FabSwingers.com forum: Supreme Court

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow" "

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?"

No, have you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?

No, have you? "

no, I thought you would have been able to tell us that that was unusual. What do you think the judges are there for if not to ask difficult questions?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?

No, have you?

no, I thought you would have been able to tell us that that was unusual. What do you think the judges are there for if not to ask difficult questions?"

I just thought that the government would have been better prepared, and have the documents to hand that they say supports their case.

So far I have only seen the government side, Miller's side might have the same problems when they are presenting their case.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

He is making some good points though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He is making some good points though. "

thing is people have been saying that it's against the law for the government alone to trigger A50 when its not necessarily so, its all about interpretations of the law. Thats how the NI court could find for the government when in England it went against. Who's right? Who knows

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?

No, have you?

no, I thought you would have been able to tell us that that was unusual. What do you think the judges are there for if not to ask difficult questions?"

Several reasons why this case is unusual judges wise.... normally there are 5 that adjudicate, 7 in rare cases.... this one has 11 sitting

One of the major criticisms of the high court case is that the government didn't present a very coherent case last time and didn't do their homework... this time there have been some killer questions that I don't think have been answered very well

The one asked about both government and parliament having to work together to get you into the eec with the 1972 act.. so why would it not be the same for getting out? Was not answered very well in my opinion

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"He is making some good points though.

Really both side are looking at legistlation, some of which was drafted 45 years ago, and trying to read into several documents written at different times by different people for different reasons, what they mean for our current situation, that wasn't really considered at the time. But that's how the law works.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

I think parliament needs to write clearer legistlation!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

"I think parliament needs to write clearer legistlation! "

The trouble with all acts of parliament that I have ever had reason to read parts of are they are drafted to cover lots of eventualities which leads to lots of contradictions and confusion. It does keep lots of lawyers in jobs though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"I think parliament needs to write clearer legistlation!

I think it depends how contentious the legistlation is, most of it is fairly banal and not greatly questioned, however some is much more important and contentious. The government was arrogant to assume that they would win the referendum and did not consider that they might lose when they drafted the referendum act 2015. As a result its a very poorly written act. Something so important should have had a lot more attention paid to it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

It is an appalling state of affairs that our unelected Prime Minister who has no mandate from the 2015 Conservstive manifesto is wasting public funds fighting against Parliamentary democracy.

As a life long Conservative this whole episode has turned me right against the Consetvatives and I just don't see a way back. There is no need to bend over and allow yourself to get fucked into submission just because 26% of the population seem to think that they have a mandate for revolution.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If the Mr Suit Party ever win power

I would like CLCC and CandMeforU

In my Goverment

Opposite ends

but both Sound

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It is an appalling state of affairs that our unelected Prime Minister who has no mandate from the 2015 Conservstive manifesto is wasting public funds fighting against Parliamentary democracy.

Keep up. They are not fighting against Pariamentary democracy, they are arguing the point that Parliament has already made a decision

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

I don't know why everyone is panicking, Parliament will push it through anyway....there never was any doubt on that, it's fun watching rabid leavers running around like headless chickens choking on their displeasure though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't know why everyone is panicking, Parliament will push it through anyway....there never was any doubt on that, it's fun watching rabid leavers running around like headless chickens choking on their displeasure though.

Who is the only one showing displeasure about it on this thread?

But lets be perfectly honest, all this is nothing to do with Parliamentary democracy and all to do with trying to delay/thwart Brexit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

Who is the only one showing displeasure about it on this thread?

But lets be perfectly honest, all this is nothing to do with Parliamentary democracy and all to do with trying to delay/thwart Brexit"

It's about following the laws of this country....simple as that.

What are worrying about?, I thought you were of the opinion that the country is steadfast in its resolve to leave....with that in mind I'm at pains to understand what is there to be concerned about?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Who is the only one showing displeasure about it on this thread?

But lets be perfectly honest, all this is nothing to do with Parliamentary democracy and all to do with trying to delay/thwart Brexit

It's about following the laws of this country....simple as that.

What are worrying about?, I thought you were of the opinion that the country is steadfast in its resolve to leave....with that in mind I'm at pains to understand what is there to be concerned about?"

I am not worrying. Who has moaned about the case on this thread other than a remainer?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you."

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?"

Must be harder for you......after all you were banging on about the EU making all our laws, not all our laws it would seem after all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?"

Because the very fact that we can leave shows the parliament was always sovereign, unlike what the Leave campaigners would have you believe.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Because the very fact that we can leave shows the parliament was always sovereign, unlike what the Leave campaigners would have you believe."

Exactly.....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Because the very fact that we can leave shows the parliament was always sovereign, unlike what the Leave campaigners would have you believe."

who decided we could leave?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Because the very fact that we can leave shows the parliament was always sovereign, unlike what the Leave campaigners would have you believe."

But OUR parliament cant control immigration, freedom of movement etc so not quite so sovereign after all

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?"

Tell me, do you seriously think the government should take us out of the EU without following the legal process, ie illegally? Does anyone here?

So in which case, what is the problem brexiters have with the case, which is only about what the due process is?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But OUR parliament cant control immigration, freedom of movement etc so not quite so sovereign after all "

Not while we are trading within the EU at the moment no obviously

But you have to weigh up pro & cons at the moment

Keeping exporting 40 odd % of all exports to the EU while having freedom of movement

Stopping freedom of movement and lose that 40 odd % export market

I guess it depends on how much the freedoms granted by being in the EU & trading capabilities it benefits the UK burns your arse enough to want to cancel it all out.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

But OUR parliament cant control immigration, freedom of movement etc so not quite so sovereign after all

Not while we are trading within the EU at the moment no obviously

But you have to weigh up pro & cons at the moment

Keeping exporting 40 odd % of all exports to the EU while having freedom of movement

Stopping freedom of movement and lose that 40 odd % export market

I guess it depends on how much the freedoms granted by being in the EU & trading capabilities it benefits the UK burns your arse enough to want to cancel it all out."

We wont lose the exports,the worse case senario is wto tariffs on the trade which will make our stuff dearer to them and theirs to us, so who gains? The only reason they will want to impose tariffs is political

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Tell me, do you seriously think the government should take us out of the EU without following the legal process, ie illegally? Does anyone here?

So in which case, what is the problem brexiters have with the case, which is only about what the due process is?"

I take it you've not been following the case then, the government are arguing that they are following the legal process

And the only problem that Brexiters have with the case is as I said earlier, the pretence that this is to do with parliamentary democracy when anyone who is honest about it will admit that its just an attempt to delay/thwart Brexit

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you.

as I said, I'm not worried.

But if you are such a firm believer in British Parliamentary democracy, why do you want to stay in the EU?

Tell me, do you seriously think the government should take us out of the EU without following the legal process, ie illegally? Does anyone here?

So in which case, what is the problem brexiters have with the case, which is only about what the due process is?

I take it you've not been following the case then, the government are arguing that they are following the legal process

I agree, and Gina Miller who brought the court case is one of the most rabid Remainers there is. It's very clear that her motivation behind this case is to delay Brexit or try to thwart Brexit or stop Brexit. She keeps banging on about protecting Parliamentary sovereignty but she wants to keep us in the EU which would ultimately lead to less Parliamentary sovereignty as the EU takes more powers away from Westminster, and more and more laws are made in Brussels and as a member of the EU, it makes EU law Supreme over UK law.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Not me, I welcome the hearing in the Supreme Court, but the potential outcome does appear to be frightening you.....are you peeping over the top of the settee, afraid to look?

Me?.....the outcome is what it is, I can't change that and I watch on with interest....leaving the worry to you."

Not worried about the shenanigans at the Supreme court, I just think it's a huge waste of time and waste of money. As you say what ever the outcome of the case article 50 will still be triggered. If the government win the appeal then they will trigger article 50 by Royal Perogative and Theresa May has a mandate to do it from the 52% majority who voted Leave in the Referendum. If the government lose the appeal at the Supreme court then Parliament will vote to trigger article 50 anyway so the end result will still be the same.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow"

you ever been in the Supreme Court before?

No, have you? "

I have actually

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

The only question here is if Parliament is sovereign in this matter.

