Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
Don't tell anyone, but constitutional (law) discussions give me the horn. It is the only subject I find more exciting than AV.
Just remember, the last chap who thought about challenging Parliamentary sovereignty had his head chopped off, and he was only the King of England.
The same AV wot was rejected by the UK public by 68% to 32%?
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Take the first Gulf war.
Would we have needed a vote to send troops to defend Saudi Arabia?
If not, would we need only a vote once Desert Shield turned in Desert Storm?
I think the government can still deploy our forces without Parliamentary consent. But it might be different if they were clearly going into an active war zone. One of the wonders of an unwritten constitution is that very little is written in stone and it is open to change over time. War is a very good example of this.
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Any involvement by Britain in a war that isn't in self-defence or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is a breach of the country's obligations under the UN Charter.
We're missing something important. The government is truly desperate to win the Article 50 case on appeal. That's the only possible reading of the desultory statement put out by Liz Truss (it's a blunder on that front too, mind). But why?
It must be about what the government would need to put into an Article 50 bill. Perhaps a one line enabling bill won't serve the purpose.
We need to understand just what the government is so desperate about.
I think that they fear the Lords. If the Lords voted down the bill we would have a real constitutional crisis. If they sought to amend the bill making the activation of article 50 conditional on the government seeking, for example, membership of the Customs Union, negotiations would be more difficult.
The Lords is screwed in this if it plays silly buggers. It will lose the little legitimacy it has left and HMG will be obliged to reform it. Will 800 turkeys vote for an early Xmas ?
Lord (Paddy) Ashdown's position on today's Any Questions suggests that it wouldn't. If the LibDems are wary of painting themselves into the 'anti-democracy' corner, how much more painful will it be for Labour peers whose supporters in the country are so much more divided on the issue?
You talk as if the vast majority of the electorate are going to be following the legal nuances of this in detail. They wont.
They'll look at : we had a vote, you are stopping it it's undemocratic, get rid of the bums
Fine - but I enjoy this site because it offers (at least the illusion of) discussion at a rather higher and better informed level than that.
If you understood the point I was making, it's dont get hung up on the PB bubble.
The reason so many people on here were caught horribly wrong by Brexit is because not enough of us spend our time watching X factor or living off McDonalds. It's one of the reasons the "metropolitans" think everyone takes their view when quite frankly huge chunks of the country do anything but.
On PB we debate things to death, most people dont spend more than a nano second thinking of politics. They're normal, we're not and normal people outnumber geeks.
Fully agree.
But nevertheless the original point was whether or not the Lords would block Brexit. By my reckoning few of her majesty's lordships will be dining on Chicken McNuggets this eventide.
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Any British involvement in a war that isn't in self-defence or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is in breach of the UN Charter.
A50 only applies according to our constitutional arrangements - which in this case require approval of the final deal before parliament.
Therefore if we apply for A50, and the EU gives us a bad deal, and it is rejected by parliament. Then the original A50 notice can be deemed invalid, since it was not constitutional. The EU may not like this, but those are the treaty terms.
In practice another A50 would then have to be issued and an amended deal struck.
???
The moment we enter Brexit negotiations, the EU is de facto and de jure accepting that Article 50 has been served, as it would have been minuted by the Council of Ministers. Only unanimity of all the countries in the EU could delay or cancel at that point.
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Any involvement by Britain in a war that isn't in self-defence or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is a breach of the country's obligations under the UN Charter.
Which would be why any war (even Iraq II) is opaquely called self-defence.
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
I dunno about you, but I'm discussing one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional importance this country has had in a long while.
The Supreme Court is convening the full court *for the first time in its history* to hear the government's appeal. This is clearly, in the minds of some of the finest legal minds in the country, a question of some serious political and legal importance.
If you don't like it just shit off you tedious old bumtrump.
Funnily enough, for all the arguments with Chris about past treaties, I hope that the Government loses. I want Parliament to have its say. I am just amused by the hypocrisy of the Europhiles.
Don't get me wrong. I voted to Remain, and I was dismayed by the result of the referendum, because I thought it would be very damaging economically. But I wasn't in love with the EU's political structures, and I didn't at all like the idea of the EU dictating fiscal policy to its members and stuff like that. And I think that the result of the vote to leave the EU should be respected. That question is settled.
In my view, what the government should be doing now is the precise opposite of what it is doing. Instead of trying to cobble together some half-baked strategy to paper over the divisions in the Tory party, it should be seeking a national consensus on as broad a basis as possible. Obviously the consensus has to include a complete break with the EU's political structures. But as far as trade is concerned, we should be consulting our best interests and working out what will be the best relationship with the EU. There's no question that that's what the electorate would wish, because polls indicate by a ridiculously large margin that people voted in the way they thought would make them better off (or at least no worse off).
