Brexit - the next steps

[Udayana]

Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.

Thank goodness they managed to update the title to say "worst case" instead of "base case" as it was earlier 

[Outrider]

It will have no impact. We will already be well into the prorogation, plus I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. I was extremely surprised that the Scottish Court didn't throw the case out because, IFAICS Johnson was within his rights to prorogue Parliament.

The Scottish case, as far as I can tell, rests on the fact that technically it isn't the Prime Minister that prorogues parliament, it's the Monarch on his advice.  The suggestion is that he lied about why, and therefore the proroguation was engineered under false pretences.  Exactly how they can establish that Johnson lied isn't clear - even if his primary motivation was to bypass a parliament that wasn't complying with his legislative agenda, the reason(s) he did give could be entirely valid, and if that's sufficient for the Monarch to agree (and let's face it, our democracy works because she doesn't contradict Parliament) then he's not lying, he's just selecting which elements he wants to go on record with.

Unless there's something in the evidence that I'm not privy to, I can't see a) how the Scottish court came to its decision or b) that the Supreme Court will back them up on it.

O.

[jeremyp]

Is that it - I thought they'd been working on this for months - 5 pages and absolute zero detail on the likely effects. Heaven help us.

I assumed it was just a summary. There must have been quite a lot of work behind some of their conclusions, unless they just made them up.

[Gordon]

This could be interesting - those behind the recent Court of Session case in Scotland have filed another: it seems that the Court of Session has a unique power 'nobile officium' among UK courts that, if granted, means the court could send an A50 extension request to the EU even if Johnson refused to make the request himself, as he has indicated. Whether it flies or not is another matter.

They hope the nobile officium power could mean the court will send the article 50 extension letter on Johnson’s behalf, if he refused to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension

[ProfessorDavey]

This could be interesting - those behind the recent Court of Session case in Scotland have filed another: it seems that the Court of Session has a unique power 'nobile officium' among UK courts that, if granted, means the court could send an A50 extension request to the EU even if Johnson refused to make the request himself, as he has indicated. Whether it flies or not is another matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/anti-brexiters-new-legal-challenge-scotland-to-force-article-50-extension

While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.

[Gordon]

While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.

The article doesn't mention whether the second case, where the 'nobile officium' power seems to be unique to the Court of Session, can be appealed to the UK Supreme Court - perhaps it can, but I suppose if it were used because Johnson hadn't obeyed the recent new law then its use may well be justified. This, from the Weegingerdug, explains the background and includes a legal link that describes the power, and notes that the case is against Johnson and not the UK government.

Now a new court case has been brought by Joanna Cherry, Jo Maugham, and the businessman Dale Vince who is funding the case. They have applied directly to the Court of Session to request it to make use of a power of the court called nobile officium, a power which is unique to Scots law. This is the power of the court to intervene directly in order to ensure that the law is fulfilled. The case will, if it is successful, mean that the clerk of a Scottish court could sign a letter to the EU requesting an extension to Article 50 if the Prime Minister refuses to obey the law and do so himself. Unlike the previous case, which was against the British Government, this latest case is against LBJ personally. It’s not clear what sanctions would be taken against the Prime Minister, we can but hope it’s to be strung up by his nobile officiums.

According to The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland (see  http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/60-12/1021064.aspx#.XXqE3mZ7nIU ) there are four conditions which must be met before the court will exercise the power of nobile officium.

Firstly there should be some exceptional or unforeseen circumstances. Secondly, “there should be a sense of urgency, injustice or need justifying an extraordinary response from the court.” Thirdly, the petition must not contravene statutory intention, or be used in such a way as to extend the scope of a statutory provision, or to require a person to act contrary to their statutory duties. And fourthly, there should be no other remedy available to the petitioner. It remains to be seen whether the Court of Session believes all four of these conditions to have been met.

This is one Scot who would be delighted if a Scottish Court can force Johnson's hand.

[Anchorman]

The article doesn't mention whether the second case, where the 'nobile officium' power seems to be unique to the Court of Session, can be appealed to the UK Supreme Court - perhaps it can, but I suppose if it were used because Johnson hadn't obeyed the recent new law then its use may well be justified. This, from the Weegingerdug, explains the background and includes a legal quote that describes the power, and notes that the case is against Johnson and not the UK government.

This is one Scot who would be delighted if a Scottish Court can force Johnson's hand.

   

Yep.

[ippy]

While the Scottish Court of Session may be opening up these opportunities, they aren't the final arbiter - that will be the Supreme Court of the UK - both the prorogue decision and this one will end up there.

Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?

ippy

[Outrider]

Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?

ippy

The European Court of Justice can issue findings about European law as it applies in Britain, but I'm reasonably sure this is a constitutional British issue, and therefore outside of the ECJ's remit.  The European Court of Human Rights can issue advisory findings which don't technically have any formal standing although the UK courts habitually tend to follow their lead, but again it has a narrow remit - arguably someone could take this case to the ECHR if they can suggest that Johnson proroguation denied them appropriate political representation, but so long as what he's done is within the bounds of law (and, as we don't have a formal constitution, there is no law here to be broken) I don't see they'd have standing.

O.

[Stranger]

Isn't there an EU court that over rules the UK Supreme court as well, no one has mentioned it?

Not in this case, no. The ECJ can only make judgements about EU law and the ECHR (should anybody decide it's a human rights issue) is not an EU court.

[Roses]

When I went to the pharmacy this afternoon to pick up my husband's meds, they told me that they were already experiencing problems in getting some people's medications due to Brexit uncertainty.

[Udayana]

Brexit: Public believes immigration can be controlled without leaving EU in remarkable turnaround, survey finds

More data suggesting that leave voters had little idea of what they were voting against.

[Gordon]

Brexit: Public believes immigration can be controlled without leaving EU in remarkable turnaround, survey finds

More data suggesting that leave voters had little idea of what they were voting against.

True: and if you dropped the last six words from your sentence that would be true too.

[jeremyp]

The European Court of Justice can issue findings about European law as it applies in Britain, but I'm reasonably sure this is a constitutional British issue, and therefore outside of the ECJ's remit.  The European Court of Human Rights can issue advisory findings which don't technically have any formal standing although the UK courts habitually tend to follow their lead, but again it has a narrow remit - arguably someone could take this case to the ECHR if they can suggest that Johnson proroguation denied them appropriate political representation, but so long as what he's done is within the bounds of law (and, as we don't have a formal constitution, there is no law here to be broken) I don't see they'd have standing.

O.

Wow. It's almost as if the statement made by the Leave Campaigns that EU courts can overrule ours was a lie.

ETA: Not suggesting Ippy was lying, merely lied to.

[jeremyp]

True: and if you dropped the last six words from your sentence that would be true too.

I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.

[Gordon]

I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.

I'll confess that I was being facetious.

[Harrowby Hall]

I watched the Last Night of the Proms, yesterday. One of the most interesting features of the (unruly) audience was the great number of EU flags being waved and EU berets being worn by the promenaders. My guess is that - perhaps - a quarter of the people in the arena were bearing some kind of EU device. Completely outnumbered all other national symbols.

[Anchorman]

I watched the Last Night of the Proms, yesterday. One of the most interesting features of the (unruly) audience was the great number of EU flags being waved and EU berets being worn by the promenaders. My guess is that - perhaps - a quarter of the people in the arena were bearing some kind of EU device. Completely outnumbered all other national symbols.

   



Just a pity they didn't have Beethoven's Ode toJoy instead of that Imperialistic Land of Hope and Glory claptrap.

[Roses]

I see another Tory has defected to the Lib Dems.

[Walter]

I see another Tory has defected to the Lib Dems.

a despicable  act of self preservation and his speach giving his reasons was embarrassing .

[Roses]

I am hoping against hope that Article 50 will be revoked.

[Gordon]

a despicable  act of self preservation and his speach giving his reasons was embarrassing .

Not as embarrassing as remaining a Tory, bearing in mind the catastrofuck the Tories have orchestrated.

[ippy]

I don't think that's true. I know several Leave voters who I would normally count as being quite knowledgeable. Ippy, for example, is normally not clueless about other subjects.

I've been thinking the same as you jp only visa versa!

Regards, ippy.

[ad_orientem]

I've been thinking the same as you jp only visa versa!

Regards, ippy.

The whole remain argument once they lost has been leavers are stupid, they didn't know what they were voting for, blah blah blah. The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for. The question was simple. And we must remember it wasn't just a Tory versus Labour thing either. Many leave voters were Labour voters, a party which traditionally has been Eurosceptic.

[Stranger]

The whole remain argument once they lost has been leavers are stupid, they didn't know what they were voting for, blah blah blah.

Nonsense, it was that the the leave campaign was dishonest. Despite that, many accepted the result and sought a way to deliver the result while minimising damage - now we have a government that seems intent on something that even Gove said was never voted on: no deal.

The thing is leavers knew exactly what they were voting for. The question was simple.

Although the question was "simple" (simplistic), it is actually logically impossible for people who voted leave to have known exactly what they were voting for, because leave could have meant anything from remaining in the single market and customs union (as many leave campaigners suggested) through to a no deal.

The fact remains, no matter how much some people may have voted for "leave at any and every cost to me and mine", trying to claim that every leave voter (or even a majority) did that, as opposed to voting for what the leave campaign told them it would be like, is utterly absurd.