Parliament suspension illegal..

[thatdberight]

they said the length of the perogation was illegal..
otherwise every previous perogation was illegal.. this is because in theory there is no time limit to perogation which is obviously totally unacceptable.
imagine a pm paroging parliament for two years...no written element exists as to the length of perogation..it was always a gentlemanly understanding.

in theory boris can parogue parliament with a justification that satisfies the supreme court.. this therefore puts legals over the executive and potentially creates a precedent...they have actually created a law today that was never previously considered.

the big issue is that they have cited no good reason for the length of perogation..there in is the issue..NO GOOD REASON..

i defy anyone to say that that phrase is entirely subjective and nearly impossible to define going forward

Pierogi_z_cebulką.jpg (64.22 KiB) Viewed 3338 times

[Spiral]

they said the length of the perogation was illegal..
otherwise every previous perogation was illegal.. this is because in theory there is no time limit to perogation which is obviously totally unacceptable.
imagine a pm paroging parliament for two years...no written element exists as to the length of perogation..it was always a gentlemanly understanding.

in theory boris can parogue parliament with a justification that satisfies the supreme court.. this therefore puts legals over the executive and potentially creates a precedent...they have actually created a law today that was never previously considered.

the big issue is that they have cited no good reason for the length of perogation..there in is the issue..NO GOOD REASON..

i defy anyone to say that that phrase is entirely subjective and nearly impossible to define going forward

There's a chance that the apparent confusion over the very subtle but significant distinction between an illegal act and an unlawful act could lead to people drawing a whole swathe of misguided conclusions about the behaviour, motives, and role and remit of parliament, the govt, and the courts. So to be clear, Johnson didn't prorogue parliament illegally (to say, committed an act expressly prohibited under UK law), but rather, as the SC adjudged today - and in doing so set a massively significant precedent - determined the act of proroguing parliament for the length of time and under these circumstances to be an overreach of the PM's prerogative powers and had no constitutional legal basis.

The courts haven't overruled on or overturned Brexit (that won't stop the propaganda machine from stating as such). The SC determined that, 1. such an overreach of prerogative powers is justiciable (meaning the courts can on this challenge, and in the future, adjudicate on the extent of prerogative powers - if an application is submitted, it must be said), and 2. clarified a point of law - the scope of prerogative powers - that was before today a sort of grey area of UK constitutional law that hasn't ever really been tested or stretched to breaking point. The supreme court hasn't overruled the government on policy, the executive still runs the country (in theory, at least. Difficult with a minority govt, obviously), and parliament is still sovereign. What the ruling and the challenge as a whole has done is, if anything, strengthened democracy (and I mean that quite literally) by stress-testing the constitution and making clearer the extent of different branches' powers and the lines which separate them. If we were starting a democracy from scratch, defining this separation of power and the institution of checks-and-balances, to use a phrase the Americans use a lot, would be essential in making sure the damn thing works.

[elwaclaret]

You're an easy to fool person - I get it.

I think the more intelligent among us know he's saying what people want to hear.

And I'm not even a Boris fan, but Jezabel certainly isn't anything better.

While I would fully endorse almost all of Corbyn’s sentiment, Not in my wildest dreams could I envisage this Labour Party front bench having the wit to achieve any of it, before making it economically impossible through mismanagement and incompetence. The brains are out of favour.

[Goalposts]

There's a chance that the apparent confusion over the very subtle but significant distinction between an illegal act and an unlawful act could lead to people drawing a whole swathe of misguided conclusions about the behaviour, motives, and role and remit of parliament, the govt, and the courts. So to be clear, Johnson didn't prorogue parliament illegally (to say, committed an act expressly prohibited under UK law), but rather, as the SC adjudged today - and in doing so set a massively significant precedent - determined the act of proroguing parliament for the length of time and under these circumstances to be an overreach of the PM's prerogative powers and had no constitutional legal basis.

The courts haven't overruled on or overturned Brexit (that won't stop the propaganda machine from stating as such). The SC determined that, 1. such an overreach of prerogative powers is justiciable (meaning the courts can on this challenge, and in the future, adjudicate on the extent of prerogative powers - if an application is submitted, it must be said), and 2. clarified a point of law - the scope of prerogative powers - that was before today a sort of grey area of UK constitutional law that hasn't ever really been tested or stretched to breaking point. The supreme court hasn't overruled the government on policy, the executive still runs the country (in theory, at least. Difficult with a minority govt, obviously), and parliament is still sovereign. What the ruling and the challenge as a whole has done is, if anything, strengthened democracy (and I mean that quite literally) by stress-testing the constitution and making clearer the extent of different branches' powers and the lines which separate them. If we were starting a democracy from scratch, defining this separation of power and the institution of checks-and-balances, to use a phrase the Americans use a lot, would be essential in making sure the damn thing works.

spiral absolutely see where your coming from, and better articulated than the press and those making political capitol.
what are your thoughts though on the definition of reasonable cause

[thatdberight]

There's a chance that the apparent confusion over the very subtle but significant distinction between an illegal act and an unlawful act could lead to people drawing a whole swathe of misguided conclusions about the behaviour, motives, and role and remit of parliament, the govt, and the courts. So to be clear, Johnson didn't prorogue parliament illegally (to say, committed an act expressly prohibited under UK law), but rather, as the SC adjudged today - and in doing so set a massively significant precedent - determined the act of proroguing parliament for the length of time and under these circumstances to be an overreach of the PM's prerogative powers and had no constitutional legal basis.

The courts haven't overruled on or overturned Brexit (that won't stop the propaganda machine from stating as such). The SC determined that, 1. such an overreach of prerogative powers is justiciable (meaning the courts can on this challenge, and in the future, adjudicate on the extent of prerogative powers - if an application is submitted, it must be said), and 2. clarified a point of law - the scope of prerogative powers - that was before today a sort of grey area of UK constitutional law that hasn't ever really been tested or stretched to breaking point. The supreme court hasn't overruled the government on policy, the executive still runs the country (in theory, at least. Difficult with a minority govt, obviously), and parliament is still sovereign. What the ruling and the challenge as a whole has done is, if anything, strengthened democracy (and I mean that quite literally) by stress-testing the constitution and making clearer the extent of different branches' powers and the lines which separate them. If we were starting a democracy from scratch, defining this separation of power and the institution of checks-and-balances, to use a phrase the Americans use a lot, would be essential in making sure the damn thing works.

Good post.

And despite being for both the current government and Brexit (and if need be a 'no-deal' Brexit) the government cannot have untrammelled rights to close down parliament and their actions in this specific did not sit right with me. Should the country be, in my view, foolish enough to vote in some of the current alternative governments on offer, I think many of those complaining today would be grateful for checks and balances.

[elwaclaret]

There's a chance that the apparent confusion over the very subtle but significant distinction between an illegal act and an unlawful act could lead to people drawing a whole swathe of misguided conclusions about the behaviour, motives, and role and remit of parliament, the govt, and the courts. So to be clear, Johnson didn't prorogue parliament illegally (to say, committed an act expressly prohibited under UK law), but rather, as the SC adjudged today - and in doing so set a massively significant precedent - determined the act of proroguing parliament for the length of time and under these circumstances to be an overreach of the PM's prerogative powers and had no constitutional legal basis.

The courts haven't overruled on or overturned Brexit (that won't stop the propaganda machine from stating as such). The SC determined that, 1. such an overreach of prerogative powers is justiciable (meaning the courts can on this challenge, and in the future, adjudicate on the extent of prerogative powers - if an application is submitted, it must be said), and 2. clarified a point of law - the scope of prerogative powers - that was before today a sort of grey area of UK constitutional law that hasn't ever really been tested or stretched to breaking point. The supreme court hasn't overruled the government on policy, the executive still runs the country (in theory, at least. Difficult with a minority govt, obviously), and parliament is still sovereign. What the ruling and the challenge as a whole has done is, if anything, strengthened democracy (and I mean that quite literally) by stress-testing the constitution and making clearer the extent of different branches' powers and the lines which separate them. If we were starting a democracy from scratch, defining this separation of power and the institution of checks-and-balances, to use a phrase the Americans use a lot, would be essential in making sure the damn thing works.

Very nicely put, Parliament using the Law Lords to over rule the leader... it is a dark day for the Cromwell’s. Time for the Reformation!

[Spiral]

spiral absolutely see where your coming from, and better articulated than the press and those making political capitol.
what are your thoughts though on the definition of reasonable cause

Not a legal scholar, just an armchair politician here, so bear in mind that much of what I post will be at best, conjecture, at worst, b0llocks! But it's worth noting that, from my understanding at least, the supreme court only rules on the scope of prerogative powers when the use of those prerogative powers infringes upon the rights codified in law (I think) of an individual or individuals. Moving over to the statute book every single last bit of power conferred upon the crown by God (lol) and executed through Royal prerogative by the PM is too big a job to be done well enough to be useful, if nothing else, and also doesn't allow much flexibility, so the courts would never neuter the PM; but the case was brought forward on the basis that prorogation stopped parliamentarians from doing their job, so the fight - and the determination of which takes precedent, is this: the govt's rationale for prorogation (which seemed to be, "because we can") vs the rights of parliamentarians to sit. If, say, the French were invading us, and the govt, using prerogative powers, decided it needed to repossess a private farm without compensation in which to to place a cannon, that would represent reasonable cause, because the French were invading. If the govt used prerogative powers to repossess a private farm without compensation to place a cannon just in case the French invade, that would be an overreach of prerogative powers because it infringes upon the rights of the land owner and the justification is arguably unreasonable. (By the way, something like this actually happened in the early 20th century but I can't remember the case exactly.)

To go off on a tangent a little, the courts have to be the sober, apolitical arbiters of common law that stop governments from trampling over the populace, otherwise you end up with people acting above the law and you're no longer a democracy, and it's reasons like this why that "enemies of the people" headline and the rhetoric surrounding it absolutely made my, and other remainers' blood boil. In a more decent world, Brexit would be framed as a policy, because that's essentially what it is; it's a policy of repatriation of powers and disentanglement from a bunch of treaties and technical agreements, and not the existential question it is being framed as (for obvious reasons).

edited for a bunch of typos

[claret_in_exile]

How can anyone pass a judgement on the conversation between Boris and the Queen?

Unless you were there or transcripts made public?

Are we expected to make things up to form an opinion?

This is exactly why the Supreme Court can't judge whether he lied to Her Majesty - she's not going to betray that confidence. Indeed, the Royal House reacted with scorn when that Pig Lover shared some details of his conversations with the Queen!

[If it be your will]

Not a legal scholar, just an armchair politician here, so bear in mind that much of what I post will be at best, conjecture, at worst, b0llocks! But it's worth noting that, from my understanding at least, the supreme court only rules on the scope of prerogative powers when the use of those prerogative powers infringes upon the rights codified in law (I think) of an individual or individuals. Moving over to the statute book every single last bit of power conferred upon the crown by God (lol) and executed through Royal prerogative by the PM is too big a job to be done well enough to be useful, if nothing else, and also doesn't allow much flexibility, so the courts would never neuter the PM; but the case was brought forward on the basis that prorogation stopped parliamentarians from doing their job, so the fight - and the determination of which takes precedent, is this: the govt's rationale for prorogation (which seemed to be, "because we can") vs the rights of parliamentarians to sit. If, say, the French were invading us, and the govt, using prerogative powers, decided it needed to repossess a private farm without compensation in which to to place a cannon, that would represent reasonable cause, because the French were invading. If the govt used prerogative powers to repossess a private farm without compensation to place a cannon just in case the French invade, that would be an overreach of prerogative powers because it infringes upon the rights of the land owner and the justification is arguably unreasonable. (By the way, something like this actually happened in the early 20th century but I can't remember the case exactly.)

