The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Obelix]

Ok there are so many thinks wrong in this is just untrue...

 

That's not our system.

The judges are an appointed and unaccountable dictatorship.

 

Not so. Circuit and District judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor on the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. High Court and Appeal Court justices can be removed by petition of the Houses to the Crown - and this has been in law since the 1701 Act of Settlement, and is in the Supreme Court Act. Judges are not unaccountable.

 

They are also not a dictatorship. They don't "overturn" legislation despite what the red tops would have you believe. They will point out where acts of the Government are contrary to the law but Parliament is sovereign above all - again despite what you hear the red tops wailing about... The ability of a independent juciciary to act as a brake on Government excesses though is one of the most important features of our Parliamentary system.

 

 

The referendum is not secondary legislation.

It was a referendum enacted by parliament to advise the executive

 

Advise yes. That's all it did. It wasn't designed to trigger anything at all. It was advisory. Parliament can decide what weight to wishes to give to such advice.

 

The high court has attempted not just to change primary legislation,

 

Wrong. Utterly wrong. See above - the referendum never created legislation (as you said it was advisory) so there is no legislation to change and as noted above there is no ability for the judiciary to change legislation anyway.

 

but to change the constitution.

 

Utterly wrong again. All the High Court has done is point out that Bill of Rights 1689 requires that Parliament has the final say on legislation and that in particular there is no right for unilateral action by the Crown, or as consequence the Crown in Cabinet. This was agreed by Parliament as stated..

 

The Subject’s Rights.

And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their auntient Rights and Liberties, Declare

Dispensing Power.

That the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.

 

All the High Court has done is show that the law - and constitution requires such actions as proposed to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

 

If the supreme court upholds

 

Upholds it? It'll be a slam dunk 11-0 loss for the Government. They could appeal it to the European Court I suppose

 

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

 

 

You mean if the Supreme Court uphold the law as it is? You want to change it so it goes the way you want by nobbling the judges. Good luck with that - you would run the risk of serious civil disorder.

[Robin-H]

Of course they are.

 

You really shouldn't say things you don't mean.

It can lead to confusion.

 

You aren't taking your own advice I see, but don't worry, I can see sarcasm when I read it.

[Obelix]

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

 

Wheres he being rude and wheres the honest and fair poster? I don't see either of the two entites you are describing there.

[ez8004]

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.

 

No it really isn't. That is why the High Court ruled as such and the government is going to be defeated in the Supreme Court again. You have proven that your understanding in this matter is wrong. Just plain wrong.

[NigelFargate]

if she was to do this then who is actually being blackmailed and over what?

 

to go down this route means the deal on offer is worse than the wto rules, which is difficult to imagine and the eu can't offer anyway since wto rules prevent it from offering a deal worse than wto rules.

 

 

Actually, there are several ways in which the EU could offer a deal worse than WTO rules, most of them involving phoney compensation of one kind or another. For example, it has been reported today that some of the EU negotiators are demanding £60 billion compensation from the UK as a price for even starting the Brexit negotiations. Similarly, the EU would probably demand a high price for the partial, sectoral, membership of the customs union which May hinted at.

[unbeliever]

Actually, there are several ways in which the EU could offer a deal worse than WTO rules, most of them involving phoney compensation of one kind or another. For example, it has been reported today that some of the EU negotiators are demanding £60 billion compensation from the UK as a price for even starting the Brexit negotiations. Similarly, the EU would probably demand a high price for the partial, sectoral, membership of the customs union which May hinted at.

 

Or a deal which focuses on enhancing trade in areas where Germany specialises but does nothing for areas in which the UK specialises. Kind of like the EEC.

[L00b]

Actually, there are several ways in which the EU could offer a deal worse than WTO rules, most of them involving phoney compensation of one kind or another. For example, it has been reported today that some of the EU negotiators are demanding £60 billion compensation from the UK as a price for even starting the Brexit negotiations. Similarly, the EU would probably demand a high price for the partial, sectoral, membership of the customs union which May hinted at.

Or a deal which focuses on enhancing trade in areas where Germany specialises but does nothing for areas in which the UK specialises. Kind of like the EEC.

You both mean, there's a risk that the EU may want to have its cake and eating it?

 

Fancy that!

[NigelFargate]

You both mean, there's a risk that the EU may want to have its cake and eating it?

 

Fancy that!