Why it is "obvious" that it is a delaying tactic?

Let me pose one clear question; why can this NOT be about the principal of if Parliament can debate and pass this law rather than government apply it without scrutiny? Parliament will pass Article 50 but demand government to outline a plan or at least some priorities.

Would it be OK if the executive decided that the best result would be to keep free movement and pay to join the EEA and accept all legislation without any influence?

If government does not answer to Parliament then this option is equally plausible compared to a hard Brexit and everything in between.

What's your preference? Transparent democracy or back room deals?

I recognise this argument from from somewhere but with no sense of irony I see the opposite being applied

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The only question here is if Parliament is sovereign in this matter.

Why it is "obvious" that it is a delaying tactic?

Would it be OK if the executive decided that the best result would be to keep free movement and pay to join the EEA and accept all legislation without any influence?

If government does not answer to Parliament then this option is equally plausible compared to a hard Brexit and everything in between.

What's your preference? Transparent democracy or back room deals?

I recognise this argument from from somewhere but with no sense of irony I see the opposite being applied

yes you are right, the only question is whether Parliament is soveriegn and according to the governments lawyers Parliament has already made the decision to leave the EU if that is what the public voted for and the way to do that is with Article 50. Once that is invoked then details can be worked out and voted on. There is no point debating details beforehand because that way Article 50 could be stopped or delayed which would go against democracy and a decision already made by Parliament.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

There are of course two sides to the argument which is why there is a legal,not political, ruling being made.

I recognise what you are saying about this being the start of a process. I also think that Parliament will pass the bill.

You are right in saying that they are likely to delay it bit, in the main, not to maliciously delay it. Do you really believe that? To what end?

More likely the delay would be to demand that government states a position, even if it's a difficult one to achieve like full tariff free access and closed borders. Shared scientific research but no contribution. All "possible"

Does this really weaken a negotiating position?

Should Parliament or government be making the decision? Every seat in the country is represented in Parliament, in or out. This is not true for the executive...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"yes you are right, the only question is whether Parliament is soveriegn and according to the governments lawyers Parliament has already made the decision to leave the EU if that is what the public voted for and the way to do that is with Article 50. Once that is invoked then details can be worked out and voted on. There is no point debating details beforehand because that way Article 50 could be stopped or delayed which would go against democracy and a decision already made by Parliament. "

The fact is there is no argument...

Parliament is sovereign and the government is attempting to usurp Parliaments authority.

The simple fact is this government has legislated for 3 plebiscites. The 2011 AV Referendum Act made the result legally binding (written into the act), however there was no such provision in either The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 or European Union Referendum Act 2015.

Therefore the government claim that power was ceded by implication is disingenuous to say the least.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Is anyone else watching it live? It doesn't seem as though the government has done its homework very well. Lots of "erm, I'll check that and bring it in tomorrow" "

I would argue that it is the governments lawyers that are possibly at fault, for it is they who are presenting the case in the Supreme court.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"I would argue that it is the governments lawyers that are possibly at fault, for it is they who are presenting the case in the Supreme court."

Maybe the reason the Government lawyers are looking so poorly prepared is because they know there is no case and are just going through the motions because they have been instructed to by a bunch of chancers.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The fact is there is no argument...

Parliament is sovereign and the government is attempting to usurp Parliaments authority.

Therefore the government claim that power was ceded by implication is disingenuous to say the least."

maybe but that is just an opinion. And on the legal side I don't really have one on this but if there is no argument how could the NI High Court find in the governments favour when it came to invoking Article 50?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"but if there is no argument how could the NI High Court find in the governments favour when it came to invoking Article 50?"

Maybe because the legal establishment in NI is dominated by loyalists and this was a political ruling against the 'republican' dominated remain vote, and was aimed at stopping any movement towards a separate referendum in NI that could lead to reuniting Ireland.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"but if there is no argument how could the NI High Court find in the governments favour when it came to invoking Article 50?

so the acted illegaly? Or maybe the High Courts decision in England was political then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"but if there is no argument how could the NI High Court find in the governments favour when it came to invoking Article 50?

so the acted illegaly? Or maybe the High Courts decision in England was political then?"

The High Court decision had political consequences. But it was a legal decision and not a political one.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

NI was over a different legal point. It was if the Northern Ireland Assembly had any say over Article 50. It apparently does not, but Scotland has been given leave to make representations because they have a different constitutional settlement within the UK

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"but if there is no argument how could the NI High Court find in the governments favour when it came to invoking Article 50?

Ah, so the judges at the High Court are above criticism and acted in accordance with the law because they happen to rule on the side of Gina Miller, but the judges in NI must have vested interests and can't be trusted because they ruled in favour of the government? It's been shown in the free press over the last few weeks that the London centric judges at the High Court had vested interests in the EU, so If you are going to point criticism at NI judges it's only right the same level of criticism is directed at the High Court judges.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

Either you accept that the judiciary is independent and think that's a good thing which you leave alone, or you get it to do what the government wants as it is "representing" the people and the people are always right.

What would you prefer?

a) Independent so stop moaning and trying to influence it

b) A department of government to ensure that all of it's wishes are carried out?

c) It does whatever the press says that it should?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

But OUR parliament cant control immigration, freedom of movement etc so not quite so sovereign after all "

We had control over immigration from the accession countries for 10 years. Were you happy then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"Either you accept that the judiciary is independent and think that's a good thing which you leave alone, or you get it to do what the government wants as it is "representing" the people and the people are always right.

What would you prefer?

a) Independent so stop moaning and trying to influence it

b) A department of government to ensure that all of it's wishes are carried out?

c) It does whatever the press says that it should?"

Is your comment aimed at my criticism of the High Court judges or Willwill's criticism of the NI judges? Both are criticisms albeit one coming from a Remain point of view and one coming from a Leave point of view.

People also moaned about the stories in the press about the High Court judges but if you want people to accept the judiciary is free and independent, then you must also accept we have a free press in this country who must be free to do their job the same as Judges are.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What would you prefer?

a) Independent so stop moaning and trying to influence it

b) A department of government to ensure that all of it's wishes are carried out?

c) It does whatever the press says that it should?

the judiciary cannot be beyond criticism

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

It was a complete different case looking at something different.

The NI case was asking about if the Good Friday agreement could stop the PM triggering Article 50, the courts decided it didn't. It wasn't about the powers of the royal prerogative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It was a complete different case looking at something different.

The NI case was asking about if the Good Friday agreement could stop the PM triggering Article 50, the courts decided it didn't. It wasn't about the powers of the royal prerogative. "

it wasn't just that though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"Ah, the judges in NI must have vested interests and can't be trusted because they ruled in favour of the government?"

The funny thing is that the British legal system acknowledges that this is the case. That is why all ultimate appeals in the UK are heard in London by the Supreme Court (or House of Lords [sitting as a court] in the case of Scottish law). If that was not the case NI and Scotland would have their own supreme courts, and in the case of NI all appeals are heard in London.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

The current chap seems to be much better prepared.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

It's getting good now, they're bring up Henry VIII!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's getting good now, they're bring up Henry VIII! "

He was far too big to regurgitate, surely.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"It's getting good now, they're bring up Henry VIII! "

Mmmm. LoL

Only one problem with that...

We chopped the head off a king 100 years after he died over the issue of the Royal Prerogative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth

But OUR parliament cant control immigration, freedom of movement etc so not quite so sovereign after all

We had control over immigration from the accession countries for 10 years. Were you happy then? "

IIRC there was a quota, so there was an element of control from those countries,there isnt now, Ihave said numerous times I dont have a problem with immigration per se, its the lack of control and the future direction to a superstate that I voted out for

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

The judiciary cannot defend itself when criticised, consequently it is not an appropriate target for the press, particularly when it makes personal attacks. Is a gay judge suspect in some way?

Criticise a judgement by all means based on the law. Even be vocally annoyed that it went the "wrong way", but it is highly inappropriate and corrosive to start to question the impartiality of judges.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

I was disappointed in both commentaries on the judiciary.

They certainly shouldn't be doing "what the people want". That's what politicians do and we loathe and distrust them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread