The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[ez8004 10]

Again I have read about it. The judges clearly decided that the UK Government could not use the Royal Prerogative to remove rights enshrined in law by the UK Parliament. All that Scotland is trying to do is to put forward the idea that Scottish Parliament must also give consent before triggering A50 as it will directly affect devolved interests and rights in Scotland. BTW Scotland's Lord Advocate is going to the appeal to give concerns and will argue that if the consent of the UK Parliament is needed to pass legislation on leaving the EU, then the consent of the Scottish Parliament is also needed. But..

 

Quote from previous post:

 

"Clause 28 of the 1998 Act notes at sub-clause 7, in dry terms, with regard to legislative competence that "this section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."

 

And:

 

2016 act part 2 The Sewell Convention states:

 

"But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

 

The above rights are also enshrined in law by parliament. In other words clause 28 stands and parliament under the act can if it wants refuse to give consent. That actually forms part of the act of Scotland for devolved purposes.

 

I am going to say this once as a courtesy. See post 866.

 

What you are saying is far from fact as the Supreme Court has yet to rule. Also, the general consensus seems to be that what was stated in the House of Lords Select Committee on Article 50. It was also expanded that the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland will effectively also need to ratify the Parliamentary vote for Brexit to actually happen.

 

If only the government didn't appeal the ruling. You have to question whether the PM is really trying to not actually get Brexit by going through these hoops.

Edited November 22, 2016 by ez8004

[apelike 10]

What you are saying is far from fact as the Supreme Court has yet to rule.

 

I was replying in main to you bringing up the Scottish acts of 2008/2016.

 

But.. the supreme court has already ruled on the matter and all that is happening now is that the government are appealing that decision. If the government lose and it goes to parliament it still does not automatically give a devolved Scotland a veto.

[retep 68]

Looks like May is indicating a smoother and more gentle process to protect the economy from a sudden shock. Transitional arrangements are the way to go, best all round.

 

Mays delays will change UK politics forever at the next GE.

[I1L2T3 10]

I am going to say this once as a courtesy. See post 866.

 

What you are saying is far from fact as the Supreme Court has yet to rule. Also, the general consensus seems to be that what was stated in the House of Lords Select Committee on Article 50. It was also expanded that the devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland will effectively also need to ratify the Parliamentary vote for Brexit to actually happen.

 

If only the government didn't appeal the ruling. You have to question whether the PM is really trying to not actually get Brexit by going through these hoops.

 

A50 trigger will happen but these 'hurdles' are very useful for May because they provide more time to get the plans together. An extension to the process in December will be perfect because it kicks it into the new year.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2016 at 19:59 ----------

 

Mays delays will change UK politics forever at the next GE.

 

Yes I think you are correct. The triggering in March is all about party management for the Conservatives. It's about getting Conservative remainers onside while not kicking the can so far down the road the Brexiters become impatient.

 

The transitional arrangement we are hearing about now, well you know the script: 'you need to elect us again because we need to stay on to finish the job'

 

It's massively high risk. If 'the job' is being handled very badly either the Brexiters will become more hard core and will help elect parties (potentially brand new parties) that will finish the job. Or the dangers will be so clear that public opinion will swing back to remain and maybe a Labour/LibDem/SNP/PC combo will get in and maybe even reverse it.

[El Cid 216]

I believe that it(green taxes) might well have been foisted on the UK by the EU - so maybe it's en route to being removed.

 

Didnt they get rid of something in the 2015 budget; the EU gets blamed for most things.

[retep 68]

A50 trigger will happen but these 'hurdles' are very useful for May because they provide more time to get the plans together. An extension to the process in December will be perfect because it kicks it into the new year.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2016 at 19:59 ----------

 

 

Yes I think you are correct. The triggering in March is all about party management for the Conservatives. It's about getting Conservative remainers onside while not kicking the can so far down the road the Brexiters become impatient.

 

The transitional arrangement we are hearing about now, well you know the script: 'you need to elect us again because we need to stay on to finish the job'

 

It's massively high risk. If 'the job' is being handled very badly either the Brexiters will become more hard core and will help elect parties (potentially brand new parties) that will finish the job. Or the dangers will be so clear that public opinion will swing back to remain and maybe a Labour/LibDem/SNP/PC combo will get in and maybe even reverse it.

 

There's a reason May chose March, any delay then will take the UK into April and then she'll have an excuse.

[ez8004 10]

I was replying in main to you bringing up the Scottish acts of 2008/2016.

 

But.. the supreme court has already ruled on the matter and all that is happening now is that the government are appealing that decision. If the government lose and it goes to parliament it still does not automatically give a devolved Scotland a veto.

 

The Supreme Court has not ruled at all. It was the High Court that ruled. If you can't tell the difference between the High Court and the Supreme Court then you should really stop talking.

 

Edit: I am putting more detail here just for you because you seem to have a hard time understanding. The government is appealing to the highest court in the land which is the Supreme Court.

 

The Scotland Act 2016 on if it applies to the Article 50 vote in Parliament is still to be ruled in the Supreme Court. Do you still not understand?

Edited November 23, 2016 by ez8004

[apelike 10]

The Supreme Court has not ruled at all. It was the High Court that ruled. If you can't tell the difference between the High Court and the Supreme Court then you should really stop talking.

 

Edit: I am putting more detail here just for you because you seem to have a hard time understanding. The government is appealing to the highest court in the land which is the Supreme Court.

 

The Scotland Act 2016 on if it applies to the Article 50 vote in Parliament is still to be ruled in the Supreme Court. Do you still not understand?

 

Oops.. yes you are correct in that its the high court that have ruled not the supreme court and I have mixed them up, but their rule is still valid unless it gets overturned in the supreme court.

 

The problem is the Scotland act is not being ruled upon in this instance in any court as I understand. If the government appeal is unsuccessful then Scotland will still have to take out a legal challenge to the legality of Scotland act.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

But.. the supreme court has already ruled on the matter and all that is happening now is that the government are appealing that decision.

No. The case re article 50 and Parliamentary procedure was in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. It's from that decision that HMG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

[apelike 10]

No. The case re article 50 and Parliamentary procedure was in the Queen's Bench Divisional Court. It's from that decision that HMG is appealing to the Supreme Court.

 

Yes, I have corrected that in the post before yours and as said got them muddled up.

[andyofborg 11]

You have to question whether the PM is really trying to not actually get Brexit by going through these hoops.

 

i imagine that Mrs May has realised that there is no possible deal, including stopping in the EU, that would be acceptable to enough of her party to avoid it tearing itself apart.

 

I imagine she is praying for a miracle or a world war and using a nail gun to stick pins in an effigy of her predecessor.

 

---------- Post added 23-11-2016 at 19:57 ----------

 

Mays delays will change UK politics forever at the next GE.

 

why will it?

[L00b 441]

I can't hardly wait to see Hammond's Autumn budget, just to see how far or close it comes to Osbourne's mooted emergency budget.

So, Hammond presented his budget today, and yep, close enough.

 

By the way, the extra £122bn to be borrowed over 5 years?

 

That's £469m per week.

 

Edited November 24, 2016 by L00b