Enemies of the People

[Paddy]

Nigel Farage to lead 100,000-strong march on Supreme Court on day of historic Brexit court hearing

Hurrah for the blackshirts!

The Daily Telegraph can also disclose that Leave.EU is planning to “crowd fund” £100,000 from its supporters to pay for barristers to represent Leave supporters in the court action.

I can’t see how that can work as they were not party in the High Court and they are not the Appellant with HMG for the Supreme Court appeal.

[BlasterBates]

Exactly, and HMG lost because they chose political expediency (i.e. not wanting to admit that A50 is revocable). Can you imagine the political backlash if this ended up in the ECJ? JFC, that would result in a Brexit so hard it would cut diamonds. Seriously, this nonsense needs to end and HMG needs to respect due process, which means a very simple Act with a very carefully crafted long title that is, effectively, impossible to amend in any substantive way. Playing the game within the rules is what's needed now, and Parliament was always going to have a say. The HoC would vote it through and the HoL would be left with an existential situation; IMO, they'd pass it too. The die-hard remainers and leavers are two sides of the same coin, equally contemptuous of due process.

It's pretty clear that the UK won't have any trade deals with anyone after two years, so a (temporary ) interim deal looks increasingly likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-50-cliff-edge

Peter Hitchens and Ambrose Pritchard are absolutely right about the UK ending up half-stuck out of the EU

[vetran]

I thought Cameron was a dreadful PM is May trying to out do him?

wait till you try the Jezzy!

[jamesbrown]

It's pretty clear that the UK won't have any trade deals with anyone after two years, so a (temporary ) interim deal looks increasingly likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-50-cliff-edge

Peter Hitchens and Ambrose Pritchard are absolutely right about the UK ending up half-stuck out of the EU

Sure, there won't be any trade deals after two years. That said, you seem to be remarkably optimistic about what the EU are going to offer us. That's the spirit An interim arrangement during which we can negotiate free trade deals seems reasonable. Seems like a have cake and eat cake option. However, ministers are also indicating that they see an interim deal with free movement as politically untenable. Sounds like a difficult problem. I probably wouldn't hold my breath, but I do admire your optimism

[SueEllen]

wait till you try the Jezzy!

Every time I see him on that bike I have evil thoughts to ensure it never happens...

[shaunbhoy]

Every time I see him on that bike I have evil thoughts to ensure it never happens...

You don't strike me as an "evil thoughts" kind of a gal.
Now a "spectacularly naive" one, that is a whole different beast!!

[original PM]

So I have a question.

In general a lot of cases which get to the courts are settled on precedence - e.g. there are similar cases in the paste which can be used as a reference point to how the law should be applied.

And in fact many lawyers main skill is nothing more than an ability to remember/lookup/reference previous cases.

So obviously there does come a case which is completely new and has no precedence in which case you have the judges to make a decision on how the law should be interpreted in that instance.

This is quite unique as in general in instances like this the judges do not have anything to gain by applying 1 ruling or another - however in this case there were some clear influences and as such has justice been done - or have a few people with more power than everyone else made a decision based on their personal preferences or a correct interpretation of the law?



That by the way is why the whole 'enemies of the state' thing is coming out - ridiculous I know because what has actually happened is the judges have completely bottled making a decision other than to say - let some one else make the decision.

[Old Greg]

So I have a question.

In general a lot of cases which get to the courts are settled on precedence - e.g. there are similar cases in the paste which can be used as a reference point to how the law should be applied.

And in fact many lawyers main skill is nothing more than an ability to remember/lookup/reference previous cases.

So obviously there does come a case which is completely new and has no precedence in which case you have the judges to make a decision on how the law should be interpreted in that instance.

This is quite unique as in general in instances like this the judges do not have anything to gain by applying 1 ruling or another - however in this case there were some clear influences and as such has justice been done - or have a few people with more power than everyone else made a decision based on their personal preferences or a correct interpretation of the law?



That by the way is why the whole 'enemies of the state' thing is coming out - ridiculous I know because what has actually happened is the judges have completely bottled making a decision other than to say - let some one else make the decision.

Broadly precedent is more important for common law. The judges didn't bottle anything. They made a decision and it can be appealed. The government does not it to appeal.

[WTFH]

That by the way is why the whole 'enemies of the state' thing is coming out - ridiculous I know because what has actually happened is the judges have completely bottled making a decision other than to say - let some one else make the decision.

They didn't bottle it. They were not asked to rule on whether we stay or leave the EU.
How many times does that need to be repeated before some Brexiters get it into their heads?

They were asked to rule on whether the prime minister could make a unilateral decision without taking it to parliament first.
Parliament could not make a decision before the referendum, they had to wait to see how the people voted before they could debate what to do moving forward.

[original PM]

They didn't bottle it. They were not asked to rule on whether we stay or leave the EU.
How many times does that need to be repeated before some Brexiters get it into their heads?

They were asked to rule on whether the prime minister could make a unilateral decision without taking it to parliament first.
Parliament could not make a decision before the referendum, they had to wait to see how the people voted before they could debate what to do moving forward.

And what gave them the right to do that?

And how did they come to their conclusion?

Why when 17 million people have already spoken do we need to ask 3 more people who can effectively nullify their voice?