3 ms·

UK judicial oversight is actually pretty good. The government at the time lost numerous important cases when trying to implement Brexit. While Parliament can cr

UK judicial oversight is actually pretty good. The government at the time lost numerous important cases when trying to implement Brexit. While Parliament can create legislation to overrule the courts decisions it's not typical and in the case of EU legislation they were stuck because they couldn't easily change that. The UK does have a strong constitution despite the fact it's not codified. In my opinion the US Supreme Court is farcical compared with the UK one. The fact it has lifetime appointments and is accepted as politically biased astounds me. NB: I know you didn't mention the US but it's my only point of comparison.

Defletter 2y ago
> The government at the time lost numerous important cases when trying to implement Brexit. Yup, in the two cases that come to mind, the Supreme Court kicked the issue back to Parliament: Miller I[1] said that, given the extreme constitutional consequences of no deal, the Government couldn't unilaterally trigger Article 50, such a decision could only come from Parliament. This was more just a procedural issue. An Act[2] was passed a couple months after the judgment, and Article 50 was triggered a couple days later. Whereas, Miller II[3] was about the Government proroguing Parliament in order to silence it. The Supreme Court was having none of that, so it annulled the prorogation. In both cases, the Supreme Court was protecting Parliament. - [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat...> - [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_of_Withdrawal)_Act_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_o...> - [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...>

Defletter 2y ago

> The government at the time lost numerous important cases when trying to implement Brexit. Yup, in the two cases that come to mind, the Supreme Court kicked the issue back to Parliament: Miller I[1] said that, given the extreme constitutional consequences of no deal, the Government couldn't unilaterally trigger Article 50, such a decision could only come from Parliament. This was more just a procedural issue. An Act[2] was passed a couple months after the judgment, and Article 50 was triggered a couple days later. Whereas, Miller II[3] was about the Government proroguing Parliament in order to silence it. The Supreme Court was having none of that, so it annulled the prorogation. In both cases, the Supreme Court was protecting Parliament. - [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Exiting_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_Secretary_of_Stat...> - [2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_of_Withdrawal)_Act_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Notification_o...> - [3] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...>