Brexit or Britin

[Worthy4England]

I agree in part that Cameron set this mess up, although I recall at the time, you were delighted he'd given you the chance to express an opinion. He had no reason to have a Plan B, as it wasn't Government policy. Government Policy was to remain, which sorta raises the election question and whether there should have been a new one. I don't think he took the cowards way out, his position was untenable once the vote was lost. I can only imagine the indigation of the Leave camp had he remained.

How do you suggest we proceed with "the Law?" - the Law is made by our Parliament (not the people who judge its validity)

[bedwetter2]

It's like drama queen central.

The Article 50 ruling didn't say anything about ignoring the vote (although that opinion wasn't legally binding even though there is precedent under which it could have been) nor as far as I can tell, did it express and opinion one way or the other about whether we should or should not leave the EU.

That any Government should be able to enact legislation affecting me and remove my current legal rights or add to my legal obligations, without recourse to parliament, puts way too much power in what is generally a minority elected group of people (either Conservative or Labour or some other party) or in the case of a more dictatorial party an even smaller number than the current 650 + HoL. That's the point of the ruling, not whether we could or should leave the EU.

I still think we should (and will) leave the EU based on the vote. I still think there were many elements not voted on in the referendum - so leaving the EU and retaining full free movement would be just as valid an approach as leaving the EU and having no free movement.

The country voted on the former "leave the EU" and not the latter "free movement" - and the fact that there is a widely held opinion that free movement was a significant factor (it's my opinion that it was too), doesn't alter that it's just an opinion and wasn't voted upon. Nor was what shape our trading relationship would be. Nor was whether the NHS would get £350m per week.

I'm fairly sure the remain side said on many occasions "Leave the EU" was significantly light on detail because in practice, we could leave the EU and still retain most of the things (underneath the EU) that annoy people.

When considering the role of the political elites in Parliament - both the HoC and HoL - they are currently the people that pass Primary legislation. It was a central argument of Leave's campaign that they should be and came up many times in the debate too.

Hardly surprising it's a bit of a mess.

There is one thing that we agree upon. It's a bit of a mess.

However, I did not say that there should be no oversight and passing of legislation in this regard by parliament. I did state that the case brought by the Miller woman was motivated as much by personal business reasons as to protect the power of parliament. Check out my posts; I specifically mentioned the repeal of the European Act needing a formal vote by MPs (and Lords, for what it's worth). Ultimately I stated that the ruling introduced potential delay into the process (cheered on by noisy Labour, LD and Tory remoaners), firstly denied by Prufrock, then later the denials quietly dropped by him as he heard more about the views of some MPs.

Drama queens indeed.

Gina Miller was only the lead complainant. There were plenty of others including the 5,000 strong "People's Challenge" et. al. Not indeed 17+ million and far from it but this challenge would have occurred with or without Gina Miller. Some will have business reasons, some will want to retain free movement, some will want to retain the Social Chapter etc. etc. - they'll all have their own motivations.

If this was to get resolved through the Appeal, then it won't have compromised the timeline and all will continue, but let's be clear the "delay" is there because of pi44 poor planning and overblown promises alongside of having no actual plan and no actual detail (They were going to sign it the day after the Referendum, is what we were told), so without the challenge, they've already delayed that part 8 months.

If I use me as an example (because I factually know my own opinion), I would have voted to leave (80% prob), if anyone could have confirmed that our trade ops and passporting weren't going to be affected - over and above free movement. They didn't so I voted to stay - I might have been swayed by the £350m per week for the NHS but didn't believe them (correctly as it turned out).

I'd like to think I'm reasonably fair-minded - we should leave as the vote said (even though it wasn't legally binding) - but when we're talking about "the will of the people" it was hardly a landslide. The referendum to join something a different shape than what we have now was 67% in favour, so now as prior to the referendum, I think we still need more detail and that needs to be ratified by Parliament, because both sides were making loads of sh*t up during the campaign and making promises they couldn't keep. Seen any mention of Immigration heading down to the low 10'sK recently, given your contention (that I don't disagree with) that immigration/free movement was a very significant part of this?

Look back at my earlier comments and you will see that I stated there were anonymous others supporting the call for Judicial Review, but the Miller woman set herself up as the figurehead and seems pretty proud of herself even now.

I don't disagree with some parts of your contribution, but in talking about "hardly a landslide" I would point out in return that in a general election, a landslide could be delivered with less than 40% of the electorates votes and the total percentage of the population entitled to vote who actually do is generally less than 70%. It was always thus in a first past the post system. By that measure, a 52% vote is truly exceptional.

The Harold Wilson referendum was for a free trade area. Chalk and cheese old chap.

[Hoboh]

I agree in part that Cameron set this mess up, although I recall at the time, you were delighted he'd given you the chance to express an opinion. He had no reason to have a Plan B, as it wasn't Government policy. Government Policy was to remain, which sorta raises the election question and whether there should have been a new one. I don't think he took the cowards way out, his position was untenable once the vote was lost. I can only imagine the indigation of the Leave camp had he remained.

How do you suggest we proceed with "the Law?" - the Law is made by our Parliament (not the people who judge its validity)

We repeal hundreds if not thousands of laws passed years ago and simplify them.

Judges should be restrained from the 'interpretation' of law, quite frankly this is such a grey area and is only the opinion of a few people, hardly democratic.

Cases should be viewed on their merits, not ability to pay.

An independent oversight into complaints against those in the legal system should be in place, to be honest Doctors and medical practitioners should be handled in the same way, we have independent oversight into the police, why not this lot?

Judges should be on, say, 5yr contracts and retired at 60 to stop many being out of touch with the real world.

The code of practise for lawyers should be tightened up, too many seem to operate in shady areas.

Agree or not agree that Cameron's government position was stay, they still had a duty to prepare if they didn't win the vote, you cannot be reckless with a nations future.

Does your company only ever have one plan and no fall back?

[Worthy4England]

Given that the Harold Wilson ref was around Free Trade Area and I agree it's chalk n cheese, you might have expected to beat that outcome even more comfortably given that it's all become so unpalatable and different since. The 1975 referendum polled more votes on a smaller turn out. I've long said general elections are farcical, surprised you're not an advocate of PR after using that as your yardstick. They are in your own words, chalk and cheese old chap.

[Worthy4England]

I agree in part that Cameron set this mess up, although I recall at the time, you were delighted he'd given you the chance to express an opinion. He had no reason to have a Plan B, as it wasn't Government policy. Government Policy was to remain, which sorta raises the election question and whether there should have been a new one. I don't think he took the cowards way out, his position was untenable once the vote was lost. I can only imagine the indigation of the Leave camp had he remained.

How do you suggest we proceed with "the Law?" - the Law is made by our Parliament (not the people who judge its validity)

We repeal hundreds if not thousands of laws passed years ago and simplify them.

Yes - through parliament, which is what people are requesting with this group of laws

Judges should be restrained from the 'interpretation' of law, quite frankly this is such a grey area and is only the opinion of a few people, hardly democratic.

Given that there are no perfect laws and they're always open to interpretation or precedent, who should undertake that task?

Cases should be viewed on their merits, not ability to pay.

Agree undoubtedly

An independent oversight into complaints against those in the legal system should be in place, to be honest Doctors and medical practitioners should be handled in the same way, we have independent oversight into the police, why not this lot?

It is. It's called the Appeals Court. There's also the Legal Ombudsman and the Office for Legal Complaints - what's missing?

Judges should be on, say, 5yr contracts and retired at 60 to stop many being out of touch with the real world.

Unlike many of the old duffers that voted Leave - I agree

The code of practise for lawyers should be tightened up, too many seem to operate in shady areas.

It'll never be perfect, but I'm not sure specifically how it applies to this clusterfuck?

Agree or not agree that Cameron's government position was stay, they still had a duty to prepare if they didn't win the vote, you cannot be reckless with a nations future.

Indeed, unlike say Boris or Gove? I think you're right on this generally that their should have been a plan B, we kept asking leave what it was from the members of the Government that were involved in the Leave campaign, but it seems they were a bit short on the detail

Does your company only ever have one plan and no fall back?

No - I've told you I agree there should have been a plan for exit but, how would you have felt if Cameron had articulated it and it didn't involve removing free movement (for example). To some extent you're asking that they second guessed the outcome and did what May's government are still refusing to do and Leave didn't do - articulate the "plan"

[Hoboh]

^ See we are not that far apart on a lot of things

Maybe we should be negotiating with the EU for our terms

[bedwetter2]

Given that the Harold Wilson ref was around Free Trade Area and I agree it's chalk n cheese, you might have expected to beat that outcome even more comfortably given that it's all become so unpalatable and different since. The 1975 referendum polled more votes on a smaller turn out. I've long said general elections are farcical, surprised you're not an advocate of PR after using that as your yardstick. They are in your own words, chalk and cheese old chap.

Perhaps because turnouts for general elections have been declining since the 60s to the present day I wouldn't expect an even greater turnout than the 1975 event.
PR in terms of the theory is fine but the disconnect between electorate and elected under proposed methods is unattractive and would, in my opinion, lead to even lower turnouts ala EU parliament elections.

[Hoboh]

Given that the Harold Wilson ref was around Free Trade Area and I agree it's chalk n cheese, you might have expected to beat that outcome even more comfortably given that it's all become so unpalatable and different since. The 1975 referendum polled more votes on a smaller turn out. I've long said general elections are farcical, surprised you're not an advocate of PR after using that as your yardstick. They are in your own words, chalk and cheese old chap.

Perhaps because turnouts for general elections have been declining since the 60s to the present day I wouldn't expect an even greater turnout than the 1975 event.
PR in terms of the theory is fine but the disconnect between electorate and elected under proposed methods is unattractive and would, in my opinion, lead to even lower turnouts ala EU parliament elections.

You know BW2, more people would vote if they actually knew who the candidates were and if they thought they would really do something for them instead of all the pie in the sky grand schemes.

[bedwetter2]

Given that the Harold Wilson ref was around Free Trade Area and I agree it's chalk n cheese, you might have expected to beat that outcome even more comfortably given that it's all become so unpalatable and different since. The 1975 referendum polled more votes on a smaller turn out. I've long said general elections are farcical, surprised you're not an advocate of PR after using that as your yardstick. They are in your own words, chalk and cheese old chap.

Perhaps because turnouts for general elections have been declining since the 60s to the present day I wouldn't expect an even greater turnout than the 1975 event.
PR in terms of the theory is fine but the disconnect between electorate and elected under proposed methods is unattractive and would, in my opinion, lead to even lower turnouts ala EU parliament elections.

You know BW2, more people would vote if they actually knew who the candidates were and if they thought they would really do something for them instead of all the pie in the sky grand schemes.

Yes, I agree. However it is a two way street and voters who have shown zero interest in politics also need to be invigorated. Whether it is possible to draw some away from the comfortable fictions of soaps, Strictly, Bake Off, etc. is debatable.

Something needs to be done and perhaps the current who-ha will increase interest, at least temporarily. An Australian system of compulsion is a bit big brother like.

[Prufrock]

I'm a big fan of any post that includes, "as Hoboh has confirmed".

I write this in trepidation, as it seems somewhat akin to a biologist trying to explain something to a creationist (and I'm reminded of Lord May's response to a debating challenge from a creationist that "that would look great on your CV, not so good on mine) but, in the spirit of generosity, here is a little constitutional history 101.

We do not have a written constitution in the sense the Americans or others do; we don't have a document or bill called "The Constitution" which brings together everything into one place. However, it is fundamentally and plain wrong to argue we don't have a constitution (and if you're unsure on this point you may be confused if you ever enter any law library to see quite a large section on "constitutional law"). We do have one, and it is rather more solidly formed than judges making things up on a whim.

It has 4 main sources:

1) The Royal Prerogative. Various powers that remain from when the monarch could do anything (we'll come back to this). Examples include starting wars. The Govt. argued triggering Art. 50 was one of these powers which can be exercised without Parliament. The RP powers have been and are slowly dwindling as it's a constitutional principle that Parliament can take them away by legislating (again, see below).

2) Legislation. There are various statutes that are obviously constitutional in nature, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights (again, later) to the European Communities Act to the Scotland Act etc...

3) Common law. Number of historical cases which set out constitutional principles. R (Miller) will go down as one of them.

4) Conventions. Not written anywhere, but an important part of the constitution. Tends to be for softer things like collective cabinet responsibility.

