How to deal with the Brexit bonuses

Not so long ago, you were denying that the judges even make laws. You're another who has come a long way, Doc. At least, we're at a place where you accept that unelected judges make laws.

Now, let's consider a scenario (I like those). You do something to someone tomorrow. There is no law dealing with the situation at the time you do it. Can the person you did the thing to sue you? Yes, it's possible. It doesn't matter that there was no law forbidding you to do it at the time you did it. The court can make a new law when you appear before it. That's the common law system. In case you didn't grasp that ,I'll repeat it: even though there was no law preventing you from doing that thing, an unelected common law judge can hold you liable for it on the basis of a law that he has just created that day. You could potentially lose your life savings. Can the ECJ do that? No. That's considered grossly unfair in Roman law systems. They call it 'dog law', because you don't know you've done something wrong until the judge shoves your nose in it. So much for the common law being better than the laws produced by the Commission and EU parliament.

Next, the common law judges TAKE ABSOLUTELY NO NOTICE OF PARLIAMENT WHEN THEY MAKE LAWS. If there is no parliamentary law in place when they wish to make a law, they are free to make it, and they do it every day of the week. It wasn't so long ago that you didn't understand that the common law is made by the common law judges, so it comes as no surprise that you are unaware of this.

Next, even when Parliament intervenes to change a law made by an unelected judge, it does not retrospectively override the judge-made law. In the example above, if you were sued and a judge made up a law on the day you appeared in court to find you responsible for damages, you wouldn't get your money back when Parliament changed the law made by the unelected judge. That would be gone forever. And it wouldn't just be your money either. It would take at the very minimum about 18 months for Parliament to change the judge-made law even if it acted with utmost urgency. So, that law would be applied all across the country during those 18 months. And it usually takes A LOT longer than 18 months for Parliament to get around to changing it. It can be decades. Nobody who is sued under that law will ever see a penny of the damages they paid returned to them.

Lastly, and most importantly, there is no difference between what the Commission and what the judges do. Both require parliament's 'consent' to 'make' a law. The only difference is in favour of the Commission, because the Commission must get consent from the EU Parliament before it 'makes' a law, while an unelected judge doesn't need consent - he can introduce his law without anyone's permission and it will remain the law until it is overturned by another unelected judge in a higher court or Parliament finally gets around to repealing it.

Your ignorance is astounding, Doc.