Will Govt. win in Supreme Court?

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The judiciary will I'm sure also take into account the view of the majority that could be bothered to vote. (Before someone nit-picks the terminology.)

The judiciary should be looking only at the applicable laws. They aren't making any decisions about Brexit itself, just the legal process that should be followed.

steampowered

movilogo wrote: »

So the way law works one must listen/obey to everyone except the common public.

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The judiciary will I'm sure also take into account the view of the majority that could be bothered to vote. (Before someone nit-picks the terminology.)

The way laws are made in this country is by Acts of parliament. Such as the European Communities Act 1972. If an Act of parliament needs to be repealed, you need another Act of parliament to repeal it.

It is categorically not the job of judges to change the law themselves. It isn't the job of the judges to try and interpret what the public wants. That is the job of parliament.

I really don't see how you suggest that we have a system where you have an unelected body of judges deciding when and how to revoke Acts of parliament, such as the European Communities Act 1972.

It is up to parliament to respect the result of the referendum. If you think that your MP is not respecting the result of the referendum, you can vote him/her out at the next election.

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The judiciary will I'm sure also take into account the view of the majority that could be bothered to vote. (Before someone nit-picks the terminology.)

Nope. They're there to judge based on their interpretation of the legislation.

If the government don't like the judgement they can either change their approach such that they comply with the rule of law or attempt to change the law.

After the Lords overruled the government on tax credits last year the government attempted the latter by proposing legislation to reduce the power of the Lords although this has been dropped in the last couple of days.

Rinoa

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The plot thickens..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38027230

https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/interveners-article-50-brexit-case.html

So, who's representing England then.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

My apologies for a misunderstanding.
I worded my earlier post quite badly, methinks.

Herzlos wrote: »

The judiciary should be looking only at the applicable laws. They aren't making any decisions about Brexit itself, just the legal process that should be followed.

Indeed so.
Though if legal process itself is/was so clear, why then the need to seek the judgement of the Supreme Court?
As with any contract the interpretation is what needs clarifying.
Which is why the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, is it not?
If the outcome were as clear as some on here imagine there would be no need for an appeal, IOW.
So yes indeed the judiciary will be looking at the applicable laws - all eleven of the judges in this case.

However, since the applications to intervene have been granted as per a post above I am sure that the government's own legal team will prepare suitable response.

It should be remembered that the Referendum Act was approved in the Commons by a vote of six to one.
It was then approved by the House Of Lords before the date of the referendum was announced.
Approximately four months following the announcement the referendum was held.
Nowhere in all this time frame was the possibility of the Referendum Act being incorrect or inadequate ever mooted.

Which goes some way towards explaining why so many feel like the man in the link I posted earlier.
When I SHOULD have said:
"Thanks to those using the judiciary to attempt to delay the implementation of Article 50, here is one viewpoint from the majority that could be bothered to vote. (Before someone nit-picks the terminology.)"

No wonder so many feel that "democracy has been lowered to mob rule".

wotsthat

It's by the by whether Gina Miller and the rest of the 'mob's' motives were an attempt to thwart Brexit or not.

The high court have ruled that the triggering of article 50 is legally a matter for parliament rather than government. The government have to abide by the law even if they find the law inconvenient at times.

movilogo

The high court have ruled that the triggering of article 50 is legally a matter for parliament rather than government.

It should be remembered that the Referendum Act was approved in the Commons by a vote of six to one.
It was then approved by the House Of Lords before the date of the referendum was announced.
Approximately four months following the announcement the referendum was held.
Nowhere in all this time frame was the possibility of the Referendum Act being incorrect or inadequate ever mooted.

The way I see it parliament passed it assuming Remain would win. Now the result is not to their liking and they want execues to examine it again (i.e. making remain win again).

If law is so straight forward to implement, why do we need judges there - we can write an artificial intelligence algorithm to interpret the law (and save money on judges salaries).

wotsthat

movilogo wrote: »

The way I see it parliament passed it assuming Remain would win. Now the result is not to their liking and they want execues to examine it again (i.e. making remain win again).

If law is so straight forward to implement, why do we need judges there - we can write an artificial intelligence algorithm to interpret the law (and save money on judges salaries).

The point I'm making is that it doesn't matter how you, me or the 'mob' see it. The judges make judgements based on what parliament passed into law.

If legislation was better written there might be fewer disputes but courts are the arbiters of whether laws have been broken.

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It should be remembered that the Referendum Act was approved in the Commons by a vote of six to one.
It was then approved by the House Of Lords before the date of the referendum was announced.
Approximately four months following the announcement the referendum was held.
Nowhere in all this time frame was the possibility of the Referendum Act being incorrect or inadequate ever mooted.

I believe the Referendum Act 2015 doesn't say much about the process to be followed after a potential 'out' vote.
I could be wrong of course so maybe you can find the relevant clauses?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0002/16002.pdf

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

When I SHOULD have said:
"Thanks to those using the judiciary to attempt to delay the implementation of Article 50, here is one viewpoint from the majority that could be bothered to vote. (Before someone nit-picks the terminology.)"

But the judiciary aren't attempting to delay the implementation of Article 50; they are just deciding on how it is done, according to the laws.

Since parliament have a long track record of proposing and implementing badly worded and half baked laws, there's quite often a lot of analysis and debate involved. The judiciary have to go by what is written and any precedents, rather than what was intended or how the public feel. They interpret only, any other issues are up to Parliament to correct.

You're framing it such that all the judiciary are doing is trying to stall A50 due to some assumed bias, but the only reason is has stalled at all is because the interpretation of the law is that an Act of Parliament is required in order to enact it.