Ursula von der Leyen was nominated by the European Council at the Council meeting held on 30 June - previous post 3 July 2019. See HERE for background to the nomination.
In
her speech (16 July) to the European Parliament, Von der Leyen commented about Brexit -
"I cannot talk about Europe without talking about our friends from the United Kingdom. For the very first time in 2016 a Member State decided to leave the European Union. This is a serious decision. We regret it, but we respect it. Since then, together with the current government of the United Kingdom, the European Union has worked hard to organise the orderly departure of the United Kingdom.
The Withdrawal Agreement concluded with the government of the United Kingdom provides certainty where Brexit created uncertainty: in preserving the rights of citizens and in preserving peace and stability on the island of Ireland. These two priorities are mine, too.
However, I stand ready for a further extension of the withdrawal date, should more time be required for a good reason. In any case, the United Kingdom will remain our ally, our partner and our friend."
The next stage is for EU countries to propose commissioners, in cooperation with the new Commission president. The commissioners-designate will be examined by the parliamentary committees responsible for their proposed portfolios before MEPs vote on whether to approve the entire Commission in plenary. The new European Commission should take office on 1 November.
Turning to UK domestic politics, it is reported that both candidates for the Conservative Party leadership have indicated outright rejection of the proposed "backstop" included in the withdrawal agreement. The Guardian 16 July reports that "if the next prime minister goes to Brussels with such a proposal, he will be told in “no uncertain terms” that it amounts to a declaration of no deal."
"No deal" appears to be the direction in which UK politics is heading. A "no deal" Brexit will take place in 106 days time - on 31 October 2019 unless either (a) a withdrawal agreement is accepted or (b) there is a further time extension or (c) Brexit is cancelled.
Parliament will be in recess from 25 July until 3 September. This is highly unsatisfactory given that a new Prime Minister will be appointed once the results of the Conservative Party leadership election are known. The winner is likely to be announced on 23 July. Theresa May will probably attend Parliament for the last time as Prime Minister on 24 July. It is then expected that HM The Queen will appoint a new Prime Minister the same day - The Telegraph 16 July
Although legislation requires a withdrawal agreement to be approved by the House of Commons, there is no legislation in place to prevent a "no deal" Brexit. In March, the House of Commons rejected "no deal" by a vote of 321 to 278 but that does not amount to legislation and was not binding on the government.
Boris Johnson has refused to rule out the idea of proroguing ("closing down") Parliament in order to prevent it stopping a no deal Brexit - post 12 June 2019.
The textbooks tell us that the power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the Crown and the power is exercised by HM The Queen on the advice of the Privy Council. In practice, that has meant that the Queen acts on the Prime Minister's "advice" which she is bound by convention to accept.
If the future Prime Minister attempts to prorogue Parliament it is likely that judicial review will be applied for. Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has threatened to do so - UK in a Changing Europe 15 July 2019. Gina Miller, the successful litigant in the Article 50 case, has instructed solicitors to write to Boris Johnson and the Attorney-General - see the announcement by Mishcon de Reya.
On orthodox constitutional law principles, the prospects of success in such litigation cannot be rated as high due to the House of Lords judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (the GCHQ case) - Lords Fraser, Scarman. Diplock. Roskill and Brightman.
Whilst this case established that, in principle, prerogative powers are judicially reviewable their Lordships stressed that judicial review would not always be available. Lord Roskill referred to prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of mercy, the grant of honours, the dissolution of Parliament and the appointment of ministers as well as others. Such matters were not, according to Lord Roskill, "susceptible to judicial review because their nature and subject matter are such as not to be amenable to the judicial process. The courts are not the place wherein to determine whether a treaty should be concluded or the armed forces disposed in a particular manner or Parliament dissolved on one date rather than another."
Whether a future challenge can overcome that powerful view is questionable but cannot be entirely ruled out. Writing in The Times (£), David Pannick QC argued that judicial review is possible. Paul Bowen QC has also commented that judicial review is possible - Brexit Law 8 April 2019. Robert Craig, writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association blog, concludes that "it seems highly unlikely that the courts would be drawn into what remains, in a political constitution, a matter of purest politics that should be dealt with by elected politicians, when parliament reconvenes, or at the ballot box."
No comments:
Post a Comment