Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the A50 Supreme Court hearing starts YouGov finds just 46%
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the A50 Supreme Court hearing starts YouGov finds just 46% having a favourable view of senior judges
"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["e2rUo"]={},window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].embedDeltas={"100":852.8,"200":708.8,"300":626.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":572.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-e2rUo"),window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"e2rUo"==b&&(window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});
Comments
Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.
The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.
The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.
Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.
But I think that the main reason is that Valls hopes it would help him distantiate himself a bit more credibly from Hollande.
http://theuptake.org/live-video-post/wisconsin-recount-day-3-waukesha-county/
Here's the Electoral Eommission spreadsheet:
http://elections.wi.gov/node/4510
So far, Trump's lead has been extended by 39 votes:
Trump: 110 (+39)
Clinton: 71
Stein: 41
Johnson: 19
Some more research on this would be useful, is it related to judicial activism seen in the US and increasingly the EU courts, is it the specific court case before the UK Supremes next week, or is it a growing number of people becoming less trusting of anyone in authority?
It might of course be a combination of all of the above, I imagine that the determination of a significant group of 'the establishment' to treat the Brexit vote as an inconvenience that can be ignored isn't particularly helpful at the moment.
David Cameron during the campaign suggested that Article 50 would be invoked the day after the referendum, as if all that was required were a letter sent to Brussels. A majority of voters probably took him at his word - there was certainly little discussion about the mechanics of the Brexit process before we voted.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/805346031848275968?s=09
Could be an interesting test of Nuttall
If he wants to win the primary he will probably need to acknoledge some errors of the last five years and criticize some of Hollande (and his) decisions. My guess would be some kind of regret about company tax cuts.
It was also the incident that really started to turn me against may. I'm still half convinced she's happy about all this, since it takes pressure off by distracting people, and as Mark d'arcy laid out the parliamentary route is different but should not prove a block, but she was out of line. I recall the telegraph piece where about 10 paragraphs in her spokesman said it was ridiculous to suggest she had questioned the independence of judges, but the opening paragraph stated she was warning politicians and judges not to stymie Brexit, proving the former statement false. Oh, she's said the correct words at other times, but that worries me, she could have ridden the wave of anger without going to that point.
How ridiculous was it? I seem to recall conservative home had one of the more measured responses, although since we've seen the stuff about the courts negating Brexit, which isn't on the cards.
Lord knows mr Meeks has and will continue to bluntly express his disdain for leavers and the leave vote, in hyperbolistic fashion, but he's right to highlight those who prioritise Brexit over literally everything else, no matter the implications or law, and who interpret any challenge as illegitimate.
The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
And if the law is an ass, parliament always has the power to change it.
Goes back to watching plane crash survival videos.
To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.
As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
"Frenzy as Renzi loses Italian Job."
As a non lawyer I can't judge those ' first principles ' but if I were a government lawyer that's where 'Id attack. The logic of the judgement is superb and impregnable. If the Court is correct in it's assessment of the first principles of our constitution then the judgement is sound. If they weren't then their subsequent beautiful logic is worthless. It's not a lazy or confused bit of reasoning. It stands or falls on the base assumptions they made.
This, incidentally, is a far more important question than Brexit for the governance of the country. Those who persist in viewing it just through that prism (from either side) are crazed.
David, if the court case had preceded the referendum, do you think the judges should have come up with a different interpretation of the law?
That way madness lies.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
If it was simply a matter of following the law, there wouldn't be the controversy; indeed, there wouldn't be the court case. There is the case precisely because the law is not clear and as such, the Courts are not interpreting the law; they are making it. There is no statute as to what power the government has, hence all the argument about convention, precedent and implied powers.
The technical process within any political system has to take account of the whole system, and when parliament throws a question to the country - even if the result is not binding in statute - that surely has to be a relevant factor?
I acknowledge I am a layman, and I have seen detailed arguments as to why the high court was incorrect in its ruling, but those arguments were about how they interpreted the law incorrectly, not that they failed to take due account of the politics of the referendum. The implication was already the government's own interpretation of its powers should be accepted without challenge because what it proposed was popular, now it's the view of judges on what the law is should change based on popular view. Don't the implications of that seem worrying? Unless the Supreme Court say the law required the high court to pay more attention to the referendum result, facilitating the enacting of that result was not their job. Nor was making it more difficult than it needs to be. It was establishing how the law as presently set up requires it to be done.
And since there is no question the decision undermines parliament, and suggestions a three line bill giving it the power or whatever could be made in response, and it adds to my view the government will far from mind this distraction.
But this subject makes me angry as I feel even more than usual ignore the point (or I am merely a misguided fool), so I'll call it a day.
1. Acknowledged that it did not have the power to implement the decision itself, despite governments historically having had the power to implement treaties ratified by parliament, as Lisbon was.
2. Acknowledged that parliament had the right to override the people, not only in exceptional circumstances but as a matter of course.
Neither point was worth conceding without a fight.
Unless you unconcede the point that the referendum is not binding.
My concern about senior judges is that the Supreme Court has indeed been much more willing to interfere in matters of policy and politics in a way that the old House of Lords would not have. This is in large part a consequence of the rules that they are given. The Human Rights Act, European Law and the ever extending concept of Judicial Review have resulted in the Courts, and in particular the Supreme Court interfering in decisions they should not be interfering in. Some Supreme Court cases have page after page of prose explaining and weighing the policies behind a decision with little sign of what a black letter lawyer would regard as actual law in sight.
In this particular case the High Court developed the concept of rights for citizens from legislation in a somewhat novel way. They took the view that the elected Government could not take a step that interfered with those rights without the express authority of Parliament. I think this was wrong. It ignores the fact that our government is the government because it has a majority in Parliament who support it. If the Commons ceases to support the government it falls and cannot make these decisions. It gave insufficient weight to the fact that Parliament had approved the referendum by an Act of Parliament. It gave no weight to the argument (in so far as it was made) that both sides had committed to respect and implement that decision and that the people had voted on that basis. It seemed to give no weight at all to the fact that Parliament will have to repeal the European Communities Act and numerous other statutes by primary legislation to implement the decision. It sought to restrict the role of the executive in implementing the will of the majority in that approved referendum to effectively nothing.
Lawyers are obsessed with process. It is not always a good thing. But in the way our law has developed in the last 20 years it would be surprising if the government was successful in this case.
That way madness lies...
https://twitter.com/BBCCambs/status/805675636530573312
The law of unintended consequences comes into play here. I wonder if the remainers that brought this case have fully investigated the impact of winning! The precedent set by a win will impact all future governments and probably in ways not considered in the heat of despair after the Brexit win.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
This case does not in any way prevent the country leaving the eu. Therefore, to suggest any decision it makes goes against the public is simply incorrect. Some hope parliament will use the opportunity to not leave the eu, but that itself proves the decision to leave or remain has not been done by the court, but the politicians, and it is they who need to listen to popular will and mandate. Unless legally the court should have taken such matters into account, it definitely should not have, and the initial objections I saw on the courts ruling focused on legal points they got wrong, not including they didn't take account of the politics.
We don't need judges to interpret the law but considering the political situation. We have politicians to tackle the political situation and to change the law if it takes less account of it as it should. Why even have judges if popular will means they should not follow the law?
Good day all. I'll definitely give things a miss when the court rules - if the government wins, fine by me, but I suspect the atmosphere in the country will be much more bitter the other way.
Edit: As a side note, when an appeal panel decides on an infant class size appeal, the rules are very strict. If someone seeks to review a decision, even if it was a horrible bloody decision given the personal circumstances, as long as the panel followed the correct process a review would fail, because the review is about process, not merits of the case. Something that applies to small and big things, the legal challenges not about merits, but what is technically correct. Make it about merits, and maybe its fine this time, but next time?
How very EU :-)
Still the Brextremists persist.
Fox jr is considering doing the GDL with the aim of becoming a solicitor, following his first degree in Geography.
Any thoughts or advice from the PB legal eagles?
Tell him the sons of Doctors who go work in the legal profession are the best.
If only we had some sort of panel of impartial legally qualified people charged with sifting through these issues and making a final ruling ?
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/12/scotland-and-how-the-supreme-court-could-pave-the-way-for-a-general-election.html
On being sticklers for process, I have to side with lawyers for once on this one (though they quibble on what the process is). Process can be frustrating, we all know that, but frustrating is all it is, it doesn't stymie you if you have the will to get through it, and you should with all important matters, and it ensures things are properly considered and processed, when done right. Better to have these arguments now, than they crop up later.
Mr. Eagles, not following the rule of law? Like Caesar, you mean?
They can smell a snap GE in the winds.
Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.
I'm still amused that the Mail focussed on one judge being a gay Olympic fencer.
That's why the Yank politicians choose their top judges. No matter how hard they try, subconscious bias will play a part. It's even possible, they may go to the opposite extreme to prevent it. But it has an effect..
It's even possible that Mrs May is an ardent Leaver now because she 'remains' a Remainer at heart.
My sentiments almost exactly.
Give it a few days and the euro will start to slip again..
I think if there is an election in Italy then the Euro could wobble a bit, especially if M5S wins.
https://twitter.com/jimmydolittle1/status/805528920384827393
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/805691177332867076
Flamboyantly fruity men being judges? Outrageous!
[I do think the reaction to most of the criticism and scrutiny of the judges is overdone, but some of the attacks have been either over the top or frankly bizarre. Disgraceful to attack a chap for his sexual orientation].
Of course, the best representations of gay people is found in fiction, such as the lead character of Kingdom Asunder:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/
On a less 'please buy my book' note, it's worth recalling that Ellie's a great lead (well, lead female) in The Last of Us. I do hope the sequel lives up to the first game.
Mr. Submarine, voting ahead of military action is bloody stupid. It's an executive matter, not something to be debated by legislators.
As an aside, I voted Remain. However, it's more important that democracy is allowed to prevail.
The alternative is anarchy.
"Public bodies in the UK had too often ignored or condoned divisive or harmful religious practices for fear of being called racist, the Casey Review said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38200989
Oh, yes it is now definitely the season for chocolate oranges - yum