Enemies of the People

[Old Greg]

You are an ignorant fool.

And I claim my five euros.

[Paddy]

And this is completely unacceptable. A judge's sexuality has absolutely no bearing on their judgement. The Mail should not publish such comments again.

The fact that one is a friend of the Blair's and another started the EU Integration Group and still has close ties with it is highly relevant. The decision was clearly politically motivated and is unsafe.

For everything other than their sexuality the judges deserve everything they get. They are the enemy of both the people and democracy.

Extracts from the Judgment, it's not about being pro-brexit or not.

The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown — acting through the executive government of the day - is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union. It is common ground that withdrawal from the European Union will have profound consequences in terms of changing domestic law in each of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.

It is agreed on all sides that this is a justiciable question which it is for the courts to decide. It deserves emphasis at the outset that the court in these proceedings is only dealing with a pure question of law. Nothing we say has any bearing on the question of the merits or demerits of a withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the European Union; nor does it have any bearing on government policy, because government policy is not law. The policy to be applied by the executive government and the merits or demerits of withdrawal are matters of political judgement to be resolved through the political process. The legal question is whether the executive government can use the Crown’s prerogative powers to give notice of withdrawal. We are not in any way concerned with the use that may be made of the Crown’s prerogative power, if such a power can as a matter of law be used in respect of Article 50, or what will follow if the Crown’s prerogative powers cannot be so used.

(b Common ground: notice is irrevocable and cannot be conditional
10. Important matters in respect of Article 50 were common ground between the parties:
(1) a notice under Article 50(2) cannot be withdrawn, once it is given; and (2) Article 5( does not allow for a conditional notice to be given: a notice cannot be qualified by, for example, saying that it will only take effect if Parliament approves any agreement made in the course of the negotiations contemplated by Article 50(2).

(b) The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
20. It is common ground that the most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme (we will use the familiar shorthand and refer simply to Parliament). Parliament can, by enactment of primary legislation, change the law of the land in any way it chooses. There is no superior form of law than primary legislation, save only where Parliament has itself made provision to allow that to happen. The ECA 1972, which confers precedence on EU law, is the sole example of this.

21. But even then Parliament remains sovereign and supreme, and has continuing power to remove the authority given to other law by earlier primary legislation. Put shortly, Parliament has power to repeal the ECA 1972 if it wishes.
22. In what is still the leading account, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution by the constitutional jurist Professor AN. Dicey, he explains that the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament has:
the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law ... as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament”
(p. 38 of the 8th edition, 1915, the last edition by Dicey himself; and see chapter 1 generally).

Amongst other things, this has the corollary that it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law:
‘The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.”

107. Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to be advisory as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the European Union would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the European Union.

[GB9]

In the new Britain, the Enemies of the Folk will get everything they deserve starting with the judiciary.

No, they'll get a pay rise and a knighthood.

[GB9]

You are an ignorant fool.

At least we agree that their sexuality is irrelevant and shouldn't be commented on.

[NotAllThere]

No, they'll get a pay rise and a knighthood.

In the context of OG's post, the "New Britain" is the Britain that you are your ilk hope for. So you are saying that in the New Britain you envisage, these three judges will get a pay rise and a knighthood.

Here's that €5 for you OG.

[GB9]

Odd how these people were very insistent on wanting British law and British sovereignty, but when it's pointed out that British law says that the sovereignty of the British Parliament must be taken into account as part of the process of giving them what they asked for, they all piss their pants like a bunch of whinging toddlers.

Probably too complicated for you but Parliament were involved and abdicated responsibility to the people to decide what should happen.

The people's own money was used to print out over 23 million times that the outcome of the referendum would be executed.

The elite such as yourself should forgive the great umwashed like myself for thinking that would actually happen!

[eek]

Probably too complicated for you but Parliament were involved and abdicated responsibility to the people to decide what should happen.

The people's own money was used to print out over 23 million times that the outcome of the referendum would be executed.

The elite such as yourself should forgive the great umwashed like myself for thinking that would actually happen!

Parliament didn't even abdicate responsibility fully. They forget to state that the referendum result was binding and would be implemented..

[NotAllThere]

Probably too complicated for you but Parliament were involved and abdicated responsibility to the people to decide what should happen...

That's what the government argued, but the judges thought otherwise - and that's not even slightly complicated to understand. Got a legal argument, or just more foolish, ignorant hysterical hate-filled whiny bulltulip?

[Paddy]

Parliament didn't even abdicate responsibility fully. They forget to state that the referendum result was binding and would be implemented..

OR see HMG website for terms and conditions about this referendum

[stek]

All this down to an inappropriate choice of modal verb.