Looks Like Eu Import Prices Will Be Rising Then.

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38100561
One of the reasons we voted brexit is because of thes free movement fiasco so we ain't going to give in on that just for access to the "free" market.

[EDDIE51]

^^^ Here you are, in case you think I made it up!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-theresa-may-english-civil-war-constitution-lawyer-a7395586.html
Here is another link I know some of you do not trust 'The Indi'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/government-cannot-trigger-brexit-without-mps-backing-court-told-article-50

[mushroom25]

//That was what triggered the complaint to the Law Lords! //

the complaint to the law lords was brought by Gina Miller and Deir Tozetti Dos Santos, neither of whom (last time I checked) have any connection with the cabinet, the conservative party or indeed parliament.

[EDDIE51]

^ Yes correct, it matters not at all who instigated it, it was illegal.
A member of government can not start a lawsuit against themselves. It needed an independent person to do on their behalf.

[Zacs-Master]

Just a shame it took members of the public to point out that the government were about to act illegally. Don't give you a lot a faith do it?

[EDDIE51]

As I said earlier, I am sure Teresa May actually intended to to instigate A50 by the illegal means of' The Royal Prerogative' . She has been 'set up to fail' at getting A50 passed and that would have been a neat way to do it! After it was passed it would inevitably been ruled illegal by the exact same rule that demanded Parliament must have the chance to debate it. Once ruled illegal it would have had to be withdrawn , which I am sure was the intention.
They would get May 'off the hook' without it being deemed her fault, and allow her to resign with a huge ex prime ministers pension and allowances.

[mushroom25]

//I am sure Teresa May actually intended to to instigate A50 by the illegal means of' The Royal Prerogative' //

was that a poor choice of words, Eddie, or did you intend readers to assume that the Royal Prerogative itself was illegal?

[EDDIE51]

Royal Prerogative is NOT illegal, it just can't be used to introduce any measure that alters the rights of the UK and it's citizens. Brexit would alter the rights of the UK citizens, it would cancel our right to travel, work and live anywhere in the EU with no restriction whatsoever.
Yes, once out we can 'make arrangements' for access to the EU but it would no longer be an absolute unrestricted 'Right' . It is the ending of that right that caused the law lords to rule that Brexit MUST be fully debated in parliment. The Law Lords ruling was not about Brexit specifically, it was wider than that, it was about losing what had been the 'Right' of every UK citizen!
Any bill that means UK citizens rights are lost or restricted MUST be fully debated! I can't see how anyone can disagree with that !

[New Judge]

"it would cancel our right to travel, work and live anywhere in the EU with no restriction whatsoever. "

Just as a point of pedantry, Eddie, UK citizens do not have the unrestricted right to travel across the EU that their "Schengen Area" counterparts enjoy. To enter another EU country from the UK (and vice versa) a passport (or identity card in the case of those arriving here) must be produced. No passport, no entry. That's not, by my pedantic definition, "unrestricted". Of course, once in the Schengen area, UK citizens, along with those from anywhere else in the world, can travel across it without any restrictions or checks whatsoever.

[EDDIE51]

Point taken NJ, but it still means Brexit would have cancelled that right!

[mushroom25]

//Any bill that means UK citizens rights are lost or restricted MUST be fully debated!//

Tony Benn raised just this point in the 1990s when he argued for the abolition of the Royal Prerogative. The counter argument won the day - that the breadth of prerogative powers was such that to require full debate in all cases would overwhelm the day to day functioning of parliament and would be entirely impractical.

[Old_Geezer]

They will be well aware that the main driver for getting out was to regain sovereignty, and a major part of that was control of our national borders; so it is obvious that issue is not on the table for discussion. I don't think that individual politicians can speak for the negotiators anyway so I don't pay too much heed to more sabre rattling from someone who is likely to have little involvement.

But as said, if the EU is determined to cut off it's nose in order to spite it's face; then so be it. It would be unfortunate for both sides, but for us a price worth bearing in the short term until trade elsewhere makes up for any reduction to the Single Market caused by tariffs.

[Old_Geezer]

More of a risky privilege than a right, to allow folk to wander wherever they want. Loss of dodgy privileges should need no discussion.