politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the advocacy, what next for the Article 50 case in the S

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the advocacy, what next for the Article 50 case in the Supreme Court?

 

Read the full story here

JohnO

Hello, world.

TheScreamingEagles

Cheers Alastair

SouthamObserver

Excellent article. Big difference with the US Supreme court seems to be that our judges do much of their own work. In SCOTUS the clerks do.

Sandpit

A good article Alastair, especially thanks for a lawyer's view of the odds in play.

I've not managed to follow the case in detail due to not being a constitutional lawyer and therefore having other work to do this week, but it sounds like a fascinating and ground-breaking case in a number of ways.

AndyJS

O/T:

It's 28th October 1982 on BBC4 and Top of the Pops. First track is Do It To The Music by Raw Silk:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcfour

kle4

Oh, they'll impress alright. If they rule against the enraging it will cause will be very impressive (no matter the lawyers representing the government have been much more restrained in accepting what is and is not being discussed and decided).

I'll take Alistair's word the initial view was the government were likely to win, that does seem to have been forgotten if it was the case. They could well overturn the High Court - I suppose one reason for the opinion shift is, IIRC, the High Court essentially said the fundamentals of the government case was wrong and in fact undermined itself in parts, so unless the Court was fundamentally wrong (not impossible but being so wrong is always, initially, seen as improbable) it would take a lot to convince the Justices. Not sure how one would put odds on that, but Alistair's reasoning seems fairly sound.

But this subject and how much people (in my personal view, admittedly) miss the point just winds me up, so I'll spare people that and call it quits for the day.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

frpenkridge said:

A comment below the Dan Snow article: "I know it is the fashion here to describe the Brexiteers as ill informed and/or stupid but I was at a pre-Christmas party where assorted solicitors, a barrister and a few others with degrees all voted Leave. One said when she looked at a disparate group of people she knew that voted Remain all they had in common was a that they all owned a property in Europe."

A member of the elite commenting on other members of the elite. Neither representative of Leave or Remain voters in general, only of those who led the respective campaigns.

You forget, we're supposed to forget both sides were led by elites. Its not enough we won, we have to mythologize it.

TheScreamingEagles

SouthamObserver said:

Excellent article. Big difference with the US Supreme court seems to be that our judges do much of their own work. In SCOTUS the clerks do.

Compare and contrast this with Bush v Gore.

I was always told a good ruling by judges should be one that sets principles and precedents that should last and echoes through the ages.

Whereas in Bush v Gore, the Supreme Court of the United States said it was limited only to the present circumstances.

Pauly

Good advice, probably the best thread Mr Meeks has written - kudos.

rural_voter

Sandpit said:

A good article Alastair, especially thanks for a lawyer's view of the odds in play.

I've not managed to follow the case in detail due to not being a constitutional lawyer and therefore having other work to do this week, but it sounds like a fascinating and ground-breaking case in a number of ways.

What annoys me a bit is the assumption that any private citizen can hold the government to account in this way and that we all have 'access to justice'. It seems an argument like the one that we all have equal access to the Ritz.

If Gina Miller wins, can she claim her costs back from the government? In a private civil case on this scale, the loser would be personally liable for the winner's costs and they'd be huge.

Sandpit

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

A good article Alastair, especially thanks for a lawyer's view of the odds in play.

I've not managed to follow the case in detail due to not being a constitutional lawyer and therefore having other work to do this week, but it sounds like a fascinating and ground-breaking case in a number of ways.

What annoys me a bit is the assumption that any private citizen can hold the government to account in this way and that we all have 'access to justice'. It seems an argument like the one that we all have equal access to the Ritz.

If Gina Miller wins, can she claim her costs back from the government? In a private civil case on this scale, the loser would be personally liable for the winner's costs and they'd be huge.

I'm more interested in what bill Ms Miller might be looking at if she loses the case - crowdsourcing the London Remainers to avoid bankruptcy?

Or do the Supremes not deal with costs in the same way as the lower courts, due to the importance of the case? Maybe one of our lawyer posters might advise.

