Legal Challenges To Government Decisions

[mushroom25]

Gina Miller strikes again...…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/14/gina-miller-legal-action-block-no-deal-brexit-boris-johnson

leaving aside (for now) the rights or wrongs or Brexit -

how difficult will the business of government become if every contentious issue ends up having to be decided by the courts?

[agchristie]

I challenged the DWP over an issue in the courts a few years ago and won.

[Bazile]

How many of the electorate who voted for Brexit would now be happy to leave without a deal ?

[Jackdaw33]

Me for one.

[dannyk13]

Bazile, after three years of faffing about I think most will be glad to leave under any circumstances.

[Togo]

Are we playing games then. O.K. If we were not in the EUSSR what case could the Remainiacs make to persuade us to join?

[ichkeria]

I would be very surprised if a Prime Minister tried to suspend parliament ...

[dannyk13]

Ich, only the Queen can suspend parliament, at the request of the PM.

[Jackdaw33]

As Danny says. The Queen cannot be challenged in the courts.

[ichkeria]

I would be very surprised if a Prime Minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament.
Clear?

[Old_Geezer]

She decides when to try to chuck another spanner into the works.

Since leaving the UK is legal and morally obligatory now, there is no need to try to prevent it by challenging anything that can be thought of. So it reduces from a necessary legality deciding act to one of trying desperately to stop the democratic decision.

Someone ought to look in to whether it's legal for the people's representatives to act against the stated people's demand from the last people's vote.

[Togo]

Tell the Guyanese puppet to mind her own and read this speech by Roger Arthur entitled "For the love of our Country."

https://independencedaily.co.uk/for-the-love-of-our-country/?utm_source=mailpoet&;utm_medium=email&;utm_campaign=INDEPENDENCE+Daily+Newsletter1

[Hopkirk]

What makes me laugh is she always comes out and says she is not trying to stop Brexit.

Pants on fire.

[New Judge]

Indeed. I believe this was the woman who told the world she felt "physically sick" when the result of the referendum was announced. But I may be wrong. Somebody definitely said it but there was so much cobblers bandied about at that time that it's all waxed into one.

[Peter Pedant]

see the Reith Lectures

Sumptie - Ld Sumption outgoing law lord says that there should be minimal intervention

[jourdain2]

I would now very happily accept leaving without any arrangement with the EU whatsoever. A couple of years ago I would have accepted a wiggle here and there as long as we were clearly out of the European political sphere of influence. Now I positively long for a total break. I suspect that a lot of people feel the same and that Mrs. May badly misinterpreted 'just get us out' as an invitation to a fudge.

[naomi24]

Perhaps it’s time someone asked the courts if it’s legal to ignore the result of a democratic vote - democracy being the cornerstone of our society.

[New Judge]

//A couple of years ago I would have accepted a wiggle here and there as long as we were clearly out of the European political sphere of influence.//

It was obvious from day one that any "deal" would simply be an agreement (at a hideous cost) which would allow us to leave without being caused too much trouble. It wasn't an arrangement for our future relationship. It was an extortionate demand for huge sums of money and capitulation to completely unacceptable conditions in return for allowing life (for the people of the UK and the EU27) to continue relatively unhindered by maniacal unelected politicians. It was always going to be so as anyone with half a brain could see. The UK could not be seen to succeed following its temerity to leave.

That is why Mrs May's strategy was hopelessly flawed from the beginning because it failed to recognise and accept that fact.

[Peter Pedant]

// it’s time someone asked the courts if it’s legal to ignore the result of a democratic vote - democracy is the cornerstone of our society.//

yes they have - no it is isnt - even a statement/assurance in a manifesto ( it is not done to ignore a manifesto plea and certainly not do the opposite) is not enforceable

( Greece - Gomboulis came to power ( syriza ) promising to spend spend spend and was forced by the EU to go for austerity - he has just been turned out of power by a vote. Hay Ni - you can vote for X and then vote for not-X five years later - a bit like Brexit).

there isnt even democracy in the jury room - you dont outvote the one who is hanging out

//how difficult will the business of government become if every contentious issue ends up having to be decided by the courts?//

reith lectures
Sumptie - ex Law Lord thank God. Brayne the size of Jupiter. Clearly the brayne measuring man musta been on holiday when they did Sumptie
His depressing thesis was that there were areas where the judges should say - "o o - we dont go anywhere near there!"

after four depressing hours of it - it sounds more like,
" o o we dont go anywhere that would affect our very large govt pensions,(*)( where is mine, I'm on my way!"

(*) like tread on govt (our paymasters mind) toes

[Peter Pedant]

oops sorry same thread
more of the same
sozza and apolz

[Peter Pedant]

// "physically sick" when the result of the referendum was announced. // i had a heart-sink ga-dunk moment

and then a little later - well I will be dead when the real effects are felt ...

//As Danny says. The Queen cannot be challenged in the courts.//
oh dear we seem to have missed this on our law course

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (c. 44) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that allowed, for the first time, civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party. ... The Act received the royal assent on 31 July 1947 but did not fully come into force until 1 January 1948.
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 - Wikipedia

Like sumptie I notice NJ was juridically silent at this betise ....