warning: Creating default object from empty value in /hermes/bosnaweb04a/b421/whl.politeiaweb2/new/modules/taxonomy/ on line 34.

Leaving the EU & Article 50 - Legal entitlements, practical opportunities.

Leaving the EU & Article 50

Legal entitlements, practical opportunities.


Image result for article 50 brexit


Friday 22nd July: This week French and European counterparts discussed with Mrs May their thoughts on the timing of Article 50 to give effect to the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU. Monsieur Hollande pressed for rapid action. Mrs Merkel seemed to acknowledge more time may be needed. For her part, the prime minister has stated that the process will begin in 2017. Who is right? Here Martin Howe QC, in an extract based on his new pamphlet*, explains:

Not only is it possible, but it is prudent for the UK to engage in a period of planning and of informal pre-negotiation with other member states, before invoking the formal procedure of Article 50 and setting its 2-year timetable running. There will be a significant task in revising UK domestic law in preparation for exit, even if this is speeded up by using the regulation-making procedures under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. At the same time the UK will need to replace areas where its international relations are currently conducted via the EU with direct international treaty arrangements. This suggests that 2 years may well be a relatively short period in which to prepare for exit, particularly if, as seems apparent in the aftermath of the vote, no serious contingency planning was done inside Whitehall for the eventuality of a Leave vote.

'Brexit means Brexit'

 ‘Brexit means Brexit’

Friday 15th July: Whatever the view of the opponents of Brexit, the referendum vote must mean what it said. As Robert Tombs explains, the people, not parliament, the Crown, or the courts are the true sovereign, the ultimate source of authority.

Image result for brexit means brexit

This plain statement by our new prime minister would appear to settle the matter. But there are some -- including prominent and influential voices -- who cast doubt at least on the substance and even on the form. The argument is that parliament or the law courts should if not overrule or rerun (though some have argued even that) at least circumscribe or delay the verdict of the referendum. The implication is that a referendum is somehow illegitimate or at least inferior as an expression of political choice, and that it is contrary to our long constitutional history that has made parliament sovereign. Hence, a sovereign parliament should make the final decision as to whether Brexit doesin fact mean Brexit.

'Neither Compelling, nor Attractive'

'Neither Compelling, nor Attractive'   


 Image result for chilcot enquiry


Friday 8th July: As the advice to invade Iraq comes under the spotlight with Sir John Chilcot's report, Professor Peter Crisp assesses the evidence on the legality of the decision: 


Chapter 5 of Sir John Chilcot’s caustic report on the Iraq Inquiry analyses and discusses the legal basis for the Iraq war. The chapter gives extraordinary and unprecedented insight into the legal process which led to the decision to invade Iraq as well as a remarkably detailed account of how the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, came to change his mind on the legality of a possible conflict and, in his words, to give the “green light” to the invasion.


In an example of English understatement at its most lethal, Chilcot in his 6 July statement writes:


“…the Inquiry has not expressed a view on whether military action was legal. That could, of course, only be resolved by a properly constituted and internationally recognised Court. We have, however, concluded that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.”

Allies of a Kind? Britain's Departure from the EU spells uncertainty for the Franco-German Axis

Allies of a Kind?

Britain's Departure from the EU spells uncertainty for the Franco-German Axis

Friday 1st July: As EU member states respond to Britain's decision to leave the EU, Professor John Keiger assesses the response in France and its implications.

The French have a lot on their plate at present. But that has not stopped their knee-jerk reaction to the triumph of the ‘Leave’ campaigners in Britain’s referendum result of 23 June. Despite the on-going state of emergency following two large terrorist attacks in the course of this year, the informal opening of campaigning for presidential and legislative elections in April-May 2017, the divisions in the ruling socialist majority and the main centre-right opposition republican party about the choice of candidate for the presidentials, widespread trade union and popular opposition to a government bill to liberalise workplace laws, national strikes, violent popular demonstrations, the rise and rise of the Front Nationaland Marine Le Pen, a President at twelve per cent in the latest opinion polls, an economy in the doldrums, not to mention a rowdy Euro football tournament to organise, France has managed to froth volumes at Britain’s likely departure from the EU. But what is most important is what has not been said thus far.

Freedom Not Fantasy

Freedom Not Fantasy
Friday 24th June: As Britain votes to leave the EU, Politeia’s Director, Sheila Lawlor explains why we should trust the people.
This week, with the highest turnout at the polls for decades, British people decided to leave the EU. Despite the threats of dire consequences, the menace over months from a battery of big guns at home and abroad, people in this country did what they have always done. They thought about the issues, they thought about the evidence and, on the biggest decision faced by the country in their lifetime, they made up their own minds. Turning out in their millions to the polling booths, they voted to restore their ancient freedom, the birthright which has marked this country out from others. They voted for the right to make the laws under which they are governed, to hold their rulers to account and get rid of them when they get things wrong.
Across the portals of power that decision has not been understood, by many in politics and across Whitehall, by big business and the banks, by conglomerates and international institutions. Indeed, they had not hesitated to use official power, and the resources and bureaucracies of state against the cause championed by those they seek to rule. Instead of recognising this instinct for freedom, which marked this country’s political identity and evolution over the last millenium, there has been incomprehension.
Syndicate content