Jump to content

 

 

The Supreme Court’s decision is a constitutional outrage


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Does give the impression of a power grab by the Judiciary.

It's the responsibility of an effective parliament (if we had one) to legislate and the principle and precedent of the supreme court can be overturned easily through primary legislation. If this parliament was functioning as it should then the judiciary would not be involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Rubbish. 

 

The Supreme Court has checked the endeavours of the executive to do whatever it damned well pleases. 

I'm not aware the supreme court has increased its powers, merely exercised them. Have you considered that the judiciary is actually  being used by the government to achieve its Brexit/general election ambitions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I'm not aware the supreme court has increased its powers, merely exercised them. Have you considered that the judiciary is actually  being used by the government to achieve its Brexit/general election ambitions?

Is it clever enough?

Maybe Cummings? Johnson, is, after all, little more than his chanty wrassler.

 

I think that much of the govt was genuinely shocked, but not, it appears, awed, by the SC decision. Perhaps that was the result of founding on the Attorney-General's advice. (To be fair, the Outer House of the Court of Session, and the High Court in England seemed to agree with him)

 

Maybe our Joint PM regarded the legal process as one which would produce a win-win, depending on the length of the game being played, of course. 

 

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its rather hollow of the government to claim that the SC's decision was an attempt to thwart Brexit, when they themselves argued in court that prorogation had nothing at all to do with Brexit.

 

But like so many other aspects of Brexit, the government has singularly failed at every turn to have a clear and workable strategy.  

 

Finally someone has clipped their wings.  And like many, I am relieved. 

 

This doesn't stop Brexit, but it does mean that due process has to be followed in order to get it through.  No government should be afraid of that.   

 

The fact that Johnson clearly tried to avoid due process, tells me everything about why I think they will fail.

 

 

 

Edited by stewarty
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, stewarty said:

But like so many other aspects of Brexit, the government has singularly failed at every turn to have a clear and workable strategy.  

 

It seems to me that it's parliament that has failed to deliver or reject Brexit. Whatever you think of Mrs May's plan, parliament had three opportunities to deliver Brexit and failed each time to do so. It was also parliament that rejected numerous alternative strategies that were twice put forward. Instead of focussing on a government (May's and Johnson's) that's hobbled by a zombie parliament, you might find more reward in scrutinising parliament's dysfunction. If you take the current debacle over prorogation, parliament had ample prior opportunities to avoid it by calling an election or presenting a no confidence motion. The real problem is that this parliament as a whole is in the throes of rigorously mortis and is incapable of anything beyond squabbling and tribalism. If there is any surviving remnant of decency in politics, a general election would be called today. Only then might there be some credence in criticising the government or the opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was one of the former Supreme Court judges that I saw interviewed this morning who put it best. 

 

To paraphrase...

 

The 2016 referendum saw a 52% victory for leave.   But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the 48% who disagreed and get 100% of the winnings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, stewarty said:

It was one of the former Supreme Court judges that I saw interviewed this morning who put it best. 

 

To paraphrase...

 

The 2016 referendum saw a 52% victory for leave.   But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the 48% who disagreed and get 100% of the winnings.

What a load of pish.  It was a "winner take all" referendum.  It was remain or leave - %ages, other than which of the two was the highest and won the referendum, are irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, craig said:

What a load of pish.  It was a "winner take all" referendum.  It was remain or leave - %ages, other than which of the two was the highest and won the referendum, are irrelevant.

Not quite, though I was paraphrasing and may not have put it in the considered way he did.

 

I'll see if I can find the interview.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, stewarty said:

Not quite, though I was paraphrasing and may not have put it in the considered way he did.

 

I'll see if I can find the interview.

 

Does he also state that anyone looking for a people's vote are, effectively, looking to ignore the wishes of the 52% who voted to leave ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.