Roger

Excellent article Alastair. It has been a great ad for the judiciary. It reminded me of the summing up after the Pistorius trial. A beautiful summing up that was easy to follow logical and made perfect sense. This is the charm of listening to the best advocates.

Unfortunately the popular press believe wrongly in my opinion that the public wont be interested in following the argument and instead prefer to amplify silly soundbites by celebrity barristers like the late George Carmen. If anyone can be bothered The Art of Advocacy' by Norman Birkett is a wonderful read.

tlg86

Thanks Alastair, very interesting. I agree that it's been a good advert for our judicial system. My only regret is that it's happened after the referendum rather than before.

AnneJGP

FPT @Richard_Tyndall : Thanks for the reply.

Good evening, everybody.

another_richard

Thanks for a very interesting article AM.

I can't help feeling though that if three top of the range judges get overruled by another bunch of judges its rather saying that either one lot of the other have made a mistake.

Now if the evidence or circumstances had changed or the judges being overruled were lower division I could understand an overrule better.

tlg86

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

Roger

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

tyson

What an excellent article. There is a lot of dense grey matter accumulated between the ears of the author.

I'm off to stick some cash on the outcome....

TheScreamingEagles

Roger said:

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

Guilty.

Choosing the pictures for threads is one of perks of the job.

another_richard

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

AnneJGP

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

I've found the gathering of so much knowledge and intelligence focussed on one topic very exciting. I want us to leave the EU with everything legal & above board.

tyson

Roger said:

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

Isn't that a picture of pbCOM's last social outing at Dirty Dicks or wherever they go? I can definitely spot Plato at the back...

rkrkrk

Nice article Mr Meeks.
To what extent should the government's A50 deadline amendment affect our thinking?

Does it signify that the government reckons it might lose the court case? Merely prudent contingency planning?

Or an attempt to influence the Court by demonstrating parliament can resolve to debate A50 whenever it wishes- and does not need a court instruction to do so?

rural_voter

Sandpit said:

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

A good article Alastair, especially thanks for a lawyer's view of the odds in play.

I've not managed to follow the case in detail due to not being a constitutional lawyer and therefore having other work to do this week, but it sounds like a fascinating and ground-breaking case in a number of ways.

What annoys me a bit is the assumption that any private citizen can hold the government to account in this way and that we all have 'access to justice'. It seems an argument like the one that we all have equal access to the Ritz.

If Gina Miller wins, can she claim her costs back from the government? In a private civil case on this scale, the loser would be personally liable for the winner's costs and they'd be huge.

I'm more interested in what bill Ms Miller might be looking at if she loses the case - crowdsourcing the London Remainers to avoid bankruptcy?

Or do the Supremes not deal with costs in the same way as the lower courts, due to the importance of the case? Maybe one of our lawyer posters might advise.

I'm no lawyer but I used to hear the argument that only the very rich or very poor could afford to go near the higher courts. Since the abolition of legal aid, only the very rich can. I think she might be in the latter category, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9178005/Alan-and-Gina-Miller-the-husband-and-wife-team-shaking-up-the-investment-industry.html

Richard_Tyndall

AnneJGP said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

I've found the gathering of so much knowledge and intelligence focussed on one topic very exciting. I want us to leave the EU with everything legal & above board.

My thoughts exactly. Moreover I want it done without damage to ur own systems of judiciary and governance which is why, whilst I doubt the motives of Miss Miller, I still hope for the sake of our country that she wins.

Out of interest would the vote held on Wednesday night be considered by the legal experts on here to be sufficient to meet the Court's ruling if it upholds the High Court verdict?

Speedy

I see that we have a long way still to go till a judgement is made and it's still up in the air.

In other news.
ISIS is advancing again in the Middle East, Palmyra has fallen once again in their hands.

Malmesbury

Roger said:

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

One of the things I enjoy the most about snobbery is the certainty that the snob is being sneered at by another snob....

FrancisUrquhart

Obama orders review into 'Russian hacking' before US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38264992

viewcode

@AntiFrank

"...Off the back of this and after some feline testing by some of the Supreme Court judges of the Government’s position..."

Is the word "feline" a typo for something or is this a reference I don't understand?

