Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (Gibraltar)

(1.) The Bill in question simply does NOT exist even according to the Internet site of the Gibraltar Parliament [1] (the table of all the Bills in the year 2017). Until it does, it should just be deleted, even in draft form.

(2.) The UK Government and the UK Parliament are normally (and ultimately) responsible for the relationship of Gibraltar with the rest of the EU and of the EEA as things currently stand, as are generally ALL external (foreign) affairs of Gibraltar. The legislature of Gibraltar (the Gibraltar Parliament) does NOT have complete legislative independence, and certainly have NO competence (power) to make their own separate ECA Repeal Act for Gibraltar independently from the UK Parliament (I refer to the Submission by the GOG (referred to in Gibraltar as HM GOG) to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, in "Overseas Territories: Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Volume II (HC 147-II)", 18 June 2008 (printed 6 July 2008) (price: £27.50), Page 62, Evidence 296, dated 18 February 2008. [2][3]), any more have the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the devolved Assemblies) the powers to pass (and [cause it to be] enact[ed]) their own independent ECA Repeal Acts for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland respectively. There is nothing remotely personal about this...I am afraid that User:RaviC might need to study a bit of English (and Gibraltar) administrative law, in particular, the [legal] concept of ultra vires (overstepping one's [lawful] powers), as Fabian Picardo, the First Minister of Gibraltar, might had done just that, in that single source that the editor had cited (an interview with the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), in Brussels, behind the main entrance of the European Commission building). ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion appears to be on the wrong page, and may not be appropriate at all. Please see the discussion at WP:ANI. Matt's talk 09:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural completion of the MfD listing process. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on procedural and content grounds:
- Procedure: This material was moved to draft space four days ago as the result of an AfD. If 87.102.116.36 disagrees with that decision, then take it to deletion review.
- Content: As I said in the previous discussion: "The reliable source clearly says there will be a repeal bill in Gibraltar, but it does not say it will have the title given in this article. There's no reason to assume the Gibraltar title will be the same as the UK one. However, there should be clarity in the next few months, weeks or even days, so let's keep all that code ready to hand." Nothing has changed in the interval. We typically allow drafts six months to get into shape, so there's plenty of time. Matt's talk 12:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the "Great Repeal Bill" (UK) so-called, as it currently stands, clearly states it would empower Government Ministers in the UK to make [certain] Regulations for and on behalf of Gibraltar, bypassing the Gibraltar Parliament (Section 18(3): "Regulations under section 7 or 17 may make provision which extends to Gibraltar..."), whether the Gibraltar Parliament or the Government of Gibraltar gives consent or not. Unless the bit about Ministers being empowered to make Regulations for Gibraltar is taken out before the Bill becomes Law, Gibraltar will not be allowed to make their own repeal bill (just yet, until the UK Government has finished with making their own Regulations on behalf of Gibraltar)...there is also something called the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 which effectively (by rendering making the conflicting parts automatically null and void) bars the Gibraltar Parliament from passing a law in Gibraltar which would come directly into conflict with a UK law extended by the UK to Gibraltar. Why keep a draft for a Bill which might potentially not even exist for another 2 years?! ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per M.R.Forrester. Furthermore, apart from nominating for deletion, the user in question (who is not even a registered account holder?) did not contribute at all to the previous discussion. --RaviC (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commented: "In the wake of the Mossack Fonseca affair, there have been calls for London to impose “direct rule” on some of the British Overseas Territories which are used for offshore financial purposes. This blog post does not take a position on the merits of this proposal. Instead, it seeks to highlight two constitutional points which arise in this regard. First, the Territories’ powers of self-government are already relatively circumscribed in legal terms. Second, there is no developed set of doctrines determining when it might be appropriate for the British Government to intervene more closely in the Territories’ governance. [...] The Territories are the last remnants of the former British Empire. There are 14 of them, and they are listed in Schedule 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981. They comprise: [...] Gibraltar [...] The Territories’ constitutional autonomy is qualified. The constitutions regularly contain reservations allowing the Crown a continuing right to legislate by Order in Council (emphasis added) [...]. For example, Section 125 of the Constitution of the Cayman Islands states: “There is reserved to Her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Cayman Islands.” This effectively means that the constitutions exist side-by-side with a concurrent right on the part of London to legislate directly for the Territories. To this extent, “direct rule” already exists. (emphasis added)" ... The idea that Gibraltar would be allowed to make their own ECA Repeal Bill (Gibraltar) and then pass their own said ECA Repeal Act (Gibraltar) and then have it enacted ([into law] by the Governor of Gibraltar) independently, before London, and without consent (permission) given in advance and in writing from London, is of course patently absurd and patent nonsense. Gibraltar simply does NOT have the legal power to do so. This so-called "Draft" should NOT even exist here (even as a Draft) until it has finally, formally, definitely and definitively tabled in the Gibraltar Parliament as a Bill. (See https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/04/12/graham-john-wheeler-the-british-overseas-territories-and-direct-rule/ (Graham John Wheeler: The British Overseas Territories and “Direct Rule”; dated 12 April 2016) if you remain unconvinced.) ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The UK does have the ability to legislate for overseas territories. But it tends to avoid it. Even European directives were transposed into law separately by the Gibraltarian government. Fabian Picardo is a distinguished lawyer himself and privy to a joint ministerial council with the UK government. I somehow doubt he has committed ultra vires. --RaviC (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only after the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 (United Kingdom) receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act of Parliament and commences, but not before ... and it will definitely be ultra vires, effectively (although of course only the Privy Council (JCPC) or the UK Supreme Court can so declare (formally declare that))...if the Governor of Gibraltar is then, acting after receiving a formal voluntary request from the Foreign Office (the FCO) by one or more of the Ministers on behalf of the Secretary of State (the Foreign Secretary), in turn on behalf of HM [4], forced to withhold (and refuse) his Assent to the Gibraltar Bill ... remember, the ECA 1972 (UK) was assented to and became partly in force on 17 October 1972, and the ECA 1972 (Gibraltar) was assented to and only came into force on 21 December 1972, after of a clear interval of at least two months ... I think that this is a completely different scenario here. Similar (somewhat) to the example of the copyright laws in Bermuda (The Copyright (Bermuda) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1517) [22 June 2003] (revoked 12 [November] 2009), replaced by the Copyright and Designs Act 2004 (Bermuda) (2004 : 5) [17 March 2004; Commenced 8 February 2008]), I think that London would probably have to make Orders-in-Council [5] as interim emergency legislation for Gibraltar (as well as the Channel Islands; a separate Act of the UK Parliament is probably required for the Isle of Man) which would automatically indefinitely suspend (freeze) all the EC, EEC, ECSC, EAEC/Euratom, EU and EEA legislation after the Brexit Exit Day, and also permanently repeal the EC, EEC, ECSC, EAEC/Euratom, EU and EEA legislation that London is going to tell Gibraltar (et al.) that they are definitely not allowed to keep after Brexit whether they like it or not, but otherwise the freedom of Gibraltar (and the Crown Dependencies) to draft their own Repeal Bills (in private; whether there is to be open or semi-open local public consultations and White Papers or not) in the meantime, and then pass them and have them enacted (or the equivalent post-legislative procedural formalities in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands, as they are different from both the United Kingdom and Gibraltar), perhaps about two to three months before the actual Brexit Exit Day. (PS: I think that any attempt to draw any comparison between the relationship between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar, and, say, the status of [the] Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region] (otherwise) within [the People's Republic of] China, is probably not particularly helpful here.) ----- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent AfD result. IP 87.X should switch to decaf. VQuakr (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.