 

No, they want to eat our cake as well - £60 billion's worth of British cake is undoubtedly appealing, as compensation for the net British budgetary contributions on which the EU has been gorging itself for decades.

 

The EU will probably have to cut down on the cake-eating post-Brexit, perhaps by cutting down on CAP spending for a start, as I don't envisage that the remaining net contributors will take kindly to suggestions for an increase in their budgetary contributions.

Edited January 19, 2017 by NigelFargate

[unbeliever]

Giving the UK a good deal could precipitate the break-up of the EU by showing that it is not necessary for good trade and cooperation on the continent.

Giving the UK a bad deal could precipitate the break-up of the EU by damaging its fragile economy for political purposes and driving other nations to leave.

Giving the UK a mediocre deal would probably do both of theses things simultaneously.

Interesting times.

 

---------- Post added 19-01-2017 at 12:14 ----------

 

Ok there are so many thinks wrong in this is just untrue...

 

 

 

Not so. Circuit and District judges can be removed by the Lord Chancellor on the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. High Court and Appeal Court justices can be removed by petition of the Houses to the Crown - and this has been in law since the 1701 Act of Settlement, and is in the Supreme Court Act. Judges are not unaccountable.

 

They are also not a dictatorship. They don't "overturn" legislation despite what the red tops would have you believe. They will point out where acts of the Government are contrary to the law but Parliament is sovereign above all - again despite what you hear the red tops wailing about... The ability of a independent juciciary to act as a brake on Government excesses though is one of the most important features of our Parliamentary system.

 

 

 

 

Advise yes. That's all it did. It wasn't designed to trigger anything at all. It was advisory. Parliament can decide what weight to wishes to give to such advice.

 

 

 

Wrong. Utterly wrong. See above - the referendum never created legislation (as you said it was advisory) so there is no legislation to change and as noted above there is no ability for the judiciary to change legislation anyway.

 

 

 

Utterly wrong again. All the High Court has done is point out that Bill of Rights 1689 requires that Parliament has the final say on legislation and that in particular there is no right for unilateral action by the Crown, or as consequence the Crown in Cabinet. This was agreed by Parliament as stated..

 

 

 

All the High Court has done is show that the law - and constitution requires such actions as proposed to be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

 

 

 

Upholds it? It'll be a slam dunk 11-0 loss for the Government. They could appeal it to the European Court I suppose

 

 

 

 

You mean if the Supreme Court uphold the law as it is? You want to change it so it goes the way you want by nobbling the judges. Good luck with that - you would run the risk of serious civil disorder.

 

 

I think it'll be a split decision. Which rather undermines the idea that it's obvious one way or the other.

In the UK constitution, convention matters. It was overwhelmingly the will of parliament that the government obey the directly expressed will of the people in this matter.

 

I don't like appointed people overruling elected people. I'm sceptical of "independent" bodies because independence an unaccountability are essentially indistinguishable.

International treaties have always been a matter for the executive. Parliament will be required again to repeal the 1972 act and this is when UK law is actually changed. The fact that this change is inevitable once article 50 is activated is beside the point.

Edited January 19, 2017 by unbeliever

[L00b]

No, they want to eat our cake as well - £60 billion's worth of British cake is undoubtedly appealing, as compensation for the net British budgetary contributions on which the EU has been gorging itself for decades.

Have you, perhaps, a source for this claim?

 

Or is it just simple opinion?

The EU will probably have to cut down on the cake-eating post-Brexit, perhaps by cutting down on CAP spending for a start, as I don't envisage that the remaining net contributors will take kindly to suggestions for an increase in their budgetary contributions.

The EU might not have to, if it can repurpose £3bn (per annum) of the UK's expected "non-membership" fees post-Brexit, for its continental CAP liabilities. If the EU can't, then fair point.

 

But all the same...the UK's still going have to stump up £3bn (per annum) for its replacement Common GBAP in 2020, and most probably beyond (Hammond has only guaranteed matched CAP-like funding for a year beyond actual Brexit in 2019).

 

If the UK doesn't, and doesn't step into the matter of the supermarkets-famers balance of power, it will run out of farmers far faster than it currently is (- problematically so). If the UK doesn't, and steps into the matter of the supermarkets-famers balance of power, customers will end up funding the GBAP at the tills through price hikes as well as via taxes.

Edited January 19, 2017 by L00b