Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the A50 Supreme Court hearing starts YouGov finds just 46%

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As the A50 Supreme Court hearing starts YouGov finds just 46% having a favourable view of senior judges

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["e2rUo"]={},window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].embedDeltas={"100":852.8,"200":708.8,"300":626.8,"400":626.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":572.8,"1000":572.8},window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-e2rUo"),window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"e2rUo"==b&&(window.datawrapper["e2rUo"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • first?
  • FPT - Change of government in France

    Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.

    The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.

    The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.

    Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,881
    Old Beleavers trust nobody but Farage, Galloway, Putin and Beefy Botham.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Right or wrong the actions of some judges [and/or] close family members have led to a feeling that they risk straying into the political arena. I fear that the media on either side have contributed to this and it is risking a serious backlash. Very unfortunate.
  • FPT - Change of government in France

    Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.

    The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.

    The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.

    Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.

    Is there any reason for there being a change of government? PMs have run before, I think, and Hollande, had he run, would have done so from an even more senior office.
  • On topic, not an overwhelming endorsement from the public, though better than many other members of the wider political system. The photo doesn't exactly do much to undermine the impression no doubt held by some that the senior judiciary is unrepresentative and not entirely in touch with the country at large.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.
  • FPT - Change of government in France

    Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.

    The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.

    The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.

    Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.

    Is there any reason for there being a change of government? PMs have run before, I think, and Hollande, had he run, would have done so from an even more senior office.
    There is no constitutional obstacel and indeed several PM have run (Chirac in 1988, Balladur in 1995, Jospin in 2002). The fact that they have all lost may be a reason. Not only as a superstition but as a lesson that campaigning is hard to do when you have the most intense job in French politics in terms of day to day work, certainly as compared to the President's role.

    But I think that the main reason is that Valls hopes it would help him distantiate himself a bit more credibly from Hollande.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Day 4 of Jill Stedin's recount in Wisconsin and Waukesha County is live streaming their recount.
    http://theuptake.org/live-video-post/wisconsin-recount-day-3-waukesha-county/

    Here's the Electoral Eommission spreadsheet:
    http://elections.wi.gov/node/4510

    So far, Trump's lead has been extended by 39 votes:
    Trump: 110 (+39)
    Clinton: 71
    Stein: 41
    Johnson: 19
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited December 2016
    Isn't it somewhat worrying that 19% of the population don't think judges tell the truth?

    Some more research on this would be useful, is it related to judicial activism seen in the US and increasingly the EU courts, is it the specific court case before the UK Supremes next week, or is it a growing number of people becoming less trusting of anyone in authority?

    It might of course be a combination of all of the above, I imagine that the determination of a significant group of 'the establishment' to treat the Brexit vote as an inconvenience that can be ignored isn't particularly helpful at the moment.

    David Cameron during the campaign suggested that Article 50 would be invoked the day after the referendum, as if all that was required were a letter sent to Brussels. A majority of voters probably took him at his word - there was certainly little discussion about the mechanics of the Brexit process before we voted.
  • @GeoffM – Shouldn’t that read Jill Stein’s recount?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2016
    FWIW:

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/805346031848275968?s=09

    Could be an interesting test of Nuttall
  • FPT - Change of government in France

    Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.

    The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.

    The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.

    Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.

    Is there any reason for there being a change of government? PMs have run before, I think, and Hollande, had he run, would have done so from an even more senior office.
    There is no constitutional obstacel and indeed several PM have run (Chirac in 1988, Balladur in 1995, Jospin in 2002). The fact that they have all lost may be a reason. Not only as a superstition but as a lesson that campaigning is hard to do when you have the most intense job in French politics in terms of day to day work, certainly as compared to the President's role.

    But I think that the main reason is that Valls hopes it would help him distantiate himself a bit more credibly from Hollande.
    Is that last point, about distancing himself, anything more than wishful thinking? Is he likely to come up with meaningful policy differences?
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    @GeoffM – Shouldn’t that read Jill Stein’s recount?

    Yes indeed - my apologies for bad typing. It's early!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    It has nothing to do with prioritising it above every aspect of civil society, it has to do with parliament granting a referendum, and in the light of a clear result, enacting the democratically expressed will of the people. I really can't think why this is so hard to accept or understand for some. The frenzy to stay in the EU at all costs borders on a mania.
  • FPT - Change of government in France

    Manuel Valls will announce officially his candidacy tonight at 6.30 pm CET (in time for the evening news) from his constituency in Evry.

    The change of government is now scheduled for tomorrow, in time for the regular Wednesday cabinet meeting.

    The next PM will apparently be one of the two "security" ministers: B. Cazeneuve (interior minister) or JY. Le Drian (Defense). The new Pm could be asked to keep his current portfolio due to the security circumstances.

    Some are ramping up rumors of M. Touraine (Health minister) or even N. Vallaud-Belkacem (Education), as a way for Hollande to have a female PM before he goes. It seems unlikely because both are quite unpopular (especially with doctors and teachers, respectively) and do not get along at all with Valls... Both are widely considered by their own MPs as way overpromoted already.