RobD

FrancisUrquhart said:

Obama orders review into 'Russian hacking' before US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38264992

A series of cyber attacks "that shook the US election season". No editorialising here!

TheScreamingEagles

viewcode said:

@AntiFrank

"...Off the back of this and after some feline testing by some of the Supreme Court judges of the Government’s position..."

Is the word "feline" a typo for something or is this a reference I don't understand?

I read it as feline = catty

Catty = 1st definition here

1) If one is being catty, they are being subtly or indirectly insulting. Different from bitchy in that bitchiness is just mean, while cattiness is often clever and witty, and isn't ALWAYS completely mean (for example, a catty joke). Both males and females can be and are catty.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catty

FrancisUrquhart

RobD said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Obama orders review into 'Russian hacking' before US election

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38264992

A series of cyber attacks "that shook the US election season". No editorialising here!

Its weird...its like certain media outlets built up wikileaks as the best thing since slice bread, whose trademark was leaking hacked and stolen information....and then they did it again.

Jonathan

For 4k nuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38242187

FrancisUrquhart

Jonathan said:

For 4k nuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38242187

Don't get too excited...its a 4 min test for very select hardware. They have gone for an alternative to HDR (which is what all the manufacturers are pushing), and they still don't have the capacity to do live transition, like Sky and BT do, and iPlayer is still a pile of steaming s##t that doesn't have buffer or P2P capabilities.

Speedy

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jonathan said:

For 4k nuts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38242187

Don't get too excited...its a 4 min test for selected hardware. They have gone for an alternative to HDR (which is what all the manufacturers are pushing), and they still don't have the capacity to do live transition, like Sky and BT do, and iPlayer is still a pile of steaming s##t that doesn't have buffer or P2P capabilities.

Until they work properly I prefer spending some time looking at this:

http://time.com/timelapse2016/

"Google Unveils a 3-Decade Time-Lapse of the Earth"

You can try and see if your neighbourhood changed much over the decades.

AndyJS

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

MattW

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

rural_voter said:

Sandpit said:

A good article Alastair, especially thanks for a lawyer's view of the odds in play.

I've not managed to follow the case in detail due to not being a constitutional lawyer and therefore having other work to do this week, but it sounds like a fascinating and ground-breaking case in a number of ways.

What annoys me a bit is the assumption that any private citizen can hold the government to account in this way and that we all have 'access to justice'. It seems an argument like the one that we all have equal access to the Ritz.

If Gina Miller wins, can she claim her costs back from the government? In a private civil case on this scale, the loser would be personally liable for the winner's costs and they'd be huge.

I'm more interested in what bill Ms Miller might be looking at if she loses the case - crowdsourcing the London Remainers to avoid bankruptcy?

Or do the Supremes not deal with costs in the same way as the lower courts, due to the importance of the case? Maybe one of our lawyer posters might advise.

I'm no lawyer but I used to hear the argument that only the very rich or very poor could afford to go near the higher courts. Since the abolition of legal aid, only the very rich can. I think she might be in the latter category, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9178005/Alan-and-Gina-Miller-the-husband-and-wife-team-shaking-up-the-investment-industry.html

From what I read Miller and hubby are hedge fund City people and wealth managers worth tens of millions. She is a founder or co-founder of about half a dozen businesses, and he seems to have taken a previous £5m divorce settlement without fundamental damage.

They could probably just write a cheque.

I love how the some of the banker-spankers suddenly seem to have forgotten that they are supposed to hate rich city people.

Recidivist

Malmesbury said:

Roger said:

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

One of the things I enjoy the most about snobbery is the certainty that the snob is being sneered at by another snob....

Well that's the sort of thing somebody like you would say.

Speedy

AndyJS said:

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

I thought this is how it was always done.

FrancisUrquhart

AndyJS said:

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

Not sure this is necessarily a new thing. I heard something like this, the details of which I won't share on PB.com, 20+ years ago.

dr_spyn

Hartley has been a silly boy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38225245

FrancisUrquhart

dr_spyn said:

Hartley has been a silly boy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38225245

What a bleeeeeepppp....I thought he had moved past this kinda of thing.

FrancisUrquhart

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

FrancisUrquhart

How to piss your staff off...

Alphabet Donated Its Employees' Holiday Gifts To Charity

http://m.slashdot.org/story/319813

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/807348390162006017

Big_G_NorthWales

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

chestnut

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/807348390162006017

What a pillock.

kle4

SeanT said:

I like the fact that

1. The Supreme Court OF THE UK is deciding this

2. The ECJ can now fuck off, post-Brexit, what with their DECISIONS IN FRENCH (by EU law)

3. It was televised

Other than that, for non lawyers it wasn't quite a popcorn-fest, but I guess it had to be done as the law is the law blah de blah.

In the end, though, parliament must reign supreme over the courts, as a jury overrules a judge. If the justices do look like stymying Brexit then May must call an election to exert her authority and pass the needed laws. Hopefully the SCOUK's decision won't necessitate this

How could it? As was repeatedly emphasised this was about legal process of enacting Brexit, and if the government was wrong about the process, it'll have to do it another way and it sounds like they've already prepared ways to achieve that. May wouldn't need to call an election, she could just pass a law giving her the necessary authority or whatever is required.

Now, if parliament stymied Brexit on the other hand, then she would need to call an election

kle4

rkrkrk said:

Nice article Mr Meeks.
To what extent should the government's A50 deadline amendment affect our thinking?

Does it signify that the government reckons it might lose the court case? Merely prudent contingency planning?

Or an attempt to influence the Court by demonstrating parliament can resolve to debate A50 whenever it wishes- and does not need a court instruction to do so?

Neither, I expect. May set the deadline arbitrarily some while ago, the amendment was to emphasise that, whether she can just do it then or needs to put in more work in parliament beforehand depends on the judgement, but they'd be concerned with what the law is now on the powers granted to the government, not on what parliament could choose to grant the government tomorrow. If the government did not, correctly or not, think it already had the power, they would have been more specific no doubt and there'd be no case in the firrst place (or one focused on different arguments at least), but surely the justices would never question that parliament could do so tomorrow if it wishes.

That the government seems prepared with quick measures in the event of a ruling against them shows the ruling is not that important in terms of Brexit though, not really, despite that being the instigator, since they are ready to move ahead by different means anyway, but settling a technical question about limits of the prerogative.

david_herdson

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

kle4

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/807348390162006017

Oh, article 50 being revocable or not (both parties in the supreme court say not), what an amusing scenario that the ECJ might need to rule on, hypothetical question though it will, heh, remain.

TheWhiteRabbit

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

kle4

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

But presumably they'd need a good reason to depart from it, or else why would either side feel the need to draw attention to what they believe the precedent to be based on cases raising similar points of law?

david_herdson

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

Why? Fox and Sky are both Murdoch concerns aren't they? Ultimately, he's not going to trash a successful brand. Sky and Fox both work in their own markets. As is almost always the case with Murdoch, this is about money first and power second. Politics comes a poor third.

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

Why? Fox and Sky are both Murdoch concerns aren't they? Ultimately, he's not going to trash a successful brand. Sky and Fox both work in their own markets. As is almost always the case with Murdoch, this is about money first and power second. Politics comes a poor third.

Plus the impartiality rules/laws in the U.K. make in nigh on impossible for a Fox News UK to operate in the UK.

TheWhiteRabbit

kle4 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

But presumably they'd need a good reason to depart from it, or else why would either side feel the need to draw attention to what they believe the precedent to be based on cases raising similar points of law?

Previous precedents may be persuasive, i.e. the reasoning that applied then still applies now. Or they think it puts their case for them.

They can depart from precedent, and there is an extent to which the court favours the status quo, but on this particular issue (and the royal prerogative more generally) there is no firm status quo.

david_herdson

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

Why? Fox and Sky are both Murdoch concerns aren't they? Ultimately, he's not going to trash a successful brand. Sky and Fox both work in their own markets. As is almost always the case with Murdoch, this is about money first and power second. Politics comes a poor third.

