Latest British Brexit Legal Fiasco

[Sef]

You do take them seriously then? Or they aren't a tawdry tabloid?

They like to take themselves seriously, as do their readers. Tawdry or otherwise does not give anyone immunity from inciting racial hatred. A quick google will give you dozens of examples of what I mean. Type in "Daily Mail inciting racial hatred", or actually just get to the "in" in inciting - google will auto complete the rest.

[Ken B]

They like to take themselves seriously, as do their readers. Tawdry or otherwise does not give anyone immunity from inciting racial hatred. A quick google will give you dozens of examples of what I mean. Type in "Daily Mail inciting racial hatred", or actually just get to the "in" in inciting - google will auto complete the rest.

This is silly. That post does not incite racial hatred. Nor does google autocomplete prove anything, and even if it did it would be referring to other articles not this one. Your argument just seems to be "If its the Mail it's racist". So you want them punished.

The upshot is you want to punish them for whatever they say whenever they say it. Which proves my initial contention.

[Sef]

This is silly. That post does not incite racial hatred. Nor does google autocomplete prove anything, and even if it did it would be referring to other articles not this one. Your argument just seems to be "If its the Mail it's racist". So you want them punished.

The upshot is you want to punish them for whatever they say whenever they say it. Which proves my initial contention.

No - I never said that that article was racist. It is obviously not. It is however challenging the rule of law in an inflammatory way. In the same inflammatory way that it has historically peddled hate speech and racism, from its support of fascism in the 30s right up to the present day. I apologize if I wasn't clear and you mistook my meaning. My point is that it is not a nice newspaper and should shoulder responsibility for what it says.

[Florestan]

Had the author of the article cried out loud "You, Sirs, are enemy of the people!" in the court, would he have been charged with contempt on the spot? Most probably. Because he did it in a newspaper, "contempt" turns into "libel".

Be it as it may, it is for those judges themselves to sue Daily Mail as plaintiffs, should they feel insulted: the administration of justice is and should be the business of judges, prosecutors and lawyers. To make it the object of petitions, ie of popular vote, ie of sheer numerical force or lack thereof is to severely undermine, if not altogether destroy , the very concepts of impartial justice and rule of law.

[Spineur]

Another thorn in Theresa May foot: The scottish assembly will sue Theresa May government in front of the supreme court.

[Ken B]

Had the author of the article cried out loud "You, Sirs, are enemy of the people!" in the court, would he have been charged with contempt on the spot? Most probably. Because he did it in a newspaper, "contempt" turns into "libel".

Be it as it may, it is for those judges themselves to sue Daily Mail as plaintiffs, should they feel insulted: the administration of justice is and should be the business of judges, prosecutors and lawyers. To make it the object of petitions, ie of popular vote, ie of sheer numerical force or lack thereof is to severely undermine, if not altogether destroy , the very concepts of impartial justice and rule of law.

I cannot make sense of the second paragraph. As for the first, lots of stuff is contempt if done in a court. Telling the judge "wow what a dumb ruling" would be, but would you punish the Mail for that headline? I think not. So your observation proves nothing.

The complaint is the Daily Mail is uncivil. Most of my life the Daily Mail has been the poster child for over the top, uncivil, crude tabloid journalism. I've seen worse. Nothing new here.

[Florestan]

I cannot make sense of the second paragraph.

And yet I wrote in plain English that I am strongly against justice by petitions.

As for the first, lots of stuff is contempt if done in a court. Telling the judge "wow what a dumb ruling" would be, but would you punish the Mail for that headline? I think not. [(quote]

That´s exactly what I meant.

[ahinton]

I read it this way:
1. The Court said Article 50 cannot be invoked without Parliamentary approval.
2. The ruling led to speculation that she might call an election, presumably to solidify the Conservative majority, not mandated by the Court.
3. She rejected that idea, and prefers to appeal the ruling, still hoping to avoid a Parliament vote.

Correct. A Court cannot call or even recommend a General Election; only the government of the day can call one.

[ahinton]

This is why I consider this new development in the UK as highly positive.  It is quite likely that the high court will confirm the London court ruling.  Theresa May being unable to trigger article 50 will have no choice than leave office with or without calling general election.  This will effectively remind political parties that parliamentary democracy has precedence over direct democracy at least in England.

It's the Supreme Court, actually; government's already lost in the High Court (a pedant writes). But should the Supreme Court uphold the decision of the High Court, Ms May's options would be
1. do as bidden by the Court and hold a Parliamentary debate and vote on the triggering of Article 50 before taking action
2. appeal a second time, to the European Court of Justice (although she has so far ruled that out, perhaps because that would really cause a delay).

I do not see how her leaving office by resigining or by calling and losing a General Election (and her party might not lose one anyway) would make any difference to the need to have a Parliamentary debate and vote on triggering Article 50 before triggering it. I'm not sure about this, but I imagine that a Supreme Court ruling that the government do this would be binding on the government of the day regardless of whether it's the present one or a different one that might come to power following a General Election; in other words, I interpret (rightly or wrongly) the Court ruling as applying across the board until it has been adhered to by whichever government it might fall to to do so.

The matter will, however, be further complicated if the Scottish and Welsh governments and Northern Ireland Assembly decide directly to involve themselves in what follows (provided that Westminster cannot preent this) - and even more so since Scotland and NI voted for UK to remain in EU whereas Wales didn't.