Forum Topic

supreme court

Just a thought.  Whichever side loses out today will they invoke the European Courts of Justice?  This, of course, takes precedence over our courts.  Interesting.

Barbara Shillabeer ● 2612d10 Comments

As I understand it, the ECJ deals only with EU matters, and the case before the Supreme Court is a purely internal UK matter. So, delicious though the irony would be, it seems that if the government lost they wouldn't be able to appeal to the ECJ.

Richard Carter ● 2612d

Agreed Richard. The UK is a sovereign state. The ECJ can only adjudicate on matters where the UK has accepted that it defers powers to EU institutions. Constitutional issues are a matter solely for the UK unless they infrine on other international treaties we've entered into, such as the European Convention of Human Rights or various other international treaties. Can't see anything outside of UK common law and parliamentary precedence applies here, but the first thing for them to decide is whether they have jurisdiction over this action: something English and Scottish courts seem to differ on at the moment!

Michael Ixer ● 2612d

Ms ShillabeerFrom whom did you obtain this advice ?I think you are wrong and are maliciously spreading fake news.A quick scan of Google comes up with this -'The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Union law, but not national law. ... However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply the resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case'.As I understand the matter the Supreme Court will decide on is whether Boris Johnson acted unlawfully by suspending Parliament.Are you suggesting that the ECJ has powers to decide how national Parliaments conduct their proceedings ?I would be interested in your reply.

John Hawkes ● 2612d

Barbara was merely asking a question. Read her post again, this time properly. You jumped in with a passive aggressive post, as usual.🙄

Sue Hammond ● 2612d

E&O: The third sentence should end "  ...defers powers to EU institutions under treaty"; typo in next sentence "infringe" not "infine"!

Michael Ixer ● 2612d

Read again Ms Hammond.She said 'will they' not 'can they' which doubtless was meant as a dig.Unless she was really looking for an understanding of the powers of the ECJ in this matter (which I doubt) that she has now received.Also, is 'passive' agressive the opposite of how many people, though not me (note the Kwasiism), perceive the tone of your posts !!

John Hawkes ● 2612d

I just caught a bit of Lady Hale speaking ahead of today's proceedings and I thought she said something along the lines of the court will not be ruling on any political motive of this prorogation? Did anyone hear all that she said? If I heard it right my hunch is that the prorogation will not be ruled unlawful.

Sue Hammond ● 2612d

"I thought she said something along the lines of the court will not be ruling on any political motive of this prorogation?"If so, how nice to know that politics is above the law. Certainly worth remembering. I assume that also means that Johnson can get away with leaving the EU on October 31st without a deal. Indeed it seems strange that he can announce, effectively, that this is his intention.

David Ainsworth ● 2612d

I could have misheard her David. The radio was on but I wasn't really listening hard iykwim.

Sue Hammond ● 2612d

I love this first post, takes irony to an entirely new level.

Bunny Payne ● 2612d