Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Brexiteers are judging the Supreme Court justices by their own degraded standards Watch

    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Unless they were super human or literally didn't care about the isssue yes, but more importantly I believe a foreigner has brought a case to court that cost the British taxpayer God knows how much, and has created a political storm for basically nothing.
    Have you read the judgment and do you understand the issues?

    Do you know how lawyers work? Do you have any evidence the judges have got it wrong? Ofc if its a prefessional its easy to eb imparual and objective. that is what lawyers do all the time.

    There is no political storm. It was a case worth bringing and raised important issues. Why on earth wouldnt you want to make sure the government acts within the law when making constitutionally significant changes? The case was actually crowdfunded and the fact they have won at the supreme court proves they were right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Have you read the judgment and do you understand the issues?

    Do you know how lawyers work? Do you have any evidence the judges have got it wrong? Ofc if its a prefessional its easy to eb imparual and objective. that is what lawyers do all the time.

    There is no political storm. It was a case worth bringing and raised important issues. Why on earth wouldnt you want to make sure the government acts within the law when making constitutionally significant changes? The case was actually crowdfunded and the fact they have won at the supreme court proves they were right.
    I would agree with passing most things by Parliament, but Parliament is infested by remain MP's so Ideally I'd like the PM just to force the issue through.

    Who did the crowdfunding pray tell?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I do not know whether there are enough "ditchers" to block Brexit in the Lords, but if there are, the precedents from 1832 and 1910 are that there will have to be a general election on Brexit if May wants to create peers. I would be surprised if the Queen would give May the necessary assurance on easier terms than Grey or Asquith.
    Would the Queen have the mettle to decline, outright, formally-tendered advice from the Prime Minister? As someone who is (not fanatically, but solidly) in favour of retaining the monarchy, I would be very dubious about the monarch seeking to take any kind of stand (thinking back to George VI's requiring Attlee to hold an election before he went overseas, or George V making his views known viz. the British army dissatisfaction on the Irish question... this kind of behaviour, where the monarch expresses some kind of preference, seems to me to be inappropriate in this day and age... perhaps the last instance was the Queen's outright refusal to act on advice formally tendered by the British government, Australian government and Australian state governments during the enactment of the Australia Acts in 1986).

    May has a majority in the Commons. The making of peers is pure prerogative power. I cannot see any basis for the Queen having anything to say on this except, "Yes, Prime Minister. Of course, Prime Minister. Three bags full, Prime Minister".

    I think May would wait on the Parliament Act.
    But that would take so long. Two years? I think she would flood the house first, and then later bring an act to remove those new peers from the HoL (or only appoint people who agreed to undertake the necessary vote and then resign under s1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014). Of course that would be a momentous precedent to set, and I think the threat of it would cause the Lords to think twice about attempting to block the will of the Commons.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I do enjoy chuckling at the people who think their view they probably came up with after having a bad encounter an immigrant once is more important than that of a legal expert who has probably spent over 30+ years doing his job. Would I listen to the random tosspot on the street or the expert? You decide.

    Then again, Brexiters don't like listening to the experts do they :-)
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Legal professionals don't work for free and I doubt they did it all in house.

    Its just a big ****show. I want it out of the way so we can focus on actual Brexit and not whether or not someone is going to try and block it.
    So really you dont appreciate what an important issue it is, you cnat really say you believe in due process and say what you have. Nothing is stopping people focusing on Brexit, this is just one aspect of the procedure needed to be followed to ensure they do it correctly. It is of constitutional importance.

    Nobody is going to block it, but you cant expect parliament to roll over if as has been confirmed it needs to be passed by them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    PRSOM. I'm a recent law grad and fall both politically and legally on the other side of the debate (though my opinion on constitutional law ought not to carry any weight) but I'm thankful for your reasoned analysis and disagreement. Your description of the decision making process is immaculate and explains precisely why any further 'Enemies of the People' rhetoric needs to be condemned from all quarters.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Unless they were super human or literally didn't care about the isssue yes
    Everyone has opinions on every issue. The distinction is between having such views, and allowing them to interfere with one's decisions. You have no basis to claim that these judges' views on the EU had any impact whatsoever on their judgment.

    but more importantly I believe a foreigner has brought a case to court that cost the British taxpayer God knows how much, and has created a political storm for basically nothing.
    But she was proven right, therefore it is axiomatically justified.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    I would agree with passing most things by Parliament, but Parliament is infested by remain MP's so Ideally I'd like the PM just to force the issue through.

