Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THIS MORNING, THE Supreme Court in the UK ruled triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty must be put before Parliament before Brexit can happen.
Supreme Court president, Lord David Neuberger, said that leaving the EU would fundamentally change the UK’s constitution.
He said that it is something which “renders it impermissible for the government to withdraw from the EU Treaties without prior Parliamentary authority”.
What does this mean?
As with passing a bill here in Ireland, it often takes weeks, or months, for a bill to be go from initial debate stage to becoming approved and enshrined in law.
Now that Theresa May’s government will have to go to House of Commons to approve Brexit, she will need the support of all of her Conservative majority to ensure that it goes through the house as quickly as possible.
While a large number of Conservative MPs advocated to leave the EU, it is likely that members from all parties who advocated to remain – including pro-remain Conservatives, Labour, and the Scottish National Party – will table amendments to the motions and bills to delay its passage through Parliament.
It will give MPs from across the house a chance to debate the issues before the UK begins its negotiations with the EU on leaving.
It is expected that the government will be forced to divulge more details on how it will conduct these negotiations through a parliamentary debate, and that will then be the subject of fierce debate.
After it clears the House of Commons, it will have to go through the House of Lords where the government has no clear majority.
While it will have to go before Parliament in Westminster, the Conservative government will not have to consult with devolved assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland before it acts to leave the EU.
This is despite the fact that both the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.
This is likely to be a relief to the government, as gaining approval from these assemblies – particularly the current dissolved Northern assembly – would be particularly tricky.
Time is short to meet May’s target of triggering Article 50 by the end of March, but Downing Street has already indicated that date is still the target.
A statement from the Prime Minister said: “The government will deliver on their verdict – triggering Article 50, as planned, by the end of March. Today’s ruling does not change that”.
Any debate, then, will need to happen soon.
Any chance Brexit might not happen?
Almost certainly not.
The British people did vote to leave the EU and, despite many of their views and convictions on the matter, an MP voting to block Brexit in a parliamentary vote would be unprecedented.
The Conservative government has filled its senior positions with MPs who campaigned to leave the EU, such as Boris Johnson.
The leader of the opposition, Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn, has said he will order all Labour MPs to vote in favour of triggering article 50.
He has said he will use the parliamentary debate to prevent the Conservatives ruling the EU negotiations.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Some serious questions to be answered here.
He looks as if he has the mother of all hangovers.
Think he has cystic fibrosis. I remember around his trial the were saying he had severe health issues
@Brown Cows the Journal appears as pro-Nationalist because the media in this country are so blatantly biased against the Nationalist agenda/community in general.
That’s British justice for you!!!
This quote from his solicitor in court today seems to have been left out
from this article.
“Mr Shivers has been through a terrible ordeal whereby he has been repeatedly assaulted /abused whilst in prison and in hospital where he is continuously under armed guard.”
Fair play Sean
How are those allegations newsworthy on their own merit?
Cliff.
This article is not a complete guide to the trial. It is only one page long.
I have no doubt that if this happened in an English court that people there would be forced to resign. The North is still a bit of a Justice jungle.
A real miscarriage of justice was adverted here.
So your last (now deleted) comment was based on nothing.
Let me get this right, the defence didn’t argue that their client is actually innocent and didn’t burn out the car used by the killers but that the judge said something he shouldn’t have and the prosecution should not have prosecuted it as a ‘joint enterprise’ case but instead a ‘secondary party’ case? Does anybody every get off because they are actually innocent or is it all technicalities? No where in the artical did I read that the defence said their client didn’t do it
It is an article, not a legal brief.
Throughout the case they argued that he was innocent, and that their was no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, there still isn’t. There would have been a stronger case linking him to the shooting of JFK.
Typical Nationalist responses so far but no surprise which normally follows on from such articles. Have the Journal given up today with their ‘Fleg’ articles? Haven’t seen any so far!
I’m presuming you missed this article today: http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-violence-arrests-flag-754696-Jan2013/
How Now Brown Cow in Cold Home Troll Hole.?
My comment was deleted yet again and this one had three likes, so it wasn’t an error which proved my point which you read before deleting it. Shaping the news my backside, setting your own agenda Journal
What’s ‘typical nationalist responses’?
shut up, browns cows
Id disagree with ‘typical nationalist responses’ my comments have been pulled,i cant comment on certain articles and the SF/CNN thread is full of anti SF westbrit comments.
Should the title not say “Shivers wins right to appeal”, only saying. It’s a bit misleading at a quick glance .
as far as im aware from reading the article on bbc his conviction has been quashed and hes in custody pending a decision on whether the DPP seeks a retrial. So hes on remand at the minute
Cheers
no prob!
Why would he get compensation? It was a procedural error on the part of the judge, not a conspiracy to imprison an innocent man.
There was many questions over the evidence gathered and its reliability throughout the case as well. If there was even the slightest piece of credible evidence that Shivers had anything to do with this, then the need for technical mishaps would never arisen. There wasn’t any evidence of any kind. That is the point here.
The Prosecution had to know that this case was not going to stand. Countless legal precedents and standards of evidence had to be ignored to stop the case from collapsing the first time.
It is no different than them building a case against you Cliff for these attacks.
Of course the defence would attack the evidence, that’s their job. The jury decided the evidence was credible.
The problem was purely procedural. Read the article again.
Brown Cow isnt that bad!
have your say