Our constitution is *more* uncertain than say the US one, and when I was younger I always thought we should have a written one (and why not get rid of the monarchy while we're at it) but the way ours works has its advantages, and its ability to change with the times is one of them. That's the reason we're not stuck with a load of nutters with guns because civilian militias seemed to be a good idea in the 18th C. Anyway, that's all by the by as when you read the judgment from the other day (which I'm sure you have done) you'll have seen the judges weren't changing anything at all, rather relying on a formidable body of existing constitutional law to set out clearly why the law of the land says this needs to go before Parliament. The law of our land. British law. Good old, non-foreign British law.

That's what you all wanted. Remember. When you all said, "we're not xenophobic, it's nothing to do with racism, we just want to govern ourselves, British law".

As for the Glorious Rev. V. short history lesson #2. It's the 17th C, and there is a big fight between the monarchy and Parliament as to who is in charge. Parliament win that argument and we parachute in William of Orange and Queen Mary. Part of the deal for them coming in and taking over is we get the Bill of Rights, the confusingly named Act that essentially sets out Parliament's unlimited legislative competency (which means Parliament can do anything, ban smoking on the streets of Paris if it wants, in the eyes of our court). That is seen as the start of our "modern" constitution. Go, go Parliament.

I'm sorry if that all seems a bit patronising but you did write that there is no such thing as a British constitution which is about the wrongest thing anyone has ever written on this forum!

If you intend to practice the law or are indeed already doing so, a little bit of humility from you might not go amiss and may even enhance your career. A sneering and arrogant attitude is unedifying.

I'd like to report racial abuse of the kettle by the pot.

Your response to the constitution point is classic newspeak. You admit the is no single source which can be pointed to as a British constitution, therefore I was correct in stating that what is referred to is a conglomeration of rulings, precedent, etc. Perhaps the reason for so many books relating to constitutional law is for that very reason - many different pieces of legislation over the centuries. I rest my case m'Lud.

You did not state it was a conglomeration or anything of the sort; you said, and I quote, "there is no such thing as a British constitution". There is. The American's have theirs in a nice neat document, yet they have plenty of books relating to constitutional law too. To say there is no such thing as a British constitution remains one of the wrongest things ever written on this forum. Repetition does not make it less wrong.

Maybe you are suffering from short-term memory loss or did not understand the significance of what I said. There is little correlation between the population hating James 2nd for using the Royal Perogative and the situation today (or Thursday last). Firstly parliament was a very different animal back in the 17th century to now without the power blocks which now exist, and secondly there was always going to be a bill for both Houses to vote on so any view that the PM was trying to act as an absolute monarch is BS.

It's where the notion of Parliamentary supremecy has its modern basis. I'm surprised again, given you clearly must have read the judgment, that you missed it when the judges said, "This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since.” There was not always going to be a bill. If there had been there would have been nothing to JR. There wasn't even definitely going to be a vote (and David "It's DD for me" Davis has only today confirmed that there will definitely be a bill rather than a motion vote)

I don't need lessons in history. I probably know rather more than the average bear.

Bears are notoriously poor on constitutional history

[Prufrock]

I agree in part that Cameron set this mess up, although I recall at the time, you were delighted he'd given you the chance to express an opinion. He had no reason to have a Plan B, as it wasn't Government policy. Government Policy was to remain, which sorta raises the election question and whether there should have been a new one. I don't think he took the cowards way out, his position was untenable once the vote was lost. I can only imagine the indigation of the Leave camp had he remained.

How do you suggest we proceed with "the Law?" - the Law is made by our Parliament (not the people who judge its validity)

We repeal hundreds if not thousands of laws passed years ago and simplify them.

Yes - through parliament, which is what people are requesting with this group of laws

Judges should be restrained from the 'interpretation' of law, quite frankly this is such a grey area and is only the opinion of a few people, hardly democratic.

Given that there are no perfect laws and they're always open to interpretation or precedent, who should undertake that task?

Cases should be viewed on their merits, not ability to pay.

Agree undoubtedly

An independent oversight into complaints against those in the legal system should be in place, to be honest Doctors and medical practitioners should be handled in the same way, we have independent oversight into the police, why not this lot?

It is. It's called the Appeals Court. There's also the Legal Ombudsman and the Office for Legal Complaints - what's missing?