    Who did the crowdfunding pray tell?
    Google is your friend. If it hadnt have been them, then it would have been someone else.

    You are too blinded by your own bias that you think its acceptable to ride roughshod over the way our democracy and the law works.

    The irony is the judges who you accuse of bias will be much more influential following Brexit as they really will be the supreme court.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Everyone has opinions on every issue. The distinction is between having such views, and allowing them to interfere with one's decisions. You have no basis to claim that these judges' views on the EU had any impact whatsoever on their judgment.



    But she was proven right, therefore it is axiomatically justified.
    Apart from the fact this is a major political issue and it is naivety of the highest order that an matter this important wouldn't lead to bias depending on which side of the issue you fell on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    So really you dont appreciate what an important issue it is, you cnat really say you believe in due process and say what you have. Nothing is stopping people focusing on Brexit, this is just one aspect of the procedure needed to be followed to ensure they do it correctly. It is of constitutional importance.

    Nobody is going to block it, but you cant expect parliament to roll over if as has been confirmed it needs to be passed by them.
    Its pissing about, I'm bored of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    X
    By the way, if you're interested in that 1986 instance of the Queen (in her capacity as the Queen of Australia, and Queen of New South Wales) outright refused to act on formally-tendered advice that had been tendered by the government of New South Wales, by the government of Australia and by the British government, there's an article here.

    http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/pap.../v19chap9.html

    I found this astonishing. I can see that the Queen had a rationale of sorts, but frankly I was scandalised by her actions. I wonder if she was getting bad advice? I suppose in the end she got her way, so crisis averted. Phew.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Its pissing about, I'm bored of it.
    Its actually a side show and any delay has been minimal. they arent negotiating not because of this, its becayse they havent decided what they wnat to negotiate on.
    Fortunately you being bored of constitutional law isnt the bellweather of whether it is followed or not. Doing things legally tends to be quite important.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think May would rather attempt to bring peace to the Middle East than start down the road of Lords reform.
    It need not precipitate Lords reform. She could simply get in and out; appoint these peers on the understanding that they resign immediately after the vote, and those who didn't would, (a) be persona non grata in the Tory Party, and (b) be removed by a primary act of parliament if necessary.

    By the way, the relevant section of that article (about the Queen going rogue and refusing to act on advice) I posted starts under the section entitled "The development of the Australia Acts 1986"

    I think the article goes into some of the most fascinating constitutional issues in the Westminster system and in British/Anglo constitutional conventions viz. the monarchy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Google is your friend. If it hadnt have been them, then it would have been someone else.

    You are too blinded by your own bias that you think its acceptable to ride roughshod over the way our democracy and the law works.

    The irony is the judges who you accuse of bias will be much more influential following Brexit as they really will be the supreme court.
    Yes the British people voted to take action, but I admit to having bias. Parliament is infested by pro remain traitors, parliament shouldn't need to take a vote on an issue already voted on by the public.
    Just because this is the way the UK currently works doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Its actually a side show and any delay has been minimal. they arent negotiating not because of this, its becayse they havent decided what they wnat to negotiate on.
    Fortunately you being bored of constitutional law isnt the bellweather of whether it is followed or not. Doing things legally tends to be quite important.
    I'm bored of Brexit as a whole. I was bored of it within about a week of the word Brexit being created.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Apart from the fact this is a major political issue and it is naivety of the highest order that an matter this important wouldn't lead to bias depending on which side of the issue you fell on.
    I think it's ignorance of the highest order for you to claim that their view must have influenced their decision in the case without having, (a) read the case, and (b) understood the case.

