Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

It is outwith the powers of the High Court to enforce the constitution?

In the legal process, it is for the appellate jurisdiction to rule where the law is wrong. If the law is correctly written and enacted, it is not for the appellate process to change it.

Let me give you an example. The recent issue regarding the cap on Housing Benefit.
1. The Government presently has a Social Security Act which sets the level of Housing Benefit.
2. Now, if the Government cuts Housing Benefit, but does not pass an amending Regulation to legally implement the cut, then an appeal against the cut should be successful, because the Government has acted ultra vires, that is, outwith its present legal powers.
3. If the Government correctly bring in amending Regulations to cut Housing Beneift, then however bad it might be, it is the law of the land, properly enacted, and any appeal/challenge should be unsuccessful.

I hope I've explained myself OK with the above example.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Appreciate your detailed thoughts, I'll reply later as am out currently

Esk, I find the whole business quite fascinating!

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

In the legal process, it is for the appellate jurisdiction to rule where the law is wrong. If the law is correctly written and enacted, it is not for the appellate process to change it.

Let me give you an example. The recent issue regarding the cap on Housing Benefit.
1. The Government presently has a Social Security Act which sets the level of Housing Benefit.
2. Now, if the Government cuts Housing Benefit, but does not pass an amending Regulation to legally implement the cut, then an appeal against the cut should be successful, because the Government has acted ultra vires, that is, outwith its present legal powers.
3. If the Government correctly bring in amending Regulations to cut Housing Beneift, then however bad it might be, it is the law of the land, properly enacted, and any appeal/challenge should be unsuccessful.

I hope I've explained myself OK with the above example.

Okay so I think I understand the example but I'm not sure how it relates.

The law as is demands for parliament to approve, no? And unless this is specifically legislated against (which would never pass), this would be upheld? Please explain if I've missed the point. lol

 

[orchard]

Not entirely.

Sixteen year olds can join the army, pay income tax and are now often better educated than their elders.

I'm not suggesting we have a re-referendum and let them in, but we should be letting these people vote. It also gives parliament and government more legitimacy over their lives.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Phew, that is very good mate. Ultimately which is he final court in the UK?

Would you believe: The House of Lords!

I did the legal side of things for about 5 years in the Government Department I worked in. It covered Acts of Parliament, amending regulations, appeals up the chain, right up to the House of Lords, and I was reading and taking in the decisions made all the way up the chain. That's why I think those sentences I quoted from the Judges's ruling today are dynamite. I'm not claiming I'm any legal eagle, but a top barrister/QC will be able to drive a coach and four through those sentences I quoted in an the post you mention.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Not entirely.

How so? This is according to the Army website (I appreciate that you'd need parental consent):
"To join as a regular soldier you need to be at least 16 years old, although you can start the application process earlier, with your parents' permission."

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

But the Scots leaders qualified that vote on independence with a "What If".

Did they? Genuine question.

Even so, they voted knowing there was a possibility (No matter how small they probly perceived it to be at that time) that A/ The tories'd get back in, thereby allowing the referendum; and B/ That referendum result would turn out to be an out vote.

This'd all have been academic if the useless bleeders in parliament had pulled their fingers out to ensure it'd have been more than a straight in/out vote.

Still they've gotta at least appear to justify their salaries - even if by their own previous lack of foresight/ gross incompetence.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Would you believe: The House of Lords!

I did the legal side of things for about 5 years in the Government Department I worked in. It covered Acts of Parliament, amending regulations, appeals up the chain, right up to the House of Lords, and I was reading and taking in the decisions made all the way up the chain. That's why I think those sentences I quoted from the Judges's ruling today are dynamite. I'm not claiming I'm any legal eagle, but a top barrister/QC will be able to drive a coach and four through those sentences I quoted in an the post you mention.

Did Gordon Brown not seperate the legislature from the judiciary by pulling the 'law Lords' out of the second chamber and establishing the UK Supreme Court in the late 2000's? Or is there still some form of the judicial in parliament?

 

[Joey66]

What the judges concluded was simple - the Govt can't alter the rights of UK citizens by overturning the 1972 act without going through the House. They're not inferring with anything, they're merely giving clarity on what the constitutional process should be. May acting unilaterally without the backing of the House isn't the correct process. It never was, and trying to wing it off the back of the referendum under the guise of the 'will of the people' was clearly incorrect.

Thats a joke the 1972 european act was a common market act not an EU polictical act I heard they fetched acts out from 1610 to use as precedent in law!
a hedge fund manager remember scholiast out there this has been done to try and protect big business!
Anyway they have won this so let's see where it leads?

 

[Old Blue 2]

Okay so I think I understand the example but I'm not sure how it relates.

The law as is demands for parliament to approve, no? And unless this is specifically legislated against (which would never pass), this would be upheld? Please explain if I've missed the point. lol

Without reading the Act of Parliament which covers Article 50, I can't answer for certain your above points. I was just pointing out in the long post I did (probably a few pages back now!) that the Judges's ruling appeared to me to be somewhat dangerous in its wording.

It is a minefield, and I'm not looking to cross swords with anyone, gloves. We're living through history in the making, and it's fascinating.

 

[orchard]

It's all conditional and dependant upon parental consent with the armed forces adopting some role as guardian until of an age of legal responsibility.

How so? This is according to the Army website (I appreciate that you'd need parental consent):
"To join as a regular soldier you need to be at least 16 years old, although you can start the application process earlier, with your parents' permission."

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

No it didn't. You said that the Leave campaign told whoppers and cut and run. Go read your post again.

I said a lot more besides, you've merely chosen to cherry pick that one point and ignore the rest

 

[Old Blue 2]

Did Gordon Brown not seperate the legislature from the judiciary by pulling the 'law Lords' out of the second chamber and establishing the UK Supreme Court in the late 2000's? Or is there still some form of the judicial in parliament?

From when I was still in work, the House of Lords was the last appellate stage in the UK. After that, it was on to the European Court.

For the present, I stand corrected if things have moved on.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I said a lot more besides, you've merely chosen to cherry pick that one point and ignore the rest

Because that one point was entirely incorrect...

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

From when I was still in work, the House of Lords was the last appellate stage in the UK. After that, it was on to the European Court.

For the present, I stand corrected if things have moved on.

AFAIK that's still the case. Happy to be put right though.