5 ms·

Yup, the Courts are ultimately there to fulfil the will of Parliament: if there's a clear power granted by Parliament to do this sort of thing, and there's no c

Yup, the Courts are ultimately there to fulfil the will of Parliament: if there's a clear power granted by Parliament to do this sort of thing, and there's no compelling objection from other areas of law, then this is more just a delaying tactic.

drcongo 2y ago
I'm not sure that's entirely true, the UK government gets sued regularly and loses a fair amount.
- Defletter 2y ago
  Sure, but that's because the government acted in ways contrary to what Parliament willed.
krona 2y ago
Essentially true however judicial review can expose legal flaws, incompatibilities, or breaches of higher legal principles (e.g. the Human Rights Act 1998) essentially compelling (not forcing) the government to amend or adjust legislation. A notable example being section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
- Defletter 2y ago
  There's an interesting talk involving Baroness Hale, who'd later go on to be President of the Supreme Court, where she mentions the Belmarsh case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=2605s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=2605s
switch007 2y ago
Fun facts about the UK supreme court: - It was created by an Act of Parliament - It is a government department - It can not overturn primary legislation - Parliament could dissolve the court if it so wished
- Defletter 2y ago
  Yup. What Parliament giveth, Parliament can taketh away. It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority. If so, why don't we see parliaments misbehave more often and do crazy shit?
    - switch007 2y ago
      Good question. Mostly self preservation I guess. It's not unheard of for a party to get wiped out. I feel the Queen made moves behind the scenes to keep the government in check too. As much as she could. Not sure about Charles I'm sure they're looking at Trump and realising they can get away with anything if they want to. Ministers used to resign in disgrace over far less severe things than we've seen the past 2 decades. Now you can just easily distract the public with scandal after scandal or issue after issue. Then they can re-enter politics
    - Lanolderen 2y ago
      Probably the pitchfork risk. Governments have gotten good at keeping safe distance from the point where things might get violent.
    - Defletter 2y ago
      Well, we are unfortunately seeing more of this with the rise of populism. However, I feel as if certain factors come together to provide a pretty effective stop-gap: 1. Members of Parliament (MPs) represent roughly 70k people. And while that's still a significant number, it's small enough for them to know and be known by their constituents. It's more difficult to vote against your constituents when you know them. 2. The House of Lords (HoL) can revise and delay, but not block, which means we are functionally immune from cross-chamber games of chicken that result in US-style government shutdowns, or European-style budget bills as confidence motions. We did come pretty close to this with Brexit in 2019, but this was all within the House of Commons given that the ruling party did not command a majority. 3. Parliamentarians usually respect the inertia of institution. As in, the idea that it's right to continue things as they've always been done, unless there's a compelling reason. It's why we're still a Monarchy, why there's still bishops and hereditaries in the House of Lords, etc. Basically, there's a culture of incrementalism. Because if you don't have the inertia, you appear to lack legitimacy, it's just a gimmick. 4. And on the heels of that, I think Parliamentarians have an occupational understanding of the adage "With great power comes great responsibility." 5. The Civil Service, while ostensibly neutral, tends to resign when asked to do anything believed to be damaging to the country. All of this put together (and probably more than I haven't thought of) means that MPs understand that they could do great damage, and so they restrain themselves. Contrast this with other countries with difficult systems where politicians stir up the passions of their constituents by naming their systemic limitations, "I would love to do X, but I can't because Y prevents me." A somewhat related example would be abortion in the US, where after Roe v Wade was decided, many states became soapboxes for anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a safe rhetorical position: you can say what you like and then blame the federal government for not being able to do it. But then Roe v Wade was overturned and many of these politicians and states have changed their tune, because the power is now in their hands, they are now answerable to their constituents on this matter. Not that it matters given how much gerrymandering there is, but still, the effect was noticeable.

drcongo 2y ago

I'm not sure that's entirely true, the UK government gets sued regularly and loses a fair amount.

Defletter 2y ago
Sure, but that's because the government acted in ways contrary to what Parliament willed.

krona 2y ago

Essentially true however judicial review can expose legal flaws, incompatibilities, or breaches of higher legal principles (e.g. the Human Rights Act 1998) essentially compelling (not forcing) the government to amend or adjust legislation. A notable example being section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Defletter 2y ago
There's an interesting talk involving Baroness Hale, who'd later go on to be President of the Supreme Court, where she mentions the Belmarsh case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=2605s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYR414Q8v6A&t=2605s

switch007 2y ago

Fun facts about the UK supreme court: - It was created by an Act of Parliament - It is a government department - It can not overturn primary legislation - Parliament could dissolve the court if it so wished

Defletter 2y ago
Yup. What Parliament giveth, Parliament can taketh away. It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > It is scary to think what Parliament can do with a simple majority. If so, why don't we see parliaments misbehave more often and do crazy shit?
  - switch007 2y ago
    Good question. Mostly self preservation I guess. It's not unheard of for a party to get wiped out. I feel the Queen made moves behind the scenes to keep the government in check too. As much as she could. Not sure about Charles I'm sure they're looking at Trump and realising they can get away with anything if they want to. Ministers used to resign in disgrace over far less severe things than we've seen the past 2 decades. Now you can just easily distract the public with scandal after scandal or issue after issue. Then they can re-enter politics
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    Probably the pitchfork risk. Governments have gotten good at keeping safe distance from the point where things might get violent.
  - Defletter 2y ago
    Well, we are unfortunately seeing more of this with the rise of populism. However, I feel as if certain factors come together to provide a pretty effective stop-gap: 1. Members of Parliament (MPs) represent roughly 70k people. And while that's still a significant number, it's small enough for them to know and be known by their constituents. It's more difficult to vote against your constituents when you know them. 2. The House of Lords (HoL) can revise and delay, but not block, which means we are functionally immune from cross-chamber games of chicken that result in US-style government shutdowns, or European-style budget bills as confidence motions. We did come pretty close to this with Brexit in 2019, but this was all within the House of Commons given that the ruling party did not command a majority. 3. Parliamentarians usually respect the inertia of institution. As in, the idea that it's right to continue things as they've always been done, unless there's a compelling reason. It's why we're still a Monarchy, why there's still bishops and hereditaries in the House of Lords, etc. Basically, there's a culture of incrementalism. Because if you don't have the inertia, you appear to lack legitimacy, it's just a gimmick. 4. And on the heels of that, I think Parliamentarians have an occupational understanding of the adage "With great power comes great responsibility." 5. The Civil Service, while ostensibly neutral, tends to resign when asked to do anything believed to be damaging to the country. All of this put together (and probably more than I haven't thought of) means that MPs understand that they could do great damage, and so they restrain themselves. Contrast this with other countries with difficult systems where politicians stir up the passions of their constituents by naming their systemic limitations, "I would love to do X, but I can't because Y prevents me." A somewhat related example would be abortion in the US, where after Roe v Wade was decided, many states became soapboxes for anti-abortion rhetoric. It's a safe rhetorical position: you can say what you like and then blame the federal government for not being able to do it. But then Roe v Wade was overturned and many of these politicians and states have changed their tune, because the power is now in their hands, they are now answerable to their constituents on this matter. Not that it matters given how much gerrymandering there is, but still, the effect was noticeable.