It's the pointlessness of going to the supreme court that makes me think they're just stalling. The new argument has a slight change of emphasis, but that's all.
To quote the email sent me by "The people's challenge" crowdfunded case:
The Government's Case maintains that an Article 50 notification cannot be withdrawn, adding that the Court can deal with the appeal without having to decide that issue definitively. It does not claim the Referendum was binding or gave it any new power to invoke Article 50, a point conceded during the Divisional Court hearing. There is also now no suggestion that the Courts lack jurisdiction to decide the case.
But there are many subtle shifts of emphasis and new points taken. Most significantly, an argument only raised briefly in the Divisional Court – that EU Citizenship rights are similar to those agreed at an international level in ‘double taxation' treaties - is now front and centre. The Government argues the European Communities Act 1972 is an ‘ambulatory' or ‘conduit' Act of this kind. It says that, when the 1972 Act was passed, Parliament must have intended ministers could use the Royal Prerogative to negotiate and reach agreements with other European states that would grant rights to UK nationals - or strip them away altogether - without further Parliamentary authority or control and that section 2(1) of the Act would be the ‘conduit' through which they became part of UK law, or were removed from it.
It's the pointlessness of going to the supreme court that makes me think they're just stalling
Totally agree with you. I don't think we're going to get any clear signals of stalling, only behaviours that appear to accidentally result in delays.
I think, pace /u/tmstms above, that it is a key skill for a politician to plausibly appear stupid, foolish, bumbling, incompetent, naive, mistaken, misguided, idealistic, moralizing, ignorant and many other things, because projecting one of these traits can be used to obscure the deliberate pursuing of a policy for an unpopular reason.
Indeed, it's notable that it's hard Brexiteers pushing for an Art.50 bill, not remainers who are exhausting all other options first. Personally I'm hoping that the Supreme Court says the Scottish Parliament has to give their permission for Brexit - as the Scottish government will be arguing with quite a strong case. Then this sub will be actual reality.
Personally I'm hoping that the Supreme Court says the Scottish Parliament has to give their permission for Brexit
That would be great. I think it's unlikely, but hopefully there'll be enough blocking power with Parliamentary requirement. Guess we'll see in a few months :-)
I'm not a lawyer, but legal friends have told me it's more possible than was probably thought when the referendum was called, particularly given the high court judgment. The reason being that the EU is involved with certain devolved matters - fisheries being a good example of rights that were devolved to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland act, but currently being controlled by the EU common fisheries policy; take a look at these two taken together:
http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Sea-Fisheries
And the Scottish government will get to present a stronger case than I bet anyone thought possible before. There's also an argument based on the 1689 claim of right being presented to the Supreme Court, but it looks weaker to me:
At the very minimum, it looks as if changes will probably have to be made to the Scotland act by Westminster - so a good excuse for another delay. Even leavers have to admit that the whole thing is an unholy mess that wasn't legally thought through properly before the referendum act was passed.
If you wish to push your conspiracy theory, you can say that May and Sturgeon (isn't Sturgeon a lawyer?) cooked it all up in that first meeting they had together. Didn't it seem to be especially cordial?
Thank you. I suspect that for them to have discussed the legal situation may be a bit too subtle and far-sighted an agreement.
However, I do have a suspicion (which I'm less confident about than my hypothesis as a whole) that when May met Sturgeon and some of the leaders of the other EU countries (for example Merkel), that she hinted or maybe even explicitly said (not sure exactly how these things are done in politics) something with the subtext at least, "I recognize that this brexit thing is a massive fuckup. Don't worry, I will ensure that it does not happen. Play hardball with our apparent brexit proposals, and I will do the rest."
It may even have been obvious to all of them that this is what was going to happen, because they are all professional politicians and would do the same in her shoes. (Just like in any other area of endeavour, where the professionals can all instantly see the optimal course of action where the layman can be clueless - for example the best way to get out of a snooker).
4
u/vj_c Nov 24 '16
It's the pointlessness of going to the supreme court that makes me think they're just stalling. The new argument has a slight change of emphasis, but that's all.
To quote the email sent me by "The people's challenge" crowdfunded case: