Gordon R Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 If they are successful, I suspect the Judge will never be in charge of another case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 If they are successful, I suspect the Judge will never be in charge of another case. It will in all likelihood eventually go to the Supreme Court in front of a full panel (matter of constitutional importance etc). Thankfully they've not got an issue with telling politicians to go swivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 I find it sad that the law firm, like the Remain camp, can't accept the will of the people. There is arrogance personified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 I find it sad that the law firm, like the Remain camp, can't accept the will of the people. There is arrogance personified. I'm not sure you understand what law firms do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Probably a lot better than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 Probably a lot better than you. Alas not. We advocate on behalf of our clients. If you look at the point of law raised in any depth you will see there is an arguable case that triggering Article 50 requires the backing of Parliament. Mishcon de Reya taking the case on behalf of its client does not mean that it is the policy of Mishcon de Reya 'the firm'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted July 19, 2016 Report Share Posted July 19, 2016 If you look at the point of law raised in any depth you will see there is an arguable case that triggering Article 50 requires the backing of Parliament. Mishcon de Reya taking the case on behalf of its client does not mean that it is the policy of Mishcon de Reya 'the firm'. I was going to bring up the same point ie that it`s not necessarily MdR that are pushing the case. As much as it annoys me that there may be a delay in triggering Article 50 a side of me is glad that something that may be unconstitutional is being challenged. Don`t forget that if there does seem to be a case here that the government may simply run it past Parliament with a 3 line whip and just make it go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 “What's done cannot be undone.” The end of the road for Sturgeon`s EU hopes? STURGEON'S EUROPE DREAM IN TATTERS: Scotland 'WILL' have to leave EU with rest of UK http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/690986/Scotland-will-have-leave-EU-with-UK-only-reapply-independent-UK-politics-news I wonder what the chance of Scotland voting for independence is when they will have to apply for EU membership, take the Euro, become part of Schengen, no rebate, and share it`s fishing waters? Plus no more Barnett formula. I suspect the economic cost may be rather too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 If they are successful, I suspect the Judge will never be in charge of another case. If they are successful, there is a right to appeal or are you saying that courts and judges should be bullied into delivering the verdict that government wants? Constitutional law is very important, as is our whole legal system which has evolved over many centuries. To subvert it now is both hypocritical and dangerous as this is often the beginning of any totalitarian regime creeping into power. Now, I am not saying that this is a direction in which we are moving as the government has shown its willingness to oblige the courts. What is in question is whether the government can take a step without parliament's approval, not whether Article 50 can be invoked. Given that one argument used extensively by the Leave campaign was that our own parliament was being a denied a say in what laws Apply in the UK it is an absolute disgrace that the law firms involved have been receiving threats and abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Alas not. We advocate on behalf of our clients. If you look at the point of law raised in any depth you will see there is an arguable case that triggering Article 50 requires the backing of Parliament. Mishcon de Reya taking the case on behalf of its client does not mean that it is the policy of Mishcon de Reya 'the firm'. The issue here isn't how law forms work, but exactly who is Mishcon de Reya's client? It is in the public interest for this to be divulged and I think that the public have a right to know who is pulling the strings. It is a desperate last gasp of any wealthy individual or organisation to try and tell the government how to do its job and no-one within Government has yet suggested that Article 50 can be triggered without the approval of Parliament, so people are perfectly entitled to ask what the motivation is here? In fact, it's unlikely that May would preside over a government that isn't balanced in thew circumstances and look for fair play in the forthcoming requirements. Any Parliament who could think to block Article 50 would be acting against the will of the majority and it would spell political suicide for that party, possibly triggering a long overdue, needed and radical shake up of the House of Lords. The feelings on this are running very high and it would be a foolish government who ignored that. Such an event seems very unlikely, so it brings us back to why a Law firm has taken on such a case when it knows full well that the party or parties involved will become known. There's nothing new in wealthy individuals or companies trying to influence government. They have been contributing to party coffers since UK parliament was first formed. It's about time their power to influence was curtailed as part of the vote to leave was a vote against business deciding what is best for their profits instead of what is best for the UK as a whole. Anyone who thinks that parliament won't approve Article 50 is onto a loser and I wouldn't personally back that horse. There will be attempts within parliament to block it, but if that is the case, a way will be found as it will do more harm than good at this stage to invoke even more turmoil and uncertainty on the nation, and law, just like politics can be worked around. That's what lawyers are paid for, to find a legal solution. It is also naive to think that just because a law form is a law firm that it wouldn't receive a backlash against the recent announcement. That in no way condones death threats or the like by the neanderthal element in society. Edited July 20, 2016 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Aside from the criticism of the people hiring a law firm to check the legality of this matter, it does require total clarity on the process of an decision as big as this. This isn't a cut and dried 70/30 split, but a very small majority. And if the matter is unconstitutional then it would be subject to lengthy challenges and repercussions. Rushing into triggering Article 50, finding it unconstitutional and then the EU refusing to stop the leaving process would be a nightmare politically and legally. Cameron should have and possibly did realise this. The cynic in me thinks that TM knows that if she makes the right noises and allows time to pass, any legal arguments blocking her triggering Article 50 will not reflect on her or her government. Unlike some I don't believe that there would be an uprising if the referendum was effectively annulled. France, Denmark and Ireland also voted against EU policies and are still bound by them. If the vote had been 70/30 maybe a different matter. But 4% isn't really a great mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Alas not. We advocate on behalf of our clients. The world and his wife know that, but the firm has taken on a case which flies directly in the face of the public vote. No doubt they will run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it, whilst collecting a sizeable fee. I appreciate that law firms are in business, but they never seem to turn down work, however implausible. Just what are they hoping to achieve? Please don't tell me they are doing this as businesses and other people in the legal profession just want our exit to be legally squeaky clean. They are out to scupper Brexit, which is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry136 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 Im quite sure that government lawyers checked last