The UK Constitutional Law Association has issued an opinion on whether or not parliament needs to be asked to trigger Article 50 or if the PM alone can do it (HERE).
They conclude that parliament must authorise the triggering of Article 50, not the PM and they offer what looks like reasonable points to back it up. This is important because a majority of MPs in the house are against leaving the EU, at least two thirds are against it, but may vote for it as the democratically expressed will of the people. However, it is extremely complicated legally and may take a long time to resolve.
The upper chamber are also against it by 6:1 at least, someone said and since they have no constituencies to defend might be prepared to vote against it. However, this will only cause a delay, the lords cannot stop it altogether.
Also, the CLA say once Article 50 is triggered it is irreversible and is therefore a once-and-for-all decision since there is nothing in the text to say a state can simply decide to revoke the notice.
Finally, they claim that parliament might block it on several grounds:
(a) That the leave claims (£350 million etc) were wrong and therefore the case for leaving has not been properly made.
(b) In the absence of any details of the terms of what might be negotiated during the two year period it is not in the national interest to "leap off into the dark".
They are clear the issuing of the Article 50 notice itself is very complicated legally and has massive implications for the country and this is even before the actual agreement has been negotiated and placed before parliament for approval in the years ahead. I have read several time that opponents are planning to do a reverse Maastricht, were tory rebels plotted and delayed the approval of the Maastricht treaty under John Major.
No comments:
Post a Comment