the public interest. As it is cross party it helps non-partisan issues. This is much more important that would normally be the case where party lines are much more established. Its should help build a consensus.

I love Chuka

David Davies up now.

The SC ruling against the government was almost a given. I can't say I'm not bitterly disappointed by the judges' decision that the devolved government won't be given more of a say (or that clarity should be sought on whether A50 is reversible). I do accept they have greater legal expertise than me though so I'm relying on Jolyon Maugham to settle the reversibilty question at least.

Since this has not been particularly unexpected, I don't think it will have too much of an impact on the By-Elections - at least not yet. There isn't really much motivation for a Kipper backlash on this. How things progress over the next couple of weeks in parliament might change that but that also requires voters to have that level of political engagement. The Mail and co will inevitably try and stir things up, but I don't know that there is too much ground to be made there either. If things are settled by 23rd Feb, then the opposition might be true: a greater chance of a Remain show of strength. If its still ongoing on 23rd Feb, then I don't think it will play into it - a backlash is only more likely after the end of March if the deadline is breeched.

Hilary Benn, just up saying 'White Paper'. Not doing so will be showing a 'lack of respect for the HoC'.

So far the debate has not really said much new or different to previously.

Starmer has asked how much the case cost the taxpayer. Davis refused to say. (Watch out for the FOI request on this. They will be forced to disclose I'm sure).

Davis says 'No White Paper'.

Still.

Hmm.

Watch this develop.

Anna Soubry, says 'Yes Brexit. But Yes White Paper'.

Oh. Fancy That.

Tell me I'm wrong but:
www.goodreads.com/book/show/604715.The_Brotherhood
1985 book about the role of Freemasons in British public life
and jokey article about UKIPs fellow travellers
www.ft.com/content/8f22eb00-e37f-11e4-aa97-00144feab7de
and in the strange elections to police commissioners
Any number of contradictions about the way public life has been conducted of late
and the opaque funding of the ukips.

Again follow the money, and think about what they really want.

Alistair Burt CON says 'White Paper'.

And who they are.
And how they relate to all the mainstream parties, and similar organisations in US. Sadly, most of them, but one in particular, of course.

Parliamentary committees have sought transparency on their roles in public office in the last 10 years, detailed in the new introduction to the book, to no avail.

Luciana Berger LAB says 'White Paper'.

Nicky Morgan CON says 'White Paper - it was the basis of what they voted to support a50 on in Dec'. (Amendment made reference to a plan)

Theme developing... May's speech doesn't appear to be considered sufficient.

I had to leave the house at 9.45, so had just enough time to hear the ruling.

I summarised it as "Ruling confirms that Parliament is sovereign but the Sewel convention is just that - a convention" so know your place (to be fair, that's not what the judges were meaning - it's just the sad fact of a fudged failed federal system)

Having said that, quite apart from the 50 amendments that the SNP are going to put forward, it'll be interesting to see, once A50 has been activated because realistically it is not going to be stopped, if the devolved administrations refuse to allow the Sewel convention to be activated for devolved areas (eg fishing) when the Great Repeal Bill is put forward. Westminster then has to make the choice about whether to make even more of a mockery of devolution and force through the changes at Westminster.

It's also going to be interesting to see how often EVEL is triggered on A50 votes at Westminster.

TM has been thrashed in court twice now; does she want her nose bloodied in Parliament too? She should accept that a White Paper is a prerequisite and just get one out. Why the constant desire to obfuscate? She needs to know that her authoritarianism doesn't look good.

Ian Dunt ‏*@IanDunt*
Consider for a moment that the government is facing calls for a white paper on the most important constitutional change since the war.
The fact this is even controversial shows you how utterly and irrepairably mad they have become.

Also delurking, this ruling is giving me hope. Thank you Red.

Woman one of the articles linked to is the FT and behind a pay wall. I have read somewhere that the KGB is somehow associated with the Free masons, which would be interesting in the context of Russia destabilising Europe. I don't know or understand anything about the FM. Is this all nutty conspiracy theory territory? I am fervently pro EU but am very critical of how the EU absorbed Easter European countries to make a point to Russia. Bad diplomacy.