Tweet
Originally posted by zara
View Post
-
There are anomalies throughout Europe, exceptions have to be made. All this one size fits all is ridiculous. -
He as an independant didnt give a winning speech did he , her talking before was done by fallon , she proved just what a thick shit she is , the 26000 majority was a tory majority , and he only lost by 1.872 votes , but democracy wins ,well done , im wondering tho now they are saying its a vote against brexit that if they understand just what their title means ?? Liberal Democrats , yea righty ho , they are a joke n time will tell , especially with people like her as an MP .Originally posted by zara View Post
note the candidates , no tory / no UKIP ?
Zac Goldsmith, Independent.
Howling Laud Hope, The Official Monster Raving Loony Party.
Maharaja Jammu and Kashmir, One Love Party.
Sarah Olney, Liberal Democrats.
David Powell, Independent.
Dominic Francis Stockford, Christian Peoples Alliance.
Fiona Natasha Syms, Independent.
Christian Wolmar, Labour Party.
They only won by a very slight margin from Goldsmith ,,but they won . And that zara ,,is
DEMOCRACYLast edited by tankie; 02 Dec 16,, 19:20.Comment
-
Again the matter of how the "European project had been explained to us" and whether it was 'deceitful' or not is, as it were, an ethical debate. I personally agree with you that it was deliberately an attempt to create "ever closer union" on the sly; the euro was primarily a political project and not an economic one and so turned into a disaster for much of the southern European nations. Sure it may have been 'deceitful' and underhanded but that is not the relevant matter - doing what is best for Britain should be the sole criteria upon which such decisions are made and Britain needs access to European markets.Originally posted by Toby View Post
The period of Britain's 'splendid isolation' began with Lord Derby in 1866 and was responsible for the fundamental breaking of the balance of power in Europe after Prussia defeated first Austria (in 1866) and then France (in 1871) allowing them to unify the German states under the Prussian monarchy. This made the two World Wars possible and in both Britain, on good balance of power principles, sided with the weaker (France) to oppose the uncontrolled dominance of the stronger (Germany). Not having a European policy for 30 odd years cost all of Europe dearly and sure Bismark was a genius etc but it is easier to be a genius when one of the main players refuses to have anything to do with matters.
As for the economy you cannot afford to go on borrowing more and more forever; debts catch up with you.
Nor do I see how one more Liberal MP can radically alter an Article 50 vote in Parliament - if the Supreme Court decides that Parliament must vote on the issue.Comment
-
QuiteAgain the matter of how the "European project had been explained to us" and whether it was 'deceitful' or not is, as it were, an ethical debate. I personally agree with you that it was deliberately an attempt to create "ever closer union" on the sly; the euro was primarily a political project and not an economic one and so turned into a disaster for much of the southern European nations.
Its lead us to where we are today I think you'll findSure it may have been 'deceitful' and underhanded but that is not the relevant matter
No arguementdoing what is best for Britain should be the sole criteria upon which such decisions are made and Britain needs access to European markets.
That's a solid point. The point I was making was that we've never isolated ourselves, because we are not isolationist by nature..We had an empire which took our attention off the ball in Europe, this hardly makes us isolationist. Even today nobody has made a statement saying "lets isolate ourselves" quite the opposite actually. They've said time and again we want control back in our court so we make our own trade deals with the rest of the world.The period of Britain's 'splendid isolation' began with Lord Derby in 1866 and was responsible for the fundamental breaking of the balance of power in Europe after Prussia defeated first Austria (in 1866) and then France (in 1871) allowing them to unify the German states under the Prussian monarchy. This made the two World Wars possible and in both Britain, on good balance of power principles, sided with the weaker (France) to oppose the uncontrolled dominance of the stronger (Germany). Not having a European policy for 30 odd years cost all of Europe dearly and sure Bismark was a genius etc but it is easier to be a genius when one of the main players refuses to have anything to do with matters.
