BREXIT - e adesso?

[Logomaco]

Will Brexit Spark a Constitutional Crisis in the U.K.? Q&A


July 11, 2016 — 1:00 AM CEST Updated on July 11, 2016 — 8:02 AM CEST


Britain’s shock referendum result has sparked a legal debate about who has the right to initiate the process of taking Britain out of the EU -- the Prime Minister or the U.K. Parliament?
The debate cuts to the core of what Brexit will look like, raises legal questions that could dog the process for years and could play a role in deciding whether Brexit happens at all. If the matter isn’t resolved, it could lead to a constitutional crisis.
We try to untangle some of the arguments.

What legal standing does the referendum result have?

It is non-binding. The vote was an “advisory” referendum designed to recommend a particular course of action to the U.K. government. Such votes -- where an issue is put directly to the electorate -- are rare in the U.K. because of the guiding principle that sovereignty rests with Parliament.
So just because the U.K. voted to leave the EU, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen.
Why does Parliament matter if the people have already spoken?

Some parliaments matter more than others, but Britain’s is a special case. It is the central pillar of Britain’s political system and, since 1689, has been “sovereign,” meaning that -- in theory -- it has the right to create or abolish any law.
Its supremacy, however, has been chipped away. The 1972 European Communities Act, which brought the U.K. into the EU, granted EU law primacy over many areas.

There is also what’s known as the royal prerogative. Powers held by the Crown from medieval times have passed over time to the executive branch -- giving the prime minister the authority to act without the backing of Parliament in the conduct of foreign affairs.



What does the Prime Minister say?

His lawyers and lieutenants have already said that invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is up to the Prime Minister to decide. Triggering Article 50 starts a two-year countdown after which the U.K. would leave the EU.
Oliver Letwin, the minister overseeing the preparation for Brexit negotiations, told the foreign affairs committee in Parliament on July 5 that while there were “conflicting views,” government lawyers had advised him that “it is clearly” the prerogative of the prime minister rather than parliament to trigger the exit mechanism.
He added, however, that this was “an entirely academic issue” because the involvement of Parliament would be needed down the line to repeal or “substantially amend” the European Communities Act, or ECA.
So is that it?

Not so fast, say Parliament’s defenders. Bringing in lawmakers to repeal or amend the ECA is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted because Article 50 would already have been triggered at that point.
Eminent jurists such as David Pannick and Geoffrey Robertson argue that the very fabric of U.K.’s constitutional monarchy is based on Parliament. On a matter this monumental, Parliament -- and not the prime minister -- should have the final say on when and whether Article 50 gets triggered.
They cite the first paragraph of Article 50, which specifies that a country’s decision to leave must be made “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” So a premier acting alone would violate this basic tenet, they argue.
Robertson was unequivocal: “It’s the right of MPs alone to make or break laws, and the peers to block them. So there’s no force whatsoever in the referendum result. It’s entirely for MPs to decide.”
If the government flies solo, it should expect this line of attack from Mishcon de Reya, one of London’s biggest law firms, which has been hired by a group of business clients to mount a legal offensive against Brexit. Lawyers are also grouping together to pressure the government, with more than 1,000 signing a letter urging the government to give lawmakers a free vote.
Does Parliament actually oppose Brexit?

Not right now. While almost three-quarters of lawmakers backed the Remain campaign, the leaders of all the main parties have pledged to respect the will of the people. Voting against the will of the people might not be the smartest thing for lawmakers who hope to get reelected one day.
So why do these differences matter?

The debate might look abstract, but the tensions between the Prime Minister and Parliament have the potential to blow up into a constitutional crisis.
It’s true that everyone is promising to respect the will of the people right now. But what if voters change their minds? What if the U.K. falls into a deep recession? What if the next prime minister calls a snap election and there’s a swell in support for lawmakers arguing for a rethink of the referendum?
In that situation, the legal implications of who approves what and when could become very important and destabilizing for markets.
Can the Scottish Parliament block Brexit?

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she’s examining this.
One of the conventions that has emerged since Scotland got its own assembly in 1998 is that the U.K. Parliament won’t legislate on Scottish matters without the consent of the government in Edinburgh. This is known at the Sewel Convention.
As repealing EU law would also cancel huge swathes of the legislation that governs Scotland, the regional assembly could choose to withhold consent from a decision to trigger Article 50.
Of course, the Parliament in Westminster is sovereign and can ultimately choose to override Scottish objections. But politically, it would be a very risky path to take.
What’s the conclusion?

Britain doesn’t have a codified constitution, so there’s no clear answer. The politics will be complicated by the fact that the next prime minister heading the negotiations won’t have been elected directly by the people, unless Theresa May or Andrea Leadsom call snap elections.
If it ends up in the courts, a legal battle over triggering Article 50 could become the most important constitutional lawsuit ever decided, said Jeff King, a professor of law at University College London.
"It’s quintessentially a legal question and ultimately for an authoritative ruling you can only look to the courts on that.”



Will Brexit Spark a Constitutional Crisis in the U.K.? Q&A - Bloomberg

[agaragar]

Dio Bono

[Logomaco]

Britain’s New Undiplomatic Top Diplomat


by Stephen Lendman


New UK Prime Minister Theresa May made key ministerial changes straightaway in office.


Notably she named former London mayor/leading Brexiteer proponent Boris Johnson as foreign minister, shifting incumbent Philip Hammond to finance ministerial duties.


David Cameron’s chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne was sacked, earlier seen as the favorite for Tory leadership, now out of government entirely.


Johnson is no stranger to controversy. Earlier he called Obama “the part-Kenyan president.” He complained about him allegedly removing a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office, attributing it to an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”


He criticized Obama for pressuring Brits to stay in the EU, calling his meddling “outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy,” adding:


“In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU's federalizing structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves.”


“That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty (sic). They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty (sic), too.”


“For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy (sic) - it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do. It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical.”


Last year, Johnson blasted Hillary Clinton, comparing her to Lady Macbeth. During her 2008 presidential campaign, he said “(s)he’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”


He recently said “(t)he only reason (he) wouldn’t visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”


Last year he called Vladimir Putin “a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.” Expect no improvement in UK/Russia relations.


These and other blunt comments hardly make good diplomacy. It remains to be seen how Johnson behaves as foreign minister.


Calling himself a One-Nation Conservative, he was Tory London mayor from May 2008 - May 2012, an MP from June 2001 - June 2008, then again since May 2015.


A leading Eurosceptic, he said Brexit won’t deny Britain access to European markets. “I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe and always will. be,” he stressed.


One critic called him “genial to all…malicious towards most…with a light giggle…knows how to put the boot in.”


Does his appointment mean May intends sticking by her saying “Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.”


Don’t bet on it. Chances for Brexit are virtually nil because US, UK and EU monied interests won’t tolerate it.


Politicians notoriously say one thing and do another. Expect public opinion to be manipulated to oppose what’s now favored.


Britain will remain in the EU, perhaps with concessions granted acceptable to other members.



https://sjlendman.blogspot.it/

[SMALLVILLE]

Tutti scritti da te questi articoli ?

[Logomaco]

Brexit potrebbe essere lo shock di cui l’Europa aveva bisogno - Il Sole 24 ORE

[Logomaco]

George Soros: Regret over Brexit provides hope for the EU

Published: July 11, 2016 7:48 a.m. ET




Until the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the refugee crisis was the greatest problem Europe faced. Indeed, that crisis played a critical role in bringing about the greater calamity of Brexit.
The vote for Brexit was a great shock; the morning after the vote, the disintegration of the European Union seemed practically inevitable. Brewing crises in other EU countries, especially Italy, deepened the dark forecast for the EU’s survival.
But as the initial shock of the British referendum wears off, something unexpected is happening: The tragedy no longer looks like a fait accompli. Many British voters have started to feel a degree of “buyer’s remorse” as the hypothetical becomes real. Sterling has plunged. Another Scottish referendum has become highly likely. The erstwhile leaders of the “Leave” campaign have engaged in a peculiar bout of internecine self-destruction, and some of their followers have started to glimpse the bleak future that both the country and they personally face. A sign of the shift in public opinion has been a campaign, supported by more than four million people so far, to petition Parliament to hold a second referendum.

Just as Brexit was a negative surprise, the spontaneous response to it is a positive one. People on both sides of the cause — most important, those who didn’t even vote (particularly young people under 35) — have become mobilized. This is the kind of grassroots involvement that the EU has never been able to generate.
The post-referendum turmoil has highlighted for people in Britain just what they stand to lose by leaving the EU. If this sentiment spreads to the rest of Europe, what seemed like the inevitable disintegration of the EU could be instead creating positive momentum for a stronger and better Europe.
The process could start in Britain. The popular vote can’t be reversed but a signature-collecting campaign could transform the political landscape by revealing a newfound enthusiasm for EU membership. This approach could then be replicated in the rest of the European Union, creating a movement to save the EU by profoundly restructuring it. I am convinced that as the consequences of Brexit unfold in the months ahead, more and more people will be eager to join this movement.
What the EU must not do is penalize British voters while ignoring their legitimate concerns about the deficiencies of the Union. European leaders should recognize their own mistakes and acknowledge the democratic deficit in the current institutional arrangements. Rather than treating Brexit as the negotiation of a divorce, they should seize the opportunity to reinvent the EU, making it the kind of club that the U.K. and others at risk of exit want to join.
If disaffected voters in France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Poland and everywhere else see the EU benefitting their lives, the EU will emerge stronger. If not, it will fall apart faster than leaders and citizens currently realize.
The next trouble spot is Italy, which is facing a banking crisis and a referendum in October. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is caught in a “Catch-22” situation: If he cannot resolve the banking crisis in time, he will lose the referendum. That could bring to power the Five Star Movement, a partner of the pro-Brexit U.K. Independence Party in the European Parliament. To find a solution, Renzi needs the assistance of the European authorities, but they are too slow and inflexible.



Europe’s leaders must recognize that the EU is on the verge of collapse. Instead of blaming one another, they should pull together and adopt exceptional measures.
First, a clear distinction must be drawn between membership of the EU and of the eurozone. Those fortunate countries that are not members of the eurozone should not face discrimination. If the eurozone wants to be more closely integrated, as it should be, it needs to have its own treasury and budget, to serve as a fiscal authority alongside its monetary authority, the European Central Bank.
Second, the EU should put its excellent and largely untapped credit to use. Leaders would be acting irresponsibly if they failed to employ the EU’s borrowing capacity when its very existence is at stake.
Third, the EU must strengthen its defenses to protect itself from its external enemies, who are liable to take advantage of its current weakness. The EU’s greatest asset is Ukraine, whose citizens are willing to die in defense of their country. By defending themselves, they are also defending the EU — rare in Europe nowadays. Ukraine is fortunate to have a new government that is more determined and more likely to deliver the reforms for which both its citizens and its outside supporters have been clamoring. But the EU and its member states are not providing the support that Ukraine deserves (the US is much more supportive).
Fourth, the EU’s plans for dealing with the refugee crisis need to be thoroughly revised. They are riddled with misconceptions and inconsistencies that render them ineffective. They are woefully underfunded. And they use coercive measures that generate resistance. I have proposed a detailed remedy for these problemselsewhere.
If the EU makes progress along these lines, it will become an organization to which people will want to belong. At that point, treaty change, and further integration, will once again become possible.
If Europe’s leaders fail to act, those who want to save the EU in order to reinvent it should follow the lead of the young activists in Britain. Now more than ever, the EU’s defenders must find ways to make their influence felt.



George Soros: Regret over Brexit provides hope for the EU - MarketWatch

[Conte Oliver]

Una domanda mi sorge spontanea; come lo perde?
Perché escludendo un nuovo referendum sponsorizzato dal governo britannico, le opzioni rimamenti sono la rivolta armata o l'invasione straniera.

quello che tu escludi (un referendum) io l’ho do quasi per certo

in UK la democrazia è una cosa seria, non permettere agli scozzesi di potersi esprimere se vogliono restare negli UK fuori dagli UE sarebbe una imposizione inaccettabile per chiunque crede nella democrazia stessa

[Halberdier]

quello che tu escludi (un referendum) io l’ho do quasi per certo
in UK la democrazia è una cosa seria, non permettere agli scozzesi di potersi esprimere se vogliono restare negli UK fuori dagli UE sarebbe una imposizione inaccettabile per chiunque crede nella democrazia stessa

Per questo Cameron l'ha organizzato nel 2014, così come ha organizzato quello sull'UE quest'anno. Due cose che in praticamente nessun Paese definibile come democratico sono state finora permesse per situazioni paragonabili. Non parliamo poi dell'UE stessa, che guarda i referendum come il diavolo l'acqua santa.

Ma alla fine, se non rifanno un referendum, l'UE sosterrà una rivolta armata scozzese o un'invasione militare?

[Conte Oliver]

Per questo Cameron l'ha organizzato nel 2014, così come ha organizzato quello sull'UE quest'anno. Due cose che in praticamente nessun Paese definibile come democratico sono state finora permesse per situazioni paragonabili. Non parliamo poi dell'UE stessa, che guarda i referendum come il diavolo l'acqua santa.

Ma alla fine, se non rifanno un referendum, l'UE sosterrà una rivolta armata scozzese o un'invasione militare?

in Scozia la pensano diversamente
Es sei undenkbar, dass das Parlament in London eine erneute Volksbefragung blockieren würde, sollte das schottische Regionalparlament dafür stimmen.

Großbritannien: So will May Schottlands Exit vom Brexit verhindern - DIE WELT

[Halberdier]

in Scozia la pensano diversamente
Es sei undenkbar, dass das Parlament in London eine erneute Volksbefragung blockieren würde, sollte das schottische Regionalparlament dafür stimmen.

Großbritannien: So will May Schottlands Exit vom Brexit verhindern - DIE WELT

Ok.
Allora, senza referendum ci sarà l'invasione o il sostegno ad una rivolta armata?