musketjr wrote:Dolan wrote:again, lazy assumptions. the uk's constitution is partly written, partly unwritten, and therefore dispersed through various materials. there was no provision to follow, hence the case.
If you search the news this is not a new topic. The UK govt knew about this risk ever since it came to power. They just chose to go with the prerogative story, because it was the path that involved Parliament the least, and thus avoided opening a can of worms (debates, conditions set by MPs on negotiations, a lot of political posturing by MPs wanting to capitalise on such debates etc).
But I think it was an irresponsible way of dealing with the fact that at no point in this procedure did May have a mandate voted by Parliament. How far can you go in the UK changing laws without any mandate to do so from Parliament? You think you could go far just based on the royal prerogative?
I know there have been debates among law specialists, arguing that this is a matter of dealing with treaties, which is part of HM govt's prerogative, that needn't involve Parliament.
At one point, someone even floated this idea that the UK could simply repeal the ECA 72, which would end, de facto and de jure, all EU ascendancy over the UK in matters of legislation. It would be a unilateral act of leaving the EU, which in diplomacy is considered an unfriendly method of leaving a regional integration organisation (such as the EU). And it wouldn't cancel obligations arising from EU treaties on which UK is a signatory. It could create a weird situation in which the UK wouldn't be able to access the Common market, UK citizens wouldn't have any freedom of movement in the EU, but the UK govt would still be under the obligation to make payments to the EU budget. So, this couldn't be a workable solution.
The only way the ECA 72 could be repealed in advance is if the law enacted provided for a 2-year moratorium, to allow for the government to negotiate Brexit by withdrawing from the relevant treaties first.