FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence
Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial independence
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
Is parliament sovereign?
Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion"?
Simple yes/no answers. You can elucidate after a direct response.
If you don't feel able to make a direct response then you bare, basically, a politician 
My answers are yes and yes.
The only caveats are during war. Under those circumstances it still has to be made clear what decisions are being made outside the appropriate process and they must be reviewed I'm the correct manner afterwards.
I'll be amused to see how many politicians there are. I think you know what the follow-up questions will be. Think hard those of you who always "know" that you're right |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Is parliament sovereign?
Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion""
No and Yes.
If you were asking it the other way round, i.e, should parliament be sovereign, and is the judiciary be free from influence, then I'd say yes, and no. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Is parliament sovereign? No
Should judges be independent? Yes
Should parliament be sovereign? Yes
Parliament was sovereign up until June last year but, as we know most MPs and Lords are opposed to BREXIT and yet it seems to be happening anyhow, clearly parliament is no longer sovereign in this land. If sovereignty lies anywhere now it would appear to be in the Daily Mail and Sun. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sovereignty should remain with the citizens, it's temporarily passed to elected officials for everyday business but never should that be used for stuff like Maastricht.
That should only ever have been passed by a referendum vote and all referendums should be legally binding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"Sovereignty should remain with the citizens, it's temporarily passed to elected officials for everyday business but never should that be used for stuff like Maastricht.
That should only ever have been passed by a referendum vote and all referendums should be legally binding."
Why shouldn't we have referenda on everything then?
What is important enough to require one and what is not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereignty should remain with the citizens, it's temporarily passed to elected officials for everyday business but never should that be used for stuff like Maastricht.
That should only ever have been passed by a referendum vote and all referendums should be legally binding.
Why shouldn't we have referenda on everything then?
What is important enough to require one and what is not?"
.
It's Constitutional change, it always was, I disagreed with the Tories for not giving a referendum on it despite being Pro EU at the time |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Yes and no. 
The judiciary shouldn't be independent? 
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them  "
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above."
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above.
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion."
I think its a lot more nuanced than that. For example it is the crown prosecution service which determines if cases ever even get to see the inside of a courtroom. The CPS have a public interest test which cases must pass before someone is charged. This surely must take into account the views of society/the public. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above.
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion.
I think its a lot more nuanced than that. For example it is the crown prosecution service which determines if cases ever even get to see the inside of a courtroom. The CPS have a public interest test which cases must pass before someone is charged. This surely must take into account the views of society/the public."
Society yes. Public opinion? I hope not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above.
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion.
I think its a lot more nuanced than that. For example it is the crown prosecution service which determines if cases ever even get to see the inside of a courtroom. The CPS have a public interest test which cases must pass before someone is charged. This surely must take into account the views of society/the public.
Society yes. Public opinion? I hope not."
what do you see as the difference between the society and the public? They are synonymous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above.
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion.
I think its a lot more nuanced than that. For example it is the crown prosecution service which determines if cases ever even get to see the inside of a courtroom. The CPS have a public interest test which cases must pass before someone is charged. This surely must take into account the views of society/the public.
Society yes. Public opinion? I hope not.
what do you see as the difference between the society and the public? They are synonymous. "
I said society and public opinion.
The attitudes of society change over the long term like attitudes to homosexuality and race.
Public opinion changes from day to day depending on what is in the news or doing the rounds of Facebook. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Yes and no.
The judiciary shouldn't be independent?
I'm assuming you mean only when you disagree with them
I never said the judiciary shouldn’t be independent. I answered no to the question "Should the judiciary be completely free of influence from;politicians, the press and "public opinion”?”
Lets take them one at a time. Politicians write the laws that the judiciary enforce. They are therefore linked. Another link in the UK system is that of the Lord Chancellor, who has important roles within the judiciary as well as sitting within the cabinet. Of course this role has changed significantly since 2005, when they also used to sit in the house of Lords, giving them a role in the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
Should they be free of public opinion? Again, no, there needs to be some reflection of public opinion within the judicial system, we have had trial by jury for hundreds of years for this very reason. We have some daft laws on the books, we should take into account their reasonableness when enforcing them. Public opinion pays a role in judging their reasonableness.
The press are a gauge of public opinion, see above.
Legislation is not influence on the judiciary. The judiciary applies the law.
Political influence is pressure applied on the judiciary to apply the law conveniently for them.
A jury does not influence the judiciary. It influences the law.
Changes in society influence the interpretation of the law, not public opinion.
I think its a lot more nuanced than that. For example it is the crown prosecution service which determines if cases ever even get to see the inside of a courtroom. The CPS have a public interest test which cases must pass before someone is charged. This surely must take into account the views of society/the public.
Society yes. Public opinion? I hope not.
what do you see as the difference between the society and the public? They are synonymous.
I said society and public opinion.
The attitudes of society change over the long term like attitudes to homosexuality and race.
Public opinion changes from day to day depending on what is in the news or doing the rounds of Facebook."
If you say so. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sovereignty should remain with the citizens, it's temporarily passed to elected officials for everyday business but never should that be used for stuff like Maastricht.
That should only ever have been passed by a referendum vote and all referendums should be legally binding.
Why shouldn't we have referenda on everything then?
What is important enough to require one and what is not?"
In my opinion....
Something that fundamentally changes the relationship between parliament and the electorate, or between our country and others (maybe.) Certainly anything which gives or takes away power from our parliament or judiciary.
This was massively true of the Lisbon Treaty... G Brown promised a referendum on any new treaties with the EU. He then renaged on that promise.
Had he given us that choice then the Lisbon treaty would have been rejected (as it was by an Irish referendum.... until the EU commission threatened Ireland [able to do so as they were net recipients ] and forced them to re-vote until they “got it right”.
Had we had THAT referendum the Lisbon treaty would have failed and the Brexit referendum would have never happened or would have gone the other way.
So: Yes....Parliament should be sovereign on most issues.
Yes....certainly the judiciary should be independent in ALL issues within the laws as set by a sovereign parliament. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"Sovereignty should remain with the citizens, it's temporarily passed to elected officials for everyday business but never should that be used for stuff like Maastricht.
That should only ever have been passed by a referendum vote and all referendums should be legally binding.
Why shouldn't we have referenda on everything then?
What is important enough to require one and what is not?
In my opinion....
Something that fundamentally changes the relationship between parliament and the electorate, or between our country and others (maybe.) Certainly anything which gives or takes away power from our parliament or judiciary.
This was massively true of the Lisbon Treaty... G Brown promised a referendum on any new treaties with the EU. He then renaged on that promise.
Had he given us that choice then the Lisbon treaty would have been rejected (as it was by an Irish referendum.... until the EU commission threatened Ireland [able to do so as they were net recipients ] and forced them to re-vote until they “got it right”.
Had we had THAT referendum the Lisbon treaty would have failed and the Brexit referendum would have never happened or would have gone the other way.
So: Yes....Parliament should be sovereign on most issues.
Yes....certainly the judiciary should be independent in ALL issues within the laws as set by a sovereign parliament."
Joining NATO? Becoming a member of the UN? Signing the Paris Climate change agreement?
All for referenda? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
NATO and UN.... I see your point to some extent.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council though, we maintain a veto....so no threat to sovereignty there.
Paris climate thing...not relevant.
Been taken into an illegal war in Iraq? Possibly...but others have said in cases of war then it shouldn’t....that’s up to others here to discuss |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
If everyone agrees that judicial independence and Parliamentary sovereignty is important (sort of), how come the Supreme Court judges were "enemies of the people" when they ruled that Parliament should have the final say on any Brexit deal? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"If everyone agrees that judicial independence and Parliamentary sovereignty is important (sort of), how come the Supreme Court judges were "enemies of the people" when they ruled that Parliament should have the final say on any Brexit deal?"
Because they threatened Murdoch's empire
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyuk OP Man
over a year ago
West London |
"NATO and UN.... I see your point to some extent.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council though, we maintain a veto....so no threat to sovereignty there.
Paris climate thing...not relevant.
Been taken into an illegal war in Iraq? Possibly...but others have said in cases of war then it shouldn’t....that’s up to others here to discuss"
So agreeing to constrain our energy choices for reasons other than short term financial benefit and helping poorer countries to deal with the consequences of climate change and power investment is not relevant?
That's giving up sovereignty isn't it?
Defensive action cannot involve Parliament. The time constraints are too urgent. Even offensive action when it is, for instance, a response to a time critical threat. However in general, Parliament should agree to war surely? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
