tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7104752011522160375..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING NEWS Brexit - High Court rules Government cannot Invoke Article 50 under Crown PrerogativeVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68957049935845953692016-11-04T13:46:48.111+00:002016-11-04T13:46:48.111+00:00Whatever happens over Brexit at least we have now ...Whatever happens over Brexit at least we have now a great legal decision clarifying the relationship between parliament and the government,and post-referendum turmoil is giving tremendous insights into our relationship with the EU. Strange that in losing the relationship we discover all that it did for us.<br /><br />I miss David Cameron. He gave us some great referendums and made politics such fun. Magiciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22401653296026766762016-11-03T19:32:28.298+00:002016-11-03T19:32:28.298+00:00Alexander T,
Surely this primarily just extends th...Alexander T,<br />Surely this primarily just extends the agony? May still reckons she can go on and that it would just be a hindrance rather than an end. As a remainer id wish differently, but we deal with political calls and future ballot boxes so who knows. At the very least it delays judgement day so UPA is blocked for longer?<br />Another worry for UPC in London is that, if Brexit is avoided, would the government not promise some sop to the leave campaign (nod to their own voters!), such as not signing away any more powers? It's hard to see May et al graciously accepting remain and immediately giving away more powers. Might they not even look for a gesture of blocking 'creeping EU control'?? It might be ironic that avoiding Brexit meant losing UP.Remainderednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27353743606956508542016-11-03T17:05:01.738+00:002016-11-03T17:05:01.738+00:00Thank you for all the comments. A few thoughts in...Thank you for all the comments. A few thoughts in reply:<br /><br />To Alexander - thank you for your kind words.<br /><br />To Gilman - I agree that the Government's case was very badly argued, but I don't think that the result can be down just to that - I think the Court knew what all the arguments were. I don't actually see any compelling reason for the Supreme Court to decide differently - when 3 very senior judges agree, the likelihood of 6 out of 11 other senior judges disagreeing seems small, but as to that, time will tell.<br /><br />To Hector - whether Art 50 is reversible is absolutely a critical issue. The irony, as you point out, is that if the Supreme Court takes the point, then it will probably be compelled to refer the question to the CJEU, as it is hard to see how they could consider the point acte clair. What I am sure of, however, is that the view of "a person who served on the committee that drafted Article 50" is of no relevance.<br /><br />Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11635844569162670872016-11-03T16:04:25.316+00:002016-11-03T16:04:25.316+00:00One of the points common to all sides in the argum...One of the points common to all sides in the argument of this case was that once invoked Article 50 leads inexorably to the departure from the Union of the invoking State. Of some interest then that a person who served on the committee that drafted Article 50 thinks that under its terms a Member State can trigger the procedure and then subsequently withdraw its notification - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628. Will this point be argued in the UKSC in due course? It would be something on which a reference to the CJEU would be possible (and probably necessary), unlike most of the other issues about the UK's constitution addressed by the High Court in today's decision.Hector MacQueennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27680343117142649732016-11-03T16:00:08.240+00:002016-11-03T16:00:08.240+00:00Speaking as a Remainer, I think the government'...Speaking as a Remainer, I think the government's case was very badly argued. I think it highly likely that they will win on appeal.<br /><br />The reason why I think so is because the ECA clearly envisaged both the making available of rights under EU law and their removal. This is because EU legislation was both implemented into UK law via the ECA, and removed via the ECA when so decided by the EU.Gilman Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06607416440240634159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55507336698135949602016-11-03T15:16:59.206+00:002016-11-03T15:16:59.206+00:00What is clear from the judgement is that EU derive...What is clear from the judgement is that EU derived law has become so embedded in our 'constitution' that leaving the EU is tantamount to changing the constitution in a way that only Parliament can do. The decision must be correct in this respect. One wonders how many other decisions of the government could be challenged in this way, such as going to war, being part of Nato, imposing sanctions on Russia...<br /><br />Thinking of the constitution as guiding government policy might be a good way on drawing from the wisdom of our 'legislative past', and may also be a way of allowing more people to participate in decision-making.C;noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51389325110466704512016-11-03T14:23:35.379+00:002016-11-03T14:23:35.379+00:00Surely these issues needed to be sorted out in the...Surely these issues needed to be sorted out in the European Union Referendum Act? Presumably it did not venture into the 'what happens next?' scenario as it was not envisaged we would actually leave.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24869401802422141572016-11-03T13:44:52.712+00:002016-11-03T13:44:52.712+00:00Makes perfect sense: because of the overriding pri...Makes perfect sense: because of the overriding principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, when Parliament passed the ECA to give the Executive power to co-legislate in Brussels without reference to Parliament, it must have removed the power of the Executive to restore legislative competence to Parliament. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62366574418799017762016-11-03T13:15:49.343+00:002016-11-03T13:15:49.343+00:00Excellent News!
Thank you!Excellent News!<br />Thank you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74346125413458759262016-11-03T12:14:37.627+00:002016-11-03T12:14:37.627+00:00Hats off for Darren Smyth for spending two days in...Hats off for Darren Smyth for spending two days in court to follow this issue. You are one heck of a passionate IP practitioner. Keen to hear further observations how this impacts e.g. UPC and if any golden parachute for UK IP is in the works. Good to know 1688' Bill is still king over Crown.Alexander Tsoutsanisnoreply@blogger.com