Meanwhile...... at the High Court....

The Mail's headline "Enemies of the people" is an absolute disgrace, and is an abuse of the principle of a free press. They are totally entitled to promote their pro-Brexit agenda - that's their absolute right. But to question the impartiality of the most senior appeal court judges in the land without any justification is crass and extremely short-sighted. The judges make clear in their judgement that they are not concerned with the merits or demerits of whether the UK should remain a member of the EU. They are simply giving an opinion (and a very authoratitive opinion) on the application of the law to the process of exiting the EU.

Without a proper respect for the rule of law, the pro-Brexit lobby have no means of ensuring that the popular will is eventually enacted - even if due process of law demands that that takes a little longer then they would like. This week we have been reminded of the acquittal of the Orgreave miners in the Crown Court - if we needed to refresh our view of the importance of an impartial judiciary.

To call into question the authority or impartiality of the judiciary simply because the outcome is not the one we prefer is symptomatic of the gradual dumbing down of our society.

 

like i said,the majority dont read a newspaper,even with your impressive 2.5 reader quotes....whereas,every single household in the country got the government sponsored propoganda that was most certainly pro remain.

as for the 13 million who didnt vote at all, what can i say about those? lets hope they arnt whinging about the outcome of the vote eh?,

by the way,it wernt you that were on radio 2 at dinner time was it?,very similar to you if not,

 

i think you need to do a bit more research into the impartiality of the courts during the strike orsen,orgreave was the exception rather than the rule,i'm not saying you a wrong on whats happened this week,but to suggest impartiality during the strike is way off the mark mate,thatcher had control of courts aswell as the police during the strike..

 

You could also use your last paragraph for the losing remoaners
To call into question the outcome of the result of a recent referendum. just because it is not the one you prefer is systematic of the gradual dumbing down of our society

 

DP: First up, I don't presume to know more about the way the courts operated during the strike than you - I wasn't there. So if you have more knowledge than I do, I respect that. But in fairness, I was referring to that specific case. And I would argue that in that case judicial impartiality was very important. The whole episode is very well documented in Michael Mansfield's book 'Memoirs Of A Radical Lawyer'. The scene where a barrister defends one of the Welsh miners against the allegation of a "bouncing brick" is very funny. The only other case I'm aware of is Arthur Scargill's prosecution for a public order act offence. Here again, on the basis of Arthur agreeing to be bound over to keep the peace, the charges were dropped.

I'm not trying to argue that there might not have been other cases in which the legal system was shown in a worse light, but in those two cases, some measure of justice seems to have been done. And that, to my mind is something worth protecting and encouraging - not denigrating. Hope we can agree on that much.

 

OK,O.K,I can see where you are coming from,but to be honest it did look like you thought the courts were impartial given the collapse of the trumped up orgreave charges,i was just pointing out that this was not the case,appologies.

 

As you seem to be in a more civil mode tonight Manxtyke, I'm happy to respond. I don't in any way call into question the result of the referendum. The result was narrow - but clear. As you know, I don't think that was a wise decision, but that's just my opinion. The fact is, Brexit is a reality and I don't think there is any appetite amongst MP's to thwart it. I think that if any backsliding were to be contemplated the patience of our EU partners has been thoroughly exhausted and I don't think we can any longer have a constructive relationship with them within the EU. The terms of how implementation takes place is a whole different argument (and not one that was in any way resolved by the question put in the referendum). And there'll be a lot of water to pass under the bridge before that is resolved. Ultimately though, Brexiters would also rely on the impartial adjudication of the courts to ensure that any lawful application of the Brexit decision is carried through.

I said pretty early on in this thread that I wasn't trying to rehash the argument on the merits or otherwise of the referendum decision. But I'm very interested in the process. Be happy to bet you a bunch of roses that the government will eventually decide not to proceed with the appeal to the Supreme Court!

 

I'm always civil
mek it a box o roses n tharron

 

The vicious assault on UK judges by the Brexit press is a threat to democracy - the guardian
https://apple.news/ACARkIdK6QF6WBBmCWhrRPQ

Pretty shameful.

 

Why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist.

Going to parliament has always been the case.

Every single thing that is done in a parties manifesto goes to parliament to be made law.

Exiting the eu is the same. Go through parliament to be made a bill etc etc. And then law etc etc.

It's all just posturing from everyone involved.

Just get on with what the country voted for ffs and stop pissing about. It's the exact reason why everyone is fed up of politics

 

And by the same token.

30 million did not vote to stay in either.

Easy to piss about with numbers

 

And don't forget about the Welsh speaking Argentininans , or the Europeans who speak english quite well , and what about the 11m 1-15 yr olds who would also have voted Remain .