Agreed! But you can't afford to not invest either and create a modern infrastructure so that modern business's can thrive. In order to pay off the debts we incurred under Blair and Brown.As for the economy you cannot afford to go on borrowing more and more forever; debts catch up with you.
Alot of people are very suspicious of the political maneuverings going on since June and who can blame them!Nor do I see how one more Liberal MP can radically alter an Article 50 vote in Parliament - if the Supreme Court decides that Parliament must vote on the issue.Last edited by Toby; 02 Dec 16,, 21:35.Comment
-
Maybe the Tories were hoping Goldsmith would get back in.....Some kind of deal must have been done with UKIP though.Originally posted by tankie View PostComment
-
Could be ref the tories , doubt UKIP had any deals going tho , but agreed , something not quite right about kippers tho , they should have fielded someone to test the waters after Nuttall got the top gig , interesting days ahead Toby , with I'm now convinced a stitch up over brexit is being slowly drawn up , even Davies a brexiteer is sprouting deals to be done ,,,we never voted for deals as far as I'm concerned, it was OUT , no deals , just OUT .Comment
-
It wasn't called 'splendid isolation' for nothing. It wasn't a matter of taking one's eye off the ball but a deliberate withdrawal from continental affairs* - much the same as today no matter what sort of deceits of wrongs have been done. Sure you say you wish for Britain to remain engaged in Europe but when all the other leaders are meeting regularly Britain is left sitting outside waiting for decisions that whether you like it or not will effect you and the country you wish to protect. Politics and foreign affairs is not some kind of international ethical beauty contest - smile and lie if gets you the advantage is the nature of the game. But to play the game you have to be in the club where most of the games take place.Originally posted by Toby View Post
* Viscount Goschen in 1896 said "We are said to be isolated, but I say that which I know when I say that we have but to hold out our hands and our isolation will terminate, and we shall receive welcome into several groups of other Powers. . . . In the modern system of European politics we could at any moment, I believe, make such alliances as we chose. . . . Our isolation is not an isolation of weakness, or of contempt for ourselves: it is deliberately chosen; the freedom to act as we choose in any circumstances that may arise" much the same as you might argue now I imagine. However the game was lost already, he was wrong and Britain had no choice than to surrender to German hegemony or reach terms with France and fight.Last edited by snapper; 02 Dec 16,, 23:28.Comment
-
You have the upper hand on me with regards to British policy in the 19th century. I really do hear your very valid point. About not having a voice because we are no longer apart of "The Club". But I have alot of experience with Clubs, big and small. They either meander along in a very indecisive fashion reaching no conclusions about anything, while relying all the time on members funds. OR .... one particular individual or country leads. Its called inevitability! Consequently the club becomes a vehicle for somebody else's (or countries or even political elites) agenda.But like all clubs and I mean ALL they are inherently corrupt and serving somebody else's interests at the cost of you and me! I don't trust the EU and all its minions and I think I'm in the majority throughout Europe, not just in the UK. So we are serving notice on this half arsed political enterprise and basically telling them who the boss really is ;)Originally posted by snapper View Post
Or as the local expression goes "shape up or sod off"Comment
-
Agreed, the question on the ballot paper was black and white...very black n' white, too black n' white really. Deals always have to be done though, even when they are distasteful.Originally posted by tankie View Post
It would be helpful if We knew which side our side was on ...lolComment
-
I cannot blame you for not studying British 19th century policy - not my ideal area of study either but has been of what you might call of professional interest for me. As a keen student of history though I would have to argue that history can teach us useful lessons for dealing with the problems we face today.Originally posted by Toby View Post
I certainly agree with your point that "Consequently the club becomes a vehicle for somebody else's (or countries or even political elites) agenda" and would suggest that this is one of the reasons the whole European project was set up. Of course it is about forwarding individual members interests though in a diplomatic manner rather than by arms and Britain has opted out! How then can Britain argue and make alliances etc on issues that directly effect Britain's and Europe's future security, economic or political interests? It may be 'corrupt' in places though nothing like the level of corruption prevalent in Muscovy or Ukraine in my view/experience but we aren't playing for stars on who has the least corruption but for Britains fundamental interests. To argue that cause you have to be in the club.Comment
-
A military often well used and applied term . Anddddddddddd off we jolly well sod .Hopefully never to return or carry on throwing OUR money to fund junckers 9000 pound pay rise and other unnacounted for "deals" etc etc .Originally posted by Toby View PostComment
-
Tsk tsk Toby , you / we / all know which side our MP,s are on right enough , oink oink oink . Camoronoccio was not not only head of the trough , he was also shagging the head pig ,,allegedley ,,Originally posted by Toby View Post
he got caught coz it squealed on him .(joke zara )
lots of links to it but heres just 1, yanks had watergate ,we got piggate lol
https://youtu.be/HxuN8XY77k8Last edited by tankie; 03 Dec 16,, 13:17.Comment
-
B,liars club
HOW JUDGES ARE CHOSEN IN SECRET
The Supreme Court was created by Tony Blair and is the most powerful legal institution in British history.
The judges and the people: Next week, 11 unaccountable individuals will consider a case that could thwart the will of the majority on Brexit. The Mail makes no apology for revealing their views - and many have links to Europe
Four have formal links to either the EU, its courts or European institutions
Five have publicly expressed views which appear to be sympathetic to EU
Six have links with individuals who've been critical of the Leave campaign
By GUY ADAMS FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:00, 2 December 2016 | UPDATED: 01:14, 3 December 2016
A decision by the Supreme Court against the Government’s right to trigger Article 50 would raise profound questions about the power of an unelected judiciary to over-ride the will of the British people.
In this context, it is vital that the judges are seen to be independent. Yet four of the 11 members of the Supreme Court have formal links to either the EU, its courts or European institutions; five have publicly expressed views which appear to be sympathetic to the EU; while six have personal links with individuals who have been critical of the Leave campaign.
Only four have no obvious associations with the Remain ethos. Just one, Lord Sumption, has given indications of Euroscepticism.
Crucially, the British justice system revolves around the principle that judges — and particularly Supreme Court judges — are fair-minded individuals capable of treating all cases entirely on their legal merits, regardless of their private loyalties.
So who are these men and one woman? How do they each view the EU and its influence on British law? And what personal beliefs (if any) must they put aside to give dispassionate hearing to one of the most important court cases in our country’s history?
Neuberger: Praised influence of EU law
Neuberger: Praised influence of EU law
1. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
Age: 68
Education: Westminster & Oxford
Europhile rating:
Rating:
President of the Supreme Court, who, with his wife, Angela, divides his time between a £3 million mews house in London’s Notting Hill and a country home in Dorset.
Lady Neuberger — a TV producer and one-time Labour aide, who has made films for the EU — has in recent months used Twitter to launch roughly 50 attacks on Theresa May, her Government or Brexit.
‘So many lies, so much ignorance. It’s the poorest will suffer most from Brexit,’ reads one. The referendum is ‘dangerous’ because it ‘reduces complex issues to yes or no’ says another.
A week before the vote, she declared ‘referenda mad and bad’ and dismissed Ukip and Brexit as ‘just a protest vote’. Six days afterwards, she posted a Remain-friendly message: ‘It seems unlikely a PM could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.’
Of course, one expects Lord Neuberger to ignore such views when sitting as Supreme Court president. Another person close to him with strong anti-Brexit views is his sister-in-law Julia, a Leftish peer who used to take the Lib Dem whip (but became a crossbencher in 2011 when she took a job as a full-time rabbi).
She recently announced she has decided to apply for a German passport due to shame over the referendum result, criticising the ‘anti-immigrant’ nature of the Leave campaign.
Neuberger was until recently a governor of the University of the Arts, London — whose vice-chancellor, Jeremy Till, emailed students on the day after the EU referendum to say that the Leave vote ‘breaks my heart’, adding: ‘I make no apologies in sharing my shock and dismay.’
Far-right politician campaigning for Austrian president says...
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
Share
As for Neuberger, he has expressed views that betray an empathy with EU legal institutions. In 2013, he told The Times he would oppose withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, favouring a ‘dialogue’ with Strasbourg.
In August, he praised the influence of the EU on common law in the UK, saying: ‘Studying and sometimes applying the reasoning of the Strasbourg court has led UK courts to take a more principled and structured approach.’
Last week’s Spectator magazine reported that he recently told an acquaintance ‘the High Court would be right to find against the Government and that he would support it’.
All of which has prompted Eurosceptic MPs to call for Neuberger to stand down from next week’s hearing. Tory Andrew Rosindell says: ‘Clearly, his position is compromised.’ It must be noted that the Supreme Court’s code of conduct warns justices to be aware ‘that political activity’ of a close relative can raise concerns over impartiality.
However, officially, the court is ‘absolutely confident’ there has been no breach in Neuberger’s case.
Hale: Happy for EU courts to overrule UK
Hale: Happy for EU courts to overrule UK
2. Lady Hale of Richmond
Age: 71
Education: Richmond High (a grammar) & Cambridge
Europhile rating:
Rating:
They don’t come more progressive than Hale, the most senior female judge in British history, whose coat of arms carries the motto Omnia Feminae Aequissimae, meaning ‘women are equal to everything’.
A prominent critic of the tradition of wigs being worn in court, she achieved prominence as a Law Commissioner during the Eighties and Nineties making countless pronouncements said to have undermined the institution of marriage. ‘We should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose,’ reads one such remark, from an academic essay.
In another typical article, she asked: ‘Do we still think it necessary, desirable or even practicable to grant marriage licences to enter into relationships?’ Her own marital history seemed to dovetail with this theme. In 1984, shortly after being appointed to the Commission, she left first husband John Hogget for a fellow commissioner, Julian Farrand.
They married just 12 days after the divorce came through. Today, she and Farrand have homes in Westminster and Richmond, North Yorkshire, where his Remain activist son, Benjamin, is occasionally resident.
She recently backed a European Court of Human Rights ruling over votes for prisoners, and in a 2015 speech in Oxford spoke favourably about the process via which European courts can overrule British ones.
Most troubling, though, was a recent speech in which she suggested the Government might have to create a ‘comprehensive replacement’ for the European Communities Act before triggering Article 50, which could delay Brexit for years.
Critics said these comments risked breaking the fundamental rule of litigation: that judges should respond to arguments made in court, not introduce them into a debate beforehand.
They also wondered how her speech conformed with the Supreme Court’s Guide to Judicial Conduct, which tells judges to ‘show appropriate caution and restraint when explaining or commenting publicly upon their decisions in individual cases’.
The Supreme Court responded by saying Hale ‘was simply presenting the arguments from both sides of the Article 50 appeal in an impartial way for an audience of law students.’
Mance: Made fawning speeches in Luxembourg
Mance: Made fawning speeches in Luxembourg
3. Lord Mance
Age: 73
Education: Charterhouse & Oxford
Europhile rating:
Rating:
Began his career at a Hamburg law firm in the early Sixties, and has retained intimate links with the European legal establishment ever since.
He represented the UK on the Council of Europe’s Consultative Council of European Judges (an advisory body of the Council of Europe) for over a decade, and served on the Lords EU Select Committee.
His enthusiasm for the European project was made clear in 2013, soon after David Cameron announced an in-out referendum, when he said: ‘I remain an optimist that future developments will meet the concerns of all but the most extreme Eurosceptics and that the UK’s relationship with the Court of Justice will continue.’
Last year, he made a fawning speech in Luxembourg upon the retirement of Vassilios Skouris as President of the European Court of Justice, declaring that his presidency has ‘seen a powerful reaffirmation of the autonomous and binding nature of EU law’.
His wife Dame Mary Arden is a Lady Justice of Appeal, a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and an ad hoc judge of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
She sits on the Advisory Board of the King’s College London Centre of European Law — whose president, Sir Francis Jacobs, spent 18 years as Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities and worked as an official at the European Commission of Human Rights.
Director of King’s College Centre of European Law’s is Andrea Biondi, a pro-Remain activist who on Twitter said of the referendum vote: ‘No plans no competence, just mediocrity. The whole next UK generation that voted Remain do not deserve this political class.’
Lord Mance’s son, Henry, works as political correspondent for the Financial Times, the anti-Brexit newspaper whose editor Lionel Barber has been offered a Legion d’Honneur for the title’s ‘positive role’ in the European debate.
On Twitter, Mance Jr this week mocked Ukip and recently criticised the Telegraph for attacking judges who reached the original High Court Article 50 decision.
Mance’s daughter, Abigail, is married to management consultant David Bosomworth — whose Twitter feed alleges that Brexiteers have decided to ‘tank the pound, make prices soar, destroy the economy and stoke xenophobia’.
Kerr: Championed the Human Rights Act
Kerr: Championed the Human Rights Act
4. Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
Age: 68
Education: St Colman’s Newry (a top boys’ boarding school in Ulster) & Queen’s Belfast
Europhile rating:
Rating:
Dubbed a ‘human rights hero’ by delegates at a conference organised by Justice, the campaigning human rights organisation, he is a former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
In 2001, he sat as an ad hoc judge in the European Court of Human Rights — an episode curiously missing from his official CV on the Supreme Court’s website — and has since made it known that he approves of the incorporation of EU law into British justice.
In a 2014 speech, he championed the Human Rights Act, saying: ‘Citizens of the UK are as much Europeans as anybody else and are entitled to cast a jealous eye on the rights of their brethren in the rest of Europe.’
Despite such opinions, Kerr is adamant that they will not influence his Supreme Court role in the Article 50 case, telling Radio 4 that it is his job to ‘apply the law’ uninfluenced by ‘personal views’.
Clarke: Opposed efforts to subvert Commons
Clarke: Opposed efforts to subvert Commons
5. Lord Clarke of Stone-Cum-Ebony
Age: 73
Education: Oakham & Cambridge
Europhile rating:
Rating:
A barrister for 27 years and a judge for 23 more, he is the oldest and perhaps most experienced member of the Supreme Court, having been the first justice to be appointed directly to it in 2009. He’s best known for conducting the safety inquiries such as the one into the Marchioness riverboat tragedy on the Thames.
He has no known ties to the EU or to European institutions, and has opposed previous attempts by the court to subvert Parliament.
6. Lord Sumption
Age: 67
Education: Eton & Oxford
Europhile rating:
Rating:
Regarded as the most brilliant advocate of his generation. Has acted as a barrister for a wide range of clients — such as the Government in the Hutton Inquiry into the Iraq war and Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich.
Sumption: Said his £1.6m salary was 'puny'
Sumption: Said his £1.6m salary was 'puny'
In 2001, he was named as one of the ‘million-a-year’ club of top barristers by the Guardian, but responded by claiming his ‘puny £1.6 million a year’ was dwarfed by earnings in the worlds of business, sports and entertainment.
The only Supreme Court member who hasn’t previously served as a full-time judge, he’s also thought to be the most Eurosceptic member, thanks (in part) to a 2013 speech in which he said the European Court of Human Rights exceeded legitimate powers and ‘undermines the democratic process’.
His daughter, Madeleine, is director of Oxford University’s migration observatory, an impartial research organisation whose studies have been quoted by both the Leave and Remain campaigns. He is director of the English National Opera, whose chief executive Cressida Pollock gave a pre-referendum interview saying: ‘My biggest concern — and that of all arts organisations — is Brexit.’
He also sits on the board of the Royal Academy of Music, whose leading guest conductor Yan Tortelier wrote to the Guardian in June describing the Brexit lobby as ‘upsetting,’ and ‘rather offensive, if not Trumpesque’.
Reed: Ex-head of Eu Forum of Judges
Reed: Ex-head of Eu Forum of Judges
7. Lord Reed
Age: 60
Education: George Watson’s College (a smart Edinburgh private school) & Oxford
Europhile rating:
Rating:
One of the court’s two Scots, he’s spent a big portion of his adult life working for European institutions.
In the late Nineties, he was a judge in the European Court of Human Rights, where he was on a panel that decided the killers of Liverpool toddler James Bulger had not received a fair trial.
He acted as expert adviser to the EU Initiative with Turkey on Democratisation and Human Rights, and as chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee. Between 2006 and 2008, he was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment and has made occasional headlines as a High Court judge.
For example, he spared an armed robber from jail, saying he should instead buy victims a bouquet of flowers to say sorry.
And he sparked controversy after deciding that a paedophile who had photographed himself raping a 13-month-old baby, should be jailed for just five years because he had ‘expressed remorse and shame’.
Before joining the Supreme Court, he was a director of Children in Scotland, a charity which responded to the referendum by writing to the Guardian, moaning: ‘We are dismayed that 16-and 17-year-olds . . . were denied the right to have their say in the most important decision of recent times.’
Wilson: Opposed release of Prince's letter
Wilson: Opposed release of Prince's letter
8. Lord Wilson of Culworth
Age: 71
Education: Bryanston & Oxford
Europhile rating:
Rating:
Owner of a string of race horses. A veteran family court judge, he has been accused of straying into areas that elected politicians ought to decide on.
For example, he backed extending human rights law to change rules regarding assisted suicide.
However, in other cases, he has come down against the Supreme Court bossing Parliament around, dissenting from colleagues who last year voted to overrule the Government by ordering the release under Freedom of Information rules of Prince Charles’ so-called ‘black spider’ letters to Ministers.
9. Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill
Age: 71
Education: Eton & Cambridge
Europhile rating:
Rating:
A committed environmentalist, he has frequently used EU laws to support this agenda. Came to prominence as legal adviser to the Prince of Wales from 1988 to 1994, when Charles’s marriage to Diana was disintegrating.
Carnwath: Owns a palatial villa in Italy
Carnwath: Owns a palatial villa in Italy
After being runner-up for the job of British judge at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, he founded the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment and served as its Secretary General from 2004-05. The forum exists to ‘promote the enforcement of national, European and international environmental law’.
Recently hosted a conference on ‘Climate Change and the Law’ at which a speaker asked whether courts might be able to play a role in ‘scotching’ global warming denial.
Around the same time, he ruled in the Supreme Court in favour of pressure group which took the Government to court over its failure to produce an air quality plan in keeping with European law.
An acclaimed viola player and lover of European culture, he and his wife Bambina divide their time between a £5 million penthouse in Kensington and a palatial villa on Lake Iseo in Italy.
Sits on the Advisory Board of the King’s College London Centre of European Law, whose director is a pro-Remain activist
Hughes: Against efforts to usurp Parliament
Hughes: Against efforts to usurp Parliament
10. Lord Hughes of Ombersley
Age: 68
Education: Tettenhall College (a boarding school in the Midlands) & Durham University
Europhile rating:
Rating:
A traditionalist who was made a QC in 1990. He has opposed previous efforts by the Supreme Court to usurp Parliamentary sovereignty.
He served as a Crown Court recorder before becoming a High Court judge. Appointed to the Supreme Court in 2013, he commutes from a village near Droitwich, Worcestershire.
11. Lord Hodge
Age: 63
Education: Trinity Glenalmond (one of Perthshire’s smartest boarding schools) & Cambridge
Hodge: No professional links to Europe
Hodge: No professional links to Europe
A pillar of the Edinburgh establishment. No obvious professional links to the EU or European institutions.
However, his son George is an ardent Remainer who works for the UN. Hodge Jr’s Twitter feed in June called the Leave campaign ‘one of the most disgraceful spectacles in modern British political history.’
Before joining the Supreme Court in 2013, Lord Hodge was a trustee of a centrist think-tank called The David Hume Institute.
Last month, the institute hosted a speech on Brexit by former Cabinet Secretary Lord (Gus) O’Donnell, who said of next week’s case: ‘I have yet to meet any constitutional lawyer who thinks the Government will win.’
Backing a terror suspect and criminal migrants - how judges have been over-ruling Ministers
There have been many cases in recent years of British judges over-ruling decisions made by elected politicians. Here are some of the most egregious examples . . .
Case 1:
An Al Qaeda terror suspect — considered one of the country’s most dangerous extremists and a potential suicide-bomber — asked judges to ease restrictions imposed on his Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) order.
HOW JUDGES ARE CHOSEN IN SECRET
The Supreme Court was created by Tony Blair and is the most powerful legal institution in British history.
Yet despite the extraordinary and unprecedented sway they hold over public affairs, not to mention the daily lives of ordinary citizens, these 11 senior justices are selected for the job — which pays £213,000-a-year — via an entirely private and at times highly opaque process.
In stark contrast to other nations, Britain elevates new members to its Supreme Court — where they sit for nine months each year — without their personal and political views ever being scrutinised by Parliament. The public is given no insight into the outlook or approach they intend to adopt in office.
This is very different to the U.S., where the selection of the nine justices who sit on their Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of their revered written Constitution, is accorded a level of attention that wouldn’t shame the choosing of a new Pope.
Consequently, whether the court’s justices are ruling on power station gas emissions or gay marriage, Americans are rarely surprised by how each votes. In a tortuous appointment process, the justices and their views have already been put through the wringer.
The U.S. Constitution dictates that presidents nominate and appoint justices, who serve for life unless they retire, with the ‘Advice and Consent of the Senate’.
In Britain, justices are appointed via a five-person ‘special commission’ headed by the Supreme Court’s existing president. It contains one senior judge along with one member of each of the Judicial Appointments Commissions (JACs) of England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
JACs in turn contain a mixture of senior judges, lawyers and ‘lay-members’.
In England and Wales, for example, the commission consists of six judges, a solicitor, a barrister and eight quango-crats, largely drawn from the civil service and academia.
Since they are essentially self-selecting, it follows that the Supreme Court is too. The ‘special commission’ meets behind closed doors to select its new candidate, and the recommendation is then referred to the Lord Chancellor, the Government’s chief legal officer, who can reject it only in extremely rare and ‘closely defined circumstances’.
Thanks to this process, the Supreme Court is 91 per cent male and 100 per cent white. The average age of members is 68. Nine went to public school and eight attended Oxbridge.
GUY ADAMS
He said he wanted them relaxed so he could enjoy a ‘normal social life’. This was despite then Home Secretary Theresa May warning that he would contact other Islamic extremists to plot attacks against Britain.
Ruling: Sitting at the High Court, Mr Justice Wilkie said the constraints on the 24-year-old Somali were ‘chilling’ and ‘disproportionate’ and that he should be able to mingle more freely with students at his university to avoid his ‘embarrassment and isolation’.
Reaction: Then Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: ‘If this fellow was concerned about his social life then maybe he shouldn’t have been spending his time in Afghanistan. His lack of social life doesn’t keep me awake at night. The prospect of him having an opportunity to blow himself up does.’
Case 2:
Families of four British soldiers killed in Iraq sought a landmark legal ruling giving them the right to sue the Ministry of Defence for negligence and breach of human rights. Three died when their poorly protected Snatch Land Rovers were blown up by roadside bombs. The fourth died in a ‘friendly fire’ incident when his Challenger tank was hit. The MoD, supported by defence Ministers, said the Human Rights Act did not apply because the soldiers died on the battlefield.
Ruling: In 2013, the Supreme Court backed the families’ legal fight and said the Government owed a duty of care to properly equip and train troops sent to war.
Reaction: Then Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: ‘It can’t be right that troops on operations have to put the European Convention on Human Rights ahead of what is operationally vital to protect our national security.’
Case 3:
Violent thug John Gilbert, convicted of grievous bodily harm, fought to overturn then Justice Secretary Chris Grayling’s ban on sending high-risk violent prisoners to open jails. The Minister had stopped inmates with a history of absconding from being transferred to lenient Category D prisons after a string of criminals fled minimum-security jails.
However, in 2015, Gilbert, who had once failed to return from day release, claimed it breached prison rules.
Ruling: High Court judges threw out the Government’s ban — branding it ‘unfair and unlawful . . . except in exceptional circumstances’. They said a prisoner’s rehabilitation depended on a period in an open prison.
Reaction: Chris Grayling said: ‘This is why it is so important a Conservative government has the chance to reform our human rights laws and restore common sense.’
Case 4:
Arsonist Barbara Gordon-Jones challenged the then Justice Secretary’s ban on sending books to criminals in jail. The policy had been introduced amid concerns parcels sent into prison containing books were being used as a cover for smuggling in drugs, mobile phone SIM cards or other contraband. Books were already available in the prison library, the Minister said.
Ruling: The High Court overturned the ban in 2014, ruling it was ‘strange’ for the Government to treat books as a privilege when they could be considered essential for an inmate’s rehabilitation.
Reaction: A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: ‘This is a surprising judgment. Restrictions on parcels have been in existence across most of the prison estate for many years and for very good reason. We are clear that we will not do anything that would create a new conduit for smuggling drugs and extremist materials into our prisons.’
Case 5:
Two Romany women who wanted to set up caravan sites on Green Belt land went to court after then Communities Secretary Eric Pickles blocked them.
They claimed last year that the Minister racially discriminated against travelling families by personally examining appeals against councils that had refused planning permission, rather than passing the job to a Whitehall-appointed inspector. (The rule had been brought in following the ten-year saga of travellers camped at Dale Farm in Essex.)
Ruling: Mr Justice Gilbart said that Mr Pickles had broken the 2010 Equality Act and that the Minister had ‘discriminated unlawfully against a racial group’.
Reaction: Tory vice-chairman Bob Neill said: ‘This has given the impression that travellers can ignore planning rules.’
Case 6:
A foreign-born rapist who faced deportation claimed he should be given taxpayers’ money so he could travel across the country to see his baby son — despite squandering cash smoking two packets of cigarettes a day. The failed asylum seeker said he was unable to afford the £13.55 return fare for the 130-mile round trip from Hampshire to Kent — and banning him from having extra money breached his human rights to family life.
Ruling: High Court judge Michael Kent overruled then Home Secretary Theresa May last year, saying the violent criminal was entitled to claim travel expenses.
Reaction: Tory MP Philip Hollobone said: ‘Many people will be absolutely appalled by what is yet another abuse of the justice system.’
Case 7:
A Libyan convicted of 78 offences challenged his deportation from Britain on the grounds that he was an alcoholic.
The man, identified only by the initials ‘HU’, argued that he would be tortured and imprisoned in his homeland where drinking alcohol is illegal. Sending him back to Libya would breach his human rights, he claimed. His case was estimated to have cost British taxpayers a six-figure sum.
Ruling: Upper Immigration Tribunal judges last year overturned Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision, claiming it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights because of the risk of ‘unacceptably savage’ abuse the career criminal faced in Libya.
Reaction: Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘This kind of things drives people mad. On the doorstep they find cases like this outrageous. Few people will think this man should remain in the country. He has completely abused our hospitality.’
Compiled by IAN DRURY
Toby , seems like this is one of the "deals"Last edited by tankie; 03 Dec 16,, 15:02.Comment
-
What's wrong with Norway or Switzerland? Both are smaller markets then yoursOriginally posted by snapper View PostNo such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.Comment
-
It's all starting to feel like some bizarre game of pass the parcel...Nobody seems to want to lead us out.Originally posted by tankie View Post
Deals in terms of access to sell goods is what I meant. A bit like Bae enticing Arab countries to buy their amazingly destructive hardware and throwing an Australian sheep farm in as a sweetner ;)Comment
Comment