We don't know what the turning point in a process until months, maybe years, later. But for Brexit this has been an interesting week, and I am writing this on Wednesday morning.
Monday saw the Appeal to the People's Challenge to the Government#s assertion that it had "royal" prerogative rights. As you may know I have helped crowdfund this case, and so have more than a passing interest. What is stake here is not defying "the people's will", as Brexit meant something different to almost everyone who voted to leave, but to make sure the Government follows British Law, and ensuring there is proper Parliamentary oversight.
The fist day and a half, the Goverment side put their case, and yesterday the other side, through chief legal council, Lord Pannick, put ours. He has come up with seven basic arguments in taking down the Governments case, but whether that will be enough we will not know until the New Year when the judgement is released.
The case continues this week, but by the time you read this, it will be over.
Also yesterday, the Government caved into a Labour motion allowing some details of the Brexit "plan" to be shred with parliament. Whether the get out clause of some secrecy allows anything at all to be disclosed remains to be seen.
The EU's chief negotiator in the forthcoming Brexit talks made his first statements about it yesterday, and does not look good for the Government: 1. the EU 27 are united. 2. The deal Britain gets will be worse than it has now. And 3. Negotiations will have to be complete in 18 months of Article 50 being triggered to allow the ratification process. The overnment is surprised by this timeline. Apparently.
Meanwhile Theresa May, the PM stated that "For weeks after the EU referendum, the only description Theresa May gave was “Brexit means Brexit”, but now the prime minister has a new slogan - “a red, white and blue Brexit”." You really could not make this up.
In Wednesday's Daily Mail, Ian Duncan Smith launched an attack on the Judiciary that would have been funny in that it lacked many real facts, and shows that the political agenda of Brexit must not be allowed to fail, and that anything, especially the truth will be consigned to collateral damage.
Self-styled legal commentators pontificating" - Which IDS is not, of course.
"Watching paint dry" - It's a court case, not a circus.
That is not the question. It is not in dispute that Parliament is sovereign. He misunderstands the entire premise of the case.
There's no question of judges "superseding" the wishes of MPs. The opposite - judges will decide whether wishes of MPs shd override govt.
The government's own lawyers agreed that there was no possible perception of bias. This was on day 1 of those "boring" proceedings.
It is real anger at gutter attempts to smear judges and undermine judicial independence for political gain. It is beneath contempt.
IT'S NOT AS IF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IS A "CENTURIES OLD EDIFICE THAT HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME"??!?!?!
IDS on the creation of Supreme Court. I just thank god we now have IDS to offer us the "thoughtful debate" on the role of the judiciary.
A nice broad assertion entirely unsupported by evidence, there. "There are more judges making personal/political decisions cos I say so."
Well OF COURSE the Human Rights Act is to blame. Why wouldn't it be? After all, the courts NEVER interpreted constitutional law pre-1998
Many thanks to The Secret Barrister on Twiter for the above comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment