If, for example, changes to fishing quotas were assessed as removing the power to earn a living and it was enforced by a Statutory Instrument, could that be challenged in the Supreme Court?
I'm not a lawyer but #1 Statutory Instruments aren't Prerogative. They derive from Parent primary legislation. #2 SI's do have a form of parliamentary approval. #3 The ruling was about Rights granted by Parliament. Not something as nebulous as " the power to earn a living. " You are comparing Apples and Chocolate Oranges.
In fact, that is the issue - the judgement is wrong because it is based on 'rights conferred' rather than purely on the primacy of Parliament.
The potential here is for judicial creep - in that once it is held that the issue is a 'right' and not a 'law' - then the ability for Judges to decide that a right is conferred and therefore confound the will of the executive over powers that it should naturally hold (under international treaty) potentially increases.
The judgement should be reduced to its narrowest meaning - that in essence it is not about rights held by individuals, but the pure issue of revocation of law by effect of executive action. This I suspect, is the real reason for this appeal.
@keiranpedley: Am I right in thinking that Renzi never actually won an election? And then called a referendum and lost? Is that something to really mourn?
Not really. When I finally got round to looking at the actual constitutional reform last week I was astonished. Asserting the clear primacy of the Chamber of Deputies in a bicameral system is one thing. But the replacement model for appointing the Senate was undemocratic and centralising. I'd almost certainly have voted No myself if I was Italian. It was all a bit AV. It diagnosed the problem correctly but prescribed a replacement that was at best crap and at worst likely to maximise opposition. Add in it being personally associated with a governing politican and hey presto...
What I don't get about Renzi is why he said he would resign if he lost. If he hadn't upped the stakes like that, he wouldn't have lost by such a big margin, and may have been able to carry on as PM. It was a constitutional reform vote - not something like Brexit or Scottish independence, where you can kind of see why the PM couldn't stay on after.
OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?
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.
It's the same response as after Trump won. Last night the Euro took a bit if a beating, but once everyone got some perspective it has recovered.
I think if there is an election in Italy then the Euro could wobble a bit, especially if M5S wins.
I've been thinking about this, and I think (imminent) new elections are almost impossible in Italy at this time.
Why?
Renzi's constitutional reforms fell into two groups:
1. Changes to the constitution, that got rid of a layer of local government, and changed the balance of power between the Executive, and the two houses of parliament. 2. The Italicam law, that changed how the Chamber of Deputies would be elected.
The Italicam results in voting become two round, and gives the winner of the run-off an automatic bonus, effectively ensuring them a majority.
Italicam was sent to the constitutional court earlier this year. It could be ruled unconstitutional, or it could be upheld. But what is what format should be used for an election held today in Italy. Should it be under the new system or the old?
For this reason, I think the Italian President will be extremely keen to install a caretaker government, provided one can pass confidence votes in both houses of parliament.
What might that look like?
Well, there are two groupings that are keen for new elections: the Five Star Movement, and the the Lega Nord/Us with Salvini. There are two groups that do not want elections: Renzi's Democratic Party and the Berlusconi's Forza Italia. At the last election in 2013, Forza Italia only just lagged the DP, garnering 29% of the vote. It now polls 15%. Forza does not want new elections now. Could we perhaps see a Forza Italia Prime Minister as part of a Forza/DP coalition?
One last thought. The Five Star Movement has not done a good job of holding onto its politicians. Of its 109 deputies, 13 have defected to other parties.
Interesting how attractive these Mayor posts are proving to be to serving MP's.
Especially these mayoral posts that have been created by accident . The original proposal was for a Norfolk and Suffolk combined regional Mayor . It was then thought that this area was not large enough to justify one so Cambs and Peterborough were added . Norfolk and Suffolk decided they wanted no part of this so we have ended up with a Mayor for an even smaller area that was not even in the original proposal .
Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
But the government didn't 'already have' the power, if the judges are correct. You're saying parliament should be taken to have transferred its power to the government, despite this not being mentioned, in such circumstances. A better argument, perhaps, but not really anything to do with taking account of the political dynamics, which is one reason I like it better - it argues the implicit transfer of power. Not without problems - pronouncements before the vote are not law, if the act did not say parliament granted authority to do whatever it took to leave, can it be said to have granted it - but better than the other implications. Which you may not be intentionally making, but plenty are.
The government's case is that it still has the prerogative power. No-one questions that this power does not exist with regard to implementing ratified treaties in general. The question here is whether it can be used to negate primary legislation. In short, is it:
1. still in force in all circumstances 2. in abeyance, but capable of being called out of abeyance 3. abrogated.
The HC decided that it was (3); that an explicit Act was required to undo the 1972 ECA, irrespective of what else parliament has passed. I disagree and am making the case for (2), and arguing that the fundamental sovereignty of the people, as expressed in a referendum sanctioned by parliament and on the specific (if implied) question of invoking A50, should be sufficient to call it out of abeyance on this question.
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.
.
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.
Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
There is a confusion over to what 'it' refers to in your post that explains some of the difficulty you seem to be having with this.
The fact remains that the EU referendum act - unlike the one for AV - was completely silent as to what actions or consequences would follow from any particular vote in the referendum. Therefore as a legal instrument the lawyers have rightly put it aside in terms of any formal decision -making significance. Whilst i understand that from your political perspective you may not like this, it does stem from a decision made originally by politicians, not lawyers.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?
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.
It's the same response as after Trump won. Last night the Euro took a bit if a beating, but once everyone got some perspective it has recovered.
I think if there is an election in Italy then the Euro could wobble a bit, especially if M5S wins.
I've been thinking about this, and I think (imminent) new elections are almost impossible in Italy at this time.
Why?
Renzi's constitutional reforms fell into two groups:
1. Changes to the constitution, that got rid of a layer of local government, and changed the balance of power between the Executive, and the two houses of parliament. 2. The Italicam law, that changed how the Chamber of Deputies would be elected.
The Italicam results in voting become two round, and gives the winner of the run-off an automatic bonus, effectively ensuring them a majority.
Italicam was sent to the constitutional court earlier this year. It could be ruled unconstitutional, or it could be upheld. But what is what format should be used for an election held today in Italy. Should it be under the new system or the old?
For this reason, I think the Italian President will be extremely keen to install a caretaker government, provided one can pass confidence votes in both houses of parliament.
What might that look like?
Well, there are two groupings that are keen for new elections: the Five Star Movement, and the the Lega Nord/Us with Salvini. There are two groups that do not want elections: Renzi's Democratic Party and the Berlusconi's Forza Italia. At the last election in 2013, Forza Italia only just lagged the DP, garnering 29% of the vote. It now polls 15%. Forza does not want new elections now. Could we perhaps see a Forza Italia Prime Minister as part of a Forza/DP coalition?
One last thought. The Five Star Movement has not done a good job of holding onto its politicians. Of its 109 deputies, 13 have defected to other parties.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
And the High Court has ruled that is not the case.
Still the Brextremists persist.
Yes, well I think it was wrong. So does the government, which is why it's appealing. We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees ( fwiw, I expect them to uphold the decision).
As an aside, I voted Remain. However, it's more important that democracy is allowed to prevail.
There are of course other reasons as to why the government might be appealing.
@Blue_Rog Certainly when I read the judgement I thought the £10 I gave the Crowdfunder was the most effective political donation I've ever made. It's a glorious judicial thrashing of executive overreach. To my non lawyer reading it's a very basic reaffirmation of the journey we've been on since Magna Carta. The King is subject to parliament and the Prerogative is what's left after parliament has spoken. I've saved a copy to my Kindle to reread over the years to come. So in a curious way I agree with you.
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.
Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
There is a confusion over to what 'it' refers to in your post that explains some of the difficulty you seem to be having with this.
The fact remains that the EU referendum act - unlike the one for AV - was completely silent as to what actions or consequences would follow from any particular vote in the referendum. Therefore as a legal instrument the lawyers have rightly put it aside in terms of any formal decision -making significance. Whilst i understand that from your political perspective you may not like this, it does stem from a decision made originally by politicians, not lawyers.
If those are the rules we're going to play by, then fine. But on that basis, the HC should not have given any weight to what MPs might have been intending when they passed the 1972 ECA; they should simply have gone on what was in it - and nowhere did it revoke the prerogative on matters relating to membership of the EC.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is why those newspaper headlines, and the strops thrown on here, about a legal judgement are so unwise.
You don't like the result. Fair enough. You think they got it wrong. There's an appeal. The process is working as it should. That is what reasonable people on your side of the argument should be telling the people.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
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.
Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
There is a confusion over to what 'it' refers to in your post that explains some of the difficulty you seem to be having with this.
The fact remains that the EU referendum act - unlike the one for AV - was completely silent as to what actions or consequences would follow from any particular vote in the referendum. Therefore as a legal instrument the lawyers have rightly put it aside in terms of any formal decision -making significance. Whilst i understand that from your political perspective you may not like this, it does stem from a decision made originally by politicians, not lawyers.
If those are the rules we're going to play by, then fine. But on that basis, the HC should not have given any weight to what MPs might have been intending when they passed the 1972 ECA; they should simply have gone on what was in it - and nowhere did it revoke the prerogative on matters relating to membership of the EC.
There wasn't anything "in it" to "go on", that was the point.
So they had to sit back and work out where the decision would sit, regardless of the referendum. Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
There is a concern this time because the referendum has changed the emotion of the scenario without changing the logic or law of it.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
Yes I've criticised the judiciary in the past and shall do so again
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
Because if we remain we will get subsumed within a European superstate. An undemocratic European superstate. Leaving is the only thing that matters for those who want above all else to avoid this fate. Our own constitution needs fixing (both in the sense 'repair' and of 'ink on paper') - but that can only (and must) be done once we're free so to do. I don't think you really grasp how profoundly hated and mistrusted the EU is for more than half the population. Brexit means freedom and democracy. Remain means we belong to Brussels.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
Because if we remain we will get subsumed within a European superstate. An undemocratic European superstate. Leaving is the only thing that matters for those who want above all else to avoid this fate. Our own constitution needs fixing (both in the sense 'repair' and of 'ink on paper') - but that can only (and must) be done once we're free so to do. I don't think you really grasp how profoundly hated and mistrusted the EU is for more than half the population. Brexit means freedom and democracy. Remain means we belong to Brussels.
I think you missed out the words "a small minority of" before "half the population"?
"Norbert Hofer is citing Nigel Farage as one of the reasons he lost. " he announced that if I win I'd call for an EU referendum, that wasn't helpful. The vast majority of Austrians support the EU".
@Anna_Soubry: If Govt not Parliament has power to trigger #A50 then they cld decide NOT to trigger it Parly wld be powerless to execute will of the ppl
This shows a complete ignorance of how our system works. If a government does not reflect the will of a majority in Parliament it ceases to exist because it is removed. So if this government had decided not to implement Article 50 and a majority in the Commons felt that the wishes of the majority as shown by the referendum would be respected it would be replaced by a government that would. The complete artificiality of the argument that there is a difference between "the government" and "Parliament" is one of the more unfortunate aspects of the High Court decision. Our system does not work that way.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
Because if we remain we will get subsumed within a European superstate. An undemocratic European superstate. Leaving is the only thing that matters for those who want above all else to avoid this fate. Our own constitution needs fixing (both in the sense 'repair' and of 'ink on paper') - but that can only (and must) be done once we're free so to do. I don't think you really grasp how profoundly hated and mistrusted the EU is for more than half the population. Brexit means freedom and democracy. Remain means we belong to Brussels.
"I don't think you really grasp how profoundly hated and mistrusted the EU is for more than half the population."
Don't equate the 'leave' voters in the referendum with the harder Europhobic sentiments. Are you really saying that all 'leave' voters 'hate' the EU?
In the same way, not all remain voters are Europhiles who 'love' the EU. There are plenty of reasonable people in the middle ground.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
I cannot believe we have got to the point where the independence of the judiciary is up for debate in the UK.
The Daily Mail lambasts everyone and everything that it sees as standing in the way of its mythical england and in the process will end up destroying the very thing it holds dear.
This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
Seconded, by another infrequent poster but long-term visitor. All the more sad in that AM's previous incarnation as "Antifrank" always seemed so reasonable.
"Norbert Hofer is citing Nigel Farage as one of the reasons he lost. " he announced that if I win I'd call for an EU referendum, that wasn't helpful. The vast majority of Austrians support the EU".
Nigel Farage really is electoral poison. Can we lump this presidential election in with his other 7 election losses?
(As it happens I think this is really more just Hofer trying to shift blame away from his own party, Farage being the scapegoat)
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.
I disagree on both points.
1. The principle is that Parliament decides on anything that isn't reserved to the executive under the Royal Prerogative. Constitutional lawyers who know their stuff are split on whether the Prerogative should apply in this case. That answers its own question. By all means s end it to the Supreme Court as a test case to clarify the law. Operationally, apply the principle and, if in doubt, get authorisation from Parliament.
2. Parliament is sovereign. It represents the people and decides how to do so. If the people don't like what Parliament decided, they vote them out. That is the number 1 core principle of a representative democracy. "Parliament overriding the people" is not just meaningless in terms of our constitution. It would actually subvert it if we attempted to apply that construct.
I accept parliament would expect to have big say. Not so much in the WHAT, which is a done deal, but in the HOW. People didn't decide the How in the referendum, si there is nothing to overwrite there.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
I cannot believe we have got to the point where the independence of the judiciary is up for debate in the UK.
The Daily Mail lambasts everyone and everything that it sees as standing in the way of its mythical england and in the process will end up destroying the very thing it holds dear.
This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
Seconded, by another infrequent poster but long-term visitor. All the more sad in that AM's previous incarnation as "Antifrank" always seemed so reasonable.
They were more reasonable times though, weren't they.
Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
Funnily enough, I know some remainers who would be far more comfortable with us leaving the EU if a government had put it in their manifesto without holding a referendum.
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?
I'm not a lawyer, though I do have the Rumpole DVDs, but have noticed from time to time fly posters for legal advice, and a pile of leaflets in the Chinese takeaway up the road last night, which suggest there may be an over-supply of solicitors.
This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
Seconded, by another infrequent poster but long-term visitor. All the more sad in that AM's previous incarnation as "Antifrank" always seemed so reasonable.
They were more reasonable times though, weren't they.
Indeed. Just look at this from a prominent Leaver and consigliere of Farage
This idea that half the country "hates" the EU is nonsense. Until recently there was nowhere near a majority for leaving. The referendum campaign and months of negative campaigning by tabloid news delivered a slim majority. Fair enough, but don't lets pretend that people haven't changed their minds and relatively recently.
These are the figures from British Social Attitudes survey, 1983 - 2014, for % of people wanting to withdraw (some years, 1997 - 2014 are not in the report):
"Faced with the simple choice between staying or withdrawing, 35% now say they want Britain to withdraw from the EU, more than at any time since 1985"
To my mind this does not demonstrate hatred and indeed shows the true adamantine Leave vote about say 30-35% and although clearly on the rise, the rest is soft and likely to change its mind.
The para-legal-military wing of Remainers are peeving in the wind here
- lose and Art 50 goes through.
Win and they are shown crowing over the peons on the news for a week, then the tabloids kick their heads in , then a one line bill goes through, then a few wahoo Metropolitan Lords huff and puff until the tabloids kick their heads in and then it passes.
All just an expensive attention seeking distraction.
This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
Seconded, by another infrequent poster but long-term visitor. All the more sad in that AM's previous incarnation as "Antifrank" always seemed so reasonable.
It is quite wrong to say that I do not accept the verdict of the people. As I have repeatedly stated, Brexit must now be pursued both in letter and in the spirit of the vote (at least until such time as it is generally recognised to have been a catastrophic mistake, and probably by that time the point of no return will have been reached). That does not mean that I have to like it nor respect the judgement of those who are leading us down this misguided course. My moral judgements are not up for negotiation.
If that makes you feel personally uncomfortable, good.
The pair of you have under 50 posts between you. Perhaps you should write more of your positive views rather than seeking to muzzle those whose views you find uncongenial.
@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
Seconded, by another infrequent poster but long-term visitor. All the more sad in that AM's previous incarnation as "Antifrank" always seemed so reasonable.
They were more reasonable times though, weren't they.
Indeed. Just look at this from a prominent Leaver and consigliere of Farage
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Cheer up, it gives you and your mates a daily opportunity to bleat about Leavers being smeared, which on all indications is one of your favourite things.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Of course that is right and the government will accept it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter whatever the outcome as it should. I would not want to live in a country where the government felt free to ignore the rulings of properly constituted courts. Even ignoring the idiocies of the ECHR on prisoners votes, for example, makes me very uncomfortable.
But I would not want to live in a country where Courts can defeat the democratic process either.
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
Yep, it does seem an exception (what rule it proves I'm not sure).
@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
I disagree. This is exactly the sort of situation on which the Supreme Court should be ruling. All the more given that we have a constitutional settlement that is fragmented and has evolved over the centuries. It is the job of the Supreme Court to try and produce a coherent and workable settlement from all these diverse and sometimes contradictory bits of legislation.
What I would say is that I agree that in doing so they are acting beyond the realm of normal judicial decision making and so should take the wider politics into account in areas where there is conflict . But that does not change the basic point that they are ideally placed to make just these sorts of decisions.
Bear in mind that the worst that happens here is that our elected representatives get to have their say on how our country should be governed.
This idea that half the country "hates" the EU is nonsense. Until recently there was nowhere near a majority for leaving. The referendum campaign and months of negative campaigning by tabloid news delivered a slim majority. Fair enough, but don't lets pretend that people haven't changed their minds and relatively recently.
These are the figures from British Social Attitudes survey, 1983 - 2014, for % of people wanting to withdraw (some years, 1997 - 2014 are not in the report):
"Faced with the simple choice between staying or withdrawing, 35% now say they want Britain to withdraw from the EU, more than at any time since 1985"
To my mind this does not demonstrate hatred and indeed shows the true adamantine Leave vote about say 30-35% and although clearly on the rise, the rest is soft and likely to change its mind.
The BSA survey shows about a 70/30 split between eurosceptic and europhile opinion. The most popular option was to remain in the EU, with powers returned to member States. But, that option was not available in the referendum.
WRT the senior Judges, as they take more political decisions, so they will be viewed as politicians.
@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
I disagree. This is exactly the sort of situation on which the Supreme Court should be ruling. All the more given that we have a constitutional settlement that is fragmented and has evolved over the centuries. It is the job of the Supreme Court to try and produce a coherent and workable settlement from all these diverse and sometimes contradictory bits of legislation.
What I would say is that I agree that in doing so they are acting beyond the realm of normal judicial decision making and so should take the wider politics into account in areas where there is conflict . But that does not change the basic point that they are ideally placed to make just these sorts of decisions.
Bear in mind that the worst that happens here is that our elected representatives get to have their say on how our country should be governed.
I am not in the group that is saying that the case should not have been brought. I am in the group saying that the argument brought should have lost. And maybe it will, who knows?
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Of course that is right and the government will accept it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter whatever the outcome as it should. I would not want to live in a country where the government felt free to ignore the rulings of properly constituted courts. Even ignoring the idiocies of the ECHR on prisoners votes, for example, makes me very uncomfortable.
But I would not want to live in a country where Courts can defeat the democratic process either.
I agree, and it's the reason I don't support US-style constitution and checks and balances. However, at any given moment we have a system which should be adhered to by anyopne who aspires to any kind of national influence.
Incidentally, it's not really true that Parliament can make policy against the will of the Government - Congress can, but in Britain the obstacles to getting major policy through are almos insurmountable unless the Governmen tacitly consents. What's easy in constitutional terms is for Parliament to change the Government. In practice, though, what happens if the Government loses the confidence of Parliament is that you get a new election.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
Yes I've criticised the judiciary in the past and shall do so again
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Ah so now you are being partial in your comments - by which I mean dishonest. You just attacked Leavers for not trusting the judiciary and equated that with them not supporting the rule of law. Now you are squirming because you yourself have said the same things in the past. You are a real toad when you get caught out making stupid statements.
Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
Funnily enough, I know some remainers who would be far more comfortable with us leaving the EU if a government had put it in their manifesto without holding a referendum.
I don't really see that myself; the strongest argument for the referendum in the first place is that our crooked system delivers majority power on a minority vote.
Besides, the question is Parliament v government. It is (or used to be!) a fundamental principle that you were entitled to oppose something even if it has been voted for, and certainly entitled to argue that something should be done in a differerent way. That is what our representatives in parliament are for.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Of course that is right and the government will accept it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter whatever the outcome as it should. I would not want to live in a country where the government felt free to ignore the rulings of properly constituted courts. Even ignoring the idiocies of the ECHR on prisoners votes, for example, makes me very uncomfortable.
But I would not want to live in a country where Courts can defeat the democratic process either.
Even if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the lower court, it won't defeat the democratic process. The government can go to Parliament and get the authority it needs.
And, frankly, this is what it should have done in the first place. This is far too important a decision not to involve Parliament and not to involve even those who voted to Remain. This is a decision for the whole country, not just for those who voted to Leave the EU, much in the same way that a government is (or should be) a government for the whole country and not just for those who voted for it.
This whole problem arises from the fact that Mrs May is wont to reserve decisions for herself and not involve others, a feature of her time at the Home Office, but not a good quality to have in a PM. Unless she starts having a wider debate about how Brexit should be implemented and involving more people, she will come a cropper.
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
What Maughan refuses to accept is that Parliament has no choice but to accept the deal - because it's whatever deal we negotiate verses NO DEAL AT ALL.
I don't know what "favourable" means here. But I do think, assuming that we if can communicate, even just in writing, I always favour dealing with people of competence and honesty.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
Yes I've criticised the judiciary in the past and shall do so again
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Ah so now you are being partial in your comments - by which I mean dishonest. You just attacked Leavers for not trusting the judiciary and equated that with them not supporting the rule of law. Now you are squirming because you yourself have said the same things in the past. You are a real toad when you get caught out making stupid statements.
I think you misunderstand me.
There's two main criticisms of the judiciary from Leavers
1) How dare the judiciary get involved when the people have already spoken
2) The judiciary is biased and virulently pro Remain
I can live with 1) even if I don't agree with it
2) Is just nonsense.
When I've criticised the Judiciary is usually in relation to super injunctions and specifically the Trafigura one, which limited Parliament to an unhealthy degree, but I accepted that it was a judge free of partiality.
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
Yep, it does seem an exception (what rule it proves I'm not sure).
Surely the 'rule' ought to be that the elderly defend the status quo, and therefore this isn't the vote that is exceptional?
Edit/although I guess that since the referendum was advocating change, you could argue the other way. This was a strange sort of referendum that effectively sought to maintain the status quo by changing the constitution.
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
Of course that is right and the government will accept it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court on this matter whatever the outcome as it should. I would not want to live in a country where the government felt free to ignore the rulings of properly constituted courts. Even ignoring the idiocies of the ECHR on prisoners votes, for example, makes me very uncomfortable.
But I would not want to live in a country where Courts can defeat the democratic process either.
The government could always appeal to the ECHR if this ruling goes against them...
The para-legal-military wing of Remainers are peeving in the wind here
- lose and Art 50 goes through.
Win and they are shown crowing over the peons on the news for a week, then the tabloids kick their heads in , then a one line bill goes through, then a few wahoo Metropolitan Lords huff and puff until the tabloids kick their heads in and then it passes.
All just an expensive attention seeking distraction.
Sod our democratic structures rely on Murdoch and other tabloid press barons to "kick their heads in".
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
Yes I've criticised the judiciary in the past and shall do so again
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Ah so now you are being partial in your comments - by which I mean dishonest. You just attacked Leavers for not trusting the judiciary and equated that with them not supporting the rule of law. Now you are squirming because you yourself have said the same things in the past. You are a real toad when you get caught out making stupid statements.
I think you misunderstand me.
There's two main criticisms of the judiciary from Leavers
1) How dare the judiciary get involved when the people have already spoken
2) The judiciary is biased and virulently pro Remain
I can live with 1) even if I don't agree with it
2) Is just nonsense.
When I've criticised the Judiciary is usually in relation to super injunctions and specifically the Trafigura one, which limited Parliament to an unhealthy degree, but I accepted that it was a judge free of partiality.
So how does any of that equate with 'They don't support the rule of law.' which was the statement I pulled you up on?
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
Yep, it does seem an exception (what rule it proves I'm not sure).
Surely the 'rule' ought to be that the elderly defend the status quo, and therefore this isn't the vote that is exceptional?
Edit/although I guess that since the referendum was advocating change, you could argue the other way. This was a strange sort of referendum that effectively sought to maintain the status quo by changing the constitution.
But in this case wasn't No maintaining the status quo, constitutionally anyway?
A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.
Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
What protects democracy? The rule of law.
No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
You cannot have any law that protects democracy against a people that does not value it. You can give it some protection but ultimately, constitutions can be undone if people do not care for them.
Which is what is so concerning about the hyper-aggressive attacks on the judiciary by newspapers and by the large number of Leave voters who put Brexit ahead of all other considerations.
I cannot believe we have got to the point where the independence of the judiciary is up for debate in the UK.
The Daily Mail lambasts everyone and everything that it sees as standing in the way of its mythical england and in the process will end up destroying the very thing it holds dear.
I'm enjoying the Mail's 1930s fascist line of editorial. How have they kept it going for so long? Are there old Nazis in the basement?
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
Yep, it does seem an exception (what rule it proves I'm not sure).
Surely the 'rule' ought to be that the elderly defend the status quo, and therefore this isn't the vote that is exceptional?
Edit/although I guess that since the referendum was advocating change, you could argue the other way. This was a strange sort of referendum that effectively sought to maintain the status quo by changing the constitution.
But in this case wasn't No was maintaining the status quo, constitutionally anyway?
I am not sure, when I was making the post I realised my knowledge of the Italian situation wasn't that deep!
