Court Rules Against Government: Article 50

[Rewulf]

I thought it was Gina Miller

 

Gina Miller is a front person for someone higher up in my opinion.

 

Miller was born in Guyana before moving to England, aged 10.^[2] She attended the boarding school Roedean, from which she ran away to escape bullying. ^[3]

Miller met her third and present husband, Alan Miller, circa 2012.^[4] They had two children together. ^[4]

In 2014, Miller co-founded the investment firm SCM Private with her husband Alan Miller.^[1][3]

True and Fair Campaign[edit]

In 2012,^[5] she set up the True and Fair Campaign, with the stated aim to "limit the possibility of future mis-selling or financial scandals through greater transparency." ^[2] This initiative attracted animosity of part of the City, earning her the nickname of “black widow spider”.^[3] She reported being started at and called "a disgrace [whose] lobbying efforts would bring down the entire City" to her face.^[1]

Brexit legal challenge[edit]

In June 2016, in the aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, Miller privately hired the City law firm Mishcon de Reya^[3] Along with London-based Spanish hairdresser Deir Dos Santos and the People's Challenge group, founded by Grahame Pigney,^[1] she challenged the authority of the British government over implementation of Brexit and its power to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, arguing that the Parliament had a say in the matter. The case was defended by the law firms Mishcon de Reya, Edwin Coe andBindmans,^[1] and notably by David Pannick.^[6]

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Thanks Rewulf

[Gunman]

Much talk by Labour MP's about the "sovereignty of parliament" yet they were only to willing to give it away . We can not have a Sovereign parliament whist being EU members .I do wish these public employees would get their facts right before opening their mouths .

[Rewulf]

Much talk by Labour MP's about the "sovereignty of parliament" yet they were only to willing to give it away . We can not have a Sovereign parliament whist being EU members .I do wish these public employees would get their facts right before opening their mouths .

 

Good point Gunman.

However Timps is also correct in that it could be seen to set a precedent.

But..If Ms Miller hadnt bought this court case (privately) to the attention of the law lords,would the (possible) precedent simply have been forgotten about ?

Either way,this will be dealt with ,and Brexit will go forward,so lets not get our panties in a twist just yet

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Much talk by Labour MP's about the "sovereignty of parliament" yet they were only to willing to give it away . We can not have a Sovereign parliament whist being EU members .I do wish these public employees would get their facts right before opening their mouths .

 

Most of them speak out of another oriface entirely!

[bruno22rf]

Why, now that we have voted, can we not just walk away? What could they do? Refuse to sell us Camembert, Bratwurst? If you hand your notice in you do not spend the next 2 years trying to please the company you leave - if it's true that they need us then they will trade simples. This whole affair stinks of highly paid members of the government kicking their heels for as long as they can to milk the country more than they already are. IMHO we need Nigel to rediscover the balls that he had before the vote.

[12gauge82]

Well if nothing else, the remoaners have probably alienated themselves from more of the UK majority and entrenched those calling for brexit by trying to roll over democracy and the little people of the country. I say let them carry on, they're digging their own graves in the long run.

[guest1957]

 

Again, I didn't think that was strictly true . I thought there were laws/rules that Parliament could not subvert or override. Eg in a moment of collective madness Parliament voting to make Jeremy Corbin a lifelong dictator or other such nonsense. I remember reading about it many years ago.

 

Parliament can't bind its future self. Such an act would do that as it wouldn't have the power to reverse the situation. But it is generally held that in all other respects it has the right to make or unmake any laws.

[bullet1747]

Glad I don't vote ( my choice)

[guest1957]

Much talk by Labour MP's about the "sovereignty of parliament" yet they were only to willing to give it away . We can not have a Sovereign parliament whist being EU members .I do wish these public employees would get their facts right before opening their mouths .

Yes we can. The ECA 1972 is what gives EU law its status. Nothing stopping parliament repealing that...

[Gordon R]

+1

[Whitebridges]

This whole thing is nothing more than a fiasco.

 

The trickery aspects should have been disclosed and made transparent before the vote.

 

Appalling state of affairs. The people have voted OUT. Remember MP's are supposed to represent their electorate !

[timps]

 

Good point Gunman.

However Timps is also correct in that it could be seen to set a precedent.

But..If Ms Miller hadnt bought this court case (privately) to the attention of the law lords,would the (possible) precedent simply have been forgotten about ?

Either way,this will be dealt with ,and Brexit will go forward,so lets not get our panties in a twist just yet

 

Simple answer, if no one brought it to the attention of the law lords and asked their judgement on it then there is no ruling so no precedence set in law.

Once they rule it is seen as a precedence in law that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

 

Ask them the question and their answer can be used in law, never ask and no one would know if she acted legally or not so her actions cannot be used to justify other instances of the Royal Prerogative.

[Vince Green]

All these people so desperate for us to remain in the single market but why? to my satisfaction it has been adequately shown that we get nothing out of being in it. We never did, well maybe that's not quite true, years ago we probably benefitted.

 

Now the figures are adverse and becoming more adverse, so why would we want to stay?

[Vince Green]

Simple answer, if no one brought it to the attention of the law lords and asked their judgement on it then there is no ruling so no precedence set in law.

Once they rule it is seen as a precedence in law that is either binding on or persuasive for a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

 

Ask them the question and their answer can be used in law, never ask and no one would know if she acted legally or not so her actions cannot be used to justify other instances of the Royal Prerogative.

So is the way the Lisbon Treaty was signed not a precedent? Or was that (by implication) also ruled unlawful?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Vince Green

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yes we can. The ECA 1972 is what gives EU law its status. Nothing stopping parliament repealing that...

 

I presume you meant the government repealing that rather than Parliament, that would require a vote and would probably take forever too.

[oowee]

Apparently when the referendum was called Parliament had the choice to make it binding and chose not to. Previous referenda have sometimes been binding. If Parliament had agreed that it was binding there would be no need for any of this. Seems to me that given all it entails its better that we have some scrutiny. Out of the EU yes but out of everything else?

[guest1957]

 

I presume you meant the government repealing that rather than Parliament, that would require a vote and would probably take forever too.

No, I mean parliament. The ability to repeal means that parliament retains its sovereignty, despite what was said earlier in the thread about the EU.

[Paul1440]

A parlementry vote it appears is the only way forward by the looks of it.

Most MPs are against leaving as a personal view. Perhaps they should vote in line with the referendum result in their constituancy. It would seem fairer.

Don't know the maths but it may change the

Vote from stay to go.

On another note. What I find worrying id ghat Sturgen is using this as a lever to get herself more power in scotland .. the noise this is making is hiding the real issues/headaches that Northern Ireland has to deal with.

[timps]

So is the way the Lisbon Treaty was signed not a precedent? Or was that (by implication) also ruled unlawful?

 

I am talking about legal president, if the Law Lords reviewed how the treaty was signed and decided it was legal or illegal then that answer would have set a legal precedence that this current court case would have found binding or persuasive. As far as I am aware and stand to be corrected no high court has reviewed it and given its verdict.

 

To now make it illegal they would have to review it today, then the high court ruling just given would have to be considered as persuasive or binding on their judgement.

 

Unfortunately, even if the court found out it was illegally signed the only way to repeal it would be by a parliamentary vote something the court could not force to happen, and is basically what the incumbent prime minister is trying to avoid therefore a pointless court case.

 

However, there are many who think it wasn’t signed correctly including Harold Wilson hence why he organised the retrospective referendum on it to try and legitimise it.

[sportsbob]

On the news tonight it was reported The PM said she would still invoke article 50 by March.

[chrisjh]

well well this is a turn up for the books, i have said it before i will say it again I cant see the UK leaving, they might call it leaving but in reality by the time its all sorted you wont really see any difference, come on no lesser person than Sir David Attenborough has hit the nail on the head this should be left to the "grown ups" not the sort of swivelled eyed lunatics that might put an X in a UKIP ballot.

 

As a pro European politician once said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".

[UKPoacher]

well well this is a turn up for the books, i have said it before i will say it again I cant see the UK leaving, they might call it leaving but in reality by the time its all sorted you wont really see any difference, come on no lesser person than Sir David Attenborough has hit the nail on the head this should be left to the "grown ups" not the sort of swivelled eyed lunatics that might put an X in a UKIP ballot.

 

As a pro European politician once said "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".

 

 

And he lost the next election.

[Gordon R]

chrisjh (sort of swivelled eyed lunatic - he would be welcome in Burnley) and David Attenborough - they speak on behalf of the electorate, who aren't bright enough to speak for themselves.

 

Patronising, arrogant and not very intelligent.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well now the troll has turned up this thread is bound to be locked soon.