Category Archives: commons

Our “Defend Brexit” case is mentioned in key Commons Debate

Our “Defend Brexit” case is mentioned in key Commons Debate
On Wednesday the former Conservative Leader, Iain Duncan Smith, mentioned our case during the key debate on whether the Commons was going to be able to vote to deny a ‘No Deal’ Brexit.
You can see the context of the debate and his mention of the case on this link>>> https://youtu.be/DMZaDK2d4xk(10 min either side is left in for context
The point at which he references us is at 11:47 in this video and at 15:06:12 in the original https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/a91e27e8-e525-4703-aaeb-036189f4caed )
If you watch Speaker Bercow’s reactions and expressions and listen carefully to his reply you may feel, as I do, that he is trying to be evasive and deceptive.  My guess is that while he had been advised that the Bill required “Queen’s Consent” he had then decided to ignore that advice because it would mean that the Government could refuse to give that “Consent” and the Bill which he supported would then fail. 
As Bercow is a prime example, of a MP who is trying to use every trick in the book to pervent Brexit, that would come as no surprise!
The question for Speaker Bercow was quite simple and ‘binary’.  Either the Royal Prerogative was affected by the Bill (in which case “Queen’s Consent” was required) or Royal Prerogative wasn’t affected (in which case no “Queen’s Consent” was required)!
Speaker Bercow ruled that there was no effect on the Royal Prerogative which means that he ruled that no extensions to the Article 50 Notice have not been agreed under the Royal Prerogative.  We of course argued this point in our “Defend Brexit” case but Lord Justice Hickinbottom ruled both that the Royal Prerogative did apply and also was used and so he claimed that our case (and the ruling of Speaker Bercow!) was “Totally Without Merit”!
Mr Justice Spencer on the other hand claimed that our case was “Totally Without Merit” because the extension was not under the Royal Prerogative but instead was under the Statutory Instrument (passed under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018) which changed the “Exit Day” from 29thMarch! 
So here we have it! EITHER Lord Justice Hickinbottom is right and the extensions were made under Royal Prerogative and so Speaker Bercow’s ruling is “Totally Without Merit”; OR Mr Justice Spencer is right and the Brexit date was changed by statutory instrument and the Royal Prerogative has been excluded; OR we are right and the Royal Prerogative has been excluded and there was no Act of Parliament empowering an extension and so we automatically left on the 29th March!
In a Learned Article on the LSE website Robert Craig (who is a part-time lecturer in Public Law at LSE and is currently pursuing a PhD at Bristol University considering the role of the Royal Prerogative in the modern UK constitution) argues as follows:-
“… the reason why Queen’s Consent was not needed for EUNoWA (EU Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017) was arguably because the Supreme Court ruling meant that prerogative could not logically be affected by conferring a power to notify under Article 50. It is by no means clear that triggering the process and extending the process are legally equivalent just because they are encompassed in the same Treaty Article. They are not even in the same subsection. Notification was done under Article 50(2). Extensions are done under Article 50(3).

Indeed this exact, and crucial, distinction has very recently been explicitly confirmed by Lord Justice Hickinbottom in rejecting the English Democrats’ judicial review application on 19 August 2019. It must be noted that permission appeal decisions do not have the same status as formal Court of Appeal judgments, but it is the most recent and best evidence we have of the what the law is. Hickinbottom LJ drew a sharp legal distinction between the Miller case situation of triggering the Article 50 process and the quite different legal scenario of extending the Article 50 process.

In short, international agreements (including agreements as to extensions of time under article 50(3) are matters for the Government in the exercise of prerogative powers and although such powers can be displaced by Parliament this case is distinguishable from [Miller] because Parliament, in its various interventions into the withdrawal process or otherwise, has not arguably displaced those prerogative powers in respect of an extension of time under article 50(3). Indeed, Parliament has consistently made clear in the 2017 [EUNoWA] and 2018 Acts [European Union Withdrawal Act 2018], and especially clearly in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019, that timing of withdrawal (including agreeing extensions to the withdrawal date under article 50) was and is a matter for the Government.

Hickinbottom LJ must be right. This decision can only be seen as highly persuasive that the legal basis for the power to extend the Article 50 process is a matter of prerogative power.

Incidentally, this judgment is also relevant to one possible reading of the Speaker’s ruling. EUNoWA conferred the power on the Government to notify the EU of the intention of the UK to leave the EU. It said nothing about extensions.

1. Power to notify withdrawal from the EU

The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU. 2.

On one reading of the Speaker’s ruling, it might be thought that EUNoWA was being interpreted as conferring a general statutory power on the government to notify and the power to extend. Even taken in isolation, this would be a startling reading of EUNoWA because the wording of EUNoWA says nothing about extensions – it only mentions notification. However startling that may be as one possible reading, as a matter of law the proposition that EUNoWA confers the power to extend is now untenable after the decision of Hickinbottom LJ.”
(The original and full article can be found here>>>

Proponents of the new Bill to stop No Deal face a significant dilemma over Queen’s Consent

blogs.lse.ac.uk/Brexit/2019/09/02/proponents-of-the-new-bill-to-stop-no-deal-face-a-significant-dilemma-over-queens-consent/)
In any case I respectfully suggest to both Judges that Speaker Bercow’s ruling is either “Totally Without Merit” or that they were both totally wrong to make such a ruling in our case as it clearly had considerable merit!

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER

LABOUR’S DEVIOUS DAN JARVIS AND HIS DODGY DEVOLUTION DOSSIER
In the best Blairite traditions, the EU Remainiac, Dan Jarvis, who ironically is the MP for the strongly Leave constituency, Barnsley Central, got his debate on Yorkshire devolution last Wednesday afternoon in the Westminster Hall annex to Parliament.  Here is a link to the record of that debate from Hansard >>>
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-01-09/debates/A258E72B-52AF-4DC3-9513-3AE8AF89AF03/YorkshireDevolution
It is lucky for Dan Jarvis that the debate took place in Westminster Hall rather than on the floor of the House of Commons, as then he might be in trouble for misleading the House of Commons. 
In the debate he said:-
“Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us”
“My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.”
“Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?”
“They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored”
“I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire.”
Mr Jarvis is referring not to a “democratic” vote, like a referendum or an election, but to what would normally be called a consultation.  (Here is a link to a report on this >>>http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2017-12-21/barnsley-and-doncaster-voters-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-one-yorkshire-devolution-plan/).  This consultation only offered two options, neither of which were very attractive to any patriots.  The options were a South Yorkshire Region, based around Sheffield, or alternatively a “One Yorkshire” Region.
Since the last thing that Barnsley and Doncaster people want is to be dominated politically by Sheffield it is not surprising that many of them voted for their county to be the devolved body. 
Even so out of a total electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber region of 3,835.075 only 41,952 “votes” have now been made for “One Yorkshire” devolution. 
In Barnsley, 40,280 residents took part in the “community poll” – that’s 22.4% of the electorate. Of those, 34,015 (84.9%) chose “One Yorkshire”, while 6,064 (15.1%) opted for Sheffield City Region.
Meanwhile in Doncaster, 45,470 residents voted – a turnout of 20.1%. Of those, 38,551 (84.7%) came out in favour of “One Yorkshire”, with only 6,685 (14.7%) preferring “Sheffield City Region”.
For Mr Jarvis to talk about 85% as if that was of the whole electorate and to make remarks about democracy, can only be sensibly described as disingenuous and deceitful.  The total number of people who participated in the consultation was only 85,750, the total number people who voted for “One Yorkshire” devolution was 72,566.  That is not only less than 85% of the consultations but also is just over 1% of the electorate of Yorkshire and Humberside!
It is also interesting, when considering Dan Jarvis’ deviousness and disingenuousness, to pick up the way he jumps from talking about the county of Yorkshire, which even so is not all the historic county of Yorkshire to “Yorkshire and the Humber”.  Yorkshire and the Humber is of course the name of the EU “Region” which includes North Lincolnshire, but does not include, for example, Middlesbrough. 
In doing this he, of course, gives his game away.  He as discussed in the previous article on this blog, is not a patriot or even a Yorkshire nationalist but is a “Europeanist” or Europhile who is looking at ways to try to break up the integrity of not only the UK, but also England, in continuing to push for Regionalisation, as per the EU’s Regionalisation project. 
Mr Jarvis not only has no care for our Nation in pursuing this project, but also he would appear not to even care for his own constituents in Barnsley Central, since if England was in fact effectively Regionalised there would be every chance that the politicians of each “Region” would be wanting to hang onto all the tax take of their “Region” and this would be very likely to mean that there would be a dramatic reduction in the Government subsidy to people in Yorkshire. 
Again Mr Jarvis is deceitful in his use of the statistics as to what way Yorkshire stands on the level of subsidy, since he quotes a comparison to UK subsidies and thus the vastly inflated subsidies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett Formula rather than looking at the average level of Government spending across England only.
The other thing about Mr Jarvis’ focus on devolution for Yorkshire and Humber is that he and his other “Europeanists” do not seem to have learnt from the fiasco of their attempt to try and entrench Regional Assemblies in “Yorkshire” and in the “North East”.  It was the very fact that the proposed regionalisation for Yorkshire was not the traditional county but instead the EU Region of Yorkshire and the Humber which led to the proposal for Yorkshire and the Humber being so unpopular that John Prescott did not even try to have a referendum there, but instead went for the only “Region” where he thought he had any chance, which was the “North East”.  Even then his proposal utterly flopped at the ballot box – getting only 29% support!
As it says in Proverbs, Chapter 26, Verse 11:- “As a dog that returns to his vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly”.  So can we say to devious Dan “Ay up lad! Sup up!?”
Here are all the comments which Mr Jarvis said in the debate which I found to be “interesting”. 
What do you think? 
Here they are the extracts from his comments:-  “All of us here have a responsibility to work co-operatively together to best serve the interests of our region. 
A constructive way forward for a future devolved settlement for Yorkshire
people of Barnsley and Doncaster made their voices heard. Some 85% voted in favour of a wider Yorkshire deal, 
The marching orders are thus: go back to the Government and get the deal the people want.
It is absolutely right that we listen to what the people have told us.
The status quo is not delivering. People are disillusioned, and they have a right to feel that way.
Not only do the people of Yorkshire receive an income that is 80% of the national average, but they also receive £300 per head less in terms of public spending, 
Secretary of the State to send the strongest signal of intent to the north of England that they are listening to what people are saying, and are prepared to make decisions that best serve those people’s interests.
This Friday in York, the coalition of the willing—leaders from across our area—will meet to reaffirm their support for the wider Yorkshire proposal.
I do understand why people in our region are disillusioned and angry.
We need a new economic and political settlement that involves genuine devolution of political and economic power that will spread prosperity and opportunity to towns and counties of all regions.
The solution must be as ambitious as the challenge is profound. That is why I believe that a wider Yorkshire deal is the way forward. By working together across the whole of our county and, like in the west midlands, not being confined to just one city, we would have the collective clout and the brand reputation to co-operate and compete not only with other parts of the UK, but with other parts of the world.
My constituents were very clear about what they were voting for—a wider Yorkshire deal—because they believed that that would be in their economic interests.
Could not have agreed more. Both nationally and internationally, a single Mayor would provide the single voice required to unlock the much-needed new investment. That is critically required in areas such as our transport system.
A wider Yorkshire combined authority directing investment decisions and using its purchasing power to negotiate
Devolution is about more than just transport infrastructure. It is about accessing funding for skills and training, building affordable homes, and preserving our unique culture, countryside and heritage by working together, harnessing our talents, combining our energies and maximising our influence, all of which is in reach.
The sense of place, community and belonging that comes from identifying with Yorkshire is, in many ways, our greatest asset. 
That will take more time, so first we need an interim solution not only to preserve the goal of a wider Yorkshire deal,
Indeed, if we are prepared to ignore an 85% majority, what does that say about the state of our democracy?
They were very clear in what they said, and it would be wrong for them to be ignored, not least because the Secretary of State was right when he told the Local Government Association that the driving force behind devolution is the desire to bring decision making to a more local level. 
This is not a political argument, in the sense that there is cross-party support.
As part of the coalition of the willing, some people have said to me that we should press for a wider Yorkshire settlement earlier than 2020,
I do not say for one moment that Yorkshire and the Humber should be a special case, but I do believe—I make no apologies for stating it in these terms—that it is a special place. There is something special about what John Sentamu described this morning as God’s own county.  There is a huge strength in our diversity. If we could create an arrangement that brought together 5.3 million people into an economy bigger than 11 EU nations, we would truly be a force to be reckoned with, not just in this country but around the world. In the far east—China, Japan or wherever—people know about Yorkshire. It means something to them, and it means something to us. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place an arrangement that could be really meaningful for the people we represent, and I very much hope that we will not miss out.
Where there is political will to make changes, it should be entirely possible to do so”.