The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[ez8004]

That's not our system.

The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship. An elected body can be removed in 5 years and bad laws changed.

I agree that's it's worrying to concentrate power in one body of 650/600 representatives, a second elected chamber would be good, but splitting power with an unelected body is no solution.

There are advantages to the US system, but I like our way better.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 08:40 ----------

 

 

The referendum is not secondary legislation.

It was a referendum enacted by parliament to advise the executive whether to use its royal prerogative to activate article 50 and get us out of the EU.

The high court has attempted not just to change primary legislation, but to change the constitution. If the supreme court upholds it then parliament will need to review the arrangements with regard to the high and supreme courts.

 

We are not the USA. We do not have 3 independent branches of government. Parliament is sovereign in all things.

 

What are you talking about. NO WHERE does it say in the referendum act for Brexit that the result should be acted upon. In fact it explicitly states that any result is advisory. Go and read the two acts of Parliament with regards to the Brexit referendum and the AV referendum. They are two very different acts. The AV one is legally binding on the result, the Brexit one isn't. The Supreme Court is therefore acting within the law.

 

I really don't know why you are saying such garbage. Have you bumped your head?

[Jacktari]

Parliament should be sovereign. After Brexit there will be no room for any court to contradict parliament.

 

Parliament is not above the Law.

No one is above the Law.

[L00b]

The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship.

Except for the little fact that judges do not have any executive power (that's the government's), nor law-making powers (that's Parliament's). Only law-interpreting powers as part of their judiciary powers.

 

Given that context, you may want to look up the definition of 'dictatorship'. Or issue a retraction.

 

Bashing judges who don't toe the government's party line, now that's certainly a typical characteristic of a dictatorship.

The referendum is not secondary legislation.

It was a referendum enacted by parliament to advise the executive whether to use its royal prerogative to activate article 50 and get us out of the EU.

Evidence please.

 

I've linked the actual EU Referendum Act (2015) before, so beware

The high court has attempted not just to change primary legislation, but to change the constitution.

I think you'll find that it has absolutely not: changing the 'constitution' is what May & Co. have attempted in her early tenure, what the HC did was put her back on the constitutional straight and narrow. As the SC will confirm shortly.

If the supreme court upholds it then parliament will need to review the arrangements with regard to the high and supreme courts.

If May abuses the comfortable Tory majority which she currently enjoys in Parliament for tinkering with the UK's judiciary on the back of the SC affirming the HC's judgement, the UK will be plainly and formally entering banana republic territory.

 

Given the clear primacy of ideology over pragmatism in May's governance, the economic consequences -particularly as regards FDI and UK implantations- of such tinkering would be beyond disastrous. Far more so than in view of Brexit in and of itself: you're talking about removing a sizeable chunk of the bedrock of economic certainty in the UK, the political independence of its judiciary, effectively amplifying the increasing uncertainty associated with the UK's current ideological governance.

Edited January 19, 2017 by L00b

[Gamston]

What are you talking about. NO WHERE does it say in the referendum act for Brexit that the result should be acted upon. In fact it explicitly states that any result is advisory. Go and read the two acts of Parliament with regards to the Brexit referendum and the AV referendum. They are two very different acts. The AV one is legally binding on the result, the Brexit one isn't. The Supreme Court is therefore acting within the law.

 

I really don't know why you are saying such garbage. Have you bumped your head?

Why are you being so rude to such an honest and fair poster ?

 

When the electorate went to vote on the June 23rd, they did so believing the Government would carry out the wishes, of which option obtained the most votes.

[unbeliever]

What are you talking about. NO WHERE does it say in the referendum act for Brexit that the result should be acted upon. In fact it explicitly states that any result is advisory. Go and read the two acts of Parliament with regards to the Brexit referendum and the AV referendum. They are two very different acts. The AV one is legally binding on the result, the Brexit one isn't. The Supreme Court is therefore acting within the law.

 

I really don't know why you are saying such garbage. Have you bumped your head?

 

It is an advisory to the executive to exercise the royal prerogative (an executive action). Parliament has voted on this already. They have said to the executive "do what the people say in the referendum".

Technically the executive is free to ignore this advice. It has wisely chosen not to.

 

This is always what advisory referenda were about. If the supreme court changes this then they are legislating from the bench. Parliament should immediately vote to reverse their decision and curtail their power in future.

We do not have legislation from the bench in the UK. Parliament is sovereign, even in matters of the power it grants to the executive at its own expense.

Edited January 19, 2017 by unbeliever

[Flexo]

The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship.

 

Wow. Now they attack the judges.

 

The quote is utter nonsense - judges apply the law, they do not run the country - and is contradicted by the post above this one. But it serves to demonstrate the poster's state of mind.

[L00b]

It is an advisory to the executive to exercise the royal prerogative (an executive action). Parliament has voted on this already. They have said to the executive "do what the people say in the referendum".

[echo] Evidence please [/echo]

 

As you seem so confident, but since you don't appear intent on explaining yourself to us mere mortals, can I draw your attention to this ongoing Parliament's inquiry into the very matter, wherein the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee appears in need of your insights.

 

Submissions due by midday on 28 February

[Jacktari]

That's not our system.

The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship. An elected body can be removed in 5 years and bad laws changed.

Parliament is sovereign in all things.

 

At least you are not a monarchist.

So that is one point in your favour.

Whilst we are divorcing from Europe, should we also take this opportunity to rid ourselves of this money draining, outdated bunch of misfits, the House of Windsor?

[Robin-H]

At least you are not a monarchist.

So that is one point in your favour.

Whilst we are divorcing from Europe, should we also take this opportunity to rid ourselves of this money draining, outdated bunch of misfits, the House of Windsor?

 

You realise that the Royal Family are a net contributor in terms of revenue for the country, they aren't 'money draining'? And I'm not talking just about tourism.

 

Anyway, that's a different thread.

[Jacktari]

You realise that the Royal Family are a net contributor in terms of revenue for the country, they aren't 'money draining'? And I'm not talking just about tourism.

 

Anyway, that's a different thread.

 

Of course they are.