Justice and Politics Against Democracy

[jaywalker]

I think it would be improper to comment on an ongoing court case, and I've read convincing arguments by academics that take both sides of the Government's appeal; so have no idea what the members of the Supreme Court will decide.

However, I think there is a more interesting general issue. There is quite a lot of comment (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing is just a distraction, that a democratic choice has been made. There is also a clamour for the executive to implement that choice without further ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply get in the way of the necessary negotiations.

This seems to me to be a fundamental misrecognition of how we thwart power. We know full well that power will take unto itself all means if allowed. It will tend to concentrate itself in few hands. There will be a certainty in its execution - on the claim that "we know" this is the good for all. Embodying 'the people', this has no limits (you do not after all need to look very far to see exemplars of this).

How we have at least to some extent prevented this (for sure, inadequately) has been by insisting on autonomy not heteronomy. The Times today calls for heteronomy, like the other populist tabloids. The commentators invited to pontificate by the BBC last night all called for the same. The people's voice must not be gainsaid - that is democracy.

A very stupid, infantile, notion of democracy. But then we should be against it. The urgency is to re-establish a notion of autonomy. In all walks of life. Not anarchic: rather, based on a notion of the state that requires the individuated voices of the rule of law and the expression of dissensus (politics through parliament, a media uncontrolled by populism or government). This recognises that each should hold the other to account; but on powers constituted in advance: justice interprets the law, parliament establishes it, the police enforce it (not something else), and the media interrogates it. Just as we should strive against heteronomy in the ethics of our own lives.

[uncleglen]

Don't forget the people voted for a government that promised a referendum...

[ianr]

> I think it would be improper to comment on an ongoing court case,

Why?

[red devil]

Have Farage's 100,000 protesters arrived outside the Supreme Court yet?...

[jaywalker]

ianr Wrote:

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

> > I think it would be improper to comment on an

> ongoing court case,

>

> Why?

For the same reason I gave in my post. This must be true of the necessary relative-autonomy of any court case: that they exercise judicial reason not common reason (the autonomy is relative because constrained by the assigned power to act only in a constitutional way as a matter of law). They express this as "impartiality" - but of course, it is really a partiality of a right to interpret the law as-such. That right's autonomy is what I argued for.

What could I say about that from outside the court? I can argue about the terms of that power: but not the particularism of a case.

I do not think this greatly matters - the Supreme Court is currently quite robust. But the principle seems to me worth upholding.

[jaywalker]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Don't forget the people voted for a government

> that promised a referendum...

"the people" was the target of my post. I can only apologise for not making that clear. For you that may be a good - for me it is not.

Then you will accuse me of being anti-democratic. On the basis that democracy = the people I am certainly anti-democratic. This is why I opposed such an idea with the necessity of autonomy in the judiciary, media, and parliament within the powers constituting the state - as an antidote to that monstrosity.

[Seabag]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Don't forget the people voted for a government

> that promised a referendum...

And?

And they voted for a government that delivered a referendum, but little else

Hence we're up shit creek somewhat. So let's not go down the 'the people have voted' route, coz like really, most people haven't considered the options, and in this case 'options' really matter.

I'm fed up with this 'dare defy the will of the people ' bullshit that the May government are putting out. We (that's you too) need the best deal possible. And some of that deal will hurt your ideal of Island life.

But get over it, because we are less than exited by the stupidity of populism and the cark of 'taking control'

[uncleglen]

And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at the moment is any good? We are being shafted by 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a week- whose annual audit has never been ratified. the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have had an excellent education but you have no idea what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or petty crime....

[ratty]

It was the will of the misinformed people at one moment in time. Thats about it.

[JohnL]

red devil Wrote:

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

> Have Farage's 100,000 protesters arrived outside

> the Supreme Court yet?...

No - That strange guy arrived in shorts carrying a Farage placard.

[JohnL]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime....

There's more opportunities than ever before.

Brexit in my opinion will take away opportunities.

[jaywalker]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime...

What you say is true. I have no idea what the dispossessed are suffering.

However, I did not post this thread as for or against Brexit. I wanted to argue for the (relative) autonomy of the judicial system (and of parliament, the media, education, the police, and the other institutions of the state). That autonomy is currently threatened in many ways, not least in the outrage expressed at the fact that this judicial review is taking place.

But you are right in that the basically Hegelian point I made in the post is only one step (the second, necessary one was initiated particularly by Althusser). That is, the state apparatuses in their relative autonomy tend to social reproduction - they stabilise an existing pattern of privilege by validating the identities formed there, so deny the dispossessed a chance.

That is as true of the judicial system (who is locked up and for what) as the education system (who is recognised as 'intelligent', and can then self-recognise as intelligent to self-justify their privilege: a certain 'verbosity' here helps cloud the process).

But dealing with that is not an argument against relative autonomy because without autonomy there is no basis for antagonistic democratic debate (i.e. against social reproduction) there is only a collapse to a general will unchecked - i.e. dictatorship (however 'popular').

[ianr]

> I think it would be improper to comment on an ongoing court case.

Why improper?

[Lowlander]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> And how do you know that 'the deal' we have got at

> the moment is any good? We are being shafted by

> 750 extra politicians who cost us ?63 million a

> week- whose annual audit has never been ratified.

> the current 'deal' is NOT helping the poorer and

> uneducated - even the Archbishop of Canterbury has

> said as much- before Theresa May said so.....some

> of you are extremely verbose and I guess you have

> had an excellent education but you have no idea

> what the dispossessed are suffering- especially as

> they watch their kids sink into a life of drugs or

> petty crime....

The EU parliament costs ?34 million a week....across the entire EU. Let's be generous and say ?1 million a week for the UK.

(It's a fair point, but please get your facts right - it's nowhere near ?63 million a year let alone per week).

Besides, our own Government manages to waste far bigger sums of money - billions per year through shoddy contracting (Capita/Serco et al) and want to spend another ?50 billion on a high speed rail link to Manchester.

[Otta]

jaywalker Wrote:

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

> However, I think there is a more interesting

> general issue. There is quite a lot of comment

> (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice' thing

> is just a distraction, that a democratic choice

> has been made. There is also a clamour for the

> executive to implement that choice without further

> ado - in particular, that Parliament would simply

> get in the way of the necessary negotiations.

This has nothing to do with "justice". It is a simple question as to whether the PM can do what she wants without checking with parliament.

Don't forget it wasn't just tory voters that voted to leave, and far from all tory voters voted to leave. So surely it's right and proper that this is considered in a cross party manner.

People still taling as if this is an attempt to thwart democracy and stop brexit all together, are just worrying for the sake of worrying.

[JohnL]

Otta Wrote:

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

> jaywalker Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > However, I think there is a more interesting

> > general issue. There is quite a lot of comment

> > (not least on TV) that the whole 'Justice'

> thing

> > is just a distraction, that a democratic choice

> > has been made. There is also a clamour for the

> > executive to implement that choice without

> further

> > ado - in particular, that Parliament would

> simply

> > get in the way of the necessary negotiations.

>

>

>

> This has nothing to do with "justice". It is a

> simple question as to whether the PM can do what

> she wants without checking with parliament.

>

> Don't forget it wasn't just tory voters that voted

> to leave, and far from all tory voters voted to

> leave. So surely it's right and proper that this

> is considered in a cross party manner.

>

> People still taling as if this is an attempt to

> thwart democracy and stop brexit all together, are

> just worrying for the sake of worrying.

Of course the Judges could ask that the Scottish Parliament

pass Brexit.

That'd kill it :)

[red devil]

I think I'm in love with Lord Pannick. Genius...

[JohnL]

red devil Wrote:

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

> I think I'm in love with Lord Pannick. Genius...

Pannick on the streets of London, Pannick on the streets of Birmingham.

TM backs down (and wants a Red, White and Blue Brexit)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-agrees-to-publish-brexit-plans-before-triggering-article-50-in-major-uturn-a3413821.html

[red devil]

Another meaningless soundbite. Perhaps she should combine the two next time...

Red, White & Blue Brexit means Red, White & Blue Brexit

[Loz]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> The EU parliament costs ?34 million a

> week....across the entire EU. Let's be generous

> and say ?1 million a week for the UK.

>

> (It's a fair point, but please get your facts

> right - it's nowhere near ?63 million a year let

> alone per week).

>

> Besides, our own Government manages to waste far

> bigger sums of money - billions per year through

> shoddy contracting (Capita/Serco et al) and want

> to spend another ?50 billion on a high speed rail

> link to Manchester.

And then you need to consider what the army of lawyers, administrators and international negotiators that we are going to need over the next 10 years to undo/redo everything. ?63m a week will seem a bargain.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I see Helen Hayes has voted against triggering article 50.

Brexit Vote: 89 MPs Refuse To Back Triggering Article 50 In March - But Government Wins

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56

[Alan Medic]

I like the 'lets wait until after the German ejections' tweet.

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I see Helen Hayes has voted against triggering

> article 50.

> Brexit Vote: 89 MPs Refuse To Back Triggering

> Article 50 In March - But Government Wins

> http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-

> 89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07

> fd553cf1c56

Ken Clarke :)

Brexit could be scuppered today if legislative consent

is required from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

More likely to refer that to EU court if at all IMHO.

[JohnL]

Actually I take that back because the 11 justices won't deliver a verdict until January.

So Brexit could be scuppered today but we won't know until January.

[uncleglen]

ratty Wrote:

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

> It was the will of the misinformed people at one

> moment in time. Thats about it.

How do you know they were misinformed? The people of Wales had a lot of money fro the EU and were told how to use it on hare-brained schemes. Same thing probably happened in the North. Londoners have benefited greatly from the free movement of extremely cheap labour and increases in house prices, and a bottomless pit of renters to fund their 2nd, 3rd etc mortgages. Self-serving bunch of champagne socialists...as per usual