One step closer.
7 days until the vote. The government’s charm offensive continues, and isn’t at all overshadowed by a motion to discuss if the Government is in contempt of Parliament.
Another cat amongst the pigeons:
Though the headline is all wrong - opinion, not a ruling.
This is not a good thing - deliberative process privilege is a long standing common law principle after all. While the humble address has not been used in anger for a long time it is unquestionably one of the tools the house house to compel the production of papers, however because it hasn’t been used in so long the exact limitations on it are rather unclear. Legal advice is inherently particularly sensitive. Threatening to suspend an MP over it, though well within the traditional powers of the commons, sets a very worrying precedent in this context; as it politicises a quasi-judicial process.
If the paper that was released has been some 5 page whitewash (which is what I was kind of expecting) I would feel differently, but it’s a solid 41 page document containing several truths that are very uncomfortable to the government.
It’s important to remember that government legal advice is no more perfect and authoritative than any other legal advice - any other party is free to commission its own legal advice and publish it. Only the judiciary can make authoritative statements of legal interpretation.
I’m surprised the AG is so dismissive of the standing point, but there you go. The substance makes sense, but it’s not clear to me whether, as DAG suggests, he’s saying the Council could block revocation by finding a lack of good faith, or whether that would have to be the ECJ.
I suspect such clarity will only arise from an actual ruling. The AG’s comments are likely indicative of the direction of such a ruling, which is all I’d try to take from them.
Of course. The judges certainly seemed to be leaning toward unanimous rejection in the oral arguments. And I suppose DAG’s point is that obviously if the UK government were withdrawing in good faith it would challenge that decision at the ECJ. So ultimately it would be the ECJ, even if in principle the Council could reject on its own.
Well, that happened.
Why do I get the feeling this is going to be like Davis and the sector analysis motion and what the government produces is just going to be the summary again.
Maybe someone will be sent to the tower, then!
The House was very specific and clear. All legal advice.
It wasnt a suggestion, it was an order.
Dont get me wrong I believe Geoffrey Cox when he says in his opinion its not in the national interest. But he knew it was required to be given to the House and so did May. So if there are things in there that are embarrassing then he shouldn’t have bloody well written them.
Also May is not on trial here. This legal advice is for the country to make better decisions, not her defence. Parliament which represents the people needs to see it.
The proposer of the motion explicitly said he did not want all the legal advice. So, the house clearly was not specific and clear, as you and Keir Starmer disagree as to what the house wanted.
With regard to the “shouldn’t have bloody well written them” comment, are you seriously suggesting he should have prepared some last minute advice on the 14th(the day that cabinet met and the day after the HA was passed) that didn’t include advice previously given to ministers, said “This is the full and final advice which we will release to parliament wink wink”, and released that? That does sound worthy of contempt.
Almost all the advice would have already been written before the HA was passed, how was he supposed to know that it would be requested using a procedure used once since the 1800s?
Anytime you find yourself defending a sitting government withholding information from the elected representatives of the people, you’ve fucked up.
Some other good news.
Inching closer and closer to stopping Brexit and remaining in the EU. A long ways to go but this is a good day.
How does Brexit get stopped again? Are you assuming that if May’s deal goes down, Parlaiment (or May?) will stop Brexit rather than go with no deal?
That is my hope, not my analysis.
I am a single issue voter. I want my EU citizenship. I will take it anyway I can get it :)
Basically any doubt over Brexit is a good thing in my eyes.
Well, if any sane politician were presented with this choice in isolation: Choose between being ejected from the EU in three months with no valid trade deals with anyone in the world, or staying in the EU, I’m pretty confident they would choose the latter. Of course, this isn’t all happening in isolation, but it would surely be better if it were.
The only way for Brexit to get stopped is:
- House of commons asks for a second referendum
- The Government decides to comply (the government is perfectly entitled to ignore HoC on this, HoC’s only recourse would be a motion of no confidence), and asks the EU for an A50 extension.
- The EU27 unanimously grant an A50 extension.
- Parliament passes legislation amending the A50 notification act changing the exit date and legislates for a referendum
- The referendum says remain.
- The EU27 either unanimously agree to accept the withdrawal of A50 (in which case noone has the standing to challenge it) or the ECJ rules that it can be withdrawn.
Each of these steps on its own is very plausible, but there’s a lot of places that it can go wrong. In particular it’s not clear that there are even the votes in the commons for a second referendum, since Corbyn will amost certainly prefer to avoid it and very few tories can vote for it without being deselected by their local associations.
Obviously remaining is much better for the UK in general - The only problem would be what happens afterwards in UK politics - it would be the second time in 15 years that the governments concludes an agreement with the EU after a supermajority of the population voted for parties who promised to do something else at the previous election.
Is there actually a legal requirement for a second referendum? Couldn’t the HoC on their own vote to withdraw the Article 50 declaration? I’m not saying they will, just that the referendum itself was never legally binding on the government.