Reply to: Enemies of the People

[WTFH]

I thought the point was that in effect there was no need for a court case as the law was clear - the PM needs to get it ratified by parliament before they can enact it - in which case nothing else matters.
...
But either way - so what the vote will be taken in parliament and we shall see what happens.

So you've just flip-flopped from your position a few hours ago of "these judges are evil enemies of the people" to " it doesn't matter".

Make your mind up!

[jamesbrown]

You misunderstand what are presidents. A previous case argument does not have to be the same as a current case argument, it merely has to have similar characterises. To find those characteristics takes a great intellectual to read and apply the law..

If you bother read the Judgment, you will see that there are presidents and the reasoning for the judgment is well explained.

Not sure what presidents have to do with anything, but I'll assume that's the bloody autocorrect

Anyway, sure, but let's not pretend the judgement was straightforward or that the legal profession is unified on the arguments or outcome. There are respected QCs and academics that disagree with the judgement and think that it's likely to be overruled. Take Elliott, for example. There's a reasonable chance it will be overturned, and an even greater chance that the scope will be reduced. However, it's not worth the wait given that this problem is easily surmountable through a carefully crafted Act. Labour have been weaving around like a shopping trolley, but have now confirmed that they will unconditionally support A50 on division.

[original PM]

Your comment is so far from reality it would take pages to explain the basics to you.
If law was that simple, why didn’t you become a QC and charge £500 to £1000 per hour? The fees for counsel increase depending on the number of years ‘experience, a junior counsel can charge as little as £120 per hour

You misunderstand what are presidents. A previous case argument does not have to be the same as a current case argument, it merely has to have similar characterises. To find those characteristics takes a great intellectual to read and apply the law..

If you bother read the Judgment, you will see that there are precedents and the reasoning for the judgment is well explained.

I thought the point was that in effect there was no need for a court case as the law was clear - the PM needs to get it ratified by parliament before they can enact it - in which case nothing else matters.

Oh and by the way just because someone has been a QC or judge for a long time it does not necessarily mean they actually have that much intelligence nor can they be relied to apply the law based on factoid logic and be influenced by their own personal bias.

But either way - so what the vote will be taken in parliament and we shall see what happens.

[Paddy]

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.

Your comment is so far from reality it would take pages to explain the basics to you.
If law was that simple, why didn’t you become a QC and charge £500 to £1000 per hour? The fees for counsel increase depending on the number of years ‘experience, a junior counsel can charge as little as £120 per hour

You misunderstand what are presidents. A previous case argument does not have to be the same as a current case argument, it merely has to have similar characterises. To find those characteristics takes a great intellectual to read and apply the law..

If you bother read the Judgment, you will see that there are precedents and the reasoning for the judgment is well explained.

[Old Greg]

Tony Blair didn't set British citizens on each other and leave a complete mess resulting in the government not knowing what the due process to enact a piece of legislation is.

He did start a war of aggression, so it's swings and roundabouts.

[LondonManc]

Tony Blair didn't set British citizens on each other and leave a complete mess resulting in the government not knowing what the due process to enact a piece of legislation is.

But he was complicit in the illegal authorisation of the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and helped create the power vacuum that allowed ISIL to establish a caliphate.

That's without the condoning of the conversion of the UK's gold into Euros.

[GB9]

Tony Blair didn't set British citizens on each other and leave a complete mess resulting in the government not knowing what the due process to enact a piece of legislation is.

No. He promised a referendum on Lisbon but lied.

[NotAllThere]

And Switzerland being another. The power lies in the people of the individual communities, and is devolved upward to Canton, then Federal level. Technically, powers can be taken back, but for most things the power is in the hands of the Cantons. The Federal government is relatively weak - but it does have an army!

[SueEllen]

You're Cherie Blair and I claim my 17 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.

Tony Blair didn't set British citizens on each other and leave a complete mess resulting in the government not knowing what the due process to enact a piece of legislation is.

[Old Greg]

No they're not, and they never have been.

The sovereignty of the UK lies with parliament, and has done for ~400 years. Before then, it lay with the crown. The people are essentially in the same position as serfs 800 years ago - except we get to vote on who goes to parliament, so we do have some say.

Yes, it is not like other constitutions in which the people are the sovereign body (Roman Republic is a famous historical example).

[NotAllThere]

...Ultimately the people of the UK are Sovereign.

No they're not, and they never have been.

The sovereignty of the UK lies with parliament, and has done for ~400 years. Before then, it lay with the crown. The people are essentially in the same position as serfs 800 years ago - except we get to vote on who goes to parliament, so we do have some say.

[Old Greg]

You're Cherie Blair and I claim my 17 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.



Odd, because it's usually the lefties that go with the violence - poll tax riots, student riots, etc. Not to mention the mass of lentil-munching imbeciles protesting austerity by, not-so-unbelievably, costing tax payers even more by rioting. Yet as soon as those on the right call something out as wrong, the race card gets played.

Liberals are wonderfully idealistic people until they don't get their own way. Next step is that if they're losing the argument, they bring out the race card to try and silence people.

Not that I voted for Brexit, as I've said in the past. There are clearly merits to remaining and leaving and for me personally, I didn't see an argument strong enough from either side to convince me to vote for them. That was obviously, in part, down to the poor campaigns from the political protagonists on both sides.

Oh, have we got a date for Tony's war crimes trial yet?

Tony's war crimes are a good example of right-wing violence, aren't they? Aligning with the neocons to star a war of aggression.

[LondonManc]

Judges are upholding the law and doing their job. It's people like you who don't understand and refuse to understand how the British constitution works

It's up to MPs and the Lords to decide whether to follow the will of the people.

Now I understand why Cameron completely ran away. If he was an MP he would be getting death threats from all sides.

He's the worst PM we have had since WWII.

You're Cherie Blair and I claim my 17 trillion Zimbabwean dollars.

So do I.

However, like you I've been on this board for years, and I don't think I've seen such a vicious, humourless, ignorant, vitriolic bunch of idiots as those who purport to represent the Brexit point of view. If they truly reflect the views of a significant proportion of the population, then we (the British people) have fallen very far in the last few years.

Odd, because it's usually the lefties that go with the violence - poll tax riots, student riots, etc. Not to mention the mass of lentil-munching imbeciles protesting austerity by, not-so-unbelievably, costing tax payers even more by rioting. Yet as soon as those on the right call something out as wrong, the race card gets played.

Liberals are wonderfully idealistic people until they don't get their own way. Next step is that if they're losing the argument, they bring out the race card to try and silence people.

Not that I voted for Brexit, as I've said in the past. There are clearly merits to remaining and leaving and for me personally, I didn't see an argument strong enough from either side to convince me to vote for them. That was obviously, in part, down to the poor campaigns from the political protagonists on both sides.

Oh, have we got a date for Tony's war crimes trial yet?

[SueEllen]

But they did vote to leave to EU, so why do we need an act of parliament to activate the process? - No amount of dissembling bollocks will convince anyone what this judgement is really for.

The head of a hedge fund suddenly became politically aware after the 23rd of June and now wants to re-assert the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. No real self interest there.

Ultimately the people of the UK are Sovereign.

Not how our democracy works I'm afraid.

We don't have mob rule in the UK but a representative democracy.

[Old Greg]

I think if 17 million people say do something - and the PM does it then it is hardly a dictatorship is it?

That is almost like perfect democracy - e.g. the people vote, the government acts on the vote....

However if it is a legal requirements that there is an act of parliament then lets go for it - not sure why we needed judges to confirm the law but hey ho......

But even you can see how this has been spun as a way to 'stop/slow down brexit' and in general try and make the job harder and more costly without adding any value?

We needed to judges to confirm the law as the government was trying to trigger Article 50 illegally, and in opposition to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.