Shopping & Style9 mins ago
Brexit And Lord
Should Lord Neuberger step down from the judicial review because his wife has tweeted in favour of remaining in the EU?
http://
Is he compromised?
From the 'Supreme Court Guide to Judicial Conduct (2009)'
[i]They will bear in mind that political activity by a close member of a Justice’s family might raise concern in a particular case about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process.[i]
Surely a few tweets can't really be construed as 'political activity'? To me, political activity means going on marches, pamphleting, joining a party etc.
All Lady Neuberger has done is posted her opinion.
So with that in mind, what's your opinion?
http://
Is he compromised?
From the 'Supreme Court Guide to Judicial Conduct (2009)'
[i]They will bear in mind that political activity by a close member of a Justice’s family might raise concern in a particular case about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process.[i]
Surely a few tweets can't really be construed as 'political activity'? To me, political activity means going on marches, pamphleting, joining a party etc.
All Lady Neuberger has done is posted her opinion.
So with that in mind, what's your opinion?
Answers
The case before the Supreme Court has absolutely nothing whatsoever about the rights and wrongs of leaving, or remaining in, the EU. It is SOLELY about whether the Government is empowered to act in a matter of internationa
15:25 Sat 19th Nov 2016
The law lords judge the case ONLY according to the law!
Their personal opinion does not come into it, even less that of their families.
They ARE NOT deciding on the merits of Leave or Remain they are ONLY implementing the law. The entire appeal is ONLY on the points of Law NOT on if 'Brexit' should or should not take place!
Their personal opinion does not come into it, even less that of their families.
They ARE NOT deciding on the merits of Leave or Remain they are ONLY implementing the law. The entire appeal is ONLY on the points of Law NOT on if 'Brexit' should or should not take place!
dannyk13. IT IS NOT about Brexit !!!
It is about how Brexit is implemented. There is no case about the actual referendum decision. It is ONLY about if A50 can or cannot be started without a debate in parliment. The ruling so far is that it must be debated, the government have appealed that ruling. That is all !
It is about how Brexit is implemented. There is no case about the actual referendum decision. It is ONLY about if A50 can or cannot be started without a debate in parliment. The ruling so far is that it must be debated, the government have appealed that ruling. That is all !
Sp > Surely a few tweets can't really be construed as 'political activity'? To me, political activity means going on marches, pamphleting, joining a party etc.
But an activity is anything that is carried out.
What about arranging via social media a political march?
Surely, expressing a political opinion can be construed as 'political activity'?
But an activity is anything that is carried out.
What about arranging via social media a political march?
Surely, expressing a political opinion can be construed as 'political activity'?
The case before the Supreme Court has absolutely nothing whatsoever about the rights and wrongs of leaving, or remaining in, the EU. It is SOLELY about whether the Government is empowered to act in a matter of international relations (potentially affecting many domestic matters, such as the country's economy) without the direct authorisation of Parliament.
Since the Supreme Court is NOT being asked to rule upon whether the UK should leave the EU, or remain within it, Lady Neuberger's opinions have nothing to do with the case before it. So there is no possible conflict of interests at all for Lord Neuberger.
Since the Supreme Court is NOT being asked to rule upon whether the UK should leave the EU, or remain within it, Lady Neuberger's opinions have nothing to do with the case before it. So there is no possible conflict of interests at all for Lord Neuberger.
Buenchico / EDDIE51
I see your point, which raises another question - if there's a debate, I assume that afterwards there will be a vote. Is it not possible that MPs could vote against the implementation of Article 50, which means in effect the Judicial Review could be construed as the first act in chain that could scupper Brexit?
I think that's what dannyk13 is referring to.
I see your point, which raises another question - if there's a debate, I assume that afterwards there will be a vote. Is it not possible that MPs could vote against the implementation of Article 50, which means in effect the Judicial Review could be construed as the first act in chain that could scupper Brexit?
I think that's what dannyk13 is referring to.
//It is SOLELY about whether the Government is empowered to act in a matter of international relations (potentially affecting many domestic matters, such as the country's economy) without the direct authorisation of Parliament.//
If I understand the judges' summary correctly, Buenchico, it has nothing to do with the use of the Royal Prerogative (which I think means in this context the Government's acting "on the Sovereign's behalf" WITHOUT the need for Parliamentary approval) to withdraw from a treaty, nor any effects of such withdrawal. The argument seems to be that this particular treaty has resulted in the conferring of new rights on British citizens (free movement to other EU countries maybe), and that the Royal Prerogative CANNOT be used to confer or abrogate rights, such being the sole prerogative of Parliament. The Referendum Act was not mentioned in the summary (and was not used in the defence argument, for that matter), except in the observation that the act is a commitment to nothing more than organising a large opinion poll.
My interpretation may be wrong - I know nothing of law, but that's what I take the summary to mean.
As a fanatical Leaver I'm well p****d off by all this of course, but the object of my anger is not the judiciary; it's Cameron (firstly), and May (secondly). As all this must be predictable and should have been predicted May should have invoked Article 50 immediately. The summary suggests (again this is my interpretation) that A50 once invoked cannot be withdrawn. So we would have had an interesting constitutional issue on our hands: the Government has acted illegally to do something which cannot be undone.
If I understand the judges' summary correctly, Buenchico, it has nothing to do with the use of the Royal Prerogative (which I think means in this context the Government's acting "on the Sovereign's behalf" WITHOUT the need for Parliamentary approval) to withdraw from a treaty, nor any effects of such withdrawal. The argument seems to be that this particular treaty has resulted in the conferring of new rights on British citizens (free movement to other EU countries maybe), and that the Royal Prerogative CANNOT be used to confer or abrogate rights, such being the sole prerogative of Parliament. The Referendum Act was not mentioned in the summary (and was not used in the defence argument, for that matter), except in the observation that the act is a commitment to nothing more than organising a large opinion poll.
My interpretation may be wrong - I know nothing of law, but that's what I take the summary to mean.
As a fanatical Leaver I'm well p****d off by all this of course, but the object of my anger is not the judiciary; it's Cameron (firstly), and May (secondly). As all this must be predictable and should have been predicted May should have invoked Article 50 immediately. The summary suggests (again this is my interpretation) that A50 once invoked cannot be withdrawn. So we would have had an interesting constitutional issue on our hands: the Government has acted illegally to do something which cannot be undone.
No, of course not !
If it were true that anybody who voted for or adjudicated on a issue could do so because a relative had an opinion, we would never get anywhere.
But this chap is one person.....I am confident that that the Supreme Court will uphold the original ruling by the High Court.
How many times does it have to be said, that this isn't a BREXIT issue......its a simple and fundamental issue of law.
If it were true that anybody who voted for or adjudicated on a issue could do so because a relative had an opinion, we would never get anywhere.
But this chap is one person.....I am confident that that the Supreme Court will uphold the original ruling by the High Court.
How many times does it have to be said, that this isn't a BREXIT issue......its a simple and fundamental issue of law.