    Is there any reason for there being a change of government? PMs have run before, I think, and Hollande, had he run, would have done so from an even more senior office.
    There is no constitutional obstacel and indeed several PM have run (Chirac in 1988, Balladur in 1995, Jospin in 2002). The fact that they have all lost may be a reason. Not only as a superstition but as a lesson that campaigning is hard to do when you have the most intense job in French politics in terms of day to day work, certainly as compared to the President's role.

    But I think that the main reason is that Valls hopes it would help him distantiate himself a bit more credibly from Hollande.
    Is that last point, about distancing himself, anything more than wishful thinking? Is he likely to come up with meaningful policy differences?
    His main chance is that he has a "tough guy" image compared to Hollande. He will probably try to sound more energetic on security issues.
    If he wants to win the primary he will probably need to acknoledge some errors of the last five years and criticize some of Hollande (and his) decisions. My guess would be some kind of regret about company tax cuts.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    The reaction to the decision last time even from some people I respect deeply was ridiculous. Right or wrong in their interpretation even the government acknowledged it was a question appropriate to be asked of a judge, but many outright stated that they shouldn't have been involved because leaving was voted for, ignoring that leaving is a political decision, and the judges were only looking at the technical and legal powers and procedures. The logical point of much of the furore was that if the majority, which includes me, voted to leave, people should not be able to challenge the government's own interpretations of its powers, even if they are wrong. Given the view of senior judges is so poor, I'm already dreading the fatuous nonsense should they dare to uphold the original decision. And I don't even mind if the government win - it makes sense to me parliament trigger things, but if the law says otherwise, fine - or that the challenge is a last gasp by remoaners: we need to be able to question the government in what it thinks it can do on its own, even if it is proven right.

    It was also the incident that really started to turn me against may. I'm still half convinced she's happy about all this, since it takes pressure off by distracting people, and as Mark d'arcy laid out the parliamentary route is different but should not prove a block, but she was out of line. I recall the telegraph piece where about 10 paragraphs in her spokesman said it was ridiculous to suggest she had questioned the independence of judges, but the opening paragraph stated she was warning politicians and judges not to stymie Brexit, proving the former statement false. Oh, she's said the correct words at other times, but that worries me, she could have ridden the wave of anger without going to that point.

    How ridiculous was it? I seem to recall conservative home had one of the more measured responses, although since we've seen the stuff about the courts negating Brexit, which isn't on the cards.

    Lord knows mr Meeks has and will continue to bluntly express his disdain for leavers and the leave vote, in hyperbolistic fashion, but he's right to highlight those who prioritise Brexit over literally everything else, no matter the implications or law, and who interpret any challenge as illegitimate.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited December 2016

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Judges respect the people by following the law as set out by the representatives of the people. Assuming the interpretation initially was correct they did that. Questions of technical process should not be impacted by popular mandates, either there's a process to follow or there isn't. Leaving the eu is a policy decision. How that policy is legally enacted is a process issue, and not for judges to make easier or harder than the law says it should be.

    And if the law is an ass, parliament always has the power to change it.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Urgh. Another insult hurling thread before 8am.

    Goes back to watching plane crash survival videos.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    edited December 2016

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    The law case is strictly to determine who has authority over the Article 50 process: Parliament or the Executive. Judges determine WHO decides, not WHAT they decide. It has nothing to do with judges not respecting the people. It should never have gone to court. The only reason it did was because the government wanted to shut down the debate. They should have said, we're going to call Article 50. Parliament, please authorise that in accordance with the wishes expressed in the referendum.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
    Well then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. The Court basically said that the referendum was advisory (true), and that therefore it was of no consequence (before it then went off to try to divine what might have been in MPs' minds in 1972).

    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    It has nothing to do with prioritising it above every aspect of civil society, it has to do with parliament granting a referendum, and in the light of a clear result, enacting the democratically expressed will of the people. I really can't think why this is so hard to accept or understand for some. The frenzy to stay in the EU at all costs borders on a mania.
    Whatever the hopes of the petitioners, the legal decisions in this case do not prevent us from leaving the eu, so long as the politicians do their job. I don't know why people find that so hard to understand. If a referendum is not made binding someone has to choose to enact it, and will suffer mightily if they don't, this is just a question on if it is government or parliament. I don't mind which triggers it, but the decision who had to does not keep us from leaving. If people think parliament would succeed in stopping it, which seems improbable, that would still be a failing of the politicians.
  • DixieDixie Posts: 1,221
    Re: Italian ref., has TSE written the following Sun-like headline:

    "Frenzy as Renzi loses Italian Job."

  • @david_herdson As a non lawyer the High Court judgement was a beautifully written master class in answering a question asked logically and proceeding from first principles. The Referendum result is entirely irrelevant to the question asked. Who has the power to invoke A50 ? The Executive or Parliament ? Who was the advisory referendum giving advice to ? Specifically given A50 invocation will in due course extinguish rights that Parliament has explicitly granted.

    As a non lawyer I can't judge those ' first principles ' but if I were a government lawyer that's where 'Id attack. The logic of the judgement is superb and impregnable. If the Court is correct in it's assessment of the first principles of our constitution then the judgement is sound. If they weren't then their subsequent beautiful logic is worthless. It's not a lazy or confused bit of reasoning. It stands or falls on the base assumptions they made.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    So does TSE still have half his team to play in the fantasy football?
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
    Well then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. The Court basically said that the referendum was advisory (true), and that therefore it was of no consequence (before it then went off to try to divine what might have been in MPs' minds in 1972).

    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
    A referendum is either binding or it isn't. This wasn't. So legal authority for triggering Article 50 needs to be found elsewhere. Does the government have the power already or is it for Parliament to approve? A non-binding vote won't supply it.

    This, incidentally, is a far more important question than Brexit for the governance of the country. Those who persist in viewing it just through that prism (from either side) are crazed.
  • @keiranpedley: Am I right in thinking that Renzi never actually won an election? And then called a referendum and lost? Is that something to really mourn?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.

    Brextremists still outraged by following the rule of law I see....

    David, if the court case had preceded the referendum, do you think the judges should have come up with a different interpretation of the law?

    That way madness lies.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
  • kle4 said:

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Judges respect the people by following the law as set out by the representatives of the people. Assuming the interpretation initially was correct they did that. Questions of technical process should not be impacted by popular mandates, either there's a process to follow or there isn't. Leaving the eu is a policy decision. How that policy is legally enacted is a process issue, and not for judges to make easier or harder than the law says it should be.

    And if the law is an ass, parliament always has the power to change it.
    Except that in the political process, clearly the question of popular mandates does come into it. At one time, a government was regarded as holding its authority by its appointment by the king, not by its holding the confidence of the Commons. Pitt, early on in his ministry, ignored a No Confidence vote in the same way that Corbyn did last year. That changed over time (indeed, it was changing then). Likewise, the constitution has changed with respect to referendums. What big constitutional question has not been put to the people these last 20 year? I would argue that it is now a convention that all such questions are put in a referendum and that to simply ignore that element is to ignore an aspect of the constitution. That therefore to regard the question, as the High Court did, as if the government were merely acting on a whim is to miss an essential part of the process.

    If it was simply a matter of following the law, there wouldn't be the controversy; indeed, there wouldn't be the court case. There is the case precisely because the law is not clear and as such, the Courts are not interpreting the law; they are making it. There is no statute as to what power the government has, hence all the argument about convention, precedent and implied powers.

    The technical process within any political system has to take account of the whole system, and when parliament throws a question to the country - even if the result is not binding in statute - that surely has to be a relevant factor?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    It's a mess entirely of the government's making. They should have played it by the book, but instead decided to take constitutional shortcuts. Now it's blown up in their faces, I suspect they are happy to see the judges blamed. It's a typical distraction spin operation
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of someeducational.
    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    .
    We want our judges to take decisions on the law based on political inevitability? Either the government has the power granted by parliament or it doesn't, that the people want it to have the power is surely irrelevant. Your paragraph above is a good reason why politicians should not ignore the referendum, even though it would be legal to do so. I don't really see what it has to do with the point of law that was questioned, since pressing ahead with leaving, which I think parliament should do, is a political decision, not legal.

    I acknowledge I am a layman, and I have seen detailed arguments as to why the high court was incorrect in its ruling, but those arguments were about how they interpreted the law incorrectly, not that they failed to take due account of the politics of the referendum. The implication was already the government's own interpretation of its powers should be accepted without challenge because what it proposed was popular, now it's the view of judges on what the law is should change based on popular view. Don't the implications of that seem worrying? Unless the Supreme Court say the law required the high court to pay more attention to the referendum result, facilitating the enacting of that result was not their job. Nor was making it more difficult than it needs to be. It was establishing how the law as presently set up requires it to be done.

    And since there is no question the decision undermines parliament, and suggestions a three line bill giving it the power or whatever could be made in response, and it adds to my view the government will far from mind this distraction.

    But this subject makes me angry as I feel even more than usual ignore the point (or I am merely a misguided fool), so I'll call it a day.
  • FF43 said:

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.
    The law case is strictly to determine who has authority over the Article 50 process: Parliament or the Executive. Judges determine WHO decides, not WHAT they decide. It has nothing to do with judges not respecting the people. It should never have gone to court. The only reason it did was because the government wanted to shut down the debate. They should have said, we're going to call Article 50. Parliament, please authorise that in accordance with the wishes expressed in the referendum.
    To have said that would have:

    1. Acknowledged that it did not have the power to implement the decision itself, despite governments historically having had the power to implement treaties ratified by parliament, as Lisbon was.

    2. Acknowledged that parliament had the right to override the people, not only in exceptional circumstances but as a matter of course.

    Neither point was worth conceding without a fight.
  • @keiranpedley: Am I right in thinking that Renzi never actually won an election? And then called a referendum and lost? Is that something to really mourn?

    Not really. When I finally got round to looking at the actual constitutional reform last week I was astonished. Asserting the clear primacy of the Chamber of Deputies in a bicameral system is one thing. But the replacement model for appointing the Senate was undemocratic and centralising. I'd almost certainly have voted No myself if I was Italian. It was all a bit AV. It diagnosed the problem correctly but prescribed a replacement that was at best crap and at worst likely to maximise opposition. Add in it being personally associated with a governing politican and hey presto...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
    What protects democracy? The rule of law.


  • Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.

    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
    Well then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. The Court basically said that the referendum was advisory (true), and that therefore it was of no consequence (before it then went off to try to divine what might have been in MPs' minds in 1972).

    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
    A referendum is either binding or it isn't. This wasn't. So legal authority for triggering Article 50 needs to be found elsewhere. Does the government have the power already or is it for Parliament to approve? A non-binding vote won't supply it.

    This, incidentally, is a far more important question than Brexit for the governance of the country. Those who persist in viewing it just through that prism (from either side) are crazed.
    Parliament has already authorised it (1) when it incorporated the Lisbon Treaty into UK law without reserving authorising power to itself with regard to Article 50 (unlike several other provisions within the treaty), (2) when it authorised the referendum, which clearly accepted the possibility of a Brexit vote and, as such, the consequence of leaving the EU, which is only possible through the invocation of A50.


  • Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.

    Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.
    Well then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. The Court basically said that the referendum was advisory (true), and that therefore it was of no consequence (before it then went off to try to divine what might have been in MPs' minds in 1972).

    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
    A referendum is either binding or it isn't. This wasn't. So legal authority for triggering Article 50 needs to be found elsewhere. Does the government have the power already or is it for Parliament to approve? A non-binding vote won't supply it.

    This, incidentally, is a far more important question than Brexit for the governance of the country. Those who persist in viewing it just through that prism (from either side) are crazed.
    Parliament has already authorised it (1) when it incorporated the Lisbon Treaty into UK law without reserving authorising power to itself with regard to Article 50 (unlike several other provisions within the treaty), (2) when it authorised the referendum, which clearly accepted the possibility of a Brexit vote and, as such, the consequence of leaving the EU, which is only possible through the invocation of A50.
    1 is an argument. 2 is not.

    Unless you unconcede the point that the referendum is not binding.
  • FF43 said:

    It's a mess entirely of the government's making. They should have played it by the book, but instead decided to take constitutional shortcuts. Now it's blown up in their faces, I suspect they are happy to see the judges blamed. It's a typical distraction spin operation

    I suspect the Civil Service was also strongly behind the 'Royal Prerogative" line so much simpler without involving MPs, Prime Minister - but it's the government which took the advice, so must carry the can.....I doubt Mrs May is losing much sleep over this, it provides a distraction while the government continues to work out what 'Brexit' means - something Cameron should have done, but we are where we are......
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    I was appalled to learn last night that the Attorney General is again leading for the government. It seriously makes me question if they want to win.

    My concern about senior judges is that the Supreme Court has indeed been much more willing to interfere in matters of policy and politics in a way that the old House of Lords would not have. This is in large part a consequence of the rules that they are given. The Human Rights Act, European Law and the ever extending concept of Judicial Review have resulted in the Courts, and in particular the Supreme Court interfering in decisions they should not be interfering in. Some Supreme Court cases have page after page of prose explaining and weighing the policies behind a decision with little sign of what a black letter lawyer would regard as actual law in sight.

    In this particular case the High Court developed the concept of rights for citizens from legislation in a somewhat novel way. They took the view that the elected Government could not take a step that interfered with those rights without the express authority of Parliament. I think this was wrong. It ignores the fact that our government is the government because it has a majority in Parliament who support it. If the Commons ceases to support the government it falls and cannot make these decisions. It gave insufficient weight to the fact that Parliament had approved the referendum by an Act of Parliament. It gave no weight to the argument (in so far as it was made) that both sides had committed to respect and implement that decision and that the people had voted on that basis. It seemed to give no weight at all to the fact that Parliament will have to repeal the European Communities Act and numerous other statutes by primary legislation to implement the decision. It sought to restrict the role of the executive in implementing the will of the majority in that approved referendum to effectively nothing.

    Lawyers are obsessed with process. It is not always a good thing. But in the way our law has developed in the last 20 years it would be surprising if the government was successful in this case.
  • Good morning, my fellow enemies of the people.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    It gave no weight to the argument (in so far as it was made) that both sides had committed to respect and implement that decision and that the people had voted on that basis.

    Another who thinks the legal outcome might have been different if the case had been argued before the vote.

    That way madness lies...
  • @David_Herdson Since 1997 we've made the following changes without a referendum. #1 Set up the Supreme Court. #2 Removed most Hereditaries from the Lords. #3 Introduced Direct Election for PCCs and Metro Mayor's. #4 Introduced PR for Euro elections and SV for Mayoral/PVC Elections. #5 Increased the powers of Scots, Welsh and NI assemblies far beyond what was agreed in the original referendum packages. #5 The Human Rights Act #6 The Civil Contingencies Act.
  • ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    https://twitter.com/BBCCambs/status/805675636530573312
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    She wants to remain an MP as well
  • Scott_P said:

    ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    She wants to remain an MP as well
    Yeah but she'll come under pressure to resign over double jobbing.
  • kle4 said:



    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    .

    We want our judges to take decisions on the law based on political inevitability? Either the government has the power granted by parliament or it doesn't, that the people want it to have the power is surely irrelevant. Your paragraph above is a good reason why politicians should not ignore the referendum, even though it would be legal to do so. I don't really see what it has to do with the point of law that was questioned, since pressing ahead with leaving, which I think parliament should do, is a political decision, not legal.

    I acknowledge I am a layman, and I have seen detailed arguments as to why the high court was incorrect in its ruling, but those arguments were about how they interpreted the law incorrectly, not that they failed to take due account of the politics of the referendum. The implication was already the government's own interpretation of its powers should be accepted without challenge because what it proposed was popular, now it's the view of judges on what the law is should change based on popular view. Don't the implications of that seem worrying? Unless the Supreme Court say the law required the high court to pay more attention to the referendum result, facilitating the enacting of that result was not their job. Nor was making it more difficult than it needs to be. It was establishing how the law as presently set up requires it to be done.

    And since there is no question the decision undermines parliament, and suggestions a three line bill giving it the power or whatever could be made in response, and it adds to my view the government will far from mind this distraction.

    But this subject makes me angry as I feel even more than usual ignore the point (or I am merely a misguided fool), so I'll call it a day.
    Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    https://twitter.com/BBCCambs/status/805675636530573312

    She was just interviewed on the news, and says she thinks she can do both jobs at once, citing Boris's time as both.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
    What protects democracy? The rule of law.
    Point to one post of mine on here where I have laid into the judiciary.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Unsurprisingly I support the appeal. I hope the government wins but not just for triggering article 50 but for the wider impact on the mechanics of government. As with all constitutional matters, I'm worried about the wider implications if the appeal loses.

    The law of unintended consequences comes into play here. I wonder if the remainers that brought this case have fully investigated the impact of winning! The precedent set by a win will impact all future governments and probably in ways not considered in the heat of despair after the Brexit win.
  • On topic.

    What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.
  • Scott_P said:

    Alastair - do you think the High Court gave due weight in their ruling to the fact and result of the referendum? If the judges do not respect the people, it's not too surprising if the people lose some faith in the judges.

    Brextremists still outraged by following the rule of law I see....

    David, if the court case had preceded the referendum, do you think the judges should have come up with a different interpretation of the law?

    That way madness lies.
    Hopefully I've covered that in my response to kle4.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408



    Except that in the political process, clearly the question of popular mandates does come into it. At one time, a government was regarded as holding its authority by its appointment by the king, not by its holding the confidence of the Commons. Pitt, early on in his ministry, ignored a No Confidence vote in the same way that Corbyn did last year. That changed over time (indeed, it was changing then). Likewise, the constitution has changed with respect to referendums. What big constitutional question has not been put to the people these last 20 year? I would argue that it is now a convention that all such ques

    Your first words explain why I don't think it does. The political process popular mandate comes into it. Not legal. As for them making law, they interpret what they think the law as parliament set out says. If they are wrong, or parliament never specified precisely, then parliament should bloody well do so. Your argument as to why the courts should not be allowed to hear a challenge on government authority (in effect that is what you say, by saying the popular vote should impact what they think the law says the government's powers are) is no more based on statute it would seem, so why is it more valid exactly.

    This case does not in any way prevent the country leaving the eu. Therefore, to suggest any decision it makes goes against the public is simply incorrect. Some hope parliament will use the opportunity to not leave the eu, but that itself proves the decision to leave or remain has not been done by the court, but the politicians, and it is they who need to listen to popular will and mandate. Unless legally the court should have taken such matters into account, it definitely should not have, and the initial objections I saw on the courts ruling focused on legal points they got wrong, not including they didn't take account of the politics.

    We don't need judges to interpret the law but considering the political situation. We have politicians to tackle the political situation and to change the law if it takes less account of it as it should. Why even have judges if popular will means they should not follow the law?

    Good day all. I'll definitely give things a miss when the court rules - if the government wins, fine by me, but I suspect the atmosphere in the country will be much more bitter the other way.

    Edit: As a side note, when an appeal panel decides on an infant class size appeal, the rules are very strict. If someone seeks to review a decision, even if it was a horrible bloody decision given the personal circumstances, as long as the panel followed the correct process a review would fail, because the review is about process, not merits of the case. Something that applies to small and big things, the legal challenges not about merits, but what is technically correct. Make it about merits, and maybe its fine this time, but next time?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Good morning, my fellow enemies of the people.

    Look Morris, all those who voted leave were clearly racist idiots whose feelings can be safely ignored.

    How very EU :-)
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.

    And the High Court has ruled that is not the case.

    Still the Brextremists persist.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Off topic,

    Fox jr is considering doing the GDL with the aim of becoming a solicitor, following his first degree in Geography.

    Any thoughts or advice from the PB legal eagles?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:



    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    .



    I acknowledge I am a layman, and I have seen detailed arguments as to why the high court was incorrect in its ruling, but those arguments were about how they interpreted the law incorrectly, not that they faileue account of the politics of the referendum. The implication was already the government's own interpretation of its powers should be accepted without challenge because what it proposed was popular, now it's the view of judges on what the law is should change based on popular view. Don't the implications of that seem worrying? Unless the Supreme Court say the law required the high court to pay more attention to the referendum result, facilitating the enacting of that result was not their job. Nor was making it more difficult than it needs to be. It was establishing how the law as presently set up requires it to be done.

    And since there is no question the decision undermines parliament, and suggestions a three line bill giving it the power or whatever could be made in response, and it adds to my view the government will far from mind this distraction.

    But this subject makes me angry as I feel even more than usual ignore the point (or I am merely a misguided fool), so I'll call it a day.
    Just for clarification, I'm not saying either that the government should have the power to do something simply because it's 'popular', nor that the law should be based on the popular view. I'm saying that when parliament puts a question to the country and receives an answer from it, then that should be sufficient authority for it to use powers it already had but which might in other circumstances have, by convention, gone to parliament for authorisation. That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.
    But the government didn't 'already have' the power, if the judges are correct. You're saying parliament should be taken to have transferred its power to the government, despite this not being mentioned, in such circumstances. A better argument, perhaps, but not really anything to do with taking account of the political dynamics, which is one reason I like it better - it argues the implicit transfer of power. Not without problems - pronouncements before the vote are not law, if the act did not say parliament granted authority to do whatever it took to leave, can it be said to have granted it - but better than the other implications. Which you may not be intentionally making, but plenty are.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @Anna_Soubry: If Govt not Parliament has power to trigger #A50 then they cld decide NOT to trigger it Parly wld be powerless to execute will of the ppl
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192

    ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    https://twitter.com/BBCCambs/status/805675636530573312

    Interesting how attractive these Mayor posts are proving to be to serving MP's.
  • Off topic,

    Fox jr is considering doing the GDL with the aim of becoming a solicitor, following his first degree in Geography.

    Any thoughts or advice from the PB legal eagles?

    I would advise only students with great commercial acumen to enter the law now (brains are a prerequisite too but those are more commonly found).
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, I preferred the version that just spat his dummy out and screamed "its not fair" .....
  • Off topic,

    Fox jr is considering doing the GDL with the aim of becoming a solicitor, following his first degree in Geography.

    Any thoughts or advice from the PB legal eagles?

    He'll enjoy it.

    Tell him the sons of Doctors who go work in the legal profession are the best.
  • @David_Herdson And of course the executive has actually gone the other way on the Prerogative since '97. Blair and Cameron had pre conflict votes in the Commons on Iraq, Libya and Syria ( twice ). In the first case on Syria the Commons vote blocked military action. Your argument seems to be very recent precident on referendums has changed the constitution. So does the Prerogative on military action still exist ?

    If only we had some sort of panel of impartial legally qualified people charged with sifting through these issues and making a final ruling ?
  • Scott_P said:

    @Anna_Soubry: If Govt not Parliament has power to trigger #A50 then they cld decide NOT to trigger it Parly wld be powerless to execute will of the ppl

    Well that's not true. Parliament could always legislate in the teeth of government opposition, in theory at least.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Last word.

    On being sticklers for process, I have to side with lawyers for once on this one (though they quibble on what the process is). Process can be frustrating, we all know that, but frustrating is all it is, it doesn't stymie you if you have the will to get through it, and you should with all important matters, and it ensures things are properly considered and processed, when done right. Better to have these arguments now, than they crop up later.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
    What protects democracy? The rule of law.
    Point to one post of mine on here where I have laid into the judiciary.
    Strawman.
  • A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
    What protects democracy? The rule of law.
    No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
  • Mr. Floater, that's true. We all leave in a segregated enclave, you know :p

    Mr. Eagles, not following the rule of law? Like Caesar, you mean? :D
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    ‪Potential by election alert ? ‬

    https://twitter.com/BBCCambs/status/805675636530573312

    Interesting how attractive these Mayor posts are proving to be to serving MP's.
    Good morning all.
    They can smell a snap GE in the winds. :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?

    Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    One other consideration, if the appeal loses, would this impact decisions taken by previous governments? If any executive action taken previously could be assessed as taking powers away from the people then could that action be called into question and possibly reversed by the Supreme Court?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    On topic.

    What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.

    Hey, I'm doing my part.


  • Yes I do. The fact and the result of the referendum had nothing to do with the question that the court was being asked.

    The newspaper coverage of this case has been a disgrace and the behaviour of some Leave supporters has shown their true colours. So it's been educational.

    Well then I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. The Court basically said that the referendum was advisory (true), and that therefore it was of no consequence (before it then went off to try to divine what might have been in MPs' minds in 1972).

    To regard a vote of 33m+ people, sanctioned by parliament and taken so seriously by the government that the PM resigned upon losing as 'advisory' was, to my mind, a major failing in the ruling. But even if it was legally sustainable, the political dynamic was inevitable.

    As for the newspapers, certainly some headlines and reporting were to my mind over the top. On the other hand, freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to express and report opinion, which others might find distateful. The true extent of freedom of speech is not tested by those we agree with but by those we strongly disagree with. High Court judges are big boys and girls, hold responsible, well-paid jobs and have to expect public scrutiny and criticism. As I've said, I don't agree with the tone or some of the content in the 'Enemies of the People'-type reporting but the papers had the right to say it all the same, just as much as had a politician been the target.
    A referendum is either binding or it isn't. This wasn't. So legal authority for triggering Article 50 needs to be found elsewhere. Does the government have the power already or is it for Parliament to approve? A non-binding vote won't supply it.

    This, incidentally, is a far more important question than Brexit for the governance of the country. Those who persist in viewing it just through that prism (from either side) are crazed.
    Parliament has already authorised it (1) when it incorporated the Lisbon Treaty into UK law without reserving authorising power to itself with regard to Article 50 (unlike several other provisions within the treaty), (2) when it authorised the referendum, which clearly accepted the possibility of a Brexit vote and, as such, the consequence of leaving the EU, which is only possible through the invocation of A50.
    1 is an argument. 2 is not.

    Unless you unconcede the point that the referendum is not binding.
    I would, and did, argue that the referendum is constitutionally binding but that the legislation did not make it legally binding.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Scott_P said:

    That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.

    And the High Court has ruled that is not the case.

    Still the Brextremists persist.
    The supreme court could disagree on that point, we shal see. Arguing that point is at least a point of law.
  • kle4 said:

    On topic.

    What a disgrace Leave voters are. They don't support the rule of law.

    Hey, I'm doing my part.
    I know you are.

    I'm still amused that the Mail focussed on one judge being a gay Olympic fencer.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    The judges are not consciously biased but no one is totally subjective. Scientists are aware of that fault and take precautions to lessen it as far as possible. Hence double-blind clinical trials. Very expensive, but necessary.

    That's why the Yank politicians choose their top judges. No matter how hard they try, subconscious bias will play a part. It's even possible, they may go to the opposite extreme to prevent it. But it has an effect..

    It's even possible that Mrs May is an ardent Leaver now because she 'remains' a Remainer at heart.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    '51.89%' lol. Just say 52%.
  • rcs1000 said:

    OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?

    Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.

    The opinion polls in Italy were fairly clear in predicting a No. And after Brexit and Trump these revolts will be priced in in advance.
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    rcs1000 said:

    OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?

    Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.

    rcs1000 said:

    OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?

    Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.

    Its the classic " sell the rumour buy the fact"

    Give it a few days and the euro will start to slip again..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,520
    edited December 2016

    A handy way of measuring the number of those Leavers who prioritise leaving the EU ahead of every other aspect of civic society. At some point saner Leave voters will realise that these people are the true menace to society.

    Starting the day with a smear against Leavers. As usual.
    Well, their sense of superiority is all they have to cling to in these dark times.

    Oh, and protecting your democracy is top trumps in a "civic society".
    What protects democracy? The rule of law.
    No - what protects democracy is self-restraint on the part of politicians and public alike (which includes respect for the law). There are more than enough cases of dictatorships being voted in according to the rule of law.
    There are various reasons for that. One is that the law is not strong enough to protect democracy. The other (and perhaps more common one) is that, as we have seen in Putin's Russia and we're seeing in Erdogan's Turkey, the dictators or would-be dictators take control over the judiciary.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    If, for example, changes to fishing quotas were assessed as removing the power to earn a living and it was enforced by a Statutory Instrument, could that be challenged in the Supreme Court?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    rcs1000 said:

    OK financial market watchers, who expected the Eurostoxx to be up this market? Or, indeed, the Euro to be flat? Or for French market to be outperforming the British one?

    Even the Italian banks seem to be shrugging this one off. Monte Pachi is down a mere 1% this morning, albeit after falling 85% year-to-date.

    It's the same response as after Trump won. Last night the Euro took a bit if a beating, but once everyone got some perspective it has recovered.

    I think if there is an election in Italy then the Euro could wobble a bit, especially if M5S wins.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    CD13 said:

    The judges are not consciously biased but no one is totally subjective. Scientists are aware of that fault and take precautions to lessen it as far as possible. Hence double-blind clinical trials. Very expensive, but necessary.

    That's why the Yank politicians choose their top judges. No matter how hard they try, subconscious bias will play a part. It's even possible, they may go to the opposite extreme to prevent it. But it has an effect..

    It's even possible that Mrs May is an ardent Leaver now because she 'remains' a Remainer at heart.

    Unconscious bias a lot better than conscious bias, in general
  • Mr. Eagles, 'openly' gay, no?

    Flamboyantly fruity men being judges? Outrageous!

    [I do think the reaction to most of the criticism and scrutiny of the judges is overdone, but some of the attacks have been either over the top or frankly bizarre. Disgraceful to attack a chap for his sexual orientation].

    Of course, the best representations of gay people is found in fiction, such as the lead character of Kingdom Asunder:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/

    On a less 'please buy my book' note, it's worth recalling that Ellie's a great lead (well, lead female) in The Last of Us. I do hope the sequel lives up to the first game.

    Mr. Submarine, voting ahead of military action is bloody stupid. It's an executive matter, not something to be debated by legislators.
  • This is a comment to Mr Alastair Meeks.Your remarks on this site are devalued by your utter arrogance & disdain towards Leave voters.A little more humility would be welcome especially since you lost & like others cannot or will not accept the verdict of the people.In other words stick to Pensions.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019



    Mr. Submarine, voting ahead of military action is bloody stupid. It's an executive matter, not something to be debated by legislators.

    But going to war may remove the right to life of the soldiers and should be decided by parliament! :grin:
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Mr. Eagles, 'openly' gay, no?

    Flamboyantly fruity men being judges? Outrageous!

    [I do think the reaction to most of the criticism and scrutiny of the judges is overdone, but some of the attacks have been either over the top or frankly bizarre. Disgraceful to attack a chap for his sexual orientation].

    Of course, the best representations of gay people is found in fiction, such as the lead character of Kingdom Asunder:
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/

    On a less 'please buy my book' note, it's worth recalling that Ellie's a great lead (well, lead female) in The Last of Us. I do hope the sequel lives up to the first game.

    Mr. Submarine, voting ahead of military action is bloody stupid. It's an executive matter, not something to be debated by legislators.

    What attacks?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    edited December 2016
    Scott_P said:

    That is, that in effect parliament authorised either course of action when it passed the Act setting up the referendum, contingent upon the result.

    And the High Court has ruled that is not the case.

    Still the Brextremists persist.
    Yes, well I think it was wrong. So does the government, which is why it's appealing. We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees ( fwiw, I expect them to uphold the decision).

    As an aside, I voted Remain. However, it's more important that democracy is allowed to prevail.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 2,192
    kle4 said:

    Last word.

    On being sticklers for process, I have to side with lawyers for once on this one (though they quibble on what the process is). Process can be frustrating, we all know that, but frustrating is all it is, it doesn't stymie you if you have the will to get through it, and you should with all important matters, and it ensures things are properly considered and processed, when done right. Better to have these arguments now, than they crop up later.

    You have to look at this as a reaffirmation of how our country works, and it will provide further insurance for the future.
  • Blue_rog said:

    If, for example, changes to fishing quotas were assessed as removing the power to earn a living and it was enforced by a Statutory Instrument, could that be challenged in the Supreme Court?

    I'm not a lawyer but #1 Statutory Instruments aren't Prerogative. They derive from Parent primary legislation. #2 SI's do have a form of parliamentary approval. #3 The ruling was about Rights granted by Parliament. Not something as nebulous as " the power to earn a living. " You are comparing Apples and Chocolate Oranges.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    As an aside, I voted Remain. However, it's more important that democracy is allowed to prevail.

    And it will, as long as it follows the rule of law.

    The alternative is anarchy.
  • Credit where it's due:
    "Public bodies in the UK had too often ignored or condoned divisive or harmful religious practices for fear of being called racist, the Casey Review said."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38200989
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    Blue_rog said:

    If, for example, changes to fishing quotas were assessed as removing the power to earn a living and it was enforced by a Statutory Instrument, could that be challenged in the Supreme Court?

    I'm not a lawyer but #1 Statutory Instruments aren't Prerogative. They derive from Parent primary legislation. #2 SI's do have a form of parliamentary approval. #3 The ruling was about Rights granted by Parliament. Not something as nebulous as " the power to earn a living. " You are comparing Apples and Chocolate Oranges.
    :lol: Shows how much I know about the law. My basic premise remains however. If an executive decision had been taken that is assessed to have removed a right then could this now be challenged if the appeal loses?

    Oh, yes it is now definitely the season for chocolate oranges - yum
This discussion has been closed.