Judges should be on, say, 5yr contracts and retired at 60 to stop many being out of touch with the real world.

Unlike many of the old duffers that voted Leave - I agree

The code of practise for lawyers should be tightened up, too many seem to operate in shady areas.

It'll never be perfect, but I'm not sure specifically how it applies to this clusterfuck?

Agree or not agree that Cameron's government position was stay, they still had a duty to prepare if they didn't win the vote, you cannot be reckless with a nations future.

Indeed, unlike say Boris or Gove? I think you're right on this generally that their should have been a plan B, we kept asking leave what it was from the members of the Government that were involved in the Leave campaign, but it seems they were a bit short on the detail

Does your company only ever have one plan and no fall back?

No - I've told you I agree there should have been a plan for exit but, how would you have felt if Cameron had articulated it and it didn't involve removing free movement (for example). To some extent you're asking that they second guessed the outcome and did what May's government are still refusing to do and Leave didn't do - articulate the "plan"

As for independent complaints Worthy misses out the SRA and BSB (solicitors' and barristers' respective regulatory bodies). Both branches are required to inform clients of their complaints procedure and provide an independent complaints procedure.

As codes of practice, Hobes, here you go:

-SRA Code here: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbo ... ntent.page" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-BSB Code here: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/re ... -handbook/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure both are keen to hear your suggestions for improvements.

Judges on 5 year contract is a terrible idea. Security of tenure (ie. politicians can't just "sack" judges) is vital to the seperation of powers (back to that non-existent constitution again). Making judges subject to short-term contracts and political interference is hardly going to make them less "activist". You want to see judicial activism, check out the results of the George Bush v Al Gore supreme court case, and see if you can guess which way the 5 Republican and 4 Democrat judges ruled.

[Prufrock]

Also, given you can be sent to prison for a damn sight less than inciting violence these days, I'd like to see Mr Plod tap Farridge on the shoulder after his thinly disguised calls to arms recently. Let's not forget an MP was killed in a right-wing terrorist attack not six months ago.

[Hoboh]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... t-87047755" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow! ain't the remainers just so bitter?

Call themselves democratic yet use every trick in the book to frustrate a democratic vote, strange how they have suddenly become the voice of all the non voters as well.

[Lord Kangana]

No lies, just bait for stupid c*nts, right?

[Hoboh]

The Chancellor argued the Treasury would be forced to unveil a Budget post the vote on 23 June in order to make up for the £30bn "black hole" created by leaving the EU.
This would be comprised of £15bn of tax rises and £15bn of spending cuts, Mr Osborne will say.

Jeremy Corbyn today claimed that Brexit would mean the end of the National Health Service in its present form.

No EU army?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker provoked outrage earlier this year with proposals for a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
European People’s Party (EPP) president Joseph Daul has now admitted the European Parliament will try to push through plans that would go far beyond what even Mr Juncker had intended.
Under the latest proposals, a common European-wide army would become a force capable of taking on missions of "higher intensity" and even replace national guards at EU borders.
Bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to capitalise on concerns over “Russian aggression” and the migrant crisis to push through the long-held ambitions for a European army.
Whereas Mr Junker’s original vision was for a force capable of dealing with 'post-conflict peace-keeping', the European Parliament is now preparing to discuss an aggressive common military force.

Not just a one way street, remoaners like the stupid, whinging, pr*cks some are lie equally well!

[Worthy4England]

^^ I think you should be outraged and take the Leave campaign to Court. I do believe people on both sides of the debate should be prosecuted for telling downright lies, although I do think that there were "degrees" of lies.

[Hoboh]

^^ I think you should be outraged and take the Leave campaign to Court. I do believe people on both sides of the debate should be prosecuted for telling downright lies, although I do think that there were "degrees" of lies.

Why?

Surely that is the way politics works

Seriously though, folk get lied to at all levels of life, snowflakes just want anything that upsets their sensibilities prosecuted or put in front of blizzard judges.
Maybe they'd be happy with X-factor type judges and all vote on apps then whinge on social media.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The Chancellor argued the Treasury would be forced to unveil a Budget post the vote on 23 June in order to make up for the £30bn "black hole" created by leaving the EU.
This would be comprised of £15bn of tax rises and £15bn of spending cuts, Mr Osborne will say.

More than happy for you to take Osborne to court. He's a cock of the highest order.

Jeremy Corbyn today claimed that Brexit would mean the end of the National Health Service in its present form.

We might not have any staff left without migrant labour and by the time workers rights are trampled over by May et al. I'd say that would be an NHS not in it's current form.

No EU army?

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker provoked outrage earlier this year with proposals for a Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
European People’s Party (EPP) president Joseph Daul has now admitted the European Parliament will try to push through plans that would go far beyond what even Mr Juncker had intended.
Under the latest proposals, a common European-wide army would become a force capable of taking on missions of "higher intensity" and even replace national guards at EU borders.
Bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to capitalise on concerns over “Russian aggression” and the migrant crisis to push through the long-held ambitions for a European army.
Whereas Mr Junker’s original vision was for a force capable of dealing with 'post-conflict peace-keeping', the European Parliament is now preparing to discuss an aggressive common military force.

The UK had a veto over this. If you didn't want an EU army you should have voted remain Now we are leaving the EU we won't be able to veto it.

Not just a one way street, remoaners like the stupid, whinging, pr*cks some are lie equally well!

So, with the exception of Osborne (who we're very happy for you to string up by his bollocks....if he has any), it doesn't really equate to the utter bollocks that came from the Leave Campaign.

[bedwetter2]

I'm a big fan of any post that includes, "as Hoboh has confirmed".

I write this in trepidation, as it seems somewhat akin to a biologist trying to explain something to a creationist (and I'm reminded of Lord May's response to a debating challenge from a creationist that "that would look great on your CV, not so good on mine) but, in the spirit of generosity, here is a little constitutional history 101.

We do not have a written constitution in the sense the Americans or others do; we don't have a document or bill called "The Constitution" which brings together everything into one place. However, it is fundamentally and plain wrong to argue we don't have a constitution (and if you're unsure on this point you may be confused if you ever enter any law library to see quite a large section on "constitutional law"). We do have one, and it is rather more solidly formed than judges making things up on a whim.

It has 4 main sources:

1) The Royal Prerogative. Various powers that remain from when the monarch could do anything (we'll come back to this). Examples include starting wars. The Govt. argued triggering Art. 50 was one of these powers which can be exercised without Parliament. The RP powers have been and are slowly dwindling as it's a constitutional principle that Parliament can take them away by legislating (again, see below).

2) Legislation. There are various statutes that are obviously constitutional in nature, from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights (again, later) to the European Communities Act to the Scotland Act etc...

3) Common law. Number of historical cases which set out constitutional principles. R (Miller) will go down as one of them.

4) Conventions. Not written anywhere, but an important part of the constitution. Tends to be for softer things like collective cabinet responsibility.

Our constitution is *more* uncertain than say the US one, and when I was younger I always thought we should have a written one (and why not get rid of the monarchy while we're at it) but the way ours works has its advantages, and its ability to change with the times is one of them. That's the reason we're not stuck with a load of nutters with guns because civilian militias seemed to be a good idea in the 18th C. Anyway, that's all by the by as when you read the judgment from the other day (which I'm sure you have done) you'll have seen the judges weren't changing anything at all, rather relying on a formidable body of existing constitutional law to set out clearly why the law of the land says this needs to go before Parliament. The law of our land. British law. Good old, non-foreign British law.

That's what you all wanted. Remember. When you all said, "we're not xenophobic, it's nothing to do with racism, we just want to govern ourselves, British law".

As for the Glorious Rev. V. short history lesson #2. It's the 17th C, and there is a big fight between the monarchy and Parliament as to who is in charge. Parliament win that argument and we parachute in William of Orange and Queen Mary. Part of the deal for them coming in and taking over is we get the Bill of Rights, the confusingly named Act that essentially sets out Parliament's unlimited legislative competency (which means Parliament can do anything, ban smoking on the streets of Paris if it wants, in the eyes of our court). That is seen as the start of our "modern" constitution. Go, go Parliament.

I'm sorry if that all seems a bit patronising but you did write that there is no such thing as a British constitution which is about the wrongest thing anyone has ever written on this forum!

If you intend to practice the law or are indeed already doing so, a little bit of humility from you might not go amiss and may even enhance your career. A sneering and arrogant attitude is unedifying.

I'd like to report racial abuse of the kettle by the pot.

Racial abuse? Now i know you are barking, or perhaps you live in Barking. It would be appropriate. Virtually everything I say is tongue in cheek and intended to get a rise. However, in this case, I made an exception as it is impossible to insult the legal "profession" enough.

Your response to the constitution point is classic newspeak. You admit the is no single source which can be pointed to as a British constitution, therefore I was correct in stating that what is referred to is a conglomeration of rulings, precedent, etc. Perhaps the reason for so many books relating to constitutional law is for that very reason - many different pieces of legislation over the centuries. I rest my case m'Lud.

You did not state it was a conglomeration or anything of the sort; you said, and I quote, "there is no such thing as a British constitution". There is. The American's have theirs in a nice neat document, yet they have plenty of books relating to constitutional law too. To say there is no such thing as a British constitution remains one of the wrongest things ever written on this forum. Repetition does not make it less wrong.

I did originally state that there is no such thing as a British constitution. My meaning was clear as I subsequently went on to mention rulings including that resulting from the Miller case. There is no single source document and it has always been my view that the constitution which you refer to is a disparate set of bills stemming in some cases from case law, rulings and precedent from cases brought in subsidiary courts across the country. Therefore, very conveniently for the legal profession, the make-work practice in constitutional matters of reviews and amendments to legislation in some cases only serves lawyers. Is it a coincidence that a high proportion of MPs and Ministers of the Crown have a legal background? You can choose to call these various devices a British constitution but I don't. It's a mess which needs clearing up and drafting into a single document together with a much needed reform of the legal profession.

Maybe you are suffering from short-term memory loss or did not understand the significance of what I said. There is little correlation between the population hating James 2nd for using the Royal Perogative and the situation today (or Thursday last). Firstly parliament was a very different animal back in the 17th century to now without the power blocks which now exist, and secondly there was always going to be a bill for both Houses to vote on so any view that the PM was trying to act as an absolute monarch is BS.

It's where the notion of Parliamentary supremecy has its modern basis. I'm surprised again, given you clearly must have read the judgment, that you missed it when the judges said, "This subordination of the Crown (i.e. the executive government) to law is the foundation of the rule of law in the United Kingdom. It has its roots well before the war between the Crown and Parliament in the seventeenth century but was decisively confirmed in the settlement arrived at with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and has been recognised ever since.” There was not always going to be a bill. If there had been there would have been nothing to JR. There wasn't even definitely going to be a vote (and David "It's DD for me" Davis has only today confirmed that there will definitely be a bill rather than a motion vote)

Constitutional law has its' roots in Anglo Saxon laws, particularly those of Ine. Although Ine was the ruler of an Anglo Saxon kingdom, it was not he who drafted the laws or judged cases. Indeed after their first slash and burn phase, the AS kingdoms were quite enlightened and peaceful and where persons were likely to be judged by their peers. There was not much use of Royal Prerogative. Punishments, particularly for patronising or arrogant lawyers, were harsh - as they should be. The laws amounted to a constitution because they set out the powers invested in individuals in the form of a single document.
There was always going to be a bill; it just depends what you call it. The proposed Great Repeal Bill is being drafted and will be the primary means by which Parliament may scrutinise and vote on the process. Don't act all surprised; it was mentioned as long ago as the end of September.

I don't need lessons in history. I probably know rather more than the average bear.

Bears are notoriously poor on constitutional history

Did you know this little known fact- bears favourite foodstuff is lawyers.

[Enoch]

Due to the frequency of human-bear encounters, the British Columbia Fish and
Wildlife Branch is advising hikers, hunters, fishermen, and any persons
that use the out of doors in a recreational or work related function to
take extra precautions while in the field.

We advise the outdoorsman to wear little noisy bells on clothing so as
to give advance warning to any bears that might be close by so you don’t
take them by surprise.

We also advise anyone using the out-of-doors to carry “Pepper Spray”
with him in case of an encounter with a bear.

Outdoorsmen should also be on the watch for fresh bear activity, and
be able to tell the difference between black bear feces and grizzly bear
feces. Black bear feces is smaller and contains lots of berries and
squirel fur. Grizzly Bear shit has bells in it and smells like pepper.