Brexit, Article 50, and a constitutional crisis
Why the Article 50 notification is important
25th June 2016
“Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
– The Adventure of Silver Blaze
*
On Thursday 23rd June 2016 there was a historic referendum vote. A clear and decisive majority – though not a large majority – voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.
And the following day, Friday 24th June 2016, something perhaps just as significant did not happen. The UK did not send to the EU the notification under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on European Union which would have commenced the withdrawal process.
The Article 50 process is the only practical means by which the UK can leave the EU. There are other theoretical means – which would mean effectively the UK unilaterally renouncing its treaty obligations – but as the UK wants to be taken seriously in future treaty making, such approaches would lose credibility.
And so unless and until the Article 50 process is commenced and completed, the UK will stay as a member of the EU.
In short: no Article 50, no Brexit.
http://jackofkent.com/2016/06/why-the-article-50-notification-is-important/
Here’s what Boris Johnson wrote back in February:
There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No.
He may have had in mind the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty which followed after the Irish voted ‘no’ in the first – and secured further concessions from the other Member States.
“Say ‘no’ for a better ‘yes'” isn’t bad as a negotiating ploy. But it’s not much of a campaigning slogan. The Leave camp ditched it for ‘Take Back Control’.
And the rest is recent history.
https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/24/when-i-say-no-i-mean-maybe/
By Charlie Stross
Contrary to popular belief, the UK does have a written constitution—it's just scattered across roughly 25 different pieces of legislation, subject to amendment on the fly whenever Parliament damn well pleases.
And since devolution came in, more than one parliament has to be convinced to amend the constitutional framework before it can be changed.
It is becoming apparent that The Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly may have veto power over BRexit per the House of Lords European Union Committee (11th Report of Session 2015-16,
"The process of withdrawing from the European Union"
. See paras 70-71, "The role of the devolved legislatures in implementing the withdrawal agreement" -- section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in a manner compatible with EU law, and Scottish parliamentary consent would be required to amend this. (A similar provision underpins the devolution settlements of Wales—which voted for Brexit—and Northern Ireland—which voted against it.)
So we have a royal mess coming down the pipeline.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/06/constitutional-crisis-ahoy.html
And pursuant to the last, Nicola Sturgeon (Scotland's First Minister and leader of the SNP) has said that the Scottish Parliament could block Brexit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36633244
= new reply since forum marked as read
Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #1)
rule England and whatever is left of the UK forever. 
The Tories already have a majority in Parliament even though they only got 1 MP elected from Scotland in 2015. If Scotland is out of the electoral equation in the future, the Tories will be much stronger.
There are only three or four occasions since 1945 when the way Scotland's voted has been decisive in a UK election, and in at least two of those it was the matter of a seat or two.
Of course, it's such a strange political landscape at the moment, comparisons with the past aren't entirely helpful. The way things have gone crazy the last few days, there might not be a Tory party in a year's time! Hello, Prime Minister Farage ...
And, the maw of hell shall open to swallow what's left of the once great United Kingdom.
So Parliament can make any damned law they want with no checks in the law, which would be a fair definition of a constitution.
The UK has no constitution because there is no legal check on Parliament. Parliament can rewrite it on the fly, at their whim.
In other words, no law above Parliament. In other words, no law by which Parliament needs to abide.
In other words, no fucking constitution! A separation of powers is essential to any constitutional government where such constitution rises above any legislative pronouncements. In order to implement such a thing, an independent judiciary to adjudicate disagreements is a necessary element. The UK has none of these elements. Which means that the UK has no fucking constitution.
QED
My best to you.
When the body who writes the (so-called) constitution can rewrite it on the fly, as they will, how is that different from having no constitution whatsoever?
The extent to that difference is where the concept of a constitution resides. On one side it exists; on the other it does not. The UK is an exemplar for the latter.
There is no constitutional crisis with Brexit because the UK has no constitution. Parliament is free to handle it whichever way they decide. When the law making body can do that it kind of defeats the concept of a constitution. Don't you think?
As always, my best to you.
and it is a "constitution" in the sense that it is "
the) body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed" (dictionary definition for you).
The Plantangenet kings. Henry II, the first. His sons were a rather interesting lot, King John especially so, but so too Richard (irrelevant here).
Witness the legend of Robin Hood, and the same Prince John. Lots of good stories there.
And yup! He had no choice but to sign the Magna Carta.
My question stands though.
What stops parliament from dumping the whole thing?
I confess puzzlement.
Thanks.
But I will stay by my claim that the UK has no separate constitution outside parliament. (Except maybe Common Law.)
As to the European oversight, I think Thursday's vote attempted to kill that.
Spider and I have been pointing out that there are limits on parliament's powers.
Hell, the queen could wake up tomorrow and decide we weren't having a referendum and that was that, and all sorts of other extremely germane things. It would probably be the last thing she decided as monarch in the current sense of that role, but she could. The focus of our law in the past, thanks to Cromwell etc., was to limit the powers of the monarch rather than the government, so we came to an accommodation.
Then there are the courts I've pointed you to that have been set up since, which do set limits on the powers of parliament.
The Tories have been chafing precisely at the fact that parliament can't override it all. Some of the populist Leave anger was the result of annoyance that "we can't make our own laws". The fact is, if a Labour government was in power, most of the same people would be only too glad to have limits on parliament's power, though not necessarily those imposed by a bunch of "experts" *spit* and furriners *hack*.
The deep ins and out of this are beyond discussing sensibly on a board like DU. We're talking law school tutorial/moot material here. And I'm no legal scholar anyway, and nor are you.
So parliament is restricted. That's good.
I've learned something new this morning, always a good start of the day. Such things are always good with a good, hot cuppa Joe to wake one up and get ones brain cells working.
Of course, one has to read further. Thank you (both Spider and you) for a good start.
The simple answer is often incorrect. I stand corrected... provisionally always.
Please tell me where I am mistaken.
Can Parliament make any law they want with no constitutional oversight?
That is my question. And my argument.
Thank you for your very informative responses.
Ignorance is no excuse. However, admitting ones ignorance is some kind of saving grace, one would suppose.
I'll stand on that plank and never give it up!
It's always nice to be proven wrong. One inevitably learns something new. Therein lies an opportunity for further exploration.
Always a good thing, my friend. Thanks!
in any meaningful sense, so cut that out right now!
Ignorance would be insisting you knew it all in the face of counter-arguments, and neither Spider, you nor I are experts.
Curiosity and a willingness to listen are to be applauded.
This in one of many exchanges on DU the last few days I've really enjoyed - and above all, it's stayed entirely civil. Bravo! I'm honored to be considered a friend.
It doesn't always work, but it is always something worth striving for.
Thank you very very much.
In homage to the UK, which I love, have a really big frog, and a damned fine peach.
Altogether, a rather good discussion, most appropriately (given the topic) terminated with some rather obscure (for the USA) British humor.
on edit: don't get me started about the Goon Show, which basically started it all. British humor, that is.
Ying-Tong-Iddle-I-Po!
Here. Have some. Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan, and Harry Seacombe.
By the House of Lords, or the Commons? Are they chosen from among the members of the Lords?
Please enlighten me, if you have time.
ETA:
Thanks anyway. You needn't bother. Just found this on Wiki:
, the 12 judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been exercised by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.[3] However, it can overturn secondary legislation if, for example, that legislation is found to be ultra vires to the powers in primary legislation allowing it to be made.
