Brexit: Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

August 9, 2017 Europe , Opinion , OPINION/NEWS , POLITICS , UK

David Dibert photo



Hazel Speed


Here we go again. Lord Neuberger, who is about to retire from his exalted legal position, has expressed concerns regarding whether ECJ Laws or UK Laws, via the Great Repeal Bill, will supervene post Brexit.

When the highest Judges in the UK question such issues it is most concerning ipso facto!

The whole raison d’être of the (Great) Repeal Bill is to revoke instantly any ECJ Jurisdiction within the UK on the very first day the UK leaves the EU.

Far be it for me to challenge such knowledge, and I am not doing so, but do wish to put forward an argument expounded far and wide in the UK and by some MPs of all political Parties.

In a recent article I have discussed various perspectives on this subject, and am amazed that The Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech is still having darts thrown at it.

Surely there cannot be many left living in the UK who have not either volunteered, or been encouraged to tear holes in the results of the Brexit Referendum. Yet how odd, that ordinary individuals who voted for Brexit seem most happy with Mrs May’s Lancaster House Speech and we never hear them complain, though they could surely decry all the metaphorical wolves in sheep clothing which conspire to hinder their democratic Brexit Referendum Majority Vote.

One caveat about the issue raised by the Noble Lord is surely covered in statements already given long ago, in that if any existing ECJ laws are ones which the Government/Parliament vote to be worthy to retain such as any specific employment laws, then if they are retained they will do so under the ‘conversion’ into UK Law on day one after the UK leaves Europe.

Also, if clarification is needed at such a high level then why has it to be sought publicly, when a private letter to the Government should suffice? This point in itself seems divisive, especially as there is still over a year yet before this aspect will kick in and whilst negotiations with the EU are still not past the initial stages yet, and the UK may have to walk away if the EU insists on certain unacceptable terms.

As to the reference in the link herein, that Legal Aid is not so readily available because of cuts, though there may be a modicum of truth in that, the fact remains, that the average person has the view that they never meet anyone who ‘should qualify’ for Legal Aid that can actually get it, so crowd funding fills the void. Surely that proves the point.

To challenge wrong by taking legal action to the Courts is mostly only possible if one has a fat wallet.

Reform of a more pragmatic format would facilitate Justice better, e.g. for a flat, fair and affordable fee, the Prosecutor and Defendant might discuss their issues with evidence and witnesses, one morning or afternoon in Court, and a Judge/people’s jury, decides there and then. No waiting, rituals, rather a basic one page synopsis sent to all parties and the Judge – no briefs to Counsel, reply forms, etc, etc.

The UK legal system is more concerned with fripperies and show, with an over inflated system which clogs up the Court schedules and keeps the due process of law inaccessible to ordinary people of its land.

As to Sir Vince Cable‘s recent remarks that older generations were playing the collective role of a martyr and spoiling the futures of the young people of the UK, such a comment is not only insulting, inaccurate but hypocritical.

Leave voters include representations from younger age groups, through to middle-aged people, and older groups (who, incidentally may have Grandchildren, so why would they vote to Leave the EU if they thought it may hinder their offspring?). Businesses have also voted Leave – so why would they do that if it meant corporate demise?

It is also a redundant argument, as ably pointed out by Frank Field MP within a recent radio debate, e.g ‘Sir Vince Cable was voted in to be an MP by older generations of his constituency.’ A point well made given the age of Sir Vince himself.

Comments are being made that it is also rather pathetic that he won the Leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party as its only ‘volunteer’ Candidate and, because of his former standing, the media is giving him more air time than his predecessor ever achieved, perhaps the real reason he was duly elected Leader.  How many young of today know anything about him, as he represents a former time himself?

If it were not sad, it is quite funny to hear those who are saying ‘how many more retired/former Prime Ministers and MPs are returning to politics to use the Brexit dilemma as their ticket to a second 15 minutes of fame and to achieve some level of political power’.

It may, therefore, be inferred, is Sir Vince himself not holding back today’s youth as an older person; surely the younger generations could have produced a Leader for the Liberal Democrat Party from their own age group.





Hazel Speed

Photo (c) Hazel Speed – used by kind permision to Tuck Magazine

Hazel Speed is a Philosopher, Writer, and Artist with various creative projects at differing stages of development. Her flaship project is an animation which has produced a film short: She has also written an E-novel, ‘Just Suppose…!‘ which is available via the attached link.

Art sites:

Editor review


No Comments Yet!

You can be first to comment this post!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.