To go off on a tangent a little, the courts have to be the sober, apolitical arbiters of common law that stop governments from trampling over the populace, otherwise you end up with people acting above the law and you're no longer a democracy, and it's reasons like this why that "enemies of the people" headline and the rhetoric surrounding it absolutely made my, and other remainers' blood boil. In a more decent world, Brexit would be framed as a policy, because that's essentially what it is; it's a policy of repatriation of powers and disentanglement from a bunch of treaties and technical agreements, and not the existential question it is being framed as (for obvious reasons).

edited for a bunch of typos

So will 'Lying to the Queen' appear on his next CRB check or not? Now that would be cool.

[Spiral]

So will 'Lying to the Queen' appear on his next CRB check or not? Now that would be cool.

I'm fairly sure I'm right in reading that as a tongue in cheek, flippant comment, IIBYW, but just in case I've misread the tone, whether he did or did not lie is irrelevant because the supreme court wasn't ruling on his motives. They were ruling on the use and scope of his powers.

[dsr]

May I suggest that you read the statement of the right honourable John Major, submitted as an intervenor to the supreme Court.

It is not only highly critical of johnson's actions, but summarises:-
a) his failure to deny that the prorogation was made with even a partial intention to frustrate parliamentary scrutiny. He managed to avoid giving evidence to a committee which was seeking clarity on those issues by taking his ball home with him.
b) a failure to produce any documentation which denied that this was the case and perhaps more telling
c) an apparent inability to get ANY civil servant involved with the process to make a statement of truth to support this fiction that the lengthy prorogation period was primarily to "prepare a queen's speech".

So, what we have is a pm not denying that the prorogation was for a bad reason yet failing to provide evidence that it was brought for a good reason.

You'd have thought that even he could have come up with some credible alternative - impending party conferences, maybe.

Lucky John major isn't still an MP. He would no doubt have had the whip removed......

Even more lucky he isn't still a PM. Because as PM, he was more than happy to use prorogation to stop the "cash for questions" report being published. I know politicians are supposed to be hypocrites, but he takes it to a new level.

[If it be your will]

I'm fairly sure I'm right in reading that as a tongue in cheek, flippant comment, IIBYW, but just in case I've misread the tone, whether he did or did not lie is irrelevant because the supreme court wasn't ruling on his motives. They were ruling on the use and scope of his powers.

It sort of was but with a semi-genuine question contained in it.

Do you know, your 2 sentence explanation in response makes the situation clearer than any other explanation I've seen, anywhere. I finally get it now!

[elwaclaret]

Laws used date back to the time of Devine monarchy.... we’ve had most of the big events of National history, since this law was written, it predates the worlds oldest modern democracy... the three towers of our state have a new balance.

What a day... and the start of an impeachment of a (seemingly popular) president...

Old Chinese curses abound. Interesting times.

[Paul Waine]

Posting Jonathan (Lord) Sumption's comment piece from The Times, 3pm this afternoon.

I've been lucky to meet Jonathan Sumption when he was a (mere) QC. (He was acting for the firm I was working for at the time). He's an extremely smart guy - and very personable.

I've not read the article, yet. I'll read once I've shared it with you all.

Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism
Lord Sumption

Where does law begin and politics end? Any government’s relationship with parliament is bound to be political. Ever since the 18th century, ministers have made use of the power to prorogue or (until 2010) dissolve parliament for political advantage.

There was a consensus that they should not abuse the power, but what amounted to abuse was itself a political question, not a legal one. What is revolutionary about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it makes the courts the ultimate arbiters of what political reasons are good enough.

Yet the Supreme Court’s judgment should be welcomed even by those who believe, as I do, that politics is not the proper business of courts of law. The objection to judicial intervention in politics is that it undermines the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making. The court’s judgment, however, is not concerned with the political issues surrounding Brexit. It is concerned with the process by which those issues are to be resolved. Its effect is to reinstate parliament at the heart of that process.

The question for the rest of us is whether we still believe in the parliamentary model that the Supreme Court has vindicated. Underlying the debate about the merits of leaving the European Union, there is an even more fundamental conflict between two opposing claims to democratic legitimacy, one based on the referendum and the other on the parliamentary process. Most of our difficulties over the past three years have arisen from the misguided attempt to insert a referendum into a fundamentally parliamentary system.

