UK preparing legislation to trigger Brexit, confident of deadline

The British government is preparing legislation to trigger the procedure to leave the EU, Sky News reported on Monday, despite Prime Minister Theresa May saying she is confident of overturning a court decision that may delay Brexit.

 Mon Nov 7, 2016 | 5:33pm GMT
By Elizabeth Piper and William James | LONDON

Prime Minister Theresa May addresses a gathering during the India-UK Tech Summit in New Delhi, India, November 7, 2016. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi

May's plans to start the formal divorce procedure from the European Union by the end of March were dealt a blow last week when England's High Court ruled that her government must seek parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.

May wants government, not parliament, to shape Britain's approach to leaving the EU and has said she will appeal the ruling in Britain's highest court - a stance her ministers and aides stuck to on Monday, avoiding any comment on the report.

Sky News quoted sources as saying the government was preparing a bill, legislation that will have to be considered in both houses of parliament in what could be a lengthy process and potentially delay May's timetable.

May's spokesman told reporters the government was focused on winning its appeal to the Supreme Court next month and meeting the March deadline - an argument repeated by her minister responsible for Brexit, David Davis.

Davis also told a rowdy session in parliament that the court's decision may not come until January.

The court ruling has stirred passions in Britain just over four months after 52 percent of voters supported leaving the EU in a referendum which deepened splits in the country and gave voice to resentment - mirrored across Western Europe and the United States - with a ruling elite seen as out of touch.

One lawmaker from the ruling Conservative party resigned last week over May's approach and dozens of others hope to soften the terms of Britain's departure.

Several accused the government on Monday of undermining democracy by trying to bypass parliament, most of whose members had favoured a vote to remain in the EU.

"The government has approached its task in the wrong way and its approach is now unravelling, and I am afraid to say it's unravelling in a most ... ugly way," said Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party's Brexit spokesman.

"Only parliament can make and repeal laws."

Some said they wanted to know the government's stance on the EU's lucrative single market of 500 million consumers - something Davis said he would make public "in due course".

But Davis, a leading campaigner for Brexit, repeated May's mantra that the government would deliver "the will of the people". Although willing to consult lawmakers, he said the prime minister would not be forced to reveal her hand.

"We won't achieve a good negotiation outcome if this is a negotiation being run by 650 people in this House of Commons. No negotiation in history has been run that way," Davis said.

"Indeed if parliament insists on a detailed minimum negotiating position that will quickly become the maximum possible offer from our negotiating partners."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-may-bill-idUKKBN132137

Brexit a win-win situation for farmers and consumers

Our current membership of the EU means more expensive food, as it’s the EU which has established vast tariffs on agricultural produce. After Brexit our food will be better and cheaper. So, let's get Britain out as soon as we can

Even tastier after Brexit

Jayne Adye

On 5 November 2016 09:45

On June 23rd, the UK voted to ‘Leave’ the EU. We hoped this would be the end of ‘Project Fear’. If only! Nick Clegg continues to wave the‘Project Fear’ flag by claiming food prices will increase if the UK leaves the Single Market.

We at Get Britain Out are optimistic about the UK’s future outside the EU, as well as outside the Single Market.

We want access, not membership. Membership of this Single Market means the UK won’t have the control which dominated the EU Referendum campaign, riding roughshod over the wishes of the people.

Clegg claims leaving the Single Market would result in the UK relying on World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs. This happily ignores the likely trade deals the UK will strike with EU as well as non-EU nations.

Clegg claims leaving the EU will lead to tariffs on beef, chocolate, cheese and wine, which will force up food prices for ordinary families. This argument is deliberately misleading. The reality is, our current membership of the EU means more expensive food, as it’s the EU which has established vast tariffs on agricultural produce.

Not for the first-time Clegg is talking nonsense. Food prices have not been impacted by either the vote to ‘Leave’, or the weaker pound. It is true, inflation has increased this month (it’s still well below the target of 2 percent), but according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) there is “no explicit evidence” this was caused by a weaker pound.

Research group Kantar Worldpanel revealed grocery prices over the last three months were 0.8 percent lower than last year, and another report showed food prices fell by 0.3 percent last month alone. The ONS also found over the past year the cost of meat has fallen by 4.5 percent and vegetables are down by 4.1 percent.

Remoaners predictably reply that the UK hasn’t actually left the EU yet. This is true, but they are ignoring their own claims, prior to June the 23rd, which warned of an economic disaster in the immediate aftermath of the vote. This has completely failed to materialise.

The reality is that once Article 50 has been invoked and the UK has left the EU, British consumers will find that not only has the cost of their weekly shop decreased but that they will have a far greater range of food to buy.

This is because of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP increases the cost of food, by sticking tariffs on agricultural goods from outside the EU. This has two main consequences. It makes non-EU food more expensive, as these tariffs are passed on to consumers, and it makes EU-produce costly, due to lack of competition faced by European farmers. This is before we even consider the cost of the CAP.

A recent study by former NFU Chief Economist, Sean Rickard, revealed the CAP will cost the monumental sum of £360 billion between 2015 and 2020, once everything is taken into account. In payments alone, the UK Government has estimated the UK contributed £4.8billion to the CAP in 2014 alone. Someone has to pay for these generous subsidiaries and that someone is all too often the British taxpayer.

In short, the CAP destroys competition, restricts the free market and costs an enormous amount of money. It also results in a lack of choice for the consumers, as non-EU farmers are unable to sell their produce due to the high tariffs. For taxpayers who have to pick up the tab, it’s a double slap in the face. The only people who benefit are the wealthy landowners who are given the payments, often regardless of whether or not they actually produce food. Brexit will change this.

Andrea Leadsom, the recently appointed Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, believes Brexit will not only reduce the cost of food, but also benefit farmers through increased opportunities to export. British farmers are excellent at producing high-quality produce, such as Welsh Lamb, Scottish Beef and now even English tea, which are exported around the world.

By signing trade agreements with the growing markets of Asia and South America, the UK Government can make it much easier for British farmers to sell their goods abroad.

To conclude, Brexit will benefit both farmers and consumers.

British farmers will enjoy a far superior agricultural policy -- designed to address their specific needs and ensure their competitiveness and profitability in the long term -- rather than simply being given cash to keep them afloat. They will be able to take advantage of new global trade deals to export their goods if they feel they are not getting a fair price for them in the UK.

Consumers will benefit from greater competition amongst producers, which will in turn drive down prices and drive up quality and choice. The former deputy PM would be well advised to stay clear of an issue he clearly knows nothing about.

Brexit will be a boon to both farmers and consumers, and this is one of the key reasons why both groups voted to Get Britain Out of the EU.

Jayne Adye is the Director of cross-party, grassroots Eurosceptic group Get Britain Out

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6426/brexit_a_win_win_situation_for_farmers_and_consumers

Analysis: Why High Court got Brexit decision wrong

UPDATED: In its controversial ruling on Brexit, the HIgh Court misunderstood the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and the status that parliament had granted to the referendum. This ruling can and must be overturned. Here's how

Tipping the scales back to Brexit

the commentator

On 4 November 2016 08:35

On Thursday, the High Court in London ruled that parliament, not the government, must have the final say in triggering Britain's exit from the European Union following the June 23 referendum.

Having read the ruling in full, we believe that it is fundamentally flawed, and that it can and should be overturned in the Supreme Court.

In a nutshell, the High Court ruled the way that it did because it held that the most fundamental principle of British constitutional democracy and the rule of law was "parliamentary sovereignty". While government can act independently on matters of international law -- treaties for example -- power remains inside Parliament where matters of domestic importance are concerned.

Since membership of the European Union has major implications for domestic rights and laws, only parliament can make the final decision on whether to leave or whether to stay.

It is when the ruling comes to the question of the referendum and its meaning that we see how deeply flawed this judgement is, and also how the government put the wrong case to the court.

Paragraph 150 states that counsel for the Secretary of State (ie the government) "did not contend that the 2015 Referendum Act supplied a statutory power for the Crown to give notice under Article 50. He was right not to do so."

In the following paragraphs, the High Court said that this referendum (like any other) was only advisory to parliament "unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation.."

In addition, a briefing paper to parliament made clear that the referendum was only advisory. In any event, there would be so many issues to resolve about the process of withdrawal that parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was merely advisory.

It is on this question that everything else turned, and it appears that the government dropped the ball. Here's why.

First, while the 2015 Referendum Act did not specifically state that the referendum was binding, the purpose of the referendum was billed by all sides as the place at which the decision on Britain's membership of the European Union would be made. There would have been no point in calling a referendum if its result was not intended to be respected. The government could have hired focus groups.

The High Court missed the point here.

Second, the referendum does not contradict the principle of parliamentary sovereignty since it was parliament itself that passed the bill enabling the referendum to take place. Parliament transferred its power to the people so that they could make a decision on parliament's behalf. This was clearly understood at the time. The HIgh Court missed the point on this too.

Third, in invoking the briefing paper --  European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16, House of Commons Library -- the High Court refers to a paper that in one crucial respect undermines its own ruling.

This is from the section entitled, Types of Referendum:

"It [the referendum] does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

See what the High Court got wrong? The wording does not say that the result of the referendum is designed to influence parliament, it says it is designed to influence "the Government".

The reason why it says that is that it was widely understood that parliament had indeed transferred its sovereignty to the people, and that it would then be up to the government (ie. not parliament) to take the process further, and implement the will of the people.

If the government takes this argument to the Supreme Court, it has a realistic chance of winning, and putting Britain back on track for Brexit.

UPDATE: Here is another excellent point raised by the Telegraph:

"Into this constitutional quagmire the High Court unwisely strayed this week, ruling that the Government did not have the power to use the Royal Prerogative to trigger the process to leave the European Union. Yet it is also long established in legal precedent that the courts do not have the power to order Parliament to introduce and pass a Bill, which appears to be the upshot of the judges’ decision on Wednesday. This is a stand-off which the Supreme Court would do well to resolve by overturning the lower court’s ruling next month".

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6425/analysis_why_high_court_got_brexit_decision_wrong

Factbox - What now after UK government loses Brexit court case?

The High Court in London has ruled that the British government requires parliamentary approval to trigger the process of exiting the European Union.

 Thu Nov 3, 2016 | 12:56pm GMT
By Michael Holden and Kylie MacLellan | LONDON

The government, which had planned to start the EU divorce without going through parliament, said it would appeal against the ruling and the Supreme Court has set aside Dec. 5-8 to hear the case.

The stage is now set for a period of political uncertainty while ministers digest the ruling and how to respond to it.

For a weekly round-up of Brexit news: here

HOW DID THE GOVERNMENT REACT?

"The government is disappointed by the court's judgment," trade minister Liam Fox said on Thursday.

"The country voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by acts of parliament. The government is determined to respect the result of the referendum," he told parliament.

WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT'S OPTIONS?

Legal commentators say ministers now have two basic options: a simple vote in parliament on whether to trigger Article 50 or a new bill granting the right to leave the EU, which will have to be debated by lawmakers.

WHAT WOULD A NEW BILL ENTAIL?

David Pannick, the lawyer for the lead claimant, said parliament could approve such a bill, reject it or pass it with amendments on details such as the date of notification.

The best case for the government would be to avoid legislation and involve parliament through a so-called substantive motion -- a proposal put forward for debate and a vote. This would be a quicker process and could be done early next year.

Legislation would take longer as it involves various stages of debate and approval. It can also be held up by so-called "ping pong", whereby a bill goes back and forth between the lower and upper house of parliament, being amended and voted on.

HOW LONG WILL ALL THIS TAKE?

While it is possible legislation could be introduced and passed between the time of a final judgment late this year, and May's end-of-March 2017 deadline, it is likely to be tight and may result in the triggering being pushed back.

The 1972 European Communities bill, which set the terms of Britain's entry into the European club, involved a total of about 40 days of debate during its passage through parliament, according to the Institute for Government.

COULD PARLIAMENT BLOCK BREXIT?

Lawmakers in the lower house, the House of Commons, are thought to be unlikely to try to stop Brexit, and a Reuters survey suggested many who voted to "remain" would now vote to trigger Article 50 in a parliamentary vote.

However, a cross-party group of lawmakers, who support a "soft Brexit", whereby Britain stays in or remains close to the EU single market, have demanded a greater say for parliament in negotiations and say they might try to pass amendments that guarantee this.

The government may also face trouble in the House of Lords, where the ruling Conservatives do not have a majority. If the Lords were to block the bill the government could decide to overrule it using the Parliament Act, although it cannot re-table the bill until the next parliamentary session.

The new parliamentary session usually starts in May or June, so that would delay the Brexit process significantly.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article50-factbox-idUKKBN12Y1GH?mod=related&channelName=domesticNews

UK court says Brexit needs parliament's approval, complicates government plans

A British court ruled on Thursday that the government needs parliamentary approval to start the process of leaving the European Union, potentially delaying Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit plans.

UK | Thu Nov 3, 2016 | 6:23pm GMT
By Michael Holden 

The government said it would appeal against the High Court ruling and Britain's Supreme Court is expected to consider the case early next month.

A spokeswoman for May said the prime minister still planned to launch talks on the terms of Brexit by the end of March and added: "We have no intention of letting this derail our timetable."

The pound, which fell sharply after Britons voted to leave the EU by 52 to 48 percent on June 23, rose after the ruling.

Many investors took the view that lawmakers would now be able to temper the government's policies, making it less likely that the government would opt for a "hard Brexit" -- a scenario in which it prioritises tight controls on immigration over remaining in the European single market.

The High Court ruled that the government needs parliament's backing to trigger Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty, the formal step needed to start the process of exiting the bloc.

"The most fundamental rule of the UK's constitution is that parliament is sovereign," said Lord Chief Justice John Thomas, England's most senior judge.

Thomas and two other senior judges did not spell out in their ruling whether the government would need to pass a new law to begin the divorce proceedings, but Britain's Brexit minister David Davis said this was likely if the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

"The judges have laid out what we can't do and not exactly what we can do, but we're presuming it requires an act of parliament," Davis told BBC TV.

UNCERTAINTY

Parliament could in theory block Brexit as most lawmakers (MPs) supported staying in the EU in a referendum in June. But few observers expect that outcome, and a Reuters survey last month suggested MPs would back Brexit now.

Even so, the court ruling makes the already daunting task of taking Britain out of a political and trading club it joined 43 years ago even more complex.

"The negotiations haven't even yet begun. There will be uncertainty, there will be volatility around those negotiations as they proceed, and I would view this as one example of that uncertainty," Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said.

Economists at Deutsche Bank told clients May had been weakened by the ruling and was likely to have to call a general election next year.

But May's spokeswoman dismissed the suggestion. "Our position has been clear that there shouldn't be an election before 2020 - that remains the prime minister's view," she told reporters.

Trade minister Liam Fox told parliament the government was disappointed by the ruling but the government remained "determined to respect the result of the referendum".

May had said she did not need parliament's approval for triggering Article 50 under a historical power of "royal prerogative" where ministers act on behalf of the monarch.

The High Court rejected that argument and the judges granted the government permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, Britain's highest judicial body, which has set aside Dec. 5-8 to deal with the case.

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, said his party respected the outcome of the referendum but that the government's negotiating strategy needed parliamentary scrutiny.

Dominic Grieve, lawmaker from May's ruling Conservatives and a former British attorney general, said passing legislation to trigger Article 50 need not delay the process.

"It doesn't necessarily mean that it would hold it up for a very long time," he told BBC TV.

"PROCESS NOT POLITICS"

Investment manager Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the legal challenge, said the case was about "process, not politics" and rejected accusations from opponents, including May herself, that they were subverting democracy.

"One of the big arguments (in the referendum) was parliamentary sovereignty," she told reporters. "So you can't on the day you get back sovereignty decide you're going to sidestep or throw it away."

Some Brexit supporters said the ruling was "disgraceful".

"Our democracy is being damaged by an elite band of people in the legal system," Richard Tice, co-chairman of the Leave Means Leave campaign. "A vote in Parliament is wholly unnecessary, time consuming and betrays the democratic will of the people."

Nigel Farage, head of the anti-EU party UKIP, said on Twitter that he feared the ruling could turn into an attempt to scupper Brexit altogether.

"I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand," he said, warning that attempts to block or delay triggering Article 50 would anger the British public.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declined to comment on Thursday's ruling but said he would be speaking to May by telephone on Friday.

EU leaders have been frustrated by the mixed messages they say they have received from London since the June referendum, and senior parliamentarians in Germany warned Britain against further delays in spelling out its Brexit strategy.

"What cannot happen is that the government uses this new situation as an excuse to delay Article 50 further," said Axel Schaefer, deputy parliamentary leader for the Social Democrats, who are part of Chancellor Angela Merkel's governing coalition.

"We need clarity by the end of March. If we don't have that, the other 27 EU governments must have the courage to decide things on their own."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-article-idUKKBN12Y11D