SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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