THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscepticism.
Britain did not embrace the idea of European Union which originated from the Treaty of Rome 1957. When she did, it was after a referendum that it finally joined European Economic Community (EEC) through the enactment of European Community Act 1972. Three years after joining she felt unsure whether she had made a wise decision or not, necessitating another referendum in 1975 which confirmed majority’s decision to join EEC.
When Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1992 with European Central Bank, Britain refrained from adopting Euro as her national currency and Sterling never yielded. Because of the far-reaching legal implications, it is not a project countries would like to embrace in a hurry. In the case of European Union, Britain is one country that pondered over the idea, debated and protested about it until they finally joined in 1972. But they skipped the monetary union. One of the reasons for doing so was the issue of sovereignty.
About June 30, 2015 when it had become abundantly clear that Greece failed its international debt obligation, Britain threatened to pull out of the EU, a threat that was made real a year later. Perhaps the pressure on European countries to fulfill their obligations to the avalanche of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc hastened UK’s action in pulling out soon.
Theresa May being the 2nd female Prime Minister (PM), was/is a pro-remain EU conservative, unlike Mrs Margaret Thatcher, late former Premier who was not in a hurry to drag Britain to Brussels; in her view that amounted to subjugation of Westminster. Within the episode the supremacy of parliament became the subject-matter of litigation to the Supreme Court.
In a split judgment of 8 to 3, it took the Supreme Court four days in December, 2016 to decide the appeal from the High Court in favor of an Act of Parliament to kick-start the process of leaving European Union. Before the landmark decision, Prime Minister Theresa May thought and expected the role of parliament in the episode to be that of a by-stander, or complimentary. Rather than waiting and concurring with the British government’s procedures as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty, the Supreme Court declared that indeed the legislature is in charge of the template to chart the retreat to the disappointment of the PM. For the PM it is unnecessary “parliamentary interference”; and for the opposition Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty requires amendment “to prevent the conservative from using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven”.
Article 50 TEU provides for notification in case of Brexit but commentators hold the view that there may be other ways. But does notification connote exit and exonerations from every legal obligations binding through membership? The real basis of EU was signatory to Lisbon Treaty 2007 which consolidated the Treaty of Rome 1957 and Masstricht Treaty 1993.
The PM thinks the repeal of European Communities Act 1972 and communication to Brussels by her government are all required, while the Supreme Court felt there is something more serious in it that requires parliament to legislate on it, to trigger of exit negotiations. There seem to be consensus that once activated Article 50 is irrevocable; i.e no going back to European Union after exit. However, some commentators relying on Article 49 feel it is revocable as they also refer to the High Court’s case of R (Miller) V. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The referendum is only a wish, proclamation of sort which has done nothing yet to remove Britain from EU at least two years after the referendum.
There is no doubt now that Brexit has caused tremendous uncertainty for the regional economy and global business. It started by the EU Summit on Tuesday 28th June, 2016 the first after Brexit, featuring its global economic implications.
EU law incorporates European Convention on Human Rights, European Human Rights Commission, European Court on Human Right and any member country that joins is bound by these provisions and of course the fact that the rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable; but when exiting what components of the bargain go with exit?
There are now heated debates both inside and outside UK parliament as to what would be left for citizens after Brexit: certainly “Europe’s last dictatorship” is not an option. Therefore Leading lawyers and legal experts in their letter to ‘the Observer’ are warning that Brexit could trigger a human rights crisis in the UK that threatens to have a ‘domino effect’ across Europe.
Apart from a group with the tag ‘89up” which has embarked on a bandwagon mission of making Europe ‘a more open, pluralistic and democratic place’, the bunch of eminent legal luminaries have also joined the protest. Over 50 British lawyers, including silks, Baroness Kennedy QC, Lord Lester QC, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC expressed concern in a joint letter to the PM about the modalities of ensuring compliance with the rule of law in Britain after exit.
Their fears:
“We are calling for the EU to make Britain’s membership of the ECHR a legally binding requirement for any future free trade deal with the UK. The rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable when new countries join the EU.”
The action taken by these eminent lawyers points to the fact that in a democracy the government and state institutions alone cannot define the modalities of pluralist state. The need for inputs from civil societies is the hallmark of democratic and transparent governance.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney @
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
https://corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com.ng/
