UK lawmakers start debate on bill authorising Brexit talks

The British minister in charge of quitting the European Union warned lawmakers yesterday not to block the start of divorce talks, saying the country had passed a “a point of no return” in its decision to leave.

The House of Commons is holding two days of debate on a bill authorising Prime Minister Theresa May to trigger two years of exit talks, as the government races to meet a self-imposed 31 March deadline to begin the process.

The government was forced to introduce legislation after a Supreme Court ruling last week torpedoed May’s effort to start the process of leaving the 28nation bloc without a parliamentary vote.

The brief piece of legislation says that “the prime minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”

Kicking off the debate, Brexit Secretary David Davis said legislators had to answer a simple question: “Do we trust the people or not?”

“It’s not a bill about whether the UK should leave the union or indeed about how it should do so,” he said. “It is simply about Parliament empowering the government to implement a decision already made – a point of no return already passed.”

Assuming lawmakers agree today, the bill will move on to committee scrutiny and then Parliament’s upper chamber, the House of Lords.

Ministers hope the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Bill can be pushed through both houses of Parliament by early March so the government can meet its 31 March deadline.

The main opposition Labour Party said it will try to amend the bill but not block it.

Labour Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said that “as democrats, our party has to accept the result” of the referendum.

“Had the outcome been to remain, we would expect the result to have been honoured, and that cuts both ways,” he said.

But some Labour lawmakers who represent areas of the country that voted to remain in the EU say they will respect their constituents’ wishes and vote against triggering the Brexit process. The Constitutional Court has ruled in favour of a man who had significant plots of land snatched from him by a group of businessmen with connections to then Labour Minister Lorry Sant, awarding him €50,000 in ‘moral compensation’.

In addition to this, the courts have also allowed for the possibility that the man in question, Joseph Borg, could get a further compensatory sum of €1 million following a separate court judgment.

Mr Borg had his Fgura land snatched from him back in 1981, just days before the general election. It was said that before a public notary, Mr Borg was made to transfer his property due to threats and violence levelled against him. The quantity of land was half of 23 plots, and the transfer was made to Piju Camilleri who was employed as a works manager within Mr Sant’s ministry.

Madame Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland, presiding over the case, commented that the move was a “smokescreen for the late Labour minister”.

In 1989, Mr Borg initiated court proceedings with the aim of regaining the property he had lost. At the time, the court ruled in his favour and remarked that he was victim to the institutionalised corruption characterised by the Labour government at the time. It was said that apart from Piju Camilleri, Joe Pace and Victor Balzan were also involved in the snatching of land from Mr Borg.

A second court case was then filed by Mr Borg, with the aim of getting the ‘businessmen’ to pay up for what they did to him. The late Judge Raymond Pace ruled against Mr Borg, observing that he was not entitled to compensation because he was also involved in the corruption. This was confirmed by a court of appeal, leading Mr Borg to file a constitutional case to challenge the verdict.

Madame Justice Schembri Orland ultimately ruled in favour of Mr Borg, concluding that his constitutional right to a fair hearing and compensation was infringed by the 1989 court judgment.

The possibility of being compensated a further €1 million stems from the Constitutional Court declaration that Mr Borg fell victim to corruption, meaning that he should be compensated further.

“Mr Borg can now go to the Constitutional Court to annul the sentence in which he was deemed not to have a right to compensation for his plots of land,” it said.

The sum of €1 million was decided because the courts declared that the plots were worth €1.1 million.