Originally posted on ScribblingsfromSeaham:

According to this report it would appear that a senior judge who will be sitting as a member of the Supreme Court may have compromised her impartiality.

Lady Hale, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, queried whether a “simple Act of Parliament” would be enough to give Theresa May the authority to kick-start the two year countdown to the UK leaving the European Union. Instead, she argued that the Government may have to come up with a “comprehensive replacement” for the 1972 European Communities Act, which authorised Britain’s membership of the then European Economic Community. She also stated: What has to be done instead is perhaps not so clear. But the case is destined for our court, so I must say no more.

The question may well be: P’haps, M’Lady, you have said more than you should anyway – even allowing for the fact it is well known that those born in Yorkshire tend to be a tad outspoken? Is it not a case that her views should be reserved for the ‘judgement’, having heard all the legal argument – and not aired prior?

This situation illustrates that perhaps where those that are to rule on decisions made by the people, they should be elected by the people – rather than being, at the end of the day,  a political appointment? In any event is not the judiciary supposed to be separated from government and thus be impartial?



For far to long people in lands across our planet have been subjugated to rule ranging from one man to groups of men numbering hundreds, all in the name of democracy. The system of democracy which has prevailed, representative democracy, is no longer fit for purpose.

In starting this website - and with the intention to stir debate - some ideas for discussion have already been submitted. It may also help stimulate what I hope will be an interesting discourse if readers refer here, here and here - three articles I wrote in November 2011 and which I believe were the catalyst for the promotion of direct democracy; articles which prompted a 'conversation' with another blogger on the merits of direct democracy. I refer to these articles as a further source which may be of assistance in your deliberations.

In the same vein, Robert Brooke wrote three extremely good articles on the subject of power; here, here and here. I would suggest they too are well worth reading as they provide further food for thought.

As I previously have written on Scribblings from Seaham it is not my intention to lead this debate - yes, I can/will offer guidance and advice if so asked, or where I think it necessary; but having been given the opportunity, which has never previously been afforded, it is up to you to decide how the ills that beset this nation of ours can best be addressed. All that I hope is that you make use of it to the best of your abilities.