Edit/ my general knowledge of Italy is pretty good, however, and I do know that the first law of Italian politics (and indeed pretty much everything else in Italy) is that nothing is entirely as it seems. They even have a special word for it - dietrologia - literally " behind-ism" or the art of looking behind the picture.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
I think 0.7% is what these figures tell at the moment and possibly an upgrade to 0.6% for the previous quarter. Again, I don't see where the slowdown comes from, especially since the rhetoric on our side is softening on single market membership fees, immigration etc...
Only moments before being hijacked by the far right presumably.
Supreme Court judges don't wear wigs or robes.
The 3 times I have been there counsel didn't either although they get the choice. Its almost as if that sort of frippery is superfluous when discussing something serious. Having to wear a horse hair wig, tails, wing collar and white bow tie, waistcoat and Court gown into court is not the worst aspect of my job but it is up there, especially in the summer.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
Alastair Meeks-you arrogant little man.No-one is trying to muzzle you, but to say we are misguided is to suggest your point of view should prevail.Your responses to criticism suggest you can dish it out but cannot take it in return.Classic playground bully syndrome.
Alastair Meeks-you arrogant little man.No-one is trying to muzzle you, but to say we are misguided is to suggest your point of view should prevail.Your responses to criticism suggest you can dish it out but cannot take it in return.Classic playground bully syndrome.
@JGForsyth: Whatever the verdict in the Article 50 case, the fact that the courts can overrule the executive is a feature--not a bug--of our system
I agree with that. But the Courts need to use their power judiciously, for want of a better word. This is not a case where they should have interfered. If they overreach themselves they will find their wings clipped.
Odd that you characterise it as them interferring - the government accepted that the question of law was one for the court to answer, in light of a challenge. That presumably means that, whatever the outcome, they have not interferred unreasonably.
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
What Maughan refuses to accept is that Parliament has no choice but to accept the deal - because it's whatever deal we negotiate verses NO DEAL AT ALL.
Yes, that's WTO Brexit - Hard as you like.
In practice, yes. Which is why this referendum was so utterly stupid. We rejected just one outcome without considering any alternative. Once we do so after the fact, we are barred from the outcome we have rejected or something similar to it, even if it turns out to be the best one.
Still we are where we are. Brexit will and must go ahead. Democracy is powerful. We can make whatever dumb decisions we like (and, boy, have we done so this time!) We cannot subvert democracy to protect ourselves from the consequences of our poor decisions.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
Of course. And it will have to come to an end at some point, particularly if real wages remain pretty static. But I really don't see it coming to an end in the next 6 months. A government that was not so focussed on short term popularity would be moving heaven and earth to reduce consumption until our balance of payments came back into balance. But then you can say that about every government for the last 20 years.
Only moments before being hijacked by the far right presumably.
Supreme Court judges don't wear wigs or robes.
The 3 times I have been there counsel didn't either although they get the choice. Its almost as if that sort of frippery is superfluous when discussing something serious. Having to wear a horse hair wig, tails, wing collar and white bow tie, waistcoat and Court gown into court is not the worst aspect of my job but it is up there, especially in the summer.
I read it used to be a requirement in India, but the difficulty of practising law in indian summers in un air conditioned courtrooms meant practicalities had to take precedence.
What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
You are of course making yourself a horrible hostage to fortune there Eagles. I am sure you will have criticised a judicial decision at some point in the past and I am sure you will do so again in the future. At which point we will happily point out what a dishonest hypocrite you are. A very dumb thing to do.
Yes I've criticised the judiciary in the past and shall do so again
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Ah so now you are being partial in your comments - by which I mean dishonest. You just attacked Leavers for not trusting the judiciary and equated that with them not supporting the rule of law. Now you are squirming because you yourself have said the same things in the past. You are a real toad when you get caught out making stupid statements.
I think you misunderstand me.
There's two main criticisms of the judiciary from Leavers
1) How dare the judiciary get involved when the people have already spoken
2) The judiciary is biased and virulently pro Remain
I can live with 1) even if I don't agree with it
2) Is just nonsense.
When I've criticised the Judiciary is usually in relation to super injunctions and specifically the Trafigura one, which limited Parliament to an unhealthy degree, but I accepted that it was a judge free of partiality.
So how does any of that equate with 'They don't support the rule of law.' which was the statement I pulled you up on?
If you don't think comments by Leavers along the lines of describing the judiciary as para-legal-military wing of Remainers and talking about metaphorically having their heads kicked in aren't a disgrace, then there's no point continuing this discussion
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
I think there is, to some degree anyway, a tourism factor in the latest figures. Retail sales are experiencing huge growth, but the savings rate hasn't really moved that much and it isn't as if disposable income has suddenly gone up.
Good services PMI, 55.2 vs 54.2 expected. "Desptite Brexit".
Natch.
It looks like the same picture. Output up, new order growth up, input prices up, sentiment weaker. For services there was even some backlog growth which means we should see a step up in hiring over the next month or so.
0.5% looks nailed on for Q4, possibly even 0.6% on the back of some aggressive consumption. We are going to go into 2017 with more momentum than the OBR was projecting all of 2 weeks ago. Their growth forecast for next year may prove right if there is a slow down at the end of it but its looking a bit conservative already.
This is UK retail sales year-over-year (3m vs 3m):
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
Of course. And it will have to come to an end at some point, particularly if real wages remain pretty static. But I really don't see it coming to an end in the next 6 months. A government that was not so focussed on short term popularity would be moving heaven and earth to reduce consumption until our balance of payments came back into balance. But then you can say that about every government for the last 20 years.
Comments
The potential here is for judicial creep - in that once it is held that the issue is a 'right' and not a 'law' - then the ability for Judges to decide that a right is conferred and therefore confound the will of the executive over powers that it should naturally hold (under international treaty) potentially increases.
The judgement should be reduced to its narrowest meaning - that in essence it is not about rights held by individuals, but the pure issue of revocation of law by effect of executive action. This I suspect, is the real reason for this appeal.
Why?
Renzi's constitutional reforms fell into two groups:
1. Changes to the constitution, that got rid of a layer of local government, and changed the balance of power between the Executive, and the two houses of parliament.
2. The Italicam law, that changed how the Chamber of Deputies would be elected.
The Italicam results in voting become two round, and gives the winner of the run-off an automatic bonus, effectively ensuring them a majority.
Italicam was sent to the constitutional court earlier this year. It could be ruled unconstitutional, or it could be upheld. But what is what format should be used for an election held today in Italy. Should it be under the new system or the old?
For this reason, I think the Italian President will be extremely keen to install a caretaker government, provided one can pass confidence votes in both houses of parliament.
What might that look like?
Well, there are two groupings that are keen for new elections: the Five Star Movement, and the the Lega Nord/Us with Salvini. There are two groups that do not want elections: Renzi's Democratic Party and the Berlusconi's Forza Italia. At the last election in 2013, Forza Italia only just lagged the DP, garnering 29% of the vote. It now polls 15%. Forza does not want new elections now. Could we perhaps see a Forza Italia Prime Minister as part of a Forza/DP coalition?
One last thought. The Five Star Movement has not done a good job of holding onto its politicians. Of its 109 deputies, 13 have defected to other parties.
On to more important matters ...
In the Fantasy Football League, the team one place ahead of me in fourth, Brexit Hotspurs, scored 99, your team only 21.
A portent for the Art 50 decision?
1. still in force in all circumstances
2. in abeyance, but capable of being called out of abeyance
3. abrogated.
The HC decided that it was (3); that an explicit Act was required to undo the 1972 ECA, irrespective of what else parliament has passed. I disagree and am making the case for (2), and arguing that the fundamental sovereignty of the people, as expressed in a referendum sanctioned by parliament and on the specific (if implied) question of invoking A50, should be sufficient to call it out of abeyance on this question.
The fact remains that the EU referendum act - unlike the one for AV - was completely silent as to what actions or consequences would follow from any particular vote in the referendum. Therefore as a legal instrument the lawyers have rightly put it aside in terms of any formal decision -making significance. Whilst i understand that from your political perspective you may not like this, it does stem from a decision made originally by politicians, not lawyers.
Even after my worst week, I'm still ahead of Brexit.
You don't like the result. Fair enough. You think they got it wrong. There's an appeal. The process is working as it should. That is what reasonable people on your side of the argument should be telling the people.
So they had to sit back and work out where the decision would sit, regardless of the referendum. Legally the question would the same as if - let's say - the Tories (or UKIP, take your choice) had put leaving the EU in their manifesto - no referendum - , been elected, and the government (not parliament) had then announced it was submitting A50 and leaving the EU. I think that in such circumstances people would be finding it easier to understand - and support - the lawyers; indeed I suspect there might be outrage if any government had proceeded like that.
There is a concern this time because the referendum has changed the emotion of the scenario without changing the logic or law of it.
But I've never criticised their integrity, or accused them of being biased for being an openly gay Olympic fencer.
One of the 'best' comments on this whole debate was when a Leaver on here said the judiciary wasn't impartial and he was pressed to give an example they cited Phil Shiner as an example of judicial bias.
Which on the stupidity stakes is up there with saying Quisling has nothing to do with the Nazis.
Looks like the young voted overwhelmingly against while the oldies voted in favour. Maybe because the M5S is somewhat vaguely left-wing / not-right wing it does well at getting the young on board with its ideas?
Don't equate the 'leave' voters in the referendum with the harder Europhobic sentiments. Are you really saying that all 'leave' voters 'hate' the EU?
In the same way, not all remain voters are Europhiles who 'love' the EU. There are plenty of reasonable people in the middle ground.
The Daily Mail lambasts everyone and everything that it sees as standing in the way of its mythical england and in the process will end up destroying the very thing it holds dear.
(As it happens I think this is really more just Hofer trying to shift blame away from his own party, Farage being the scapegoat)
1. The principle is that Parliament decides on anything that isn't reserved to the executive under the Royal Prerogative. Constitutional lawyers who know their stuff are split on whether the Prerogative should apply in this case. That answers its own question. By all means s end it to the Supreme Court as a test case to clarify the law. Operationally, apply the principle and, if in doubt, get authorisation from Parliament.
2. Parliament is sovereign. It represents the people and decides how to do so. If the people don't like what Parliament decided, they vote them out. That is the number 1 core principle of a representative democracy. "Parliament overriding the people" is not just meaningless in terms of our constitution. It would actually subvert it if we attempted to apply that construct.
I accept parliament would expect to have big say. Not so much in the WHAT, which is a done deal, but in the HOW. People didn't decide the How in the referendum, si there is nothing to overwrite there.
I don't know why people find this concept so difficult to understand. The government can only act within the law. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain or find the entire subject a colossal bore, we should all want the government to act within the law when triggering Article 50.
What sort of country do we think we will become if the government starts ignoring the law or bullying, however subtly, the independent judiciary?
Even plebiscites of the people do not remove the requirement for the law to be followed.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/805500476695441408
These are the figures from British Social Attitudes survey, 1983 - 2014, for % of people wanting to withdraw (some years, 1997 - 2014 are not in the report):
Withdraw 42 45 38 33 32 26 19 17 22 28 35
So within 2 years we went from 35% to 52%.
http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/38975/bsa32_eu.pdf
"Faced with the simple choice between staying or withdrawing, 35% now say they want Britain
to withdraw from the EU, more than at any time since 1985"
To my mind this does not demonstrate hatred and indeed shows the true adamantine Leave vote about say 30-35% and although clearly on the rise, the rest is soft and likely to change its mind.
- lose and Art 50 goes through.
Win and they are shown crowing over the peons on the news for a week, then the tabloids kick their heads in , then a one line bill goes through, then a few wahoo Metropolitan Lords huff and puff until the tabloids kick their heads in and then it passes.
All just an expensive attention seeking distraction.
If that makes you feel personally uncomfortable, good.
The pair of you have under 50 posts between you. Perhaps you should write more of your positive views rather than seeking to muzzle those whose views you find uncongenial.
But I would not want to live in a country where Courts can defeat the democratic process either.
https://twitter.com/arcofprosperity/status/805686040262537216
What I would say is that I agree that in doing so they are acting beyond the realm of normal judicial decision making and so should take the wider politics into account in areas where there is conflict . But that does not change the basic point that they are ideally placed to make just these sorts of decisions.
Bear in mind that the worst that happens here is that our elected representatives get to have their say on how our country should be governed.
WRT the senior Judges, as they take more political decisions, so they will be viewed as politicians.
Doesn't this tell us more about Leave voters than Judges?
Incidentally, it's not really true that Parliament can make policy against the will of the Government - Congress can, but in Britain the obstacles to getting major policy through are almos insurmountable unless the Governmen tacitly consents. What's easy in constitutional terms is for Parliament to change the Government. In practice, though, what happens if the Government loses the confidence of Parliament is that you get a new election.
Besides, the question is Parliament v government. It is (or used to be!) a fundamental principle that you were entitled to oppose something even if it has been voted for, and certainly entitled to argue that something should be done in a differerent way. That is what our representatives in parliament are for.
And, frankly, this is what it should have done in the first place. This is far too important a decision not to involve Parliament and not to involve even those who voted to Remain. This is a decision for the whole country, not just for those who voted to Leave the EU, much in the same way that a government is (or should be) a government for the whole country and not just for those who voted for it.
This whole problem arises from the fact that Mrs May is wont to reserve decisions for herself and not involve others, a feature of her time at the Home Office, but not a good quality to have in a PM. Unless she starts having a wider debate about how Brexit should be implemented and involving more people, she will come a cropper.
ONS
September 26 was the most popular day to be born over last two decades, it's 39 weeks & 2 days after Christmas day! https://t.co/xTlQpC7mTz https://t.co/APuWY2upaS
But if the notification can be revoked then two consequences of profound importance follow.
The first is that the Executive—relevantly composed of three buccaneering Brexiters—must negotiate mindful of what parliament is likely to find acceptable. Unless it does, parliament will reject the deal. A revocable Article 50 is more likely to deliver what parliament decides is a good Brexit.
The second is that it opens the door to the possibility that we “Remain.”
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/supreme-court-government-brexit-appeal-article-50-revocable
Now come on Mr Meeks, the "My posts are bigger than yours" is unworthy of Mr Antifrank.
Not so sure about Mr Meeks, though. Your Jekyll and Hyde transition has been noticed before.
Anyway, best wishes to you and your partner.
Yes, that's WTO Brexit - Hard as you like.
There's two main criticisms of the judiciary from Leavers
1) How dare the judiciary get involved when the people have already spoken
2) The judiciary is biased and virulently pro Remain
I can live with 1) even if I don't agree with it
2) Is just nonsense.
When I've criticised the Judiciary is usually in relation to super injunctions and specifically the Trafigura one, which limited Parliament to an unhealthy degree, but I accepted that it was a judge free of partiality.
Edit/although I guess that since the referendum was advocating change, you could argue the other way. This was a strange sort of referendum that effectively sought to maintain the status quo by changing the constitution.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/805709870796328960
Only moments before being hijacked by the far right presumably.
Edit/ my general knowledge of Italy is pretty good, however, and I do know that the first law of Italian politics (and indeed pretty much everything else in Italy) is that nothing is entirely as it seems. They even have a special word for it - dietrologia - literally " behind-ism" or the art of looking behind the picture.
https://twitter.com/ggatehouse/status/805563383424712705
I'm hoping some comedy onion-festooned Frenchmen in stripy jumpers and lederhosen-clad Jerries will turn up later.
That scares the living daylights out of me. Our growth is still dominated by consumer consumption.
It makes us incredibly vulnerable. I would much exports, and business investment were driving growth rather than our already over-levered consumers.
Still we are where we are. Brexit will and must go ahead. Democracy is powerful. We can make whatever dumb decisions we like (and, boy, have we done so this time!) We cannot subvert democracy to protect ourselves from the consequences of our poor decisions.
Good chart.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/805719404902305793