A confident and competent prime minister would be initiating and leading such a national debate. Theresa May is hiding from it and trying to stifle it.
@IanB2 Italy is a staggeringly beautiful country...I can look out my lounge window now, and I can virtually see the whole of Florence down below.
But...you are so right about the conservative/paranoid psyche of the people. They are ultra conformist. They change their wardrobe for each season....and look aghast if you do something different. They obsessively clean their houses...for fear that they could be looked down upon, or spoken badly about. They possess multiple mobile phones...for partners, children, parents...and expect them to be answered immediately. They are terrible control freaks...my wife's parents are suffocating. My Italian friends are suffocating too...they phone me if I'm 5 minutes late to ask where I am. They are so inpatient...especially when driving. And they obsessively focus on the transactional...at the expense of the big picture....they have no sense of strategy. I could go on and on.....but I do love them dearly...
As a conspiracy theorist (as everyone seems to be now)...perhaps it suits the Clinton campaign to have Trump front and centre touring the industrial belt in these last days. You never know.....
Where's JackW? I find his presence in these last days very reassuring....if he disappears for any length of time I start getting anxious....
You live in Italy, the home of conspiracy theories and where they are generally true, I believe? I assume you have heard of dietrologia?
The Italians are bonkers for their conspiracy theories....I haven't heard of that one, but I know about the list. I forget who wrote them..... but the Dark Heart of Italy and also the Monster of Florence are must reads to understand the Italian psyche....
It's Italian for (insofar as it can be translated) "behind-ism". As an example, let's say a politician comes on the news arguing that the government should do more to support disabled people living independently in their own homes. We Brits are thinking 'that sounds like a good idea, but where's the money coming from?'. Meanwhile the Italian is thinking 'surely that's the guy whose wife's cousin runs that company making equipment for disbabled people?'
Very good Ian....and what a good example....that is so true.
Italy is a great place to visit (and I have done so once or twice a year for the past twenty five), but the reality is so different from first impressions. When you go there the first time you see the sunshine, scenery, amazing history, and all these apparently carefree people enjoying life, good food and wine, and it all seems so laid back and relaxed compared to the rat race back home.
It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
It remains a favourite place to visit, but I would never want to live there (for very long).
Blinking heckers...trying to wade through all this legal twaddle to try and find some nuggets on the US election is hard going. I'm mean FFS...it's the Saturday before the biggest betting night in politics ever...
TSE....can you not just create some kind of junk folder where all these endless and boring legal posts go. To think there could well be years of this to come,,,and those talking about bloody trade deals too. Oh gawd......
I dunno about you, but I'm discussing one of the most fundamental questions of constitutional importance this country has had in a long while.
The Supreme Court is convening the full court *for the first time in its history* to hear the government's appeal. This is clearly, in the minds of some of the finest legal minds in the country, a question of some serious political and legal importance.
If you don't like it just shit off you tedious old bumtrump.
Funnily enough, for all the arguments with Chris about past treaties, I hope that the Government loses. I want Parliament to have its say. I am just amused by the hypocrisy of the Europhiles.
Don't get me wrong. I voted to Remain, and I was dismayed by the result of the referendum, because I thought it would be very damaging economically. But I wasn't in love with the EU's political structures, and I didn't at all like the idea of the EU dictating fiscal policy to its members and stuff like that. And I think that the result of the vote to leave the EU should be respected. That question is settled.
In my view, what the government should be doing now is the precise opposite of what it is doing. Instead of trying to cobble together some half-baked strategy to paper over the divisions in the Tory party, it should be seeking a national consensus on as broad a basis as possible. Obviously the consensus has to include a complete break with the EU's political structures. But as far as trade is concerned, we should be consulting our best interests and working out what will be the best relationship with the EU. There's no question that that's what the electorate would wish, because polls indicate by a ridiculously large margin that people voted in the way they thought would make them better off (or at least no worse off).
A confident and competent prime minister would be initiating and leading such a national debate. Theresa May is hiding from it and trying to stifle it.
I think May is rather of the opinion we already had the national debate. It was called the referendum, and it was RUBBISH.
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
My point is that the laws will still stand, and a lot of our laws are about standardisation across the world.
Those who voted Leave to have more powerful vacuum cleaners will be sorely disappointed
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Any British involvement in a war that isn't in self-defence or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is in breach of the UN Charter.
Oh dear.
