Article 50 Challenge: the Government’s Defence

Following an application made to the High Court by Bindmans on behalf of the People’s Challenge which you can read here, the High Court has allowed publication of the Government’s Grounds for Resisting the Article 50 challenge.

You can read, following, those Grounds and the Skeleton prepared by Bindmans.

You can contribute to the costs of the People’s Challenge here.

 

Government’s Grounds for Resisting the Article 50 challenge

The People’s Challenge Skeleton

8 thoughts on “Article 50 Challenge: the Government’s Defence

  1. Per paragraph 1: “Prior to the referendum, the Government’s policy was unequivocal that the outcome of the referendum would be respected”. As this constitutes part of their grounds for enforcing the result, does it therefore follow that if they win this case, they have set a precedent whereby all future policy MUST be adhered to?

  2. Thank you for publishing this. What surprised me is that the submission has taken me from broadly agreeing with the Government to accepting much of what the Claimants are saying.

    The view that a decision was made by the referendum and that Article 50 is a mere “administrative step” is quite incredible – introducing, as it does, an entirely new law-making power never before known to our constitution.

  3. The 2015 Tory Manifesto promised to [quote:] “respect the outcome” of a referendum. Parliament in its wisdom then passed a Bill for an ADVISORY referendum, specifically not binding, as was done in the AV vote. Did that give carte blanche to the PM to repeal Parliament’s own laws and the Lisbon treaty and strip rights from 65 million citizens?‬

    What does “respect the outcome” mean? Respect the dissatisfaction expressed by 37% of the electorate, and address those social issues? That would have been a sound course of action, but Cameron painted the Govt into a political corner by inventing the “50% binding” myth.

  4. I wonder what the timing is for the proposed Great Repeal Bill (and what is so “great” about repealing one short act of parliament? good spin, of course). Presumably it would torpedo the court case on Article 50, if it provides explicit or implicit permission for the Prime Minister to deliver the notification to the EU.

    Since the vote, I expected there would be an Act of Parliament to implement Brexit, and that UK laws based on EU laws would continue in effect until changed. The “if we Leave then …” formulation is quite neat.

  5. Pingback: Who exactly will ‘take back control’? Parliament vs executive after Brexit and the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ | EuroReads

  6. Pingback: Who exactly will ‘take back control’? Parliament vs executive after Brexit and the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ | European Area of Freedom Security & Justice

  7. There is no evidence that HM Government has taken into consideration that it may require the Crown Dependencies’ respective consents before Brexiting them. Constitutionally they cannot do it without consultation. It may be that that has taken place, but if s, it is not public.
    The Arrangements for these Peculiars, or now dependencies, are based on a historically vibrant feudal relationship with the “Crowns in Right”, or in 2/3 of the CDs “en droit”, and technically the organs taking the decisions and exercising the notice should only do so with prior consultation with the Crown Dependencies whoa re at liberty to request that they determine their ongoing relationship, if any with the EU. Please do burden yourselves with political cant from the Kilbrandon Parliamentary Report attempting to assert that Parliament has the final say. it doe not, particularly where the decision or notification falls within the competence by prerogative of HMGovt. Either organ is limited in the exercise of its powers by te Feudal relationship between the Crowns in question. , Killbrandon is merely a parliamentary report which is of no final value in this context. The United Kingdom Parliament has no right to legislate for the Crown Dependencies in this context. It ain’t the same Crown: cf Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. of Which HM is the Head of State, but little more
    To my mind, the only organ competent to hear such an appeal is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, not the Supreme Court. It is the Privy Coucil which historically has always had the rôle of advising Her Majesty, in other words the Crown, That term includes the Crown’s judiciary, the Queen in Parliament and HM’s Government in such constitutional matters, and that includes the Crown in Right or en droit’s prerogatives and obligations. I see nothing in the 2005 law which modifies that. If anything s.1 reinforces it, by legislating by specific precision for the United Kingom’s internal issues,notany external issues.
    I cite s.1 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 as architectural support. If you are arguing the Rule of Law, then you have to respect that law in full as it is in place.
    You might ind yourself calling the CD’s in in aid, but that is an issue which you have yet to apprehend fully. I suspect that Your friend may need to eat the Great seal here rather than treating the issue of the CD’s as being one of abuse.

Comments are closed.