Yet article 50 was passed...
I don't know if it will happen again but I agree with you on this.
An interesting documentary on the supreme court:
One other thought - this legal challenge accepted by the Supreme Court (7 judges apparently) was previously dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Now presumably the judges in those institutions are no legal muppets, so why would the 7 judges in the Supreme Court unanimously disagree with their learned colleagues?
A very small number of people have far too much power, and they are using it in an overtly political manner.
They have now reopened to floodgates to all kinds of vexatious claims, because people now have nothing to lose. This will cost industry millions, because in many cases it will be cheaper and easier to settle rather than contest.
Meanwhile their lordships enjoy their fireproof job security, large salaries, and massive gold plated tax payer funded pensions. They're all right, Jack.
The referendum wasn't legally binding upon Parliament (Cameron's choice), thus due to the Government's decision to press ahead without consulting Parliament on triggering article 50, they left themselves open to challenge in the courts as the Constitution was in play at that point (votes mean little if they are not binding upon Parliament as Parliament can ignore a result if it so wishes but usually won't due to needing people's votes at General Elections).
It boils down to the age old argument - Parliamentary Sovereignty vs Royal Prerogative. All you are doing is wailing against the Constitution and the Rule of Law. You'd have a point if you wanted to discuss how closed off Law is in the UK as a career, especially if you don't have a First Class Honours Degree in Law and the long standing need for reforms to open it up.
Nope, I'm wailing against a very small number of unelected, unaccountable people wielding a disproportionate amount of power, and using it to make political decisions.
That is not rule of law, it is anti-democratic.
You are completely misunderstanding the Constitution. Particularly the part about Parliamentary Sovereignty. Yes the Courts can strike down a law or interpret a law differently than Government, Parliament or the civil service interprets it. But here is the thing, once a court has ruled the Government can introduce a bill before Parliament tooverrule the courts or comply with a judgement as opposition parties will often support a court decision most cases.
Also the moment you start electing Judges (which I guess is something you'd like) is the moment you inject Politics into law, and that can lead down a dangerous path to dictatorship.
I wouldn't totally disagree with that, but unfortunately the judges have already decided to inject politics into the law, so If they are going to do that then they need to be elected and accountable. At the moment they are untouchable and they know it.
Uk government is comprised of three parts.The Executive (PM), the Legislature (Commons and Lords), and the Judiciary (Courts). The purpose of the three parts is to check the actions of the other two and to ensure that no one part as exclusive control.Even though the government is democratically elected into power, the government must still be held accountable to adhering to the laws and regulations and must be answerable for it's action and policies. This is done to avoid rogue leaders or populist movements causing long term harm to the country.
In this case, while we elected the government who chose to remove legal aid for tribunals, the judiciary ruled this action unlawful.
Think about it, without this system, what's to stop an elected PM from changing the law to remove future elections and grant themselves a life term?If they're elected, they can do what they like right?
Yes I get that, but doing that would require passing an act of parliament, which would need the votes of a majority of MPs. That would prevent such an act ever being successful.