GREAT BRITISH JUSTICE SYSTEM UNFIT FOR PURPOSE, SAYS GREAT BRITISH CHIP WRAPPER/CAT LITTER

According to the Mail, then,  the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the one to which they, the Mail,  have been fighting to bring back power from Europe (decent British judges, applying decent British law, enacted by decent British elected parliament…. (try not to laugh at the back), using decent British values), is fundamentally corrupt and can’t be trusted to make a decision about the law of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts  regarding the right, under the legal systems operating therein, of the queen to enact the  necessary legislation to remove the UK from the EU.

They seem to have little sense of irony at the Mail. I wonder if the British government doesn’t get its way on this, will the Mail demand that the case be taken to the European Court? After all, they clearly have serious doubts about the integrity  of the UK’s own very most senior judges, and their abilities to distance themselves from their connections or private feelings when it comes to making judgements…and seriously, that bodes ill for justice in a newly independent UK.

No one is saying, of course, that the will of the people, as indicated in the referendum, should not be enacted. Article 50 should be enacted. The question is more technically about WHO enacts it. And in law that can be everything. Do something wrong at the beginning of the journey and it can invalidate everything you do thereafter.

If British/English/Scots/Irish laws say that use of the Royal Prerogative is illegal, then surely everything that follows from its use would be illegal. How embarrassing would that be?

Britain's Queen Elizabeth arrives at the Norman Porch of the Palace of Westminster for the State Opening of Parliament in London
Are you questioning my rights, Munguin?

As I see it, the first question is: Does the UK government, using whatever law it uses (English, I assume) have the right to invite the queen to use her powers under Royal Prerogative to initiate the Article 50 procedure, or must this be decided by the sovereign UK parliament?

 

The second question is: how is that right affected by different Scots and Irish law, and, given the results of the referendum in Scotland and NI, what rights, if any, do THEIR non-sovereign parliaments have to represent their will, and for it to be considered?

Of course, unlike some of you, I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll be very happy to stand corrected on any of that. I’d be interested in your thoughts.

Oh, and one last thing. The Daily Mail has just trashed the Supreme Court of the UK for being a pile of unelected (unlike the Daily Mail) Europhiles. Any judgement they make is bound to be biased. So, what happens if they agree with the government that the queen is entitled to make the decision and the Scotland and the Irish can like it or do the other thing? Will they still be a pile of unelected idiots, or will they suddenly have become sensible and sober upholders of the Great British legal system?

Will they still be a pile of unelected idiots, or will they suddenly have become sensible and sober upholders of the Great British legal system? It’s awfully complicated.

NO, YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT COURTS ARE FOR

ukip1

Unless I’m very much mistaken, the job of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or indeed any other court in England and Wales, or indeed Scotland or Northern Ireland, is to interpret the law and rule on it as it affects any case brought before them.

It doesn’t matter how many people a terrorist, murderer, thief or rapist can muster to protest, if (s)he is guilty in law as it is written in that jurisdiction, then the court has to find him/her guilty. Likewise, if the law says that this kind of treaty requires parliamentary scrutiny, then no matter how many people disagree, the court has no alternative but to rule that way.

If we can sway judgements based on the number of people we can persuade to march on the courtroom, then we might as well chuck all the law in the bin and leave it to mobs.

Leave campaigners wanted to bring everything back to Britain; for British courts to decide the law; not those in Luxembourg or Strasbourg where foreigners might be involved in the judgements. Fair enough. But it appears they only wanted British judges to rule when they agreed with them!

It’s maybe a good idea to remind Mr Farage at this point (Munguin has no doubt that he is an avid reader), that there are very obvious dangers in getting together a group of that size and hoping that no trouble will break out and that no undesirables join in. I have no doubt that he intends the protest to be peaceful. But that’s not always how these things work out.  Especially if the court’s judgement goes against their wishes.

I hope he knows what he’s doing.