• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

British MPs prepare court action to enforce Brexit delay

1. They don't need to do anything special with trade agreements. There is the World Trade Organization that will make sure commerce flows relatively smoothly.
2. They can all do w/e they want so long as they show proper documentation. The point is to make sure that the EU's past and present ****ty immigration policies don't cause problems.
3. Yeah?....if something so simple as having a checkpoint for documentation causing violence to return the UK has a much bigger problem and they freaking suck as civilized people...."if".
4. The EU regulations can cover the tiny smidge of land that is still part of the EU and they can see what it's like to be handicapped by idiotic EU regulations.

You may be king amongst fishes, here on dry land things work rather differently to how you imagine, though you are not wrong that the UK suck as civilized people and indeed, it has bigger problems than its membership of the EU.
 
1. They don't need to do anything special with trade agreements. There is the World Trade Organization that will make sure commerce flows relatively smoothly.
2. They can all do w/e they want so long as they show proper documentation. The point is to make sure that the EU's past and present ****ty immigration policies don't cause problems.
3. Yeah?....if something so simple as having a checkpoint for documentation causing violence to return the UK has a much bigger problem and they freaking suck as civilized people...."if".
4. The EU regulations can cover the tiny smidge of land that is still part of the EU and they can see what it's like to be handicapped by idiotic EU regulations.

1. The UK wants a trade deal with the EU, even Boris does. The UK will have to continue to have a large part of its trade with the EU. A trade deal would be a crucial part of that. But if they refuse to pay the EU will never agree to one.
2. What EU immigration policies? The EU only controls immigration where it concerns EU citizens, each member state maintains its own immigration system. EU migrants are needed in many industries in the UK, especially healthcare and finance.
3. Have you never heard of The Troubles or the IRA? The Good Friday Agreement which a hard border violates is a peace agreement.
4. Even the US has dispute mechanisms with its neighbours and it is not nearly as integrated with Canada or Mexico.
 
I wonder when the Brit officials are going to stop preventing the democratic will of the people.

Fishking:

That made me giggle. If you study the constitutional history of the British Isles one thing becomes clear. Almost all British constitutional history has been geared towards preventing the full expression of the democratic will of the people and when statutes and courts could not hold back democratic tides, brute force was used. Power rests in the hands of the few in Britain and not in the hopes of the many. The U.K. is not the America you think you live in. Incidentally, nor is America as democratic as you seem to imagine. But that's a debate for another thread.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Since the courts are inferior to the Parliament, it will be a hard sell this legally as a case to enforce this on Mr. Johnson's government. However if this is a political issue, then raw political force might drive it through over the legalities and then subsequent governments may either retroactively declare this to be legal or simply sweep it under the carpets of Westminster, hoping everyone will forget it in due time. The PM and the Privy Council together are the highest court in the land and can simply overrule and nullify such lower court decisions concerning this legislation.

Brits are certainly living in interesting times. Even reality is warping again as it does in every British revolution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Since the courts are inferior to the Parliament, it will be a hard sell this legally as a case to enforce this on Mr. Johnson's government. However if this is a political issue, then raw political force might drive it through over the legalities and then subsequent governments may either retroactively declare this to be legal or simply sweep it under the carpets of Westminster, hoping everyone will forget it in due time. The PM and the Privy Council together are the highest court in the land and can simply overrule and nullify such lower court decisions concerning this legislation.

Brits are certainly living in interesting times. Even reality is warping again as it does in every British revolution.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Not true. Government has to obey the law and abide by judges decisions. Johnson could go to jail if he ignores this law.
 
Not true. Government has to obey the law and abide by judges decisions. Johnson could go to jail if he ignores this law.

There is no clear distinction between the political and the legal apparatus at the highest levels under the UK/British constitution.

Actually it is true. The Privy Council is the highest court in the land and it is a political body made up of some of the PM's Cabinet plus other appointees from the House of Lords and the Civil service. Although on paper it is controlled by the sovereign in fact the ruling party controls its decisions. The Parliament is also a court but rarely exercises that prerogative. So PM Johnson can simply call the Privy Council which he still controls and have it overturn any ruling a lower court makes regarding Brexit and his role in the Brexit process. So long as he remains PM he has the power to defy the will of Parliament legally.

Could Johnson go to jail? Yes, but that would be a political determination rather than a legal one.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
~..................... The Privy Council is the highest court in the land ...................~
Nope.

And defying a (UK) law passed by parliament and signed off by the Queen (as all are) is a criminal act, committed in the UK.

The highest court of appeal wrt that would be the Supreme Court.

For some lengthy and probably tedious reading of what's what

Judicial precedent: Supreme Court clarifies the status of Privy Council decisions - Publications - Allen & Overy
 
1. The UK wants a trade deal with the EU, even Boris does. The UK will have to continue to have a large part of its trade with the EU. A trade deal would be a crucial part of that. But if they refuse to pay the EU will never agree to one.
2. What EU immigration policies? The EU only controls immigration where it concerns EU citizens, each member state maintains its own immigration system. EU migrants are needed in many industries in the UK, especially healthcare and finance.
3. Have you never heard of The Troubles or the IRA? The Good Friday Agreement which a hard border violates is a peace agreement.
4. Even the US has dispute mechanisms with its neighbours and it is not nearly as integrated with Canada or Mexico.

1. There doesn't need to be any kind of special trade agreement for trade to happen quite normally. In fact, any trade agreement the EU would accept would most likely be to the detriment of the UK.
2. The combination of being basically open borders and Schengen agreement.
3. Yeah...heard of it and, again, if they resort back to that type of dynamic for something so minute, then anyone involved suck as people.
4. The U.S. and Canada remain almost completely autonomous while still conducting trade. That proves the UK doesn't need some kind of special deal. If the U.S. can do it, then so can anyone else. You don't see the U.S. making up some kind of BS regulations/laws that Mexico has to follow, do you? No weird limits on fishing and no restrictions on tea kettles or anything like that.

Ya'll act like no commerce ever happened before the EU became a thing yet, shockingly, it happens all over the world.
 
Fishking:

That made me giggle. If you study the constitutional history of the British Isles one thing becomes clear. Almost all British constitutional history has been geared towards preventing the full expression of the democratic will of the people and when statutes and courts could not hold back democratic tides, brute force was used. Power rests in the hands of the few in Britain and not in the hopes of the many. The U.K. is not the America you think you live in. Incidentally, nor is America as democratic as you seem to imagine. But that's a debate for another thread.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

For sure...but my statement still stands valid. Public referendum is the purest form of democracy, and that was how Brexit went down. So far as the U.S...we aren't a democracy, and never were intended to be.
 
Nope.

And defying a (UK) law passed by parliament and signed off by the Queen (as all are) is a criminal act, committed in the UK.

The highest court of appeal wrt that would be the Supreme Court.

For some lengthy and probably tedious reading of what's what

Judicial precedent: Supreme Court clarifies the status of Privy Council decisions - Publications - Allen & Overy

Chagos:

Wow! There was a judicial coup in the UK in 2016 and I was completely unaware of it? Well, while the waters are now clouded, the position I laid out above is no longer solid, so I stand corrected. You would think the Brits would have had something to say about ending centuries of absolute legal authority by the Privy Council and the more modern JCPC, but there you go! Thank you for setting me straight on this. I will have to do more reading as the cited legal description you offered left a few dimensions of this in a grey zone but the absolute declaration that the JCPC is not a legal court inside the UK anymore is astounding. I wonder why no one with deep pockets and vested interests has challenged this since that very monumental decision?

On the other hand it's good news for the UK legal system as any kind of Star Chamber court or tribunal is repugnant to me. So bravo to the British legal system for cleaning up the messy bits of a somewhat tattered unwritten constitution. If this decision stands it is good news.

I like learning something new!

Cheers and thanks again.
Evilroddy.
 
For sure...but my statement still stands valid. Public referendum is the purest form of democracy, and that was how Brexit went down. So far as the U.S...we aren't a democracy, and never were intended to be.

Fishking:

Apparently not for sure as can be seen by Chagos's excellent post #32. Things changed radically in 2016 and I was totally unaware of those changes. So the powers and jurisdiction of the Justice Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) have been severely diminished in the last three years and thus my earlier argument is certainly not solid anymore and may be outright wrong. I stand corrected.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
1. There doesn't need to be any kind of special trade agreement for trade to happen quite normally. In fact, any trade agreement the EU would accept would most likely be to the detriment of the UK.
2. The combination of being basically open borders and Schengen agreement.
3. Yeah...heard of it and, again, if they resort back to that type of dynamic for something so minute, then anyone involved suck as people.
4. The U.S. and Canada remain almost completely autonomous while still conducting trade. That proves the UK doesn't need some kind of special deal. If the U.S. can do it, then so can anyone else. You don't see the U.S. making up some kind of BS regulations/laws that Mexico has to follow, do you? No weird limits on fishing and no restrictions on tea kettles or anything like that.

Ya'll act like no commerce ever happened before the EU became a thing yet, shockingly, it happens all over the world.

1. The UK wants a trade deal, even hardcore Brexiteers like Boris do.
2. The UK was never part of those to begin with, it had an exemption because the UK is an island.
3. It is not soemthing you can just gloss over, it plays a fundamental role in how everything works in Northern Ireland.
4. What do you think NAFTA/USMCA/CUSMA does?
 
1. The UK wants a trade deal, even hardcore Brexiteers like Boris do.
2. The UK was never part of those to begin with, it had an exemption because the UK is an island.
3. It is not soemthing you can just gloss over, it plays a fundamental role in how everything works in Northern Ireland.
4. What do you think NAFTA/USMCA/CUSMA does?

1. Some in the UK want a trade deal. Not all do. Farage wants a clean break Brexit.
2. It still effected them and there was constant pressure on them to change and, for a while, a crisis at the chunnel entrance.
3. It's not being glossed over. I'm saying that if people resort to violence because they want to be pissed over having to show some ID due to their short-sighted nature of wanting to stay in the EU then they are ****ty human beings and don't deserve consideration.
4. Agreements between autonomous countries
 
There is no clear distinction between the political and the legal apparatus at the highest levels under the UK/British constitution.

Actually it is true. The Privy Council is the highest court in the land and it is a political body made up of some of the PM's Cabinet plus other appointees from the House of Lords and the Civil service. Although on paper it is controlled by the sovereign in fact the ruling party controls its decisions. The Parliament is also a court but rarely exercises that prerogative. So PM Johnson can simply call the Privy Council which he still controls and have it overturn any ruling a lower court makes regarding Brexit and his role in the Brexit process. So long as he remains PM he has the power to defy the will of Parliament legally.

Could Johnson go to jail? Yes, but that would be a political determination rather than a legal one.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

There so many incorrect statements in this post.
 
There so many incorrect statements in this post.

Aristaeus:

See post #35 for the correction. The post was correct Up to 2016 but has been called into serious question by a UK Supreme Court ruling in that year. I was not aware of the courts 2016 decision but Chagos set me straight. Other than that, my post was accurate as far as I can tell. If you think there are errors be specific in your correction.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Back
Top Bottom