from the we've-always-been-at-war-with-eurasia dept.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must vote on and approve of invoking Article 50 which triggers arrangements for leaving the European Union:
The Supreme Court has dismissed the government's appeal in a landmark case about Brexit, meaning Parliament will be required to give its approval before official talks on leaving the EU can begin. The ruling is a significant, although not totally unexpected, setback for Theresa May.
[...] The highest court in England and Wales has dismissed the government's argument that it has the power to begin official Brexit negotiations with the rest of the EU without Parliament's prior agreement. By a margin of eight to three, the 11 justices upheld November's High Court ruling which stated that it would be unlawful for the government to rely on executive powers known as the royal prerogative to implement the outcome of last year's referendum.
Also at NYT, WSJ, and The Guardian.
Previously: Brexit Court Defeat for UK Government
Related Stories
Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.
Theresa May says the referendum - and existing ministerial powers - mean MPs do not need to vote, but campaigners called this unconstitutional.
The government is appealing, with a further hearing expected next month.
- Rolling reaction to Article 50 court ruling
- Kuenssberg: Will this mean early election?
- The High Court's judgement in full
- Brexit: All you need to know
A statement is to be made to MPs on Monday but the prime minister's official spokesman said the government had "no intention of letting" the judgement "derail Article 50 or the timetable we have set out. We are determined to continue with our plan".
Plebiscites only count when plebes vote the way they're told.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by DBCubix on Wednesday January 25 2017, @05:42PM
What was the point of having a national referendum if the votes don't matter?
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Wednesday January 25 2017, @05:56PM
Because the referendum was explicitly NOT an authorization to leave the EU. It was only an advisory. It was never binding on the government.
Really, it was obvious, once you know this that the courts would rule this way. All the hand-wringing about the possibility of this outcome in editorials published in places like the Daily Telegraph merely show the intellectual dishonesty that is endemic in some quarters today.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:39PM
Or just plain, simple ignorance. I would suspect that your regular UK citizen has a better handle on the the relative powers between Parliament, judicial, and executive than they do of the legal relationship between the UK and the EU. I think when the former PM came out and said "we are going to put this to an up or down vote", he (and the very public referendum campaign that followed) sure made it sound like the referendum outcome was going to be a done deal. Perhaps the "stay" side would have done well to point out during that campaign that the vote outcome was not going to decide the issue, but I suspect that even they didn't really think it through that far.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:33PM
Sure, but the PM and party leaders have no excuses. They knew damned well they were playing political games. Perhaps some were even hoping the courts would save their backsides at the last moment after they have already benefited from the political mud wrestling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:26PM
Having been through school in the UK up to PhD, I can confidently say I had no clue about the difference between Parliament, government and courts until I went to the USA and learned the US system. Then I could translate it back into UK term and realize that we have much less separation of powers. I.e. in the UK the Executive is a subset of Congress.
99% of the UK had less school that I did - in my schoo about 75% left at age 16. So I can guaran-fucking-tee it that the low-info voters that took us out of EU had absolutely no fucking idea about the UK let alone differences between UK/EU.
Take back control, $350B/wk, WW2, fox hunting for all, ra ra ra!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @07:07AM
I thought you were joking at first. But if that is your belief then YOU are part of the reason a majority voted to leave.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:15PM
No it wasn't. The Prime Minister's Party was reelected on a platform of offering the voters a chance to vote on the question of remaining in the EU. Parliament then voted to hold the vote and everyone campaigned on the assumption the vote would settle the issue, that Parliament was kicking the can on the question to the People. When the 'wrong side' won they decided to change the rules. This is a classic tactic, keep moving the point of decision until you get the answer you are looking for; then stop and declare all further debate out of order.
The Establishment, everywhere in the West it seems, appears intent on goading their People into hanging them all from lamp posts. They may get their wish.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:44PM
The Prime Minister's Party was reelected on a platform of offering the voters a chance to vote on the question of remaining in the EU. Parliament then voted to hold the vote and everyone campaigned on the assumption the vote would settle the issue, that Parliament was kicking the can on the question to the People. When the 'wrong side' won they decided to change the rules.
Well, that's the sort of thing that happens when expectations meet the law. The latter usually wins. It's worth noting here that the Brexit "leave" vote as a bare majority (of those who voted) didn't have a strong mandate. So it's reasonable to get more of a mandate anyway.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 25 2017, @10:51PM
A bunch of the most senior judges in the UK just said that you are wrong.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:31PM
“I think people in this country,” declared Vote Leave’s Michael Gove, “have had enough of experts.”
Judges? Pfft, bunch of experts. Fuck 'em.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:31PM
More importantly, the referendum asked a very narrow and specific question. It didn't cover most of the things they are now trying to do, like leaving the single market and customs union. The goals of the negotiation and the final offering must be put to parliament, that's a long settled argument in our democracy and naturally the court upheld it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by schad on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:01PM
The votes would've mattered if "remain" had won, which is, I suspect, what the government firmly believed would happen.
It's hard to imagine Parliament not following through here. But I'm American, so my understanding of politics in the UK is limited at best. If this were the US, a whole bunch of moderate politicians would lose their jobs as a result of this (because it would force them to commit to a position). But the outcome would, if anything, probably be tilted more in favor of whatever the people chose. (That is, if it were 51-49 in the referendum, it would be more like 60-40 in Congress.)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by zocalo on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:31PM
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:38PM
Honestly, it's hard to say. There does seem to be an undercurrent of "buyer's remorse" that followed the referendum results. Depending on the extent of that (or the MP's' estimates of that), they may vote stay, or just leave the issue to fade away without comment. If I understand it correctly, they can kill the whole thing by taking no action.
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:01PM
Frankly though, with May talking about a clean break from the EU and some countries saying they'll veto any deal that doesn't include free travel (which May can't/won't accept) and/or won't approve any extensions, I think we're most likely headed for a hard exit in a little over 2.5 years time - whether there is a deal in place or not. Barring some seriously obvious public regret or a considerable amount of painful economic/industry/trade upheaval in the meantime, I'm not sure whether enough MPs will vote against it given they'd almost certainly lose their next re-election, the Lords is more questionable, but as a veto without grounds/public support would likely end the Lords as it currently stands I can't really see it either.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 26 2017, @12:55PM
It also boils down to constituency votes in a lot of places. Here, around 75% voted remain, so our MP would be committing political suicide to vote to invoke Article 50 - his majority is quite slim and he'd lose it instantly if he did. Other places, such as Cornwall, have had a really crappy deal from Westminster for decades and a moderately good deal from the EU. Their MPs have to weigh up voting against their constituents interests or voting against their wishes. That's not an easy call, especially if you expect your opponent in the next election to point to all of the jobs and funding lost in the region as a direct result of invoking Article 50.
That said, the buyers' remorse is somewhat overrated. Anyone who reads the Daily Mail or Daily Express will have the firm belief that Brexit is wonderful for the economy. A lot of people in poorer areas of the country still regard the vote as a way of sticking it to the political establishment (though quite why they think London politicians would be upset by a vote to give more power to them and remove several of the checks on their authority I didn't quite understand) and still believe that this is worthwhile. Worse, the UK has such a large economic imbalance at the moment (really not helped by the fact that Westminster keeps forgetting that 80% of the country exists) that a lot of leave voters honestly believe things can't get any worse than they are (though when food prices go up and unemployment benefit goes down, they might change their mind).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 26 2017, @01:35PM
Politicians advocating to remain is a reasonable position. 48% of people who voted wanted that, and their views should be represented. It's reasonable to stand for election on that platform, and to do everything they can to soften the impact of leaving by e.g. trying to remain in the single market.
Europe has always split the Tory party, and now it looks like it will split the UK too. Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland will try to go a different way to England and Wales, and Gibraltar... Will probably end up being half Spanish.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:32PM
In America, if you put an unconstitutional bill on the ballot, and it wins, it's still the purview of the court to strike it down.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:20PM
In America, if you put an unconstitutional bill on the ballot, and it wins, it's still the purview of the court to strike it down.
It's worth noting that a plebiscite (now commonly called a referendum [wikipedia.org] or "ballot initiative") historically in most places was merely a non-binding consultation of the people. In most democracies, so-called "direct democracy" -- where legislation happened by popular vote -- was to be avoided. The people are NOT lawyers, and while that may be seen by some as an advantage, laws ultimately will be litigated in the courts. If the people don't understand the legal implications of the language they vote for, they might not like the consequences. (See, for example, the Florida referendum debacle this year, where energy companies tried to slip through a referendum that appeared to be helping the people but actually would have had the legal ramifications of assisting the power companies more.)
Not only that, but there's the obvious problem of reducing a complex issue to a single "up/down" vote, which in many cases surrounds a politically charged issue.
Anyhow, there's no mechanism in the U.S. for a federal plebiscite or referendum. About half of states have them in one form or another [wikipedia.org], though their use has become increasingly common in the past few decades. (After an early surge in a few states in the early 1900s, there was a significant lull in the mid-1900s in use of plebiscites in the U.S. I don't know whether this might have had anything to do with the reputation that such popular initiatives got around that time from their use in fascist regimes, e.g., to confirm powers under Hitler [wikipedia.org], his annexation of Austria [wikipedia.org]), Mussolini's decisions, etc.)
Yes, in U.S. states that do allow such initiatives, any law passed (like ANY law) is subject to the constitutions of the state and the U.S., and may be overturned on those grounds. But perhaps even more relevant to the present discussion, in many of the states that do allow initiatives, they need to be approved by the state legislature at some point in the process.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fritsd on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:09PM
I do have some appreciation for the meaning of the old word "thing", or spelled "þing": Thing [wikipedia.org].
It's a bit self-referential: if the people of the community are gathered, then what they decide, is what the people have decided. Of course that can be subverted, I haven't seen Leni Riefenstahl's film but I've heard about it.
One day, shortly after the 2008 crash, our local city council decided to declare roads in our small village as "private", so that they could renege on maintenance costs for a few decades.
My neighbour came to my house to ask me to follow him to a meeting in town (he gave me a lift, we didn't have a car yet then). In the aula I saw a Kommun representative, and practically all of the village (at least 100 of the circa 200 people (we didn't have the 200 asylum seekers yet, then)).
I could understand only a fraction of the discussion with my crap Swedish, but I got the feeling that I witnessed direct democracy: the local government wanted to do something less nice to its people, well the people are here, speak to them face-to-face then to explain why there is no more money for road maintenance in the rural outskirts.
(It was al very civilized).
PS I'm impressed that the Icies have been doing things for nearly 1100 years! [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Redundant) by VLM on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:28PM
laws ultimately will be litigated in the courts
I see nothing to disagree with in your post; to the best of my understanding there are three "services" provided by the legislators essentially notarizing the vote.
First they're claiming its legit and not fake news or fake results or open for congressional hearings. I suppose it could happen theoretically. So the official position is the vote happened and it was legit and this was the result. So you can stop debating if Russian hackers mean we need to do the opposite of the vote or if the legislators will have hearings or who knows. Its done. Signing a death certificate never killed anyone but it did formally document the event.
The second is they timestamp it. So if a pirate said you provide monthly tribute payment on the first of every month then the exact date of the signoff is the official legal date. I suppose in 50K pages of legislation there is corruption or something such that the exact date of leaving interacts with some other weird legal obligation or payoff or purchased regulation here or there. The date of the election is when the election happened not when the results are applied. The date "they" called the election is the date "they" thought would be fun to declare it. But the date the legislature approves is the official burned in stone date it takes over. Just like the prez doesn't take over on election day or when the election is "called" but exactly and precisely on inauguration day. Also this is relevant to sequence problems did this law get approved after or before brexit legally happened. Any bill that for some reason needed consideration before brexit is declared is either dead or theoretically got moved up to before it was declared. Sequence is sometimes important in the big picture, is something passed tomorrow officially grandfathered in as an exemption or merely illegal? Gotta pick an official date.
The third is we'd like to think legislatures have been housetrained and will not foul the carpet (although we know they are actually savages). Anyway in theory if for the sake of argument we the people voted to eliminate the CIA, then we'd like to think that the legislators would do a professional cleanup job. So more than just zero out the budget and legislation directly applying to the CIA but also clean up indirect messes such as perhaps FCC frequency allocations for spy radios or interdepartmental authorization for cross training sharing 007 gun ranges, roll up the retirement plan, sell surplus property, a full deep cleaning. This is almost "cheaty simple" because the CIA is one isolated department. What if the vote were something across all levels of government like banning of microsoft products or mandatory Android phones for all govt employees or banning pink dress shirts or ties in the office? It sounds so simple to say "in the entire government" but to implement it might take zillions of pages of laws all in different areas and theoretically the legislators are responsible enough and house trained enough to not foul their (our) beds.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:19PM
reducing a complex issue to a single "up/down" vote...
...worked beautifully in Crimea.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:32PM
The votes would've mattered if "remain" had won
Farage and UKIP would have gone on stirring - he was already planning his protests when he was interviewed early on referendum night and thought "Remain" was going to win. The much vaunted e-petiton demanding a new referendum was actually started before the referendum by a Leave supporter [huffingtonpost.co.uk] who assumed they would lose.
Anyway, if "remain" had won, the issue of putting it to parliament would be irrelevant, since it just meant doing nothing.
It's hard to imagine Parliament not following through here.
They will, unless there's an unprecedented outbreak of backbone-growing in parliament: the only significant group of MPs definitely voting against leaving are the Scottish Nationalist Party - and they can argue that the majority of Scottish voters backed remain in the referendum. They may be joined by a few Labour and Conservative rebels, but that's unlikely to swing it. At most, a few amendments will get tacked on, and voted down unless they're totally inane. The House of Lords could block or amend it - but parliament can always overrule the Lords, and any amendments they add should be worth considering because those unelected old geezers do actually have a shitload of legal and constitutional knowledge and experience between them.
But I'm American, so my understanding of politics in the UK is limited at best.
Main point here: the House of Commons is sovereign and has the vote that matters on most things. The PM's party usually has an absolute majority in the Commons, so usually gets her way unless any of her MPs have a sudden attack of principals - defeats for the government are a A Big Thing but they do happen. There are a limited number of "royal prerogative" powers that the PM can exercise on her own, signing treaties with foreign countries, for example. The PM thinks she can use these to send our Article 50 "resignation notice" to the EU. However, EU membership goes a lot deeper than the typical treaty and (despite what some people would like to think) Article 50 is irreversible, so invoking it would negate the prior Acts of Parliament that integrated the EU in UK law - so she's now been forced to do what she bloody well should have known to do in the first place, which is to submit a bill to parliament. Since she's got a Commons majority and support (albeit with a hint of "don't throw me into the briar patch") from the closet Brexiteer leading the main opposition, the only practical upshot will be that the issue gets properly and openly debated in parliament.
In the unlikely event that it gets rejected then the voters will get the opportunity to punish their elected representatives at the next General Election (which, in that case, could be sooner rather than later).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:43PM
The same reason why even if California voters passed a referendum to disenfranchise black people would be struck doen by courts. Even referendums have to follow the rule of law.
(Score: 5, Informative) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:45PM
Oh, the votes matter. It's the question that was asked (and the consequent steps specified in the Referendum bill) that are the issue.
The question asked was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?", with valid responses of "Remain" or "Leave". The "Remain" outcome was a clear path of maintaining the status quo (plus the renegociated terms), but there are several options that could be described as "Leave" (Stay in the EEA, stay in the Customs Union, leave them all?) None was specified at the time, and various "Leave" campaigners advocated differing outcomes. So which "Leave" option won?
The European Union Referendum Act 2015 gives details of how the referendum should be run, and about the pre-referendum re-negociation, but made no mention of what should be done afterwards. (Some have suggested that this is because David Cameron found a "Leave" vote inconcievable.) The fact that Parliament hadn't decided a course of action beforehand is half the reason we're in this legal and procedural mess.
British sovereignty is vested in Parliament, which selects a Prime Minister and government from amongst its own members. That sovereignty is handed back to the people when parliament is dissolved, and then with an election it is passed back to the newly elected members. (Bagheot's The English Constitution [wikipedia.org], while written in the Victorian era, is a good primer on the mechanics of power at Westminster.) The referendum is a very, very new invention in British politics, and is only used by parliament to ask the advice of the public. Parliament then goes at it to interpret the result and enact what it decides should be done.
The first ever UK Referendum, in 1975, was held as a result of a campaign promise of a party that hadn't expected to be in power. The party and its leadership was split over membership of the EEC (early EU), and couldn't agree on a policy to put in their manifesto, so they agreed to hold a consultative referendum. The Prime Minister was confident that he could persuade the public to back his proposal, with help from the opposition, and thus silence dissenters in his party. That was Harlod Wilson at the time, but I could easily have been describing David Cameron.
Since then, the referendum has been used as a blunt mechanism to get the public to settle issues so that politicians don't have to (Welsh/Scottish devolution in 1979 and 1997, UK electroral system reform in 2011). Often a proposed change has been turned down, but this is the first time that Parliament has been advised by a referendum to do something that it does not wish to do.
(Score: 4, Informative) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:48PM
Forgot two references!
Referendum act: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/enacted [legislation.gov.uk]
Comparison with 1975 referendum: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15390884 [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:53PM
Great post, thank you. Does everything you say also apply to issues with the other UK countries, like the failed Scottish vote to leave the UK? If they did vote to leave (or if Ireland makes good on their threat to hold a similar vote), what would happen there?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:39PM
Working from memory here:
With reference to the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum (and working from memory) one key issue was the fact that the Scottish Parliament wanted to hold the referendum, but the Scottish Parliament, which is subservient to the British Parliament, didn't have the power to hold a referendum of its own accord. Technically, because Westminster established the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, it could override it or dissolve it at any time it wishes. It is only convention (the Sewell convention) that holds it back from doing this. In the same way, the Scottish Parliament cannot force the UK Parliament to do something.
Prior to the referendum, the Scottish and British governments came to an agreement, and a bill was passed at Westminster giving the Scottish Parliament temporary power to hold a referendum. A vote for independence would still be strictly advisory, and not legally force Westminster to grant Scotland independence. It was regarded that the UK government would be "honour bound" to enter into negotiations with the Scottish government over the dissolution of the union, and David Cameron's statements at the time supported this intention.
By comparison with the EU vote, while many MPs supported remaining in the EU, they largely accept that they must now proceed to leave (either out of respect for the referendum result, or out of fear of being thrown our by the electorate at the next election). When Alex Salmond went into the 2014 Scottish referendum with a reasonably clear set of objectives in the event of a "leave" result: keep the Pound, retain membership of the EU, stay in the borderless Common Travel Area with the UK and Ireland. There was no such clarity with the EU referendum.
For Northern Ireland, the UK Supreme Court have determined that there is no legal need for Northern Ireland to consent independently to leaving the EU. The fact that the NI Assembly has just been dissolved and forced into new elections is a more urgent issue there, as there is burrently no leadersip to represent NI's views and priorities.
The only referendum on the horizon in Wales is on the issue of devolving tax varying powers to the Welsh Assembly (soon to be renamed Welsh Government), and Welsh politicians disagree on whether such approval in needed. Scotland was asked this question at the same time as their 1997 referendum on devolution, whereas Wales wasn't asked at the time. It was thought devolution was a tough enough sale as it was. (For an overview on how close that result was, see this BBC retrospective [bbc.co.uk] published a decade later.)
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:38PM
The referendum is a very, very new invention in British politics, and is only used by parliament to ask the advice of the public.
That was the traditional role of plebiscites in most representative democracies. Even in U.S. states where they can sometimes be initiated by the people (rather than the legislature), in many states there needs to be legislative approval before or after the popular vote.
Since then, the referendum has been used as a blunt mechanism to get the public to settle issues so that politicians don't have to
Yes, historically in many countries, there have been two primary uses for popular referenda: (1) to settle matters that politicians don't want to for popularity reasons, and (2) to confirm things that are already basically known to be true (the latter is more common in dictatorships and fascist regimes). While the use for actual legislation initiated [wikipedia.org] by a people's petition has grown in a minority of U.S. states, such initiatives are quite uncommon in the rest of the world... and in almost all cases where they do exist, they require approval from the country's legislature to be enacted.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:43PM
Thank you for the overview. I suppose that's where the idea came from when Britain held it's first referendum in the 70s.
The only inherently referendum-based political system I'm familiar with is Ireland's, where changes to the country's constitution can only be made by public referendum.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:41PM
O dear.. I'll try to express what I've learned, but I'm not a legal scholar so part of this may be bullshit. But I have the feeling I have a consistent overview of the matter, in any case.
Consider this therefore some kind of a rant, for sanity's sake. Oh and it's a long rant as well.
Let's start with the premise that the referendum votes matter, and the will of the people must be respected (even though there are good arguments that The People were fooled by the big red NHS ₤350 million bus)
Next step is, the "boss" of the UK must activate Article 50 of the EU Lisbon treaty, in order to act on that desire for self-harm.
Article 50 [wikipedia.org] means: Someone legally representing the leaving country must officially go tell the EU Commission that the country is leaving the EU (in person or in writing, I don't know or care). At most two years after that date, that country is out.
So far so good.
The English translation of the text of article 50 contains the words [wikisource.org]
(my bold)
This lawsuit was about the question: how can we trigger Article 50 in accordance with the UK constitutional requirements?
According to the UK government, it's the UK government (surprise! :-) ), representing the will of the monarch, Queen Liz II, that's the "boss" in this context.
But I think that in fact the power rests with the UK parliament, who have been elected by, and represent, the people. UK is a parliamentary democracy.
Legal argument, as much as I could understand it:
If the UK government decides to take rights away from the UK people, that they are used to having, you'd expect that they put it to a vote in the houses of parliament.
Well guess what: the EU, as a supranational governing body, has during the past 40 years given some, very narrowly defined, extra rights to the British people. And the UK government can't just take those away.
The only kind of thing where the EU has a "right of say" are in transactions *between* member states. It's a complicated legal term called the Principle of Subsidiarity [wikipedia.org], that basically says that its member states are sovereign (lowest level has to deal with all issues), except for issues that involve dealings with other EU member states, i.e. the so-called Four Freedoms [wikipedia.org]: freedom of movement of goods, capital, services and people.
But "between member states" that also includes labour regulation, such as workers' rights, including maximum working times, and environmental safety rights (right to have a safe workplace), for the simple reason that otherwise the EU member states could try to "underbid" each other by saying things like: "in my country, car painters don't have to wear all that expensive air filter stuff, so we can paint your cars MUCH cheaper!".
I understand it's completely different in the USA, because I've heard the term: "right-to-work states". The concept that some states have different minimum workers rights than others is I think against the spirit of the EU. A state is allowed to treat its working folks like crap (while respecting ECHR [wikipedia.org] human rights, esp. # 4 and # 11!), but it can't underbid or compete economically with its fellow states by means of making its workers' lives more miserable than its neighbours' workers' lives. ' . (sentence felt incomplete without an additional apostrophe).
Case in point: Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC [wikipedia.org], very much loved by the UK Tories:
So yes, the EU DOES have a "Social Chapter", but some member states, I'm not mentioning names, found that all a load of lefty crap apparently. Thank God they're leaving now.
So. The UK government can want those surplus rights of their own citizens removed or limited by activating Article 50. But: they must put it to the vote in their own UK parliament, because of the way the UK is internally legally set up (which the EU has no business with because that's a sovereign British complication).
This is what those wig-wearing supreme judges (or "Enemies of the People", as the Daily Mail calls them) have just adjudicated.
And the UK members of parliament from England and Wales should really vote in favour of that "jump off a cliff" move, because it's what more than 52% of their "constituents" (another British anomaly, FPTP) want.
Then again, the MPs are elected to represent their constituents' best interests, so it's up to each individual MP what he/she votes for, nobody knows what the outcome will be.
I hope the UK leaves, and re-applies in a few years. Best for everybody, really. "You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone".
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:44PM
Glaring mistake #1: art. 50 says the country must notify the European Council, not the European Commission. D'oh.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:49PM
Legal argument, as much as I could understand it:
If the UK government decides to take rights away from the UK people, that they are used to having, you'd expect that they put it to a vote in the houses of parliament.
Spot on. Despite much of the printed press going after the (independent) judiciary crying for blood as they sought to "deny the will of the people", this is about proper procedure, and doing it right.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:12PM
BTW may I congratulate you on a comment that was much clearer than mine :-)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:18PM
This is about lots of MPs wishing that they did not have to vote to leave.
Those votes will be remembered at the next election.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by VLM on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:42PM
.... and here's how Bernie can still win
(For the UK folks in the USA our fake news wouldn't give up on Bernie, in fact I'm not sure they have yet. Bernie is good clickbait.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:49PM
wat
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:53PM
Subscribers' posts can't be modded down to -1.
/comments.pl?sid=17604&threshold=-1&cid=457616#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @07:48PM
It sounds like May actually follows the rule of law so it's a moot point... however, why does this matter?
As a thought experiment, imagine May were to say "forget the courts, EU, here is formal notice of Article 50." Even if the UK courts say it is unconstitutional (which I'm not even sure they can based on UK law and Parliament having authority), from the EU perspective a designated legitimate authority has invoked Article 50 so it has been invoked. Even if it were illegal based on UK law, the EU follows EU rules so defacto it had been invoked.
Does the UK court ruling have any meaning or force, beyond the extent that May and the government listens to it?
(Score: 1) by Codesmith on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:36PM
I would hazard a guess that the EU would take the court ruling into consideration with regards to 'a designated legitimate authority'. May and her party are now required to take the order to leave through the parliament, and until such time, I'm sure the EU will just watch and wait. Under current EU structure (which still includes the UK) a nations courts can have effects on external organizations.
Pro utilitate hominum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 26 2017, @08:34AM
I would hazard a guess that the EU would take the court ruling into consideration with regards to 'a designated legitimate authority'.
They didn't when the Danish government did the same thing. I think it was on the patent directive.
The Danish parliament authorized the minister to vote NO to the patent directive, but he went on to vote YES on behalf of Denmark. The directive passed. IMHO, the EU lost all legitimacy for accepting that fraudulent vote.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday January 25 2017, @08:51PM
Does the UK court ruling have any meaning or force, beyond the extent that May and the government listens to it?
What? A UK constitutional crisis AND a dispute over the legitimacy of the notice under EU law? Anybody who could answer that would charge you £500 just for reading your post.
Lawyers and popcorn vendors would prosper.
As for what it would achieve - the government will be forced to subject their vision of Brexit to parliamentary debate. May has already had to climb down [bbc.co.uk] and promise a White Paper setting out the plans. If you're a Remainer, then you have one last shred of hope. If you're a Brexiteer then this also makes it harder for May to stealthily negotiate a faux-Brexit. Also its the way our system of government - which the Brexiteers were so keen on saving from Brussels - is supposed to work!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Wednesday January 25 2017, @09:45PM
As I mentioned to a friend earlier, her White Paper has Andrex printed on the roll because she, along with the rest of the party, are bricking it. Now that even members of her own party are starting to think this whole austerity thing might be a bit much - it's now hitting the NHS so hard that even their own, usually relatively well off, constituents are getting harmed by it, plus the decline/lack of essential services (refuse collection is going to become a bigger issue this year, I suspect) - then the slender majority the Tories enjoy might just end up vanishing unless she's far better at plate-juggling than she's been so far. If she pissed-off a couple more Tory MPs then things might get ugly. May has been trying to project herself as Thatcher v2, but for all I despised that dreadful woman she could, at least, manage some level of control over the party, something May isn't capable of.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday January 26 2017, @02:38AM
I agree with the majority of your post, but the NHS is going to be bait and switched, more and more 'small charges' and 'private sector competition' will be added... and in the Tory voter crowd, it will be seen as a necessity brought on by 'the immigrants' and the breadth of services now offered by the NHS -- which if you believe the dailymail, 90% of NHS budget goes on cosmetic surgery for benefit scroungers and delivering anchor babies for illegal immigrants -- so they'll be supporting privatization and a transition to insurance by the back door, obviously pensioners will be excluded from the upfront costs for the most part. The rest of us are used to paying for certain things already, be it prescriptions, NHS dentists, a letter from the doctor for your employer, it's going to be incremental so we won't really notice and we can still blame the lower social classes for overburdening the system. Some are very supportive of removing the NHS facilities because of 'lifestyle choices' as it is...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @11:32PM
(Original poster here.)
I think I found the answer to my own question: Article 50 [lisbon-treaty.org]
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
So an unconstitutional notification would not be considered.