    Judges have to make decisions all the time that are contrary to the way they'd like a case to turn out. They regularly have to rule against, for example, a claimant they would have wanted to see win. You regularly see judges mention in their judgments that, while they have great sympathy for the claimant or defendant, the law requires them to X,Y,Z.

    Now, when judges make a decision they don't just announce the decision. They publish (as they did here) lengthy documents known as judgments in which they precisely outline the reasoning. They describe all the relevant acts of parliament, regulations, caselaw etc. The go into the history of that area of the law. And, just like if they were a mathemetician going through step-by-step how they completed an equation and "showing their working", the justices show precisely how they came to their conclusion and their reasoning.

    That is what happened here. They have precisely explained how they came to the decision, and it is broadly recognised as a justifiable decision by those who have the education and experience to render such a judgment. A friend of mine, a brilliant barrister at a top commercial set (as in, one of the top three barristers sets.. and he also voted leave like me) says he agrees with the reasoning of the decision.

    Just as he favours Leave but agrees with this judgment, there are justices who are sympathetic to the EU but are able to put that aside and concentrate on the legal, rather than political, considerations.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Yes the British people voted to take action, but I admit to having bias. Parliament is infested by pro remain traitors, parliament shouldn't need to take a vote on an issue already voted on by the public.
    Just because this is the way the UK currently works doesn't mean it has to be that way forever.
    But for now people tend to prefer to do things legally. Do you believe due process and the rule of law are important or would you like to bypass those? I get the impression you havent read or understood the judgment because it makes perfect sense.

    Pro remain traitors? Anyone that doesnt agree with you is a traitor? Are you for real?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    I'm bored of Brexit as a whole. I was bored of it within about a week of the word Brexit being created.
    It will happen as fast or as slow as it does. I expect anything to do with parliament will be weeks or a few months at most. better to focus on the actual negotiations which may be years.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    What I find disgusting and nauseating is the reaction by Brexiteers, 99.9% of whom have no legal education and whose opinion on this judgment has about as much worth as my opinion on a paper on molecular biology would.
    With all due respect, is this line of thinking not also applicable with regards to holding a referendum in the first place? 99.9% of people have no idea how complex trade agreements work, or the finer points of European law, or precisely how many times Britain has had legislation it opposed imposed on it. I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't even be able to state a piece of EU legislation that they don't like, if asked specifically. Heck, I imagine most don't even know how our own legal process works (oh wait, as you've just stated - they don't!)

    Before I get angry cries from some of the more passionate of you out there, no, I'm not calling all Brexiters idiots (likewise, there were many deluded Remainers, too). There were valid arguments in favour of both sides, so I'm not trying to make this post political (or express my own opinion on the matter). Merely, I'm just highlighting both the irony of using such an argument in the OP, and pointing out that the average voter knows very little about any complex matter, like whether or not to leave the EU, or how to identify the correct process of leaving.

    Spoiler:
    Show







    inb4 "the people are sovereign!!!"





    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    With all due respect, is this line of thinking not also applicable with regards to holding a referendum in the first place? 99.9% of people have no idea how complex trade agreements work, or the finer points of European law, or precisely how many times Britain is on the 'winning' side in the European Parliament. I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't even be able to state a piece of EU legislation that they don't like, if asked specifically. Heck, I imagine most don't even know how our own legal process works (oh wait, as you've just stated - they don't!)

    Before I get angry cries from some of the more passionate of you out there, no, I'm not calling all Brexiters idiots (likewise, there were many deluded Remainers, too). There were valid arguments in favour of both sides, so I'm not trying to make this post political (or express my own opinion on the matter). Merely, I'm just highlighting both the irony of using such an argument in the OP, and pointing out that the average voter knows very little about any complex matter, like whether or not to leave the EU, or how to identify the correct process of leaving.

    Spoiler:
    Show




    inb4 "the people are sovereign!!!"


    The PEOPLE are soVERIGNE!!!!!

    If you don't like democracy move to China or North Korea!

    Anyways, what you've said here is one of the reasons why I personally never wanted a referendum on the EU. People are thick when it comes to the EU; both those who voted remain and those who voted leave.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.