week that Article 50 does not need to be debated before signing off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 This is what gets me with some of the legal profession, they attempt to 'uphold' the letter of the law instead of the spirit of it which the original law was intended to represent in the first place, making a tidy profit from it along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 The world and his wife know that, but the firm has taken on a case which flies directly in the face of the public vote. No doubt they will run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it, whilst collecting a sizeable fee. I appreciate that law firms are in business, but they never seem to turn down work, however implausible. Just what are they hoping to achieve? Please don't tell me they are doing this as businesses and other people in the legal profession just want our exit to be legally squeaky clean. They are out to scupper Brexit, which is a disgrace. Can I ask - are you in favour of May using the Royal prerogative to invoke Article 50, or have Parliament debate it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Im quite sure that government lawyers checked last week that Article 50 does not need to be debated before signing off That is the whole point of the case - some constitutional lawyers disagree! That's the problem of not having a written constitution. Edited July 20, 2016 by MrM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry136 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 With this government, Im quite sure that when they say Brexit means Brexit, no one is going to derail this from happening. Any judge who allows it to happen will never work again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) It is a desperate last gasp of any wealthy individual or organisation to try and tell the government how to do its job and no-one within Government has yet suggested that Article 50 can be triggered without the approval of Parliament, so people are perfectly entitled to ask what the motivation is here? Cameron did originally say he would invoke Article 50 immediately if the referendum went against him. Im quite sure that government lawyers checked last week that Article 50 does not need to be debated before signing off Yes that`s what they said and it is still their opinion . MdR is of the opinion that legislation can only be overridden by legislation. However in the case of treaties the government is generally allowed to act without legislation being enacted. From Wiki "Treaties do not, on ratification, automatically become incorporated into UK law. Important treaties have been incorporated into domestic law by means of Acts of Parliament. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, was given "further effect" into domestic law through the preamble of the Human Rights Act 1998. Also, the Treaty of Union of 1707 was important in creating the unitary state which exists today. The treaty was between the governments of England and Scotland and was put into effect by two Acts of Union which were passed by the Parliaments of both nations. The Treaty, along with the subsequent Acts, brought into existence the Kingdom of Great Britain, uniting the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland." It would seem then that invoking Article 50 would not require legislation although repealing the 1972 European Communities Act would. Presuming that Article 50 once invoked is irreversible then the repeal of that Act would have to follow once negotiations were completed. Edited July 20, 2016 by Danger-Mouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 If any one is interested have a read through these articles from the Constitutional Law association - even their members are have differing views! https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/ https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/18/stephen-laws-article-50-and-the-political-constitution/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 If any one is interested have a read through these articles from the Constitutional Law association - even their members are have differing views! https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/ https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/18/stephen-laws-article-50-and-the-political-constitution/ Interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry136 Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 I feel that these business men when be better off planning on how to spend their money post Brexit, supporting the economy than trying to stop this run away train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 The world and his wife know that, but the firm has taken on a case which flies directly in the face of the public vote. No doubt they will run it up the flag pole and see who salutes it, whilst collecting a sizeable fee. I appreciate that law firms are in business, but they never seem to turn down work, however implausible. Just what are they hoping to achieve? Please don't tell me they are doing this as businesses and other people in the legal profession just want our exit to be legally squeaky clean. They are out to scupper Brexit, which is a disgrace. I am sure that most people would want all of this done properly within the law. No doubt the firm will work diligently with the letter of the law and the correct result will follow. It would be hypocritical to, on one hand criticise the world and his wife (politicians, lawyers and anyone else) for not following due process and on the other hand moan when proper process is followed. All roads lead to Rome even if we have to use sat nav to get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 How much taxpayers money will be spent on this theoretical debate? The UK people have voted for Brexit. I'm sure they didn't intend that someone gets rich out of arguing against the will of the people. MrM - if Government legal advice is that it doesn't need to go to parliament, I would just get on with it. I really don't see the point - the debate has already taken place and a decision reached. It will be a showcase debate - which party will commit political suicide and go against the result? Perhaps, the latest Labour wannabe - Owen Smith - who likens the issue to buying a car. The man will do well on the World stage. War in the Middle East - just like an MOT. Where do they find them? Want to get a Police view on any situation - dial 999. As for barristers agreeing - I will plait sawdust when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 How much taxpayers money will be spent on this theoretical debate? The UK people have voted for Brexit. I'm sure they didn't intend that someone gets rich out of arguing against the will of the people. MrM - if Government legal advice is that it doesn't need to go to parliament, I would just get on with it. I really don't see the point - the debate has already taken place and a decision reached. It will be a showcase debate - which party will commit political suicide and go against the result? Perhaps, the latest Labour wannabe - Owen Smith - who likens the issue to buying a car. The man will do well on the World stage. War in the Middle East - just like an MOT. Where do they find them? Want to get a Police view on any situation - dial 999. As for barristers agreeing - I will plait sawdust when it happens. The only profession that I know where professionals are paid to disagree with each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrM Posted July 20, 2016 Report Share Posted July 20, 2016 MrM - if Government legal advice is that it doesn't need to go to parliament, I would just get on with it. I really don't see the point - the debate has already taken place and a decision reached. It will be a showcase debate - which party will commit political suicide and go against the result? Perhaps, the latest Labour wannabe - Owen Smith - who likens the issue to buying a car. The man will do well on the World stage. War in the Middle East - just like an MOT. Where do they find them? Want to get a Police view on any situation - dial 999. All I would say is, it's probably the same legal guys who told Bliar that he was good to go with Iraq - nuff said?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts