Brexit legal challenge launched as businesses move to block EU exit without Act of Parliament

'Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament'



A group of businesses has launched a legal challenge to prevent the Government from launching Brexit without a formal Act of Parliament.
A London law firm said it had been in contact with Whitehall lawyers to argue it would be unlawful for the next Prime Minister to take Britain out of the EU with an executive order.
Mishcon de Reya, the firm acting for a number of unnamed clients, said triggering Article 50 could not be done without a full debate and a vote by MPs and peers in Parliament, because it would be overturning parts of the European Communities Act of 1972.

The action has been launched following an article by three academics – Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King – which argued that Parliament has an “indispensable role” in making Brexit legally sound.
The academics suggest Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty itself states that any member may decide to withdraw from the EU “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. They say it is well established in the UK’s so-called “unwritten” constitution, largely as a result of case law, that an Act of Parliament can only be overturned by another Act of Parliament.  
Kasra Nouroozi, a Mishcon de Reya partner, said: “We must ensure that the Government follows the correct process to have legal certainty and protect the UK Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament in these unprecedented circumstances.
“The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows UK law to enact it.

“The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future prime minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful.
“We must make sure this is done properly for the benefit of all UK citizens. Article 50 simply cannot be invoked without a full debate and vote in Parliament.”
The debate in the wake of the EU referendum has largely framed the decision to trigger Brexit as one to be made by the next Prime Minister.
David Cameron said as much when he delivered his resignation speech outside Number 10 Downing Street on the morning of Friday 24 June.
Andrea Leadsom has emerged as one of the frontrunners in the Tory leadership contest, thanks in large part to her pledge to “just get on with it” and trigger Brexit as early as possible.
And Theresa May, the bookies’ favourite to be the next Prime Minister, has pledged only to activate Article 50 once the Government has established the terms of its EU negotiations.

David Allen Green, the law and politics blogger, wrote a day after Mr Cameron stood down that it was significant the Prime Minister had failed to launch the Brexit process immediately.
“The fact is that the longer the Article 50 notification is put off, the greater the chance it will never be made at all,” he wrote. “This is because the longer the delay, the more likely it will be that events will intervene or excuses will be contrived.”
He added: “In my view, if the Article 50 notification was not sent yesterday – the very day after the Leave result – there is a strong chance it will never be sent.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-launched-businesses-move-to-block-eu-exit-without-act-of-parliament-a7118186.html



Who knows what will happen.

then there will be riots....

and worse.......

Why can't people accept a democratic decision?

The people have decided.

This is supposed to be a democracy!

Looks like the end of the shenanigans. Nigel has tucked tail and run.

Doesn't look like the end of the weaseling though does it...!?


If the vote had turned out remain then we wouldn't be hearing any of this anti democratic bullshit...

Who would have thought the UK had so many bad losers?

Maybe next they will say they are going to ' scream and scream and scream until they are sick'...?

I called this a week ago

Rich people would rather you eat their children than dent the bottom line ...

Some of your usa businesses maybe...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Some of your usa businesses maybe...

I understand your chagrin. But you have only yourselves to blame. The US is just over here in the popcorn section.

You've gotta know where the power is. And it ain't in an EU referendum.

The power in a democracy is with the people!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

The power in a democracy is with the people!!!

Yeah, but the rich always seem to count a bit more, don't they?

Well like IO said...sit there smirking ...and watch the fire when the country burns if the remainders have tyheir cheating lying way

you think those racist attacks we have seen just recently represent an increase???
If this referendum is ignored there will be hell to pay ...

and the likelyhood of a far right govt increased 1000 fold.....

mind you

once the EU triumphs the left can FORGET all its stated aims...

they will have NO say in taxation...those powers will be ceded to the commission,
they will have NO say in whet (if any) benefits are available to the people
they will have NO say in what law is passed (and it HAS been mooted that criticising the euro project could be criminal)
they will have NO say on the military (following the stalinist approach) of say france being turned on the civil population of britain in the face of dissent (dont forget in order to acheive that with our own forces requires a "state of emergency" and it is debateable even then if they would)

they would become no more of importance than a parish council

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The power in a democracy is with the people!!!

Yeah, but the rich always seem to count a bit more, don't they?

Funny how the lefties seen to support the rich and corporations here now...!?


Seems they are the real cap doffers and forlock tuggers all along!!!


And we hear another example of lefties quantum thinking with their arguments... on one hand the lefties say that leaving the eu is what the corporations want as the rights of workers will be eroded and more power/profit for the corporations etc... then the lefties also say that staying in the eu is what the corporations want because it is better for them and their power/profit etc!!!







Even when you point out the rank hypocrisy in their arguments they still denying it and carry on believing their contradictory ideas!!!

You tit, he was making exactly the opposite point, not supporting them.  Nuances of speech simply pass you by.

Don't leave because the nasty corporations will ruin your workers rights... then... stay in the eu because it is so much better for the same corporations but this time the 'lovely' corporations who only have the workers best interests at heart...!!!

there is an upside of course if we stay in europe eventually....


we wont have to put up with sassy bangin on about the NHS.....because there wont be one...period....

why...becasue brussels is intent on taking control of ALL tax matters...how much is collected and how much "we" get back....and the NHS WONT be a consideration ...since no other E.U country has one....all in the main at least partly insurance based.........(there are a few exceptions )

now...THAT may be ok...but given the ability of genetic testing to determine your susceptibility to some diseases and knowing insurance providers(the biggest parasites in the world).....
JUST how LONG do you think it will be before you are compulsararily tested and....

Oh I'm sorry mrs smith your genome shows a potential increased risk in breast cancer...so we cant cover you for that...you will have to self fund it if it happens...

Oh, I'm sorry mrs smith your new born's genome test shows a tendency for epilepsy...sorry we cant cover him

oh I'm sorry Mr jones...your genome shows a tendency for diabetes....we cant cover you for that.....

I support the NHS... and I support our democracy... I support the rights of the british people and I trust the British people to vote for what is right for the British people!!!

Lord Foul wrote:why...becasue brussels is intent on taking control of ALL tax matters

I'd like to call your hand on that.  Got any substantiation other than the standard 'slippery slope' argument?

See the press release (IP/10/1751 Choose translations of the previous link ), the citizens' summarypdf(157 kB) Choose translations of the previous link in 22 languages, the Communication (COM/2010/769pdf(49 kB) Choose translations of the previous link ), and the Staff Working Document (SEC/2010/1576pdf(61 kB) Choose translations of the previous link ) which describes the Commission's problem-solving services for EU citizens and the types of tax rules that have been found incompatible with the EU Treaties.
Other policy actions
Some co-ordinated action to tackle tax obstacles and inefficiencies has been achieved in the company tax, VAT, excise duties, and car tax areas. Measures have also been taken to tackle tax evasion via the savings tax Directive and via Directives providing mutual assistance between tax administrations. The Commission has also become more pro-active in taking legal action where Member States' national tax rules or practices do not comply with the Treaty.
Another area for action is Research and Development (R&D), given its impact on growth and jobs. In its Communication COM(2006) 728pdf(71 kB) Choose translations of the previous link of 22 November 2006 (see press release IP/06/1598 Choose translations of the previous link , MEMO/06/440 Choose translations of the previous link and the studypdf(1.09 Mb) published in 2004), the Commission examines a more effective use of tax incentives for R&D. The Communication clarifies the legal conditions arising from EU case law and sets out some basic principles and good practices for the design of such incentives. Member States are encouraged to improve the use and coordination of those tax measures. The Communication also offers Member States guidance on the main design options.
The Commission, in its opinion to the Convention on the future of Europe (COM(2003) 548 final), expressed the belief that retaining unanimity for all taxation decisions makes it difficult to achieve the level of tax co-ordination necessary for Europe and made proposals for a move to qualified majority votingin certain tax areas. However, Member States did not agree to these qualified majority voting proposals.
In addition, the Commission has started to make more use of non-binding approaches such as recommendations instead of legislative proposals where appropriate, as a way of making progress in the tax field. The route of closer co-operation between sub-groups of like-minded Member States is also being explored.
The Commission has published regular statistical and economic analysis of the tax systems of the EU Member States with a view to providing information to Member States and the public on taxation trends in recent years.
The Commission has also taken several steps in order to promote good governance in the tax area, i.e. transparency, exchange of information and fair tax competition, as outlined most recently in its Communication of 28 April 2009 (see the the 28/04/09 Communication on good governance (COM (2009) 201pdf)). This Communication is designed to identify the particular EU contribution to good governance in the area of direct taxation, both within the EU and beyond. Agreements with as many third countries as possible on common principles of good governance in tax matters should help EU Member States and their partners to balance the need to protect their revenues and their social and public spending policies with the need to open up their economies so as to promote growth and jobs.
The removal of tax obstacles in the area of financial services has gained importance as part of the development and implementation of the Commission's Financial Services Policy. The European Commission adopted a recommendation on 19 October 2009 that outlines how EU Member States could make it easier for investors resident in EU Member States to claim withholding tax relief on dividends, interest and other securities income received from other Member States. The recommendation also suggests measures to eliminate the tax barriers that financial institutions face in their securities investment activities while at the same time protecting tax revenues against errors or fraud. The recommendation is designed to provide guidance to Member States in how to ensure that procedures to verify entitlement to tax relief do not hinder the functioning of the Single Market. The recommendation is based on the (2006-2007) reports of the EU Clearing and Settlement Fiscal Compliance Experts' Group (FISCO) ( IP/07/1569 Choose translations of the previous link ), follows upon an extensive stakeholders' consultation and has been discussed on several occasions with the financial services industry and tax administrations in Member States.
Read more on the Lisbon Treaty and EU tax legislation


http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/gen_info/tax_policy/index_en.htm



Plus...

Tommy, educating member states is not taking over revenue mechanisms.

You didn't even read your own c & p, did you? I wondered why you failed to highlight.

sassy wrote:You tit, he was making exactly the opposite point, not supporting them.  Nuances of speech simply pass you by.

Thanks. I guess everything I say has to be for one thing or against another, and whatever that might be, "for" is for the EU and "against" is against the British. I don't want any of you to suffer, not even that one guy we all know I'm talking about

Syl wrote:Who would have thought the UK had so many bad losers?

everyone?

More waffle from the non British and anti british on here...

IF THERE'S ONE THING WORSE than a sore loser, it's a bad winner  !!!

JUST IMAGINE HOW Tommy, Major and Victor would be carrying on now, if the vote had gone the other way..        

Tell us Wolf, you seem to know everything even though Tommy beats you EVERY time.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Who would have thought the UK had so many bad losers?

everyone?  

Who mentioned 'everyone'?

We had a vote....people were free to decide how to vote...it was a simple STAY or LEAVE decision.
The majority voted 'leave'....for a variety of reasons not just the one you highlighted.

@syl
does the disparity between them escape you?

The British Opinion is often not fair or reasonable.
Most Brits think they should have free movement in the EU
but the majority also think that EU citizens should NOT have free movement in the UK.

Original Quill wrote:Tommy, educating member states is not taking over revenue mechanisms.

You didn't even read your own c & p, did you?  I wondered why you failed to highlight.

Looks more like YOU didn't read it...

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Who would have thought the UK had so many bad losers?

everyone?  

A bullshit comres poll from 2014... of '2000 GB adults online' and then 'weighted' and 'miscalculated' for the whole of 'uk opinion'... and then 'compared with the change since 2013'...!!!


Read the small print at the bottom of picture!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Tommy, educating member states is not taking over revenue mechanisms.

You didn't even read your own c & p, did you?  I wondered why you failed to highlight.

Looks more like YOU didn't read it...

I read it; you didn't. Now I'm just sorry I wasted my time.

It doesn't say anything of what you claim. It's just touches on educating member nations on taxation matters.

What is more, you can't point to language otherwise.

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Who would have thought the UK had so many bad losers?

everyone?  

A bullshit comres poll from 2014... of '2000 GB adults online' and then 'weighted' and 'miscalculated' for the whole of 'uk opinion'... and then 'compared with the change since 2013'...!!!


Read the small print at the bottom of picture!!!

the point seems to go over your head, Most peoples Would NOT expect a fair and just reaction from a brit that has lost fairly. That is NOT what Brits are know for.

tommy the opinon YOU persoanlly express is worse, SO if You are correct and many Brits feel the same as you do...
My point is even stronger!!!

Veya, I think you need to realize how much British attitudes toward working abroad vs. letting others work in their country has changed in the past 24 months

well it seems Tommy and many Brits disbelieve polls any way. if it anit Hypocrisy they don't want to believe it.

veya_victaous wrote:
well it seems Tommy and many Brits disbelieve polls any way.  if it anit Hypocrisy they don't want to believe it.

It's being dubbed "post-truth politics":

“There was a time, not long ago, when we would differ on the interpretation of the facts. We would differ on the analysis. We would differ on prescriptions for our problems. But fundamentally we agreed on the facts. That was then. Today, many feel entitled to their own facts.”

So said Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, in a speech he gave to Temple University’s newest Media and Communication graduates not two weeks ago. Baron was talking about a new form of politics that’s been taking hold, a kind that brings into question the prospects of these hopeful future journos, a kind that threatens democracy as we know it.

As Donald Trump makes another one of the countless absurd claims he’s made during his campaign (this time, following what happened in Florida last weekend, we’re to believe Barack Obama supports ISIS), on the other side of the Atlantic potential future Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to stoke voter immigration fears. Now, his campaign is assuring fellow Britons that a vote to Remain in the European Union will see Turkish migrants flooding across the border.

Neither of these claims are true.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/19/trumps_lies_arent_unique_to_america_post_truth_politics_are_killing_democracies_on_both_sides_of_the_atlantic/

It's the mentality of the pack-a-day smoker who thinks the medical professionals are idiots and he could never get lung cancer.

AND IT'S THE SAME non-thinking uncritical "sheeple" pack attitude that has een the re-emergence down here last Saturday of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party in the fringe areas of disaffected voters --  the same people that blame commies/socialists/ "liberal regressives"/Jews/ Muslims/Blacks/Asians/ unionists/feminists for all of the world's problems...

Australia's answer to Nige and Boris (actually, Pauline Hanson erupted on the Oz political scene a little over 20 years ago, basing her odious party on extreme far-right and xenophobic fears familiar to Southern US white supremacists and Euro' trash neo-nazis -- actually pre-empting the rise of UKIP and the Repub's Tea Party loon's..), Hanson has returned to the Senate, and might be bringing a couple of like-minded fruitcakes with her..      

THE SAME uncomprehending and deadend mindset that infests that pathetic little group of UKIP supporters on here.          

yep no suprise it was the brain dead queenslanders that did it
fucking melted Brain hill shepherds

THERE'S ALSO one redneck from over around Cessnock (a.k.a. "six-fingered territory"..) who might just squeeze in on One Nation's NSW ticket...

veya_victaous wrote:@syl
does the disparity between them escape you?

The British Opinion is often not fair or reasonable.
Most Brits think they should have free movement in the EU
but the majority also think that EU citizens should NOT have free movement in the UK.

No the disparity didn't escape me Veya.
I 'm sure some people...Brits as well as anyone else wants their cake and to eat it too.
However that tiny survey was done over 2 years ago....opinions have changed a lot during the last two years.
It was also done online....so anyone could have answered.

The poll was total bullshit so your claim is baseless veya...

@SYL


Yeah We can See that Attitudes if anything have gotten WORSE !!!!!
You just voted for BREXIT !!!!

veya_victaous wrote:@SYL


Yeah We can See that Attitudes if anything have gotten WORSE !!!!!
You just voted for BREXIT !!!!

We would have voted out the eu long ago... if we had previously been given our democratic right to decide that is...


In fact... we would never have been in it in the first place had we been given our democratic right to decide back in 1992/3...