Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Foxholer]

There has always been the separation of govt and judiciary for very good reason. The govt should set laws but not interfere with the application of laws. Similarly, the judiciary can ensure that a govt follows the laws but should never, ever interfere with the application of govt.

It sets a very dangerous precedent, a precedent that can go both ways. I have concerns that at sometime in the future we will see the govt clipping the wings of the Supreme Court because of the recent ruling. That worries me even more than what we've just seen.

Although the ruling might have been right, though not proven, it is very, very wrong for unelected officials to be making political judgements.

Totally agree with this!

But, as I posted above, there's a huge difference between 'a political judgement' and 'a judgement on a political matter'! Has that concept/difference sunk in yet?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There has always been the separation of govt and judiciary for very good reason. The govt should set laws but not interfere with the application of laws. Similarly, the judiciary can ensure that a govt follows the laws but should never, ever interfere with the application of govt.

It sets a very dangerous precedent, a precedent that can go both ways. I have concerns that at sometime in the future we will see the govt clipping the wings of the Supreme Court because of the recent ruling. That worries me even more than what we've just seen.

Although the ruling might have been right, though not proven, it is very, very wrong for unelected officials to be making political judgements.

...you mean like Mr Wonderful Tactician - 'you know who'

 

[Foxholer]

...
I think this sort of ruling makes our Judges no more than glorified politicians making judgements.
...

Twaddle!

At least in UK (and NZ)! US Supreme Court and is not the same. I'm unaware about how the likes of Aus, India, Pakistan, SA (and other cricketing nations?) work.

 

[Foxholer]

If said Judges are required to make political judgements should they not be up for election by the public.

That was a legal judgement about a law about a political matter with political consequences. Quite different to a 'political judgement'. BoJo's decision to prorogue Parliament was a political judgement, one of many he has made/will make, because that' his job!

 

[clubchamp98]

Twaddle!

At least in UK (and NZ)! US Supreme Court and is not the same. I'm unaware about how the likes of Aus, India, Pakistan, SA (and other cricketing nations?) work.

Double Twaddle if that exists.
What’s it got to do with other countries.?
Judges should deal with facts ,or we will start looking into their political leanings if they start bringing decisions a government dosnt like.
We will be running to court every time something we don’t like is legislated. Like the USA.

 

[Hobbit]

I agree .
I think this sort of ruling makes our Judges no more than glorified politicians making judgements.
Judges should deal in facts . They are not accountable to us like politicians are and we can remove politicians we don’t like at the ballot box.

To be fair, there's many occasions they can't deal in facts. That's when opinions and precedents are set, and thats where laws often come from. Politics is founded on opinions about political persuasions and doctrine. No way should the judiciary be involved in that unless a law is broken.

 

[Hobbit]

...you mean like Mr Wonderful Tactician - 'you know who'

Does he make political judgements or does he give advice on what the judgements should be? If we're going down that route, should every Civil Servant be named as an 'interferer' in the judgements?

 

[clubchamp98]

To be fair, there's many occasions they can't deal in facts. That's when opinions and precedents are set, and thats where laws often come from. Politics is founded on opinions about political persuasions and doctrine. No way should the judiciary be involved in that unless a law is broken.

But should Judges be telling parliament what they can and can’t do.
They are open to criticism if they start getting political imo.
The problem is a hung parliament so Boris can’t legislate for what he wants .
Unlike Hillary Benn who has more power than the PM allegedly.

If a judge makes a decision you don’t agree with he can point to the facts as to why he has come to this decision.
If it’s only his opinion then that is very different in a political decision.

 

[Hobbit]

But should Judges be telling parliament what they can and can’t do.
They are open to criticism if they start getting political imo.
The problem is a hung parliament so Boris can’t legislate for what he wants .
Unlike Hillary Benn who has more power than the PM allegedly.

The judges should be telling parliament when they break the law. That always has to be the case. No one should be above the law. But no, they shouldn't be expressing opinions on political process if it doesn't revolve around a specific law.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Does he make political judgements or does he give advice on what the judgements should be? If we're going down that route, should every Civil Servant be named as an 'interferer' in the judgements?

Of course I don't know but I suspect that DomCumm is absolutely key to making absolutely political decisions with and for Johnson. The decisions might not (all) be on political policy - but he wouldn't be there if he wasn't key to political decisions and tactics - to making many decisions that are part of the political game that's being played by Johnson.

'Let's Just Get it Done' and variants thereof - is repeated by Johnson and every minister or Tory MP just about every time any of them are interviewed. This would most likely have come from the pen of DomCum with the objective of getting the message driven into the heads of every single one of us - with the political objective being that enough of us will actually come to believe that if and when Johnson's Deal of No Deal come to pass - then Brexit will be over - the agony will finish. We know it's not true - UK might be out but the agony will be far from finished.

An article by Clare Foges in The Times on Monday this week on what is being found from (Leave supporting) focus groups...

When these focus groups are told that Brexit triggers a longer phase of talks and trade negotiations, the response is often “horrified silence”. ... The government would like us to believe that getting Brexit “done” will fix this.

And that is politics according to DomCumm

 

[Foxholer]

Double Twaddle if that exists.
...

...
What’s it got to do with other countries.?
Judges should deal with facts ,or we will start looking into their political leanings if they start bringing decisions a government dosnt like.
We will be running to court every time something we don’t like is legislated. Like the USA.

Just reflecting that that's exactly what happens in 'Good old USofA'! So you've answered your own question!
All Judges DO deal with facts. However, how the facts comply with 'the Law' (in the case of the UK and US Supreme Courts 'the Consitiution') differs.
That particular judgement used precedent going back several hundred years! In US, it's (also) often about opinion/attitude to a highly interpretable document, so (lifetime) appointments of SC Judges by The President certainly have political consequences!

 

[drdel]

It was unfortunate that Lady Hale QC chose to make flippant comments at a conference after the ruling and potentially undermine the politically neutral position...

 

[Foxholer]

But should Judges be telling parliament what they can and can’t do.
They are open to criticism if they start getting political imo.
...

Only if they are asked to! It's not their role to Referee Parliament!

...
The problem is a hung parliament so Boris can’t legislate for what he wants .
Unlike Hillary Benn who has more power than the PM allegedly.
...

Well that certainly doesn't help. Though nor does removing the Whip from those who only oppose him on 1 (over-bearing) matter.
The Commons is extremely egalitarian - PMQs is a poor snapshot of Parliament's work!

If a judge makes a decision you don’t agree with he can point to the facts as to why he has come to this decision.
If it’s only his opinion then that is very different in a political decision.

His opinion = his judgement!

 

[Foxholer]

It was unfortunate that Lady Hale QC chose to make flippant comments at a conference after the ruling and potentially undermine the politically neutral position...

Oh yeah! What were they?

 

[Hobbit]

Of course I don't know but I suspect that DomCumm is absolutely key to making absolutely political decisions with and for Johnson. The decisions might not (all) be on political policy - but he wouldn't be there if he wasn't key to political decisions and tactics - to making many decisions that are part of the political game that's being played by Johnson.

'Let's Just Get it Done' and variants thereof - is repeated by Johnson and every minister or Tory MP just about every time any of them are interviewed. This would most likely have come from the pen of DomCum with the objective of getting the message driven into the heads of every single one of us - with the political objective being that enough of us will actually come to believe that if and when Johnson's Deal of No Deal come to pass - then Brexit will be over - the agony will finish. We know it's not true - UK might be out but the agony will be far from finished.

An article by Clare Foges in The Times on Monday this week on what is being found from (Leave supporting) focus groups...

When these focus groups are told that Brexit triggers a longer phase of talks and trade negotiations, the response is often “horrified silence”. ... The government would like us to believe that getting Brexit “done” will fix this.

And that is politics according to DomCumm

Pretty much like his predecessor, Olly Robbins. Seem to remember May lost her first advisors because of unprofessionalism. I'd expect any senior manager would have people doing the detail, and the senior manager, in this case the PM, making the decisions.

My last job saw me in charge of a training division, a service division, an admin division and a sales division, and supported by an externally based HR, regulatory, finance, quality, manufacturing and law division. No way, as an engineer by background, could I make effective decisions without a damn good team behind me.

I find the criticism of various PM's support teams rather tedious and vacuous.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Pretty much like his predecessor, Olly Robbins. Seem to remember May lost her first advisors because of unprofessionalism. I'd expect any senior manager would have people doing the detail, and the senior manager, in this case the PM, making the decisions.

My last job saw me in charge of a training division, a service division, an admin division and a sales division, and supported by an externally based HR, regulatory, finance, quality, manufacturing and law division. No way, as an engineer by background, could I make effective decisions without a damn good team behind me.

I find the criticism of various PM's support teams rather tedious and vacuous.

OK then - I'll choose to just blame BJ - but oops - I get into trouble here doing just that...so I thought I'd spread it around a bit...

 

[clubchamp98]

Only if they are asked to! It's not their role to Referee Parliament!

Well that certainly doesn't help. Though nor does removing the Whip from those who only oppose him on 1 (over-bearing) matter.
The Commons is extremely egalitarian - PMQs is a poor snapshot of Parliament's work!

His opinion = his judgement!

That’s the problem ,if it’s only his opinion ,, judges will be chosen on political leanings just like the lords.
Do we really want that?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Pretty much like his predecessor, Olly Robbins. Seem to remember May lost her first advisors because of unprofessionalism. I'd expect any senior manager would have people doing the detail, and the senior manager, in this case the PM, making the decisions.

My last job saw me in charge of a training division, a service division, an admin division and a sales division, and supported by an externally based HR, regulatory, finance, quality, manufacturing and law division. No way, as an engineer by background, could I make effective decisions without a damn good team behind me.

I find the criticism of various PM's support teams rather tedious and vacuous.

Trying to cover 2 points here, in one post.
First, the above, My issue, with any Party, how are these non-elected, not civil servants answerable to the Public, Cummings may or may not have an influence on the PM, but who decides and who has the final say on what he is privy to or can influence?

On the Judiciary (quite ignorant on it) if they don’t or shouldn’t get involved (which from what you’ve posted, makes sense) are we in danger of a PM or Party doing what they want, when they want, regardless of Party.

ie, if Boris had won what was to stop him proroguing Parliament again for some spurious reason to simply run the clock down, surely there has to be again some accountability for any Party or PM

 

[Foxholer]

That’s the problem ,if it’s only his opinion ,, judges will be chosen on political leanings just like the lords.
Do we really want that?

H'mm! In the case of Law Lords/Supreme Cout Judges 'his/her opinion/judgement carries a lot of weight!
The independence of The Judiciary in UK is sacrocant!

 

[Foxholer]

The judges should be telling parliament when they break the law. That always has to be the case. No one should be above the law. But no, they shouldn't be expressing opinions on political process if it doesn't revolve around a specific law.

That's not the Judiciary's role.
The process in the Prorogue-ing case was a perferctly fine example. Some person/company/body complained about what happened. Tha appropriate Court considered the matter and Ruled - using the Precedent concept of the UK Constitution to form a Judgement!
And remember that it was unanimous decision of the 11 Judges!