Plus the impartiality rules/laws in the U.K. make in nigh on impossible for a Fox News UK to operate in the UK.

Indeed (although those rules are outdated and ought to be scrapped, if the internet doesn't render them redundant).

david_herdson

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

I was meaning precedent as in that which forms constitutional convention, and hence determines what is, was or isn't constitutional, rather than legal precedent.

That said, the SC spent plenty of time discussing precedent and fell about laughing at one point when discussing the de Keyser hotel case.

foxinsoxuk

AndyJS said:

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

Isn't the whole point of private schools to pay money so that your child gets a place?

Big_G_NorthWales

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

Why? Fox and Sky are both Murdoch concerns aren't they? Ultimately, he's not going to trash a successful brand. Sky and Fox both work in their own markets. As is almost always the case with Murdoch, this is about money first and power second. Politics comes a poor third.

Plus the impartiality rules/laws in the U.K. make in nigh on impossible for a Fox News UK to operate in the UK.

BBC operates in the UK

Sunil_Prasannan

foxinsoxuk said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

Isn't the whole point of private schools to pay money so that your child gets a place?

Private schools screw the poor!

TheWhiteRabbit

david_herdson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

I was meaning precedent as in that which forms constitutional convention, and hence determines what is, was or isn't constitutional, rather than legal precedent.

That said, the SC spent plenty of time discussing precedent and fell about laughing at one point when discussing the de Keyser hotel case.

I watched it.

I read the transcript as well, I think you really have to do both!

kle4

Speaking of supreme courts, I see earlier this year Clarence Thomas asked a question in court for the first time in 10 years.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/clarence-thomas-supreme-court/471582/

Richard_Nabavi

I've obeyed Alastair's instructions and risked all of £16 on this market. I haven't a clue which way it will go, but it's perhaps worth a punt.

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

I was meaning precedent as in that which forms constitutional convention, and hence determines what is, was or isn't constitutional, rather than legal precedent.

That said, the SC spent plenty of time discussing precedent and fell about laughing at one point when discussing the de Keyser hotel case.

You'll want to order this then, I've ordered mine

https://twitter.com/JvdLD/status/807176824451170309

david_herdson

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

I was meaning precedent as in that which forms constitutional convention, and hence determines what is, was or isn't constitutional, rather than legal precedent.

That said, the SC spent plenty of time discussing precedent and fell about laughing at one point when discussing the de Keyser hotel case.

I watched it.

I read the transcript as well, I think you really have to do both!

The transcript is a wonderful tomato/tomato moment.

MarqueeMark

On this 100th birthday of Kirk Douglas, can I just share that my wife once had lunch with Spartacus on one side, Ben Hur on the other.....

TheScreamingEagles

MarqueeMark said:

On this 100th birthday of Kirk Douglas, can I just share that my wife once had lunch with Spartacus on one side, Ben Hur on the other.....

This story made me chuckle

Kirk Douglas turns 100 today. It gives me an excuse to dig out my favourite heckle. Kirk’s late son, Eric Douglas, pursued a career as a stand-up comic, which came unstuck faced with the wit of an audience at the Comedy Store in London.

Angered by the hostile reaction to his dire routine, he lost his temper and shouted: “I’m Kirk Douglas’s son!” To which one audience member stood up and replied: “No, I’m Kirk Douglas’s son.” And another. And another . . .

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/807361601749876736

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/807361601749876736

Shouldn't that be Dr Paul Nuttall? ;-)

Luckyguy1983

TheScreamingEagles said:

Roger said:

Who chose the photo of the brains trust above?

Guilty.

Choosing the pictures for threads is one of perks of the job.

I wonder if they know the difference between 'loath' and 'loathed'.

nunu

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

kle4

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

Luckyguy1983

FrancisUrquhart said:

AndyJS said:

O/T

"'Cash for places’: leading private schools accept six-figure sums from rich overseas parents desperate to get their child admitted"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/09/top-public-school-willing-accept-donations-secure-places-overseas/

Not sure this is necessarily a new thing. I heard something like this, the details of which I won't share on PB.com, 20+ years ago.