It's true. Do you want Britain to withdraw from the UN? Then it can attack foreign countries when it wants - covertly in "emergencies", okayed by Parliament otherwise, whatever you want. Sigh at that!
Mr. Eagles, I didn't vote Leave on the basis of vacuum cleaners, and am therefore not disappointed at the prospect of leaving (indeed, I'm more concerned that metropolitan anti-democrats are seeking to avert or water down our departure).
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
@IanB2 Italy is a staggeringly beautiful country...I can look out my lounge window now, and I can virtually see the whole of Florence down below.
But...you are so right about the conservative/paranoid psyche of the people. They are ultra conformist. They change their wardrobe for each season....and look aghast if you do something different. They obsessively clean their houses...for fear that they could be looked down upon, or spoken badly about. They possess multiple mobile phones...for partners, children, parents...and expect them to be answered immediately. They are terrible control freaks...my wife's parents are suffocating. My Italian friends are suffocating too...they phone me if I'm 5 minutes late to ask where I am. They are so inpatient...especially when driving. And they obsessively focus on the transactional...at the expense of the big picture....they have no sense of strategy. I could go on and on.....but I do love them dearly...
Agree, in every respect.
It's an interesting fact, however, that Vodaphone's "alter ego" service, which offers customers two seperate telephone numbers from a single SIM card, was tailor-designed for and is offered only in Italy, and explains why Vodaphone has such high market share in the country. Why would that be, I wonder? (Not really).
You arrive at a reasonable crowded beach. The Brit looks for the biggest unoccupied space between the people already there, and endeavours to position themself there. The Italian looks for the biggest crowd and tries to work out a way to sit as near as possible to the most crowded bit of beach, thinking that if most people are there it must be the best place to be. Their thinking and ours could not be more different.
On topic, as I noted the other day, this and the Article 50 case shows what happens when you codify some parts of the constitution and not other parts of it.
Just remember prior to the FTPA, the conventions on whether the Monarch would agree to an early election was based on principles written in an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I think people do seem to have forgotten that Labour and the Coalition between them effectively abolished all royal prerogatives except for war. Even so, I don't fully understand who's advising May that she can simply will new royal prerogatives into being where they previously did not exist.
The thing is now after the Iraq and Syria votes, you could argue that a convention has been established that all military campaigns need a vote in Parliament beforehand.
I think that is clearly the case with the exception of emergencies, self defence and special forces.
Any British involvement in a war that isn't in self-defence or sanctioned by the UN Security Council is in breach of the UN Charter.
Oh dear.
It's true. Do you want Britain to withdraw from the UN? Then it can attack foreign countries when it wants - covertly in "emergencies", okayed by Parliament otherwise, whatever you want. Sigh at that!
Im probably misremembering, but was Syria ever okayed by the Security Council?
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
No no, you see, because people who do want to block the will of the people needed the result to happen to have a (slim) chance, that means the judges were wrong to rule as they did even if they thought that was what the law required, and even though the government fully accepted it was a matter for a court to rule on. The answer is not to ensure those who want to block the will of the people are defeated regardless, or focus on why the judges got the law wrong, but to be angry they did not put democratic expression over the law.
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
Exactly. This is a favourite Europhile trap. Question: what EU-written rules do you want to keep and scrap? Answer: erm...
And then we are told that we don't know what we're doing and we should leave it to the grown-ups at the Commission to decide everything on our behalf.
As you have correctly pointed out, this isn't about whether or not all of the regulations that emanate from Brussels are good, or that they're all bad, or that there's some mixture of the two. It's all about who decides what is and is not law in the first place.
There's nothing to stop Parliament from leaving the bulk of the acquis on the statute book, and indeed there is nothing to stop them from effectively copying more EU rules straight into UK law after we leave, if they think that some of what comes out of the Commission might also be useful to us. But it will be people we elect that decide what rules do and do not apply in future, rather than having them imposed remotely from an office block in Belgium. That's all.
To say it yet again. Signing a treaty has no legal effect. Ratification is what counts. If a treaty - such as an EU treaty - requires primary legislation, it is not ratified until that legislation passes. It cannot take effect until it has been ratified by all the parties. It cannot be ratified if parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation.
You must understand that by now. If you can't admit you were wrong, it would be better just to let it drop silently.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
My point is that the laws will still stand, and a lot of our laws are about standardisation across the world.
Those who voted Leave to have more powerful vacuum cleaners will be sorely disappointed
You will pry my Miele from my [cleaner's] cold dead hands.
"A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive." - How about government action to attack judicial independence?
Free speech, no matter how irate, is not an attack on judicial independence. If the government were to ACT on what has happened it would be either an attack on judicial independence, or an attack on free speech. The government should do neither. The proper role of the government here is to do nothing.
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
Exactly. This is a favourite Europhile trap. Question: what EU-written rules do you want to keep and scrap? Answer: erm...
And then we are told that we don't know what we're doing and we should leave it to the grown-ups at the Commission to decide everything on our behalf.
As you have correctly pointed out, this isn't about whether or not all of the regulations that emanate from Brussels are good, or that they're all bad, or that there's some mixture of the two. It's all about who decides what is and is not law in the first place.
There's nothing to stop Parliament from leaving the bulk of the acquis on the statute book, and indeed there is nothing to stop them from effectively copying more EU rules straight into UK law after we leave, if they think that some of what comes out of the Commission might also be useful to us. But it will be people we elect that decide what rules do and do not apply in future, rather than having them imposed remotely from an office block in Belgium. That's all.
One example in the future might be the financial transaction tax. Although maybe that isn't QMV yet?
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
That's not what the document you keep quoting says
Mr. Eagles, no. And I can't name 10 laws I'd want to keep either.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
My point is that the laws will still stand, and a lot of our laws are about standardisation across the world.
Those who voted Leave to have more powerful vacuum cleaners will be sorely disappointed
You will pry my Miele from my [cleaner's] cold dead hands.
I'd love to discuss vacuum suction power further with you, but I have a fireworks display to go to.
It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
You've lost me there. At what point does keeping a personal register of favours start undermining objective truth?
When decisions are made according to who holds a credit account in your personal record of favours-given-and-received. Anyone in Italy who has tried to apply for anything from their local government will be familiar with the concept. Exaggerating only slightly, the key decision criteria is whether or not you sent them a gift the preceding Christmas.
Edit/ consider - we Brits are generally wary of verbal promises and would rather see something written down. The Italian is precisely the opposite - the words on paper are just a bit of ink; what matters is whether someone has made a personal commitment to your face.
There's a reason that the Alitalia fleet is on the Irish aircraft registry.
Slightly OT, but please can we rename the supreme court back to the Law Lords? It was a way cooler name. Like something out of dystopian scifi novel. The Shadow Chancellor and his army of Law Lords.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
That's not what the document you keep quoting says
The CRG Act 2010 codified the Ponsonby Rule, putting a century-old convention on statutory footing. But conventions carry a lot of weight in the Westminster system regardless.
Practically a government would not, could not ratify a treaty if parliament were to object.
Slightly OT, but please can we rename the supreme court back to the Law Lords? It was a way cooler name. Like something out of dystopian scifi novel. The Shadow Chancellor and his army of Law Lords.
I agree.
But at least we've got the Lords Temporal, which are something from Doctor Who
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
Slightly OT, but please can we rename the supreme court back to the Law Lords? It was a way cooler name. Like something out of dystopian scifi novel. The Shadow Chancellor and his army of Law Lords.
To say it yet again. Signing a treaty has no legal effect. Ratification is what counts. If a treaty - such as an EU treaty - requires primary legislation, it is not ratified until that legislation passes. It cannot take effect until it has been ratified by all the parties. It cannot be ratified if parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation.
You must understand that by now. If you can't admit you were wrong, it would be better just to let it drop silently.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
So what this comes down to is that you think the government would still try to ratify a treaty even if the treaty required a change in the law and even if Parliament refused to make that change?
And you think the courts would approve that ratification.
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
From you own quote
Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
Parliament can deny the treaty
Oh dear...
You are wrong
Nope. The executive can still ratify even if Parliament does not agree to changing UK law. That just means the UK would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would end up in the courts.
This was all covered by the Ponsonby Rule. The Government was obliged to lay all treaties before Parliament for a period of 21 days. If no objections were raised during that period then the Treaty could be ratified. Parliament itself did not ratify it, it simply didn't object.
If there were objections there could be further discussion but Parliament expressly did not have the power to stop ratification if the executive insisted.
In fact if they wanted to until 2010 the Government could bypass the Ponsonby rule entirely by either making an announcement in a debate or answering a Parliamentary question. In nether case could Parliament then do anything about the ratification of the treaty although it could of course refuse to pass the subsequent legislation again putting the UK in breach of its treaty obligations.
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
Of course that is all true but it does allow MP's and probably more obviously Their Lordship's to put down amendments, tie the governments hands before the negotiation have started and generally delay/stall Brexit until "something turns up" to put a stop to the whole thing.
It also set's down the marker that the referendum was "advisory" so basically the votes of 17m people are deemed unimportant.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
'Hysterical nonsense' is nearer the mark.
I reckon the Justices are made of tougher stuff than to lose sleep over a hostile Daily Mail front page - in fact I suspect they'll regard it as a badge of honour......
To say it yet again. Signing a treaty has no legal effect. Ratification is what counts. If a treaty - such as an EU treaty - requires primary legislation, it is not ratified until that legislation passes. It cannot take effect until it has been ratified by all the parties. It cannot be ratified if parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation.
You must understand that by now. If you can't admit you were wrong, it would be better just to let it drop silently.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
So what this comes down to is that you think the government would still try to ratify a treaty even if the treaty required a change in the law and even if Parliament refuses to make that change?
Idiot.
Whether they would be wise to do so is another matter but constitutionally yes they could do that. The document you keep quoting specifically mentions using a vote of no confidence in an attempt to bring down the Government under those circumstances.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
That's not what the document you keep quoting says
Yes it does. You are just too dumb to understand it.
The document you keep quoting specifically mentions using a vote of no confidence in an attempt to bring down the Government under those circumstances.
To quote from the very opening paragraph of the document Chris is relying upon :
"According to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown. Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them"
Parliament voting to deny provision does not change the fact that we have signed and ratified the treaty. It just means that we end up in breach of its terms.
Chris is simply wrong.
From you own quote
Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
Parliament can deny the treaty
Oh dear...
You are wrong
Nope. The executive can still ratify even if Parliament does not agree to changing UK law. That just means the UK would be in breach of its treaty obligations and would end up in the courts.
This was all covered by the Ponsonby Rule. The Government was obliged to lay all treaties before Parliament for a period of 21 days. If no objections were raised during that period then the Treaty could be ratified. Parliament itself did not ratify it, it simply didn't object.
If there were objections there could be further discussion but Parliament expressly did not have the power to stop ratification if the executive insisted.
In fact if they wanted to until 2010 the Government could bypass the Ponsonby rule entirely by either making an announcement in a debate or answering a Parliamentary question. In nether case could Parliament then do anything about the ratification of the treaty although it could of course refuse to pass the subsequent legislation again putting the UK in breach of its treaty obligations.
Were there examples of this happening? i.e. did a UK government ever ratify a treaty against the express objection of the House of Commons? Or is it purely academic?
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
The truth about why an Italian - or indeed Russian - airline might register planes overseas seems to be rather more complicated, an interesting fairly short read:
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
It takes a bit of time scratching beneath the surface to see that Italians are the most neurotic, conformist, small-c conservative people, whose lives are dominated by fear of what everyone else thinks in a way that resembles the Middle East more than Europe, where everyone keeps a personal register of favours given and received to the point where objective truth is merely an amusing subject for late night discussion, at best.
You've lost me there. At what point does keeping a personal register of favours start undermining objective truth?
When decisions are made according to who holds a credit account in your personal record of favours-given-and-received. Anyone in Italy who has tried to apply for anything from their local government will be familiar with the concept. Exaggerating only slightly, the key decision criteria is whether or not you sent them a gift the preceding Christmas.
Edit/ consider - we Brits are generally wary of verbal promises and would rather see something written down. The Italian is precisely the opposite - the words on paper are just a bit of ink; what matters is whether someone has made a personal commitment to your face.
There's a reason that the Alitalia fleet is on the Irish aircraft registry.
I can imagine.
The bottom line is that the Italians' historical experience is so very different from ours and as a consequence their attitudes are in many ways almost the opposite of ours.
As just a small example, the English author Tim Parks - who married an Italian and moved to the Italian north - tells the story of when he applied to Italia Telecom for a landline. They sent him back a direct debit form and, like any of us would with BT, he happily filled in his bank details and sent the form straight back. When he happened to mention this later to some Italian acquaintances, they were horrified, and asked him why on earth he would think it a good idea to give any state organisation access to his bank account. Sure enough, when his next bank statement arrived, he found that Italia Telecom had helped themselves not only to twelve months rental in advance, but also deducted an amount equal to what they imagined he might spend over the year ahead in call charges.
Yes it does. You are just too dumb to understand it.
No it doesn't, you're just too dumb...
Let's try this again. I'll type slowly.
in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive
There are a set of circumstances in which Parliament "can only overcome the will of the executive" by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them
but this is an "other" set of circumstances.
There are also a set of circumstances in which Parliament can "overcome the will of the executive" by doing something else.
Does the document specify what else Parliament can do to overcome the will of the executive? Why, yes it does.
Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
So Parliament may vote in the normal way to deny the required provision which can overcome the will of the executive
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
This referendum (or more importantly the aftermath of the referendum) has turned everyone mad.
I saw there was a mad Remainer on Question Time (presumably a doctor or scientist?) from Great Ormond Street saying she hoped, in affect, that the children of Leavers get sick and die!
It's hard to understand whats going on but its a very unsettling time.. But then I guess revolutions, even typically British one's, won't be painless.
To say it yet again. Signing a treaty has no legal effect. Ratification is what counts. If a treaty - such as an EU treaty - requires primary legislation, it is not ratified until that legislation passes. It cannot take effect until it has been ratified by all the parties. It cannot be ratified if parliament refuses to pass the necessary legislation.
You must understand that by now. If you can't admit you were wrong, it would be better just to let it drop silently.
Ratification does not rely on approval by Parliament - or rather did not prior to 2010. It was by royal Prerogative and the executive could ratify even if Parliament did not agree.
So what this comes down to is that you think the government would still try to ratify a treaty even if the treaty required a change in the law and even if Parliament refuses to make that change?
Idiot.
Whether they would be wise to do so is another matter but constitutionally yes they could do that. The document you keep quoting specifically mentions using a vote of no confidence in an attempt to bring down the Government under those circumstances.
What it says is this: "Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them."
It really shouldn't be my job to give you help with primary-school-level reading skills, but what that phrase "in other circumstances" means, is that it doesn't refer to the circumstances that have just been mentioned. In other words (trying to keep the number of syllables per words as small as possible), it doesn't refers to treaties which require a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money. Those treaties are obviously killed stone dead by parliamentary disapproval, because they require (look it up if you don't know the meaning of the word) something which only parliament can authorise, and parliament has refused that authorisation.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
So they aren't independent guardians of justice, they are looking out for their mates?
Mr. Cocque, if the judges making the final ruling are so liable to emotional and subjective influence, that does rather support the view that a similar bias may have crept into the initial judgement.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
So now you're saying the law lords, who are meant to be so independent and part of our amazing independent judiciary, will now take account of their friends's hurt feelings when deciding this massively important constitutional issue, and will turn down the government's appeal because Baron Thomas has been crying and the Daily Mail used the words "openly gay fencer"
Great. How impressive. Our magnificent independent judiciary is in fact like a bunch of teenage girls.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
What a bucket of hysterical sputum.
SCORCHED TO THE GROUND
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN NUKED
THE QUEEN IS LITERALLY IN FLAMES AND NELSON'S COLUMN HAS BEEN TURNED INTO A RADIOACTIVE DILDO INSERTED INTO THE BURNING ANUS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY
Jesus. What's happened to you? What's happened to Remainers? They need anti-psychotics
Incidentally my guess is that all this unpleasantness from the tabloids will make it more likely the government will lose its appeal. I imagine the law lords are close friends and colleagues with people who have suffered an unjust and personal media onslaught, and will be more keen to defend their independence and their colleagues' professional honour than they otherwise would have done,
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Mr. Cocque, I'm not so sure. When I met Mr. Eagles, his dress sense clearly indicated a man unfamiliar with the human concept of fashion, and quite possibly possessing eyes incapable of registering the light frequency range homo sapiens can see.
Who is Felicity Hannah and why should I care what she's tweeting?
An hysterical freelancer, auditioning for the Guardian me thinks. – I don’t doubt she has another article already typed up, ranting about press intrusion if the Government had intervened.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
Except that all of us can read their judgement in full, and there is no bias that is apparent. Cromwell won the civil war and they are simply respecting the result.
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
So now we have lawyers screaming 'safezone' and the Continuity Osbornes parroting the New Statesman.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Attacking judicial independence is when the government fires or arrests judges, or packs the Courts with their supporters. Rude tabloids don't really amount to that.
There does seem to be a view that for the Press to criticise judges (however ignorant that criticism may be) is akin to blasphemy. I think the judges are quite capable of ignoring criticism
There is a big difference between criticising judges and accusing them of bias. Friday morning's front pages were unprecedented and based on the flimsiest of evidence.
I've given you evidence, which you have studiously ignored. Baron Thomas, who ruled on A50:
"is one of the Founding Members of the European Law Institute, a non-profit organisation that conducts research, makes recommendations and provides practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration."
He should have recused himself. Clear conflict of interest.
I am less concerned by the openly gay fencer.
What on earth do you see as the conflict of interest? It's an organisation for making European law technically better. Or is it now Leavers' settled view that European law is to be as half-assed as possible?
Comments
BTW James II was overthrown peacefully-ish.
statement given
"Too little, too late"
spectacular.
We could call it independence.
But nevertheless the original point was whether or not the Lords would block Brexit. By my reckoning few of her majesty's lordships will be dining on Chicken McNuggets this eventide.
Trump 48.0
Clinton 42.6
Already moved on.
And why should I? It isn't my business until and unless the UK leaves and gets control of its own legislation again. And if that happens I'll pay attention to the political scene, as I do through PB, and then form opinions as laws are put up for discussion regarding repeal.
Are you opposed to Parliament being able to repeal EU laws if they aren't wanted by the UK?
I have confidence the UK can govern itself without the meddling of EU bureaucrats [though the likes of Clegg, Blair, the SNP and Sinn Fein seem intent upon preventing that].
In my view, what the government should be doing now is the precise opposite of what it is doing. Instead of trying to cobble together some half-baked strategy to paper over the divisions in the Tory party, it should be seeking a national consensus on as broad a basis as possible. Obviously the consensus has to include a complete break with the EU's political structures. But as far as trade is concerned, we should be consulting our best interests and working out what will be the best relationship with the EU. There's no question that that's what the electorate would wish, because polls indicate by a ridiculously large margin that people voted in the way they thought would make them better off (or at least no worse off).
A confident and competent prime minister would be initiating and leading such a national debate. Theresa May is hiding from it and trying to stifle it.
Italy is a staggeringly beautiful country...I can look out my lounge window now, and I can virtually see the whole of Florence down below.
But...you are so right about the conservative/paranoid psyche of the people. They are ultra conformist. They change their wardrobe for each season....and look aghast if you do something different. They obsessively clean their houses...for fear that they could be looked down upon, or spoken badly about. They possess multiple mobile phones...for partners, children, parents...and expect them to be answered immediately. They are terrible control freaks...my wife's parents are suffocating. My Italian friends are suffocating too...they phone me if I'm 5 minutes late to ask where I am. They are so inpatient...especially when driving. And they obsessively focus on the transactional...at the expense of the big picture....they have no sense of strategy. I could go on and on.....but I do love them dearly...
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. Some of the press coverage of the decision has been deplorable. There is nothing–nothing at all–in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. To rule on such matters is emphatically the courts’ job. For 25 years I have been among the first to criticise judicial rulings that trespass into terrain better left to politicians and Parliament. But this is no such case.
https://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2016/11/05/brexit-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/
Those who voted Leave to have more powerful vacuum cleaners will be sorely disappointed
It's an interesting fact, however, that Vodaphone's "alter ego" service, which offers customers two seperate telephone numbers from a single SIM card, was tailor-designed for and is offered only in Italy, and explains why Vodaphone has such high market share in the country. Why would that be, I wonder? (Not really).
You arrive at a reasonable crowded beach. The Brit looks for the biggest unoccupied space between the people already there, and endeavours to position themself there. The Italian looks for the biggest crowd and tries to work out a way to sit as near as possible to the most crowded bit of beach, thinking that if most people are there it must be the best place to be. Their thinking and ours could not be more different.
And then we are told that we don't know what we're doing and we should leave it to the grown-ups at the Commission to decide everything on our behalf.
As you have correctly pointed out, this isn't about whether or not all of the regulations that emanate from Brussels are good, or that they're all bad, or that there's some mixture of the two. It's all about who decides what is and is not law in the first place.
There's nothing to stop Parliament from leaving the bulk of the acquis on the statute book, and indeed there is nothing to stop them from effectively copying more EU rules straight into UK law after we leave, if they think that some of what comes out of the Commission might also be useful to us. But it will be people we elect that decide what rules do and do not apply in future, rather than having them imposed remotely from an office block in Belgium. That's all.
This is a big question, no wonder the supreme court has cleared the decks.
"A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive." - How about government action to attack judicial independence?
Free speech, no matter how irate, is not an attack on judicial independence. If the government were to ACT on what has happened it would be either an attack on judicial independence, or an attack on free speech. The government should do neither. The proper role of the government here is to do nothing.
The Elite haven't caught up yet though, bless them.
Practically a government would not, could not ratify a treaty if parliament were to object.
But at least we've got the Lords Temporal, which are something from Doctor Who
A starker, more blatant attack on judicial independence is hard to conceive. It is one thing to criticise court rulings. Or to draw attention to judicial decisions where they fall into error. But when the legislature and executive join forces with the media to launch rocket after rocket of personal, unwarranted abuse that is intended not to criticise or inform, but to demean, undermine, unnerve, terrify and intimidate independent judges who cannot answer back, we have a genuine constitutional crisis. The separation of powers is not just breached but scorched to the ground.
As a compromise, how about Supreme Law Lords.
I'm panicking.
That, plus just the fact that it's a tracking poll and the initial sample doesn't seem to have been properly weighted.
Of course, maybe it's the only poll that has been properly weighted...
And you think the courts would approve that ratification.
Idiot.
This was all covered by the Ponsonby Rule. The Government was obliged to lay all treaties before Parliament for a period of 21 days. If no objections were raised during that period then the Treaty could be ratified. Parliament itself did not ratify it, it simply didn't object.
If there were objections there could be further discussion but Parliament expressly did not have the power to stop ratification if the executive insisted.
In fact if they wanted to until 2010 the Government could bypass the Ponsonby rule entirely by either making an announcement in a debate or answering a Parliamentary question. In nether case could Parliament then do anything about the ratification of the treaty although it could of course refuse to pass the subsequent legislation again putting the UK in breach of its treaty obligations.
It also set's down the marker that the referendum was "advisory" so basically the votes of 17m people are deemed unimportant.
That what people are concerned about.
I reckon the Justices are made of tougher stuff than to lose sleep over a hostile Daily Mail front page - in fact I suspect they'll regard it as a badge of honour......
And if you think they would, you're an idiot.
http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/414016-italian-aircraft-irish-registered.html
Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others. Household Money Journalist of the Year 2015 & 2016. Writing a novel.
http://felicityhannah.co.uk
The bottom line is that the Italians' historical experience is so very different from ours and as a consequence their attitudes are in many ways almost the opposite of ours.
As just a small example, the English author Tim Parks - who married an Italian and moved to the Italian north - tells the story of when he applied to Italia Telecom for a landline. They sent him back a direct debit form and, like any of us would with BT, he happily filled in his bank details and sent the form straight back. When he happened to mention this later to some Italian acquaintances, they were horrified, and asked him why on earth he would think it a good idea to give any state organisation access to his bank account. Sure enough, when his next bank statement arrived, he found that Italia Telecom had helped themselves not only to twelve months rental in advance, but also deducted an amount equal to what they imagined he might spend over the year ahead in call charges.
Let's try this again. I'll type slowly.
in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive
There are a set of circumstances in which Parliament "can only overcome the will of the executive" by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them
but this is an "other" set of circumstances.
There are also a set of circumstances in which Parliament can "overcome the will of the executive" by doing something else.
Does the document specify what else Parliament can do to overcome the will of the executive? Why, yes it does.
Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision
So Parliament may vote in the normal way to deny the required provision which can overcome the will of the executive
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-05/corbyn-demands-may-give-mps-more-transparency-on-brexit-plans/
I saw there was a mad Remainer on Question Time (presumably a doctor or scientist?) from Great Ormond Street saying she hoped, in affect, that the children of Leavers get sick and die!
It's hard to understand whats going on but its a very unsettling time.. But then I guess revolutions, even typically British one's, won't be painless.
"Where a treaty requires a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money, Parliament may vote in the normal way to make or deny the required provision; in other circumstances it can only overcome the will of the executive to conclude a particular treaty by expressing disapproval and relying on political pressure to change the mind of ministers, or, in the extreme case, by withdrawing its confidence from them."
It really shouldn't be my job to give you help with primary-school-level reading skills, but what that phrase "in other circumstances" means, is that it doesn't refer to the circumstances that have just been mentioned. In other words (trying to keep the number of syllables per words as small as possible), it doesn't refers to treaties which require a change in UK legislation or the grant of public money. Those treaties are obviously killed stone dead by parliamentary disapproval, because they require (look it up if you don't know the meaning of the word) something which only parliament can authorise, and parliament has refused that authorisation.
Now do you understand?
Thanks for clearing that up.
"I am available for articles on parenting but I have also written extensively on health, fitness and more general lifestyle features."
Maybe this is why she is qualified to write about the Constitution and judicial process?
edit: I have now actually looked at the article and she didn't write it. So ignore my comment.
How can HM The Queen be SOVEREIGN if the UK is reduced to a province of Brussels? Or are you ALL closet pinko republicans (small "r", of course!)?
love,
Sunil
x
So you are saying the judges won't be objective?
Shorthand then for I shouldn't care.
Its a pity that Cameron lied and didn't immediately trigger A50 as he had promised.
The mess would be even more amusing in that case.
This is how Felicity Hannah, who it seems is now so worth quoting at length, describes herself - 'Freelance PF journalist writing for the Independent, Mirror, Yahoo & others'.
Clearly a political and legal titan to behold.
Felicity Hannah didn't write the article.
She tweeted an article written by 'SecretBarrister' who blogs here
https://thesecretbarrister.com/
Honestly, if you read her twitter profile, how about reading the piece itself.