Brexit and the current position

If it's not Hastings related post it here! Politics, religion, whatever you like!
User avatar
Richard
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby Richard » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:45 am

Trying to crystallize the waffle, as Lord seahermit would surely (not) have it, there are two key planks of the (unwritten) Constitution:

1) A sovereign Parliament

2) Statute Law

Bear in mind that the Sovereignty of Parliament, with its long and rich history, has been devolved fairly recently to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
Plus the EU has powers over some facets of U.K. Law.

There are three distinct legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The Law itself divides into multiple areas, Civil, Statute and the Supreme Courts, the latter being created relatively recently and marking a constitutional reform of some significance.
The Law divisions are complex and curious and a little peculiar, the Supreme Court cannot decide Scottish Criminal Law or those granted under Devolution.

I can't get my head around the House of Lords, that is stretching things a bit to my mind...

User avatar
ColinL
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby ColinL » Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:46 pm

The House of Lords comes from our unwritten constitution as a bi-cameral legislature. That is laws have to be approved by both Houses, albeit that the Lord's now has limited powers to stop certain types of legislation.

It does have a positive role of improving Bills by considering and amending clauses and sections that are often r
'rubber-stamped' by the Commons as they normally make sections workable. They are a hang over from aristocratic power and will in due course be replaced. Richard, you have mentioned the recent creation of the Supreme Court. It's constitution is new but merely replaced the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords that used to be the highest court in the UK. Precedents set by the HoL are still applicable in the SC. The creation was part of the separation of the Courts and Legislature as the HoL was an anomaly as it was both parliament & court and did not comply with separation of powers.

You also mention that law is divided into three distinctions, being civil, statute and lastly the SC. It is complicated to understand but civil law is both statutory and common law (that is not set by act of parliament. Likewise criminal law is also statutory and very small historic areas of common law. The Supreme Court is not a system of law. It is merely the senior court responsible for determining what the law is in all areas. For example the SC might hear cases involving social security entitlement, constitutional as we have been discussing, immigration, and such things as extradition.

Hope that is useful and that Hastings is having a late summer sunny day

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby Richard » Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:46 pm

Thank you ColinL, this is quite helpful.

The Supreme Court, created recently, is based on the HoL Judiciary, stemming from the Royal Courts in the distant past, as do the HoC and the Privy Council.
Also I understand the HoL is full of Bishops, Hereditary Peers (only Males can inherit this title) or persons appointed by the Prime Minister.

Law is either Statutory (from Parliament) or Common, the latter uses precedent where statute does not help supply the answer.
There are courts of inferior and superior jurisdiction and the inferior has to obey the superior.

User avatar
ColinL
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby ColinL » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:53 pm

That is basically it. There is binding precedent but there is also 'persuasive' precedent, The latter applies where a previous court of the same level as a current case has considered the same or similar scenario. Depending on the depth on which the previous judgment was expressed the same level court may be persuaded by the earlier judgment although it may 'distinguish' the decision by focussing on a slightly different factual point. It is this type of thing that was going on in the SC last week with the QCs picking out odd sentences both from text books and previous cases and drawing conclusions from them. Given the important of the issues the Justices will likely be seeking to get at least 8 of them to support the final decision in order to make the decision strong enough, 6/5 would be less than helpful.

The composition of the Lords comprises of 26 bishops. The Lords are spilt into 92 hereditary peers who are elected amongst the hereditary peers, so not all hereditary peers now sit in the Lords. And life peers who are nominated by the political parties although not all of them sit as members of a group. The non-aligned are Cross Benchers. Because the parties representation in the Lords,they need to keep appointing peers as older ones pass on or retire. Some political parties are committed to abolishing the Lords but will need to keep appointing until the House is replaced.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby Richard » Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:02 pm

Well, I was completely wrong and the Supreme Court (SC) ruled unanimously that Boris acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament for such a length of time ahead of Brexit.
The SC did not use precedent or statute but instead formed a view based on jurisprudence.
Of course if Brexit was not on the agenda then their ruling would (presumably) have not been sought in the first place.
If, as Boris suggests, Brexit will go ahead regardless then the SC ruling has little meaning or effect anyway.
I believe that the SC ruling strayed into political matters regarding an attempt by the government to comply with the democratic wishes of the people to leave the EU.
Bercow will be patting his belly and looking forward to more posturing.
I am afraid it is all about Brexit and think that the SC has no place in affecting the wishes of the people.
Make up your own mind but Corbyn has promised to return the power to the people in his conference speech today and yet applauds any (SC) attempt to stop that happening...

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby Richard » Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:16 pm

Boris did not act illegally as Corbyn now claims as there was no law in place at the time.
He was judged to have acted unlawfully after the event when there was no law in place to break.
Chakrabati said today that the Supreme Court called Boris out as having abused his powers.
The little madam said "I need his resignation", she also said it was about Boris and his posh mates.
How the Lefties love to deride and degrade others just for having money or privilege, it's so easy to abuse people on that basis.
But the working classes wanted out of the EU, not the moneyed lot in London.

User avatar
ColinL
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby ColinL » Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:57 pm

Illegal and unlawful are in this context the same. There was no specific 'statute' in place, but as the justices analysed the facts they determined that Johnson had broken the common law, in this case stopping parliament doing its job. Lady Hale said that the prorogation was of no legal effect, was Jul and void, as if it had never happened. The Justices went on to say that is was up to Bercow and the Lord Speaker to utilise their rules to bring parliament back. They did not as such decree specìfic obligations on Johnson that he had to do anything else.

Chakrabarti was in my view correct in her interpretation although her phraseology was a little heightened; perhaps with some justification given that it was a unanimous verdict.

In or out is supported by both moneyed and wealthy individuals. They have different motivations. Similarly less wealthy people support both in or out.

The drama is not over as it now depends what happens next.

User avatar
Richard
Posts: 3347
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:36 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby Richard » Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:15 pm

I notice that today Corbyn (as before) declined to put forward a motion of no confidence and showed no willingness to accept a general election.
Boris (and I believe Bercow) today offered either as a way of challenging his rule but no one is interested.
The opposition prefer instead to shout condemnation on a variety of levels, aware perhaps that they do not have sufficient ability/support to challenge the government in any meaningful way.
This despite the Supreme Court ruling on a point of law, namely the 'unlawful' suspension of parliament.
The SC ruling was basically a pile of expensive and technical legal horse sh*t.
We neither want, wish or need to hear some pompous ruling from learned people and it is not at all helpful to be ruled over by people in cloud cuckoo land.

I wonder if any ruling by the law courts can ever be upheld against popular public opinion?
If the Supreme Court upheld the legality of thatchers Poll tax would that have meant anything?
I very much doubt it!
We live in troubled times but ultimately the power lies not with the law, in matters that involve popular public opinion, it lies with the people.

cbe
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:29 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby cbe » Thu Sep 26, 2019 7:30 pm

One reason they won't vote for an election is that they know they will lose, how heavily depends on how much of their vote goes to the current Remainer vehicle the LibDems, and how much to the Brexit Party. They have to weigh that against how many Conservative votes will go to the Brexit party.
The Labour Party long ago ceased to be the party of the working class. It is the party of students,immigrants and public sector workers. There is also a sizeable minority in the electorate who do not (as opposed to cannot) work and they will always vote for more 'Free Stuff'.

User avatar
ColinL
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 3:45 pm

Re: Brexit and the current position

Postby ColinL » Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:38 pm

cbe
'Public sector workers', police officers, army, navy and air force, air traffic controllers, environmental health staff (in case you don't know what they do, they ensure that food premises are clean so that we can avoid infections, ensure that rental properties are maintained to good standard et al) doctors, nurses cleaners, street cleaners,bus drivers, GNER staff, emergency services staff

What is your objection comment about public sector workers intended to mean?

Who do you think represents the working class? It is the Labour Party that has been negotiating to ensure that workers and TU rights are protected if we leave the EU - and to enhance them. The Tories rejected Labours amendment on them. The Lib Dums kept quiet and ukip/brexit called for wholesale scraping of unnecessary 'red tape' because everyone has equality theses days (Nigel Farage). It is labour who represent low paid private sector workers in the gig economy as new Trade Unions are being established to deal with this new sector of exploitative employment.


Return to “Non-Hastings Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests