STUART WHEELER'S VICTORY: Judicial Review of the Lisbon Treaty Granted

Richard Allen · 20-05-2008, 11:48 PM

I'm still waiting.

jim h · 21-05-2008, 06:19 AM

Given that a referendum had been denied on an earlier vote the Bill Cash amendment was simply to confirm that that our Parliament remained sovereign which ,of course , the EU reform ( Constitutional ) Treaty denies . Given that it is in the interest of our MPs to pretend that they are the final law makers in the UK it was surprising how few supported the amendment . Effectively it means that our MPs have accepted that the EU is the supreme law making authority and that they are just lackeys and lickspittles.
The Stuart Wheeler case is based on precedent in that an unelected Prime Minister cannot cavalierly decide to ignore a manifesto commitment of his Party made when it was elected and prior to power passing from its then leader to an unelected successor. In this earlier case the Courts decided that the unelected Prime Minister did not have the right to ignore the promise made by his Party and predecessor and as a result a General Election was called and the Party then lost the election.( see Baldwin - Bonar Law ) The other aspect of the SW case is that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty as franklly every continental leader agrees and that any reasonable person would expect the Government to honour its manifesto promise.

Richard Allen · 21-05-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

Given that a referendum had been denied on an earlier vote the Bill Cash amendment was simply to confirm that that our Parliament remained sovereign which ,of course , the EU reform ( Constitutional ) Treaty denies . Given that it is in the interest of our MPs to pretend that they are the final law makers in the UK it was surprising how few supported the amendment . Effectively it means that our MPs have accepted that the EU is the supreme law making authority and that they are just lackeys and lickspittles.
The Stuart Wheeler case is based on precedent in that an unelected Prime Minister cannot cavalierly decide to ignore a manifesto commitment of his Party made when it was elected and prior to power passing from its then leader to an unelected successor. In this earlier case the Courts decided that the unelected Prime Minister did not have the right to ignore the promise made by his Party and predecessor and as a result a General Election was called and the Party then lost the election.( see Baldwin - Bonar Law ) The other aspect of the SW case is that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty as franklly every continental leader agrees and that any reasonable person would expect the Government to honour its manifesto promise.

Total and utter rubbish.

1. Bill Cash did not put down his amendment because a referendum had been denied. He is tabled a similar amendment numerous times over the years.

2. We do not elect Prime Ministers in this country so Brown being "unelected" has no legal relevance.

3. Baldwin was not forced to call an early general election but chose to do so because he wished to reverse a policy that had been central to the parties manifesto.

jim h · 21-05-2008, 03:24 PM

Richard,
Interesting how you twist facts:
It is irrelevant how many times Cash has put a similar amendment before , the amendment was put because and only after the amendment for the referendum was defeated. You would anticipate that such an amendment would be passed by every MP except die hard Europhiles who are quite happy to roll over and have their back scratched by the EU . Why wouldnt you want the ultimate sovereignty of our Parliament to be recognised and reinforced.
You elect a party and when you elect the Party you anticipate that the leader of that Party will be the Prime Minister , if he dies or otherwise ceases to be PM then his successor should be bound by the manifesto commitments that his predecessor and his Party made this is particular true of a person who gained the post without being elected by anyone.
Check your facts on Baldwin - Bonar Law he was placed in a totally impossible position and in those days there was some honour amongst politicians so he did the right thing by calling a General election. Today , of course, you can guarantee that no Minister does the right thing but carries on regardless of the electorate until the day of reckoning comes which for the unelected PM of this country will happen when he eventually calls an election

Millennium3 · 21-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

Richard,
Interesting how you twist facts:
It is irrelevant how many times Cash has put a similar amendment before , the amendment was put because and only after the amendment for the referendum was defeated. You would anticipate that such an amendment would be passed by every MP except die hard Europhiles who are quite happy to roll over and have their back scratched by the EU . Why wouldnt you want the ultimate sovereignty of our Parliament to be recognised and reinforced.
You elect a party and when you elect the Party you anticipate that the leader of that Party will be the Prime Minister , if he dies or otherwise ceases to be PM then his successor should be bound by the manifesto commitments that his predecessor and his Party made this is particular true of a person who gained the post without being elected by anyone.
Check your facts on Baldwin - Bonar Law he was placed in a totally impossible position and in those days there was some honour amongst politicians so he did the right thing by calling a General election. Today , of course, you can guarantee that no Minister does the right thing but carries on regardless of the electorate until the day of reckoning comes which for the unelected PM of this country will happen when he eventually calls an election

Unfortunately, by the time that happens, the LT will have been ratified and the current crop of MP's seem determined to make our membership of the EU permanent - perhaps joining the Euro is seen as the best way to bolt the door after the LT has been ratified and implemented - Brown still has nearly two years to go - plenty of time I would think.

Bett Nwar · 22-05-2008, 08:01 AM

Will it be Brown?

It won't be someone who is going to give us a referendum as it will be too late by the time Nu Labour realise the size and weight of the millstone around their neck.

Richard Allen · 23-05-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

Richard,
Interesting how you twist facts:
It is irrelevant how many times Cash has put a similar amendment before , the amendment was put because and only after the amendment for the referendum was defeated. You would anticipate that such an amendment would be passed by every MP except die hard Europhiles who are quite happy to roll over and have their back scratched by the EU . Why wouldnt you want the ultimate sovereignty of our Parliament to be recognised and reinforced.
You elect a party and when you elect the Party you anticipate that the leader of that Party will be the Prime Minister , if he dies or otherwise ceases to be PM then his successor should be bound by the manifesto commitments that his predecessor and his Party made this is particular true of a person who gained the post without being elected by anyone.
Check your facts on Baldwin - Bonar Law he was placed in a totally impossible position and in those days there was some honour amongst politicians so he did the right thing by calling a General election. Today , of course, you can guarantee that no Minister does the right thing but carries on regardless of the electorate until the day of reckoning comes which for the unelected PM of this country will happen when he eventually calls an election

You really are making this up as you go along aren't you?

1. The amendment was not "put because and only after the amendment for the referendum was defeated" it was simply put after. The fact that a certain amendment is put after another one does mean that they are linked and given that Cash has repeatedly tabled very similar amendments to this one and never claimed that he did so because of a lack of a referendum you assertion is without basis.

2. I agree that parties are morally bound by their manifesto's regardless of changes of leadership but they are not legally bound.

3. I do not need to check my facts on Baldwin - Bonar Law. Baldwin may have been in an impossible position but that was because of political reasons (and maybe a sense of honour. Your assertion that he called a general election because of a court ruling is quite simply false. You are either absurdly ill informed or a liar.

Finally I return to the original point that if you are so concerned about "ultimate sovereignty of our Parliament", which despite what so many of incumbent MP's think does remain then you should not support a legal case that if successful would obliterate that concept.

cassie · 24-05-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

According to today's Western Morning News the Government has hired one of Britain's most expensive QCs to fight it's case against holding a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty! Jonathan Sumption QC will be lead Barrister the the Government as it fights the High Court action brought about by Stuart Wheeler!

So the Government is using our money to fight their case! A bit like your enemy having to pay for your weapons!

No different to using our money to fund the legal representation of illegal immigrants then!

There's a certain symmetry to be found here.

-------------------------

cassie · 24-05-2008, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

BNP philosophers???????? One of?????????????????

Where does it say in our 'constitution' that Parliament is not allowed to give away our freedom? We don't have a written constitution that defines the limits of what our Parliament can do. We have a body of constitutional laws, amended and varied over the centuries, and some unwritten conventions.

This typifies the point I was making. For BNP 'philosopher' read person with no formal qualifications in philosophy and quite possibly no qualifications in anything.

Someone who hasn't read any law books is pronouncing on our constitutional law.

The courts follow legal processes and pronounce on them as required. The judges , arguably, interpret laws as they see fit. A very good summation of the arguments can be found at: Law reform role of judges - declaratory theory

For a 'philosopher' to state, without authority, that 'the courts no longer obey laws that the establishment find inconvenient' is as unacceptable as binding people in perpetuity, which, since Parliament is sovereign, is not the constitutional position (Parliamentary sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

cassie, I would ask the 'philosopher' to cite a clear case of a judge not obeying the law because it was inconvenient to the establishment. The judiciary are very powerful and might interpret law as they see fit, but it is not unlawful for them to do so. The establishment loses a lot more often than people think and on more than one occasion Parliament or ministers have had to seek amending legislation that reverses a court's decision.

Aardvark, I was being ironic (facetious, if you prefer) when I used the phrase 'one of the BNP's philosophers'.

In a democracy, anyone may 'pronounce on our constitutional law' and we are not required to agree with such pronouncements other than those imbued with the requisite authority.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not agree with the line purveyed on the BNP's website: I merely drew attention to it!

------------------------------

Petrina · 10-06-2008, 10:46 PM

I see that not surprisingly that judgement in the Wheeler case has been deferred .Did anyone go and can report on how things went ?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

20-05-2008, 11:48 PM	#31 (permalink)
Richard Allen Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 569	I'm still waiting.

21-05-2008, 06:19 AM	#32 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	Given that a referendum had been denied on an earlier vote the Bill Cash amendment was simply to confirm that that our Parliament remained sovereign which ,of course , the EU reform ( Constitutional ) Treaty denies . Given that it is in the interest of our MPs to pretend that they are the final law makers in the UK it was surprising how few supported the amendment . Effectively it means that our MPs have accepted that the EU is the supreme law making authority and that they are just lackeys and lickspittles. The Stuart Wheeler case is based on precedent in that an unelected Prime Minister cannot cavalierly decide to ignore a manifesto commitment of his Party made when it was elected and prior to power passing from its then leader to an unelected successor. In this earlier case the Courts decided that the unelected Prime Minister did not have the right to ignore the promise made by his Party and predecessor and as a result a General Election was called and the Party then lost the election.( see Baldwin - Bonar Law ) The other aspect of the SW case is that the Reform Treaty is the same as the Constitutional Treaty as franklly every continental leader agrees and that any reasonable person would expect the Government to honour its manifesto promise.

21-05-2008, 03:24 PM	#34 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	Richard, Interesting how you twist facts: It is irrelevant how many times Cash has put a similar amendment before , the amendment was put because and only after the amendment for the referendum was defeated. You would anticipate that such an amendment would be passed by every MP except die hard Europhiles who are quite happy to roll over and have their back scratched by the EU . Why wouldnt you want the ultimate sovereignty of our Parliament to be recognised and reinforced. You elect a party and when you elect the Party you anticipate that the leader of that Party will be the Prime Minister , if he dies or otherwise ceases to be PM then his successor should be bound by the manifesto commitments that his predecessor and his Party made this is particular true of a person who gained the post without being elected by anyone. Check your facts on Baldwin - Bonar Law he was placed in a totally impossible position and in those days there was some honour amongst politicians so he did the right thing by calling a General election. Today , of course, you can guarantee that no Minister does the right thing but carries on regardless of the electorate until the day of reckoning comes which for the unelected PM of this country will happen when he eventually calls an election

22-05-2008, 08:01 AM	#36 (permalink)
Bett Nwar Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 140	Will it be Brown? It won't be someone who is going to give us a referendum as it will be too late by the time Nu Labour realise the size and weight of the millstone around their neck.

10-06-2008, 10:46 PM	#40 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 987	I see that not surprisingly that judgement in the Wheeler case has been deferred .Did anyone go and can report on how things went ?