Is this a bad thing? Surely that's the whole point? I'd be scandalised if they WEREN'T getting huge donations for taking the thick offspring of foreign potentates. Thank goodness someone in this country is getting some foreign currency in.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/807365286747897856

FormerToryOrange

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

Completely false. The Supreme Court is bound be legal precedent. Of course no 2 cases are the same and they can take considerable latitude in departing from precedent by some interpretation of the particular circumstances of the case before them. In reality the courts often depart from precedent and effectively make law, however this is significantly problematic from a constitutional point of view (as I argued robustly in my first year essay on the subject).

ReggieCide

Ian Dury opined that "there ain't 'arf been some clever bastards" but I don't think he or the general public would include lawyers on their lists no matter what the lawyers themselves thought.

ReggieCide

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Isn't this the bloke what played full back for Arsenal and Chelsea and married whatserface?

TheScreamingEagles

Dave should have done this after the EU Referendum

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/807367318254784512

Richard_Tyndall

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dave should have done this after the EU Referendum

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/807367318254784512

Comparing Cameron to a tinpot African dictator?

Some friend you are.

IanB2

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Whoever did the artwork forgot to add the printer's details.

Richard_Tyndall

FormerToryOrange said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

david_herdson said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

But what the law says is open to interpretation because of what the law doesn't say - i.e. there is nothing in black and white that determines what should happen - because there is no precedent that is so close as to be effectively binding, and because the constitution is evolving and what implied powers might or might not exist is open to debate.

The advocates making the cases certainly won't bamboozle the Supreme Court - they looked an extremely impressive and accessibly human team - but the citing of cases, precedent and law, and the teasing out of the arguments surrounding them ought to be likely to affect the thought processes of the justices.

Oh, and I'd add my name to those who think this an excellent article. Cheers, Alastair.

There is no precedent that binds the Supreme Court.

Completely false. The Supreme Court is bound be legal precedent. Of course no 2 cases are the same and they can take considerable latitude in departing from precedent by some interpretation of the particular circumstances of the case before them. In reality the courts often depart from precedent and effectively make law, however this is significantly problematic from a constitutional point of view (as I argued robustly in my first year essay on the subject).

Whilst I agree entirely with you in principle it does raise an interesting question of what could be done if the Supreme Court (whether the UKSC or the ECJ) made a ruling that was clearly perverse in terms of precedent or current law? Since there is nowhere to appeal to, surely that ruling would become the precedent.

IanB2

Richard_Tyndall said:

AnneJGP said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

I've found the gathering of so much knowledge and intelligence focussed on one topic very exciting. I want us to leave the EU with everything legal & above board.

My thoughts exactly. Moreover I want it done without damage to ur own systems of judiciary and governance which is why, whilst I doubt the motives of Miss Miller, I still hope for the sake of our country that she wins.

Out of interest would the vote held on Wednesday night be considered by the legal experts on here to be sufficient to meet the Court's ruling if it upholds the High Court verdict?

As a non-binding motion (as amended), not, as it doesn't represent a decision. Sooner or later someone will have to do something binding on Brexit!

Richard_Tyndall

IanB2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

AnneJGP said:

another_richard said:

tlg86 said:

@another_richard - or the Government's legal team got its act together for the rematch.

But shouldn't these top of the range judges be considering what the law says.

I can understand some brilliant lawyer convincing a jury of ordinary people with his verbal dexterity and forensic questioning of witnesses.

But that doesn't apply in this case.

I've found the gathering of so much knowledge and intelligence focussed on one topic very exciting. I want us to leave the EU with everything legal & above board.

My thoughts exactly. Moreover I want it done without damage to ur own systems of judiciary and governance which is why, whilst I doubt the motives of Miss Miller, I still hope for the sake of our country that she wins.

Out of interest would the vote held on Wednesday night be considered by the legal experts on here to be sufficient to meet the Court's ruling if it upholds the High Court verdict?

As a non-binding motion (as amended), not, as it doesn't represent a decision. Sooner or later someone will have to do something binding on Brexit!

Thanks. I wasn't sure what status it had but that makes sense. So the Government will still have to get an Article 50 vote through Parliament if they lose the court case.

Floater

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/807365286747897856

EVEN Corbyn can't take them to 15% surely................ talk about a low bar

SirNorfolkPassmore

As a lawyer, I find it hard to see the decision going any way but against the Government. The De Keyser line of cases is really clear and persuasive. The Government does have an argument on whether the use of the prerogative really is an effective repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, but the mood music on that seemed pretty hopeless in Court.

I've called these wrong before, and people probably overstate the importance of the fact that Pannick is the best "performer". But he's also got the best case, and I'd see the current odds as fair or even slightly too generous to HM Government.

Floater

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

david_herdson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the usual blowhards tom Watson & Chris Bryant arent happy about the sky takeover.

ITV just now - 21st Century Fox has no connection with the newspapers and while may be referred to Ofcom the bid cannot be derailed.

Think Faisal Ialam, Beth Rigby and others may have some considerable concerns

Why? Fox and Sky are both Murdoch concerns aren't they? Ultimately, he's not going to trash a successful brand. Sky and Fox both work in their own markets. As is almost always the case with Murdoch, this is about money first and power second. Politics comes a poor third.

Plus the impartiality rules/laws in the U.K. make in nigh on impossible for a Fox News UK to operate in the UK.

BBC operates in the UK

Southam on/ but they are completely impartial / Southam off

nunu

kle4 said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

He answered this in the Marr interview, someone took it upon themselves to promote him.

kle4

nunu said:

kle4 said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

He answered this in the Marr interview, someone took it upon themselves to promote him.

So just general party incompetence, not self aggrandizement then. Not exactly laudable, but I can believe it.

Roger

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Isn't faking your CV up to and including inventing a PHD a resigning matter for a Party leader, Or am I just being old fashioned?

SirNorfolkPassmore

Another thing to note is that it was an A-Team High Court judgment... they didn't put the B-Team out, they weren't going out on a limb, it was a good judgment and one they must have had good reason to believe wouldn't be utterly trashed on appeal (and it would inevitably be appealed). That doesn't rule out the appeal being successful, but the lower decision isn't an aberration - it has real weight.

It wasn't some blow-hard like Mr Justice Peter Smith, coming up with weird nonsense that will be swept aside. It's strong. Was enough said in the Supreme Court to shift it? I don't feel it.

MikeL

Worth keeping an eye on changes in the House Of Lords - of which there have been several just in the last two weeks - all moving in the Government's favour.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn (Lab) - unfortunately died after traffic accident outside Parliament
Baroness Oona King (Lab) - gone on Leave of Absence as moving to US to work for YouTube
Lord Loomba (LD) - has resigned from Lib Dems - now sitting as non-affiliated
Lord Rana (Crossbench) - has joined the Conservatives, now sitting as a Conservative

Revised State of the Parties:

Con 256, Lab 204, LD 103, Crossbench 180, Others 66, Total 809

So the Lab + LD lead over Con is now down to 51. For reference it was 118 in June 2011.

Higher Con turnout is such that earlier this week, Con actually outvoted Lab + LD by one vote on a well attended Division - though still lost the Division due to Crossbenchers.

Under the radar the Lords dynamics are changing - if Con can get Crossbench support they have every chance of winning Divisions - something to keep in mind re any awkward Lab / Lib Dem amendments to any Brexit Bill.

kle4

MikeL said:

Worth keeping an eye on changes in the House Of Lords - of which there have been several just in the last two weeks - all moving in the Government's favour.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn (Lab) - unfortunately died after traffic accident outside Parliament
Baroness Oona King (Lab) - gone on Leave of Absence as moving to US to work for YouTube
Lord Loomba (LD) - has resigned from Lib Dems - now sitting as non-affiliated
Lord Rana (Crossbench) - has joined the Conservatives, now sitting as a Conservative

Revised State of the Parties:

Con 256, Lab 204, LD 103, Crossbench 180, Others 66, Total 809

So the Lab + LD lead over Con is now down to 51. For reference it was 118 in June 2011.

Higher Con turnout is such that earlier this week, Con actually outvoted Lab + LD by one vote on a well attended Division - though still lost the Division due to Crossbenchers.

Under the radar the Lords dynamics are changing - if Con can get Crossbench support they have every chance of winning Divisions - something to keep in mind re any awkward Lab / Lib Dem amendments to any Brexit Bill.

Interesting stuff.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Roger said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Isn't faking your CV up to and including inventing a PHD a resigning matter for a Party leader, Or am I just being old fashioned?

Post-truth politics, Roger. As Britain's first woman on Mars, I ought to know.

MikeL

kle4 said:

MikeL said:

Worth keeping an eye on changes in the House Of Lords - of which there have been several just in the last two weeks - all moving in the Government's favour.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn (Lab) - unfortunately died after traffic accident outside Parliament
Baroness Oona King (Lab) - gone on Leave of Absence as moving to US to work for YouTube
Lord Loomba (LD) - has resigned from Lib Dems - now sitting as non-affiliated
Lord Rana (Crossbench) - has joined the Conservatives, now sitting as a Conservative

Revised State of the Parties:

Con 256, Lab 204, LD 103, Crossbench 180, Others 66, Total 809

So the Lab + LD lead over Con is now down to 51. For reference it was 118 in June 2011.

Higher Con turnout is such that earlier this week, Con actually outvoted Lab + LD by one vote on a well attended Division - though still lost the Division due to Crossbenchers.

Under the radar the Lords dynamics are changing - if Con can get Crossbench support they have every chance of winning Divisions - something to keep in mind re any awkward Lab / Lib Dem amendments to any Brexit Bill.

Interesting stuff.

The media are completely out of touch on this - almost every week some change happens in the Lords.

Even Andrew Neil was caught unprepared on Daily Politics when a Lab MP said Cameron had appointed 220 more Peers in the last 6 years - impression given to viewer (unchallenged) was that the number of Peers had gone up by 220.

In fact it's gone up by 20 - because in the same period 200 have died or retired.

There's huge turnover - appointments, deaths, retirements and quite a lot of Peers changing party as well - usually in or out of Crossbench but there were two defections from Lib Dem to Con in the summer (Nicholson and Manzoor).

Roger

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Roger said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Isn't faking your CV up to and including inventing a PHD a resigning matter for a Party leader, Or am I just being old fashioned?

Post-truth politics, Roger. As Britain's first woman on Mars, I ought to know.

Very good!

Roger

kle4 said:

nunu said:

kle4 said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

He answered this in the Marr interview, someone took it upon themselves to promote him.

So just general party incompetence, not self aggrandizement then. Not exactly laudable, but I can believe it.

I looked up his Wiki entry after he won the leadership and it said he had a PHD. Today it's changed. Guilty as charged I would say....

nunu

Roger said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him. So fake news. Much wow.

Isn't faking your CV up to and including inventing a PHD a resigning matter for a Party leader, Or am I just being old fashioned?

Another person who didn't watch the interview. Tsk tsk.

kle4 said:

nunu said:

kle4 said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

He answered this in the Marr interview, someone took it upon themselves to promote him.

So just general party incompetence, not self aggrandizement then. Not exactly laudable, but I can believe it.

That's ukip for you.

FrancisUrquhart

Roger said:

kle4 said:

nunu said:

kle4 said:

nunu said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/807361601749876736

It's writeen in the third person. He is not making the claim, someone else is making it for him.

No one asked him to give the text a once over, given the statement was in his name? Well, it happens I guess, but its just passing on the blame, and he never saw the leaflet after publication?

He answered this in the Marr interview, someone took it upon themselves to promote him.

So just general party incompetence, not self aggrandizement then. Not exactly laudable, but I can believe it.

I looked up his Wiki entry after he won the leadership and it said he had a PHD. Today it's changed. Guilty as charged I would say....

Wikipedia said so...it must be true....talk about post truth.

Dave Gorman recently did a whole show on how his wikipedia contained some nonsense and that the lie spread to MSM, and after removal of the lie on wiki it was then replaced and was "validated" because somebody had a link to a MSM piece...who originally got their "fact" from....wikipedia.