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

    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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".
    It is of course a fundamental principal of the British constitution that nothing must ever be done for the first time.

    The precedent of 1910 is extremely well documented. Asquith called the January 1910 election on the People's budget and having been returned again, the Lords dropped its opposition. When the resulting Parliament Bill was introduced and voted down, Edward VII and then George V would only create peers if a second general election is called on that issue. Bearing in mind that May was not put forward by the Conservative Party as PM at the 2015 election, Brexit was not Conservative policy at that election and the referendum did not in any way imply any change in relations between Lords and Commons, I think an election is inevitable. There is widespread acceptance that creating peers t break a Parliamentary deadlock is a reserve power of the Crown and can be seen as analogous to the Governor General's insistence on a dissolution of both houses of the Australian Parliament in 1974.

    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.
    It would take only one year. I disagree. Once you have swamped the Lords once, it must be reformed otherwise it will be swamped every second Tuesday.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    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.
    Good point, best to ignore it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    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.
    :congrats:

    The general public are thick on most issues lol, and one as constitutionally significant as leaving the EU is certainly beyond the average voter. With the referendum campaigns essentially boiling down to the issue of immigration control vs the economy, so many issues were completely overlooked and there was very little rational debate, whatever outcome that may have resulted in (although, with remain having a parliamentary majority, I may be biased :teehee:). But hey, that's the whole point of representative democracy, right?! If we were in America, a constitutional amendment would require 2/3 support in both houses, and then 75% of states would need to ratify the decision. Astoundingly, the British constitution can be so easily changed with a public referendum requiring 50%+1 - madness!

    Spoiler:
    Show



    I'm going to get criticised soooo much for this post lol

    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    What the article doesn't deal with is the character of Sir Joh Bjelke-Peterson. All this business about conflicting advice and the Queen having to read throne speeches isn't about State Premiers as a whole. It is all about Bjelke-Peterson.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    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?
    No just anyone who wants us in the EU, whether it be treachary by ignorance or intent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I voted to leave the EU, and I agree with Lord Reed's superb dissenting judgment in the Miller case.

    I don't agree with the majority reasoning in the Miller case, but I don't doubt that they looked at the same set of facts and simply came to a different conclusion. This is possible; a friend who is a barrister at a top commercial set and who voted Leave like me supports the majority judgment. Disagreements of this sort are possible, particularly where the arguments are so finely balanced as they indeed were.

    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. All they know is that they don't like the outcome, and they know that if they were judges, they would just disregard the law and rule according to their own political views and so they assume other people must be the same.

    These people seem to demand that the judges rule according to a form of Brexiteer political correctness; like in the Soviet Union, the judges must rule not according to legal principles but according to the will of the demos (in reality, the will of party apparatchiks / Farage) lest they become "enemies of the people".

    It's sad but true to say that the people who are most vituperative against lawyers, judges and the law in general are the people who are most ignorant about it. It's been popular for centuries for ignorant, stupid people to hate the law and lawyers (despite knowing almost nothing about it), and today we are seeing the continuation of the Jack Cade mentality.

    Lord Reed looked at all the facts and legal principles, and came to the conclusion that the government did not need parliamentary permission to trigger Article 50 (while also emphatically saying that parliament is free at any time to prohibit or place any restriction it liked on the triggering). The other justices looked at the same set of facts and came to a different conclusion. What they all have in common is that they made their decision according to legal principles, following a deep and contemplative legal analysis.

    The Brexiteers who are criticising them know and care nothing for this. All they know is that they disagree with the outcome, and that they think judges should rule according to mob commands rather than law. Our society is the poorer for this mentality having become so prevalent.
    People like you remind me that there is more to the Leave campaign than how Farage and his posse of xenophobic, heartless trolls made it seem. I don't know your reasoning for voting Leave (and I probably wouldn't agree with it) but if those you hear shouting on Sky news or bashing their keyboards on facebook comments spoke their mind with half the thought and eloquence as you did in your OP then maybe I would have more respect for those who voted leave.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    No just anyone who wants us in the EU, whether it be treachary by ignorance or intent.
    You prove a point set out in the OP by dismissing the argument from the other side so flippantly and in a storm of Daily Mail Brexit buzzwords. It is entirely possible to hold an opinion while acknowledging the merits of the opposing argument. Polemicism in this situation where the argument is so complex, nuanced and arguable either way, amounts to wilful ignorance.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    No just anyone who wants us in the EU, whether it be treachary by ignorance or intent.
    So that would be 48% of the population? Would you be jailing them?

    Btw Gina Miller is a british citizen.

    Have you read the judgment and understood it? Which bit do you think the judges got wrong? I thought one of the points you wanted for brexit was to return ultimate power to UK courts? Would you like to get rid of the cours and parliament and jail anyone who disagrees with you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wattsy)
    You prove a point set out in the OP by dismissing the argument from the other side so flippantly and in a storm of Daily Mail Brexit buzzwords. It is entirely possible to hold an opinion while acknowledging the merits of the opposing argument. Polemicism in this situation where the argument is so complex, nuanced and arguable either way, amounts to wilful ignorance.
    I agree it is possible to see the merits of the other side of the argument, but in this case it is clear cut. Wanting to stay in the EU is as I said before istraitorous to the UK as a nationstate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demaistre)
    I agree it is possible to see the merits of the other side of the argument, but in this case it is clear cut. Wanting to stay in the EU is as I said before istraitorous to the UK as a nationstate.
    Then I'm sure that you can take up that issue with the MPs who will actually vote for or against the deal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    So that would be 48% of the population? Would you be jailing them?

    Btw Gina Miller is a british citizen.

    Have you read the judgment and understood it? Which bit do you think the judges got wrong? I thought one of the points you wanted for brexit was to return ultimate power to UK courts? Would you like to get rid of the cours and parliament and jail anyone who disagrees with you?
    As I said whether through ignorance which is the vast majority of that 48% or intent eg ideological reamainers like Nick Clegg for example. The courts exist to serve the British people, I want power returned to the people. Gina Miller is as British as I am American.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    I agree it is possible to see the merits of the other side of the argument, but in this case it is clear cut. Wanting to stay in the EU is as I said before istraitorous to the UK as a nationstate.
    Why? Does that mean whilst in the EU we were all traitors? Are people not allowed to have a different opinion from you? Would you be locking them all up?

    Have you read and understood the judgment yet?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    I agree. All that will happen is that a bill will go before parliament; it will pass and we'll get on with it.

    The implications of this case are far less than both Brexiteers and Remainers think. May will probably put a one-line bill before the house; "That this parliament authorises the government to trigger Article 50". Remainers will attempt to amend it; that will fail due to support from the eurosceptic left and Northern Irish right and then May will threaten to flood the House of Lords with new peers if the Lords fails to pass it unamended (just like with the Reform Act 1832 when the Lords attempted to block it and the king threatened to create 80 new peers to force it through; the Lords backed down).

    The bill will pass into law and we will get on with the process. Bish, bash, bosh.
    That was nearly 2 centuries ago, mate. And the political environment at the time was vastly, vastly different to now. Do you want the Queen to have more power?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Why? Does that mean whilst in the EU we were all traitors? Are people not allowed to have a different opinion from you? Would you be locking them all up?

    Have you read and understood the judgment yet?
    Yes I've read it. Why can't an opinion be traitorous? If I argued we should be absorbed into the United States I couldn't hide behind 'but that's my opinion you can't call me a traitor'.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by demaistre)
    Yes I've read it. Why can't an opinion be traitorous? If I argued we should be absorbed into the United States I couldn't hide behind 'but that's my opinion you can't call me a traitor'.
    So which part do you disagree with or did the judges get wrong?

    Your explanation contradicts itself.

    You are basically calling people traitors because they disagree with you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    So which part do you disagree with or did the judges get wrong?

    Your explanation contradicts itself.

    You are basically calling people traitors because they disagree with you.
    This issue is about a foreign government in this case the EU parliament having a say over British affairs, supporting this is traitorous to the UK. Just as a Czech arguing that Czechslovakia should stay within the austro-hungarian empire would be a traitor to Czechslovakia. They may be different opinions but that doesn't mean an opinion can't be traitorous what aren't you getting about that? The people were consulted and they want to leave, parliament should be irrelevant in this.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.