Enemies Of The People? I'd Say So.

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37882082
Don't these pro EU Liberal judges realise what they have done? Perhaps if they came down out of their ivory towers occasionally and visited their country they'd realise the fury they have caused.

[jim360]

Or... they were making the legally correct decision -- which is to say, doing exactly what they are supposed to.

[ToraToraTora]

Labour urge the government to come out and defend the judges! PMSL just shows how far up in lala land labour are these days. These turkeys have just voted for christmas.

[ToraToraTora]

"Legally correct" - in their opinion, after a lot of deliberating. The appeal judges may have another view. Far from black and white jim.

[bhg481]

I agree with Jim It also makes me think David Attenborough was right - the electorate is largely not fit to vote on important matters when they read rubbish like that and believe it.

[jim360]

Well, fair enough, the Supreme Court may reach another decision. However, it is I think highly unlikely, after such a comprehensive rejection of the Government's case as this decision was.

But as you said on Thursday, all that has to happen is for a Parliament vote to grant the relevant permission, and we can return to carrying out Article 50. It says quite a about the present government that they are so afraid of just, you know, going ahead and doing that.

[ToraToraTora]

you mean the public is not fit to trust to give the "correct" answer bhg? PMSL! right oh!

[naomi24]

Jim, //It says quite a about the present government that they are so afraid of just, you know, going ahead and doing that.//

That makes no sense. They can't. The judges have said they can't.

[jim360]

Incidentally, it says a lot about just how wrong the "enemies of the people" rhetoric is when even you have to acknowledge that this decision was reached after "a lot of deliberating". How can it be the case that a decision reached in the appropriate manner, right or wrong, can be branded so? It cannot.

This is dangerous rhetoric, far more damaging to British democracy than this decision, which is merely a reaffirmation of the obvious, ie that Parliament is sovereign over domestic law.

[jim360]

They can put a vote before Parliament, in one form or another. It's this I was referring to.

[ToraToraTora]

well jim the government cannot trust the house to override their personal views and implement the decision of the public so they are correctly trying to avoid that. Anyone with any sense knows that if we do not implement the results of the referendum it risks massive civil disobedience and possibly civil war.

[Peter Pedant]

hi 3T
I had wondered where you had got to

in fact on the Article 50 thread there is a remarkable measured contribution from you ( sentences, all with main verbs, no abbreviations, no exclamations, makes overall sense ) and I wondered if someone else was using your account

The judges are there to interpret the law
and it is quite straightforward
if parliament makes a law it has to unmake it
see that thread

// they'd realise the fury they have caused. //

Lord Mansfield - o dear [ or Lordy Lordy ] another law lord ! - said
let justice be done even tho the heavens fall !
actually he wrote " fiat justicia ruant coela "
1762 R v Wilkes

this post gives you a lot of room to get up to your usual speed and quip
wot dis mean den ..... and
Lord Mansfield who he den ?
Lor Lordz o Lor! who pay dem den ?

oh ! and even the Beeb ( Baghdadi Broadcasting Corp dem lot den yeah ?) are saying that the people who want to repatriate law to the London judges are smarting at the way this has turned out.

[vulcan42]

When the government called the referendum, wasn't the authority transferred from parliament to the electorate? why then does it have to go back to Parliament to be ratified?

[bhg481]

I didn't say that at all TTT. I was merely expressing the opinion that people comment on things they've got no real information about (me included). The only misinformation they've got coming from their mates or highly spun newspapers.

[mikey4444]

TTT...drivel again.

All that the Judges have done is to ell Mrs May that in the issue of triggering Article 50, it should be debated in the Houses of Parliament first. These Judges are just carrying out the law of the land.

[naomi24]

Jim, They put a vote before parliament prior to the referendum. Parliament voted in favour. If they accept this ruling without appeal and are, hence, forced into a parliamentary vote, there’s a very good chance that the will of the people will not be complied with. You know it, I know it – and they know it. That’s why they’re appealing the decision.

[THECORBYLOON]

Am I right in thinking that you're objecting to unelected judges saying elected representatives SHOULD have a say in the Brexit process?

If the terms of the Brexit agreement are not to the satisfaction of many folk and there is not to be a referendum on those terms, who do you expect to challenge those them? Would it be elected representatives and peers in Parliament or through cases heard before judges?

[mikey4444]

Vulcan... "the authority transferred from parliament to the electorate?"

Er....not it didn't....It was a consultative Referendum.

Its highly likely that Parliament will agree to trigger A50, but they want to debate it first. I am not sure what is so wrong about Parliament doing its job properly ?

[jim360]

The Referendum Act merely gave the public a referendum. There was no clause saying that the decision had to be respected or was legally binding. Indeed, the reverse was also true: if, for whatever reason, government policy had been to leave the EU and the people voted in favour of remain, then the government could still have left the EU anyway (if they got the necessary acts of Parliament through).

As it is, the result is still "morally" binding, in the sense that not implementing it would surely lead to a massive outcry or worse. At any rate, any MP voting against the wishes of his constituents on this one would be taking a highly courageous decision. But more broadly, the apparent distrust in Parliament has seriously troubling implications for our future democracy.

[mikey4444]

Jim...100% correct !

Just what is so difficult for some people to understand that ? Its not rocket science is it ?

[jim360]

I'll grant you Naomi that there is a chance that Parliament will reject it. But you shouldn't stop Parliament from voting on something just because you are afraid they'll make the wrong decision.