O/T Democracy

[vaterland_miller]

And its good to see you too KerrAvon. This thread is a bit tedious - I got sucked into it. I'm not sure how much more I can take.

Yes, the Supreme Court is as you say but it was a change to a system that wasn't broken and that had worked very well for 600 years. There was a strong cost argument for maintaining old judicial committee of the House of Lords. The old system was part of parliament and I feel very uneasy, to say the least, when bodies external to parliament start creating statutes "on the fly". The Spectator article deals with this far better than I could.

[KerrAvon]

The old me would have commented that threads of this type descend to the forensic level of street drinkers arguing over the last can of Special Brew, but I have turned over a new leaf and would now say that I find it interesting and refreshing to see diverse views being debated so enthusiastically.

I think that Parliament’s commitment to democracy and fairness will be tested this week. I wonder what tricks they will get up to whilst many Tory MPs are 150 miles away at their conference?

[the_idiotb_stardson]

Peter Hitchens column in the Daily Mail today raises some very interesting questions about the supreme court judges in which he quotes the late great Tony Benn:

"Proper Leftists should be careful what they wish for. What a pity that great English radical, Tony Benn, was not there to remind them of the questions we need to ask of anyone who has power: 'What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? And finally, how do we get rid of you?'

They are excellent questions and, as we shall see, the 'Supreme Court' cannot answer the final three which are most crucial. Who do they serve? We do not know. Who is above them? It remains to be seen. How do we remove them? There is no obvious way"

[WanChaiMiller]

Roly. Let me try to explain something to you that you seem to not know.

The house of commons can and will make a law that will never let the supreme court rule on a political matter again. They can do this because it is parliament that make the law. In doing so this proves that the courts ruling is not a matter for the law of the land and is not binding in political law. In other words civil law cannot over rule political law and is why what the supreme court ruled carries no weight at all and you and many more like you have bought in to the supreme courts ruling. It is pathetic and was used by the remoaners as a way of getting their own way without having to call for a GE.

I will lay you odds on that the next parliament after the next GE will make it illegal for the supreme court to ever have the chance to do it again.

This is why I was so angry at what happened and was why I was telling all that would listen that you did not know what had just happened.

Biglad* - It is well worth you reading the transcript of the Supreme Court ruling delivered by Lady Hales'. I will post it in full later. The are segments which are relevant to what you said about (and goes some way cover Idiots 3 questions)...


"On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law.

Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September."

" The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions."

Then, later in the transcript...

"The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court.

But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."

[WanChaiMiller]

They are excellent questions and, as we shall see, the 'Supreme Court' cannot answer the final three which are most crucial. Who do they serve? We do not know. Who is above them? It remains to be seen. How do we remove them? There is no obvious way"

Lady Hale answered it quite emhatically in her summing up saying the Supreme court has no jurisdiction over matters of Parliament.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

Lady Hale answered it quite emhatically in her summing up saying the Supreme court has no jurisdiction over matters of Parliament.

Ha ha. Whatever.

[WanChaiMiller]

Transcript of Lady Hale summary to assist in understanding Supreme Court's decision. From the Irish Times.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ment-1.4028716

[animallittle3]

Andrew Marr

" would you do a deal with the brexit party "

Johnson

" we are the oldest party in the world and a broad church we don't do deals with anyone "


I must have imagined the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and the present one with the DUP then .

[BigLadonOS]

That's super raging, darling, and I am very grateful, but you will recall that you asserted that the division in the country was all down to Johnson and Gove for campaigning for remain and voting against the May deal. So may I ask again, how are you absolving Leavers such as Corbyn and McDonnell who were voting for a referendum in 2011 and the Labour Party for voting against the May deal?

I'm sure that you can see the problem here; you say it's all down to Johnson and Gove for doing 'a' and 'b' and yet we know that Corbyn and McDonnell did the same thing. How can you justify that apparent contradiction, old thing?

He can justify it by totally ignoring it like he usually does.

[WanChaiMiller]

Ha ha. Whatever.

What makes you laugh? In what way do you think the the ruling doesnt deal with your questions? Please expand.