I have lost count of the number of times that prominent Brexiters have declared that by authorising the referendum Parliament delegated its sovereignty to the majority. The argument is completely untenable. Leaving the EU and creating other arrangements to replace it requires new laws. It requires complex political judgments about our future relations with the EU.

Parliament is the supreme source of law. It is also the only body to which ministers can be continually accountable for their political judgments about Brexit or anything else. It is central to our whole political system. A referendum can serve none of parliament’s functions. It is not a source of law. It is not a mechanism for holding ministers to account. It is a snapshot of public opinion, and as such an important political fact for parliamentarians to take into account. But that is all it is.

The parliamentary process is fundamental in another, even more important sense. It is a mechanism for accommodating opposing opinions and interests in our society. To gain power, political parties have to appeal to a wider base than tribal faithfuls and single-issue fanatics.

A legislature whose membership reflects the balance of political parties is therefore a natural forum for compromise. In a Brexit context this might mean membership of the customs union or the European Economic Area or something similar under a different name. These half-way houses are in many ways impure and unsatisfactory. Few people would make them their first choice. But it is probable that a larger proportion of the electorate could live with them than with any other solution.

Appeals to the referendum as an alternative source of legitimacy are really calls to reject compromise. Proroguing parliament was a method of circumventing the political process, and avoiding the pressure to compromise that is inherent in it. It is absurd to criticise the House of Commons for being just as divided as those whom it represents; and dangerous to obstruct its attempts, however laborious and accident-prone, to accommodate our divisions and avoid the aggressive extremes at either end of the Brexit spectrum.

The British constitution famously consists of many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.

The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.

The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.

The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.

Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year

[elwaclaret]

Interesting read that Paul Waine. One thing I was just saying to my other half. Constitutionally, potentially any British subject could potentially stop any and every decision made in parliament. We lurch ever closer to America even as remainders aim for Europe.

Welcome to the Federal Unrepublic of British European Islands.

[Paul Waine]

Posting Jonathan (Lord) Sumption's comment piece from The Times, 3pm this afternoon.

I've been lucky to meet Jonathan Sumption when he was a (mere) QC. (He was acting for the firm I was working for at the time). He's an extremely smart guy - and very personable.

I've not read the article, yet. I'll read once I've shared it with you all.

Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism
Lord Sumption

Where does law begin and politics end? Any government’s relationship with parliament is bound to be political. Ever since the 18th century, ministers have made use of the power to prorogue or (until 2010) dissolve parliament for political advantage.

The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.

The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.

Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year

I wasn't sure if I could "reply" to my own post - then I recalled than we can all "bump" our posts to put a thread back to the top.

So, my views. Very wise words from Jonathan Sumption. I wish I could have written and expressed myself even half as well as he has written.

I've no argument with what JS writes. I might suggest that our parliamentarians have let us down, just as much as our governments and that these failings run back at least as far as the Lisbon Treaty. I'm sure JS would have argued that that is an entirely different point. He may even agree with me on that one, or he may not. His point is on the value to our democracy of the Supreme Court's judgement today and the fallacy that a simple remain/leave referendum could be resolved without parliament playing its part in the way forward.

Of course, JS was a member of the Supreme Court for Gina Miller #1 - if no one minds me referring to the first "Brexit" case in that manner. I was entirely in agreement with his verdict on that occasion, also.

Now, let's get back to restoring our democratic processes.

[tarkys_ears]

Pierogi_z_cebulką.jpg

I wish people WERE banging on about perogis!

[martin_p]

Posting Jonathan (Lord) Sumption's comment piece from The Times, 3pm this afternoon.

I've been lucky to meet Jonathan Sumption when he was a (mere) QC. (He was acting for the firm I was working for at the time). He's an extremely smart guy - and very personable.

I've not read the article, yet. I'll read once I've shared it with you all.

Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism
Lord Sumption

Where does law begin and politics end? Any government’s relationship with parliament is bound to be political. Ever since the 18th century, ministers have made use of the power to prorogue or (until 2010) dissolve parliament for political advantage.

There was a consensus that they should not abuse the power, but what amounted to abuse was itself a political question, not a legal one. What is revolutionary about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it makes the courts the ultimate arbiters of what political reasons are good enough.

Yet the Supreme Court’s judgment should be welcomed even by those who believe, as I do, that politics is not the proper business of courts of law. The objection to judicial intervention in politics is that it undermines the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making. The court’s judgment, however, is not concerned with the political issues surrounding Brexit. It is concerned with the process by which those issues are to be resolved. Its effect is to reinstate parliament at the heart of that process.

The question for the rest of us is whether we still believe in the parliamentary model that the Supreme Court has vindicated. Underlying the debate about the merits of leaving the European Union, there is an even more fundamental conflict between two opposing claims to democratic legitimacy, one based on the referendum and the other on the parliamentary process. Most of our difficulties over the past three years have arisen from the misguided attempt to insert a referendum into a fundamentally parliamentary system.

I have lost count of the number of times that prominent Brexiters have declared that by authorising the referendum Parliament delegated its sovereignty to the majority. The argument is completely untenable. Leaving the EU and creating other arrangements to replace it requires new laws. It requires complex political judgments about our future relations with the EU.

Parliament is the supreme source of law. It is also the only body to which ministers can be continually accountable for their political judgments about Brexit or anything else. It is central to our whole political system. A referendum can serve none of parliament’s functions. It is not a source of law. It is not a mechanism for holding ministers to account. It is a snapshot of public opinion, and as such an important political fact for parliamentarians to take into account. But that is all it is.

The parliamentary process is fundamental in another, even more important sense. It is a mechanism for accommodating opposing opinions and interests in our society. To gain power, political parties have to appeal to a wider base than tribal faithfuls and single-issue fanatics.

A legislature whose membership reflects the balance of political parties is therefore a natural forum for compromise. In a Brexit context this might mean membership of the customs union or the European Economic Area or something similar under a different name. These half-way houses are in many ways impure and unsatisfactory. Few people would make them their first choice. But it is probable that a larger proportion of the electorate could live with them than with any other solution.

Appeals to the referendum as an alternative source of legitimacy are really calls to reject compromise. Proroguing parliament was a method of circumventing the political process, and avoiding the pressure to compromise that is inherent in it. It is absurd to criticise the House of Commons for being just as divided as those whom it represents; and dangerous to obstruct its attempts, however laborious and accident-prone, to accommodate our divisions and avoid the aggressive extremes at either end of the Brexit spectrum.

The British constitution famously consists of many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.

The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.

The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.

The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.

Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year

Those who think the referendum is the be all and end all of democracy need to read and digest this, then read it again.

[Paul Waine]

Interesting read that Paul Waine. One thing I was just saying to my other half. Constitutionally, potentially any British subject could potentially stop any and every decision made in parliament. We lurch ever closer to America even as remainders aim for Europe.

Welcome to the Federal Unrepublic of British European Islands.

Hi elwa, oh, I wish you'd not written that. I'd enjoyed reading Jonathan Sumption's comment and appreciating his arguments. I hadn't thought of the SC judgement as moving the UK closer to any one political body or another. I hope not - and I hope this thread will not become an United States of Europe v United States of America debate in any form.

[elwaclaret]

Hi elwa, oh, I wish you'd not written that. I'd enjoyed reading Jonathan Sumption's comment and appreciating his arguments. I hadn't thought of the SC judgement as moving the UK closer to any one political body or another. I hope not - and I hope this thread will not become an United States of Europe v United States of America debate in any form.

Couldn’t agree more. I voted to leave to avoid being sucked into federalism, and they’re doing even without Europe. Amazing stuff when it comes down to looking ahead where this could alter everything.

[Spiral]

Interesting read that Paul Waine. One thing I was just saying to my other half. Constitutionally, potentially any British subject could potentially stop any and every decision made in parliament. We lurch ever closer to America even as remainders aim for Europe.

Welcome to the Federal Unrepublic of British European Islands.

Realistically, that's not quite the case. Yes, any private citizen could make an application to the supreme court (and if I'm not mistaken, only after going through lower courts, but I stand to be corrected on that one) but the supreme court has the right to deny any application it deems to be outside its constitutional remit (and indeed, not all applications are heard) and any blatantly frivolous and patently obstructive challenge would be so prohibitively expensive for the applicant as to render the entire process futile.

And, at the risk of stating the blinding obvious, any government could avoid the hassle by just acting lawfully!

[If it be your will]

Posting Jonathan (Lord) Sumption's comment piece from The Times, 3pm this afternoon.

If I've got this right, he's made a persuasive argument that no UK referendum can ever be legally binding if it requires Parliament to pass laws in order to enact the result.

This is quite a conclusion - that any UK referendum can, at a fundamental level, only ever be considered an opinion poll. Fascinating. Presumably this would also apply to a second EU referendum, too.

[elwaclaret]

Realistically, that's not quite the case. Yes, any private citizen could make an application to the supreme court (and if I'm not mistaken, only after going through lower courts, but I stand to be corrected on that one) but the supreme court has the right to deny any application it deems to be outside its constitutional remit (and indeed, not all applications are heard) and any blatantly frivolous and patently obstructive challenge would be so prohibitively expensive for the applicant as to render the entire process futile.

And, at the risk of stating the blinding obvious, any government could avoid the hassle by just acting lawfully!

Not making a political point for once my mate lol. It’s a constitutional one. Much bigger than anything. They’ve used law from pre democratic Britain... the Stuart’s were the last change to the system... the Glorious revolution put in place ‘our democracy’ The three pillars are equal under the law... parliament deals with the crown to make law and have the power to arrest MP’s in breach of parliament.... Judges as unelected officers enact and advise parliament, Parliament could send Johnston to prison without this show trial (if they wanted to and had the balls / believed they were justified) instead they’ve crossed the great divides of our safety system at parliaments own behest. We are now Federal.

(Edit 2’3)) Genuine appraisal, if any legal historians want to enlighten me, I am really interested to approach this with an open mind. It potentially blows Brexit into ... meh as I’m reading it.
Sorry edited for additional clarity

[Paul Waine]

If I've got this right, he's made a persuasive argument that no UK referendum can ever be legally binding if it requires Parliament to pass laws in order to enact the result.

This is quite a conclusion - that any UK referendum can, at a fundamental level, only ever be considered an opinion poll. Fascinating. Presumably this would also apply to a second EU referendum, too.

Hi iibyw, I read it as saying that "leave" still had an enormous amount of detail to be considered and negotiated and this required laws to be passed. Yes, maybe it does mean that a second referendum is no more decisive than the first....

I wonder, if Lisbon Treaty had included all the terms that applied if a member state had exercises Art 50 rights (and obligations) and Lisbon Treaty was already UK law, would a "leave" vote have been effective, because there was no further legislation to enact? Similarly, would a "remain" vote have the same effect?

And, perhaps, if parliament had taken all the decisions necessary to make the outcome of a referendum legally binding that it would be legally binding.

I need to get some sleep!

[If it be your will]

Hi iibyw, I read it as saying that "leave" still had an enormous amount of detail to be considered and negotiated and this required laws to be passed. Yes, maybe it does mean that a second referendum is no more decisive than the first....

I wonder, if Lisbon Treaty had included all the terms that applied if a member state had exercises Art 50 rights (and obligations) and Lisbon Treaty was already UK law, would a "leave" vote have been effective, because there was no further legislation to enact? Similarly, would a "remain" vote have the same effect?

And, perhaps, if parliament had taken all the decisions necessary to make the outcome of a referendum legally binding that it would be legally binding.

I need to get some sleep!

Yes, possibly yes, I think.

So if any referendum (on any matter) is to be 'legally binding', all necessary legislation would have to be passed before the referendum took place, including the necessary legislation for the result to be enacted automatically following the count. That way, once the results are in, it just 'happened', without parliament having to do anything.

Yes, I get how that could work.

[elwaclaret]

Constitutionally Johnston could feesably even ignore the Judgement and force Parliament to arrest him themselves... the proper constitutional process. Now that is a place in history. Now that would make them pee or get off the pot.

[Spiral]

Constitutionally Johnston could feesably even ignore the Judgement and force Parliament to arrest him themselves... the proper constitutional process. Now that is a place in history. Now that would make them pee or get off the pot.

Again, he hasn't acted illegally and there's no judgement to 'ignore' as such because the judgement was that, basically, prorogation didn't happen and he had no legal authority to call it. He hasn't actually been found in contempt of parliament in any of his...what...five days? sitting as PM and besides, even if he had there are more civil and effective means of bringing him to heel than the archaic but admittedly hilarious would-be spectacle of literally arresting him and throwing him in the cells.

He still has a constitutionally endowed right to request parliament be prorogued for a shorter period of time and the Queen would be constitutionally obligated to grant it, but, based on the govt's own argument that an extended prorogation was lawful on the grounds that parliament had within its capacity the ability to block prorogation by way of an amendment to a bill, (a busted argument, now it seems, though I'm not sure if the ruling means the argument is legally baseless or just not strong enough to justify an extended prorogation), parliament could, and would/will scupper any such attempt to prorogue by amendment/emergency debate, or, far more likely, would go for a simple VONC before he tries any more stunts. We'll end up with a letter-writing government seeking and being granted an extension before calling a GE. There's no way Johnson is asking for an extension, and with the small window of time available I doubt parliament would waste its own time with the theatre of contempt proceedings. Enough political capital has already been cultivated with the SC ruling. He isn't gonna' look any more of a crook/martyr (take your pick) than he already does. No fetters, unfortunately! Down to business, now. Geoffrey Cox will be the first scalp.

[Bfcboyo]

Have a look at how Canterbury voted at the last election:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/con ... /E14000619" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will be the North that starts to become suprisingly blue.

[fatboy47]

It will be the North that starts to become suprisingly blue.

Indeed.

Unwashed and uneducated plebs are far more easily conned and brainwashed than the chattering classes of middle England.

[Spijed]

It will be the North that starts to become suprisingly blue.

In what way?

The Brexit party might get votes up North but because of feelings towards Margaret Thatcher and other Conservative leaders Labour voters will never ever vote for the Tory party in any significant numbers.

[Siddo]

Once again l am in absolute awe that posters on here have noticed things that the top 11 judges in the country, probably the world, have missed, and how much knowledge we have on top level legal proceedings.

[Heathclaret]

Indeed.

Unwashed and uneducated plebs are far more easily conned and brainwashed than the chattering classes of middle England.

Sadly this is true. Why else would any working class person ally themselves with the likes of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and the unlikeliest of working class heroes, Farage. I live in Lincolnshire and recently heard the thoughts of a local farmer, much to his disbelief, other farmers had voted for Brexit, he likened it to Turkeys voting for Christmas.

[Lancasterclaret]

Everyone calmed down a bit now and realised that having an independent judiciary overrule an executive without a parliamentary majority which is trying to rule without the consent of parliament a good thing?

Jolly good!

[Lancasterclaret]

Disappointing to hear that the government have no intention of apologising for breaking the law.

Not a good look

[Paul Waine]

Everyone calmed down a bit now and realised that having an independent judiciary overrule an executive without a parliamentary majority which is trying to rule without the consent of parliament a good thing?

Jolly good!

Good morning, Lancs. Thing is, I don't think the absence of a parliamentary majority even came into consideration in the SC decisions. Jonathan Sumption had interesting comments to make on R4 this morning. If you've not already done so, I recommend reading his Times article - posted above.

Have a great day.

[Lancasterclaret]

Good morning, Lancs. Thing is, I don't think the absence of a parliamentary majority even came into consideration in the SC decisions. Jonathan Sumption had interesting comments to make on R4 this morning. If you've not already done so, I recommend reading his Times article - posted above.

Have a great day.

Neither did Brexit apparently, but today its all about how its frustrating the will of the people.

Is there anyone Brexiteers won't blame for the imperfections of their vision, and the frankly illegal ways they are going about it?

Have a great day too, and think on about what is important and what isn't when it comes to things like this.

[RMutt]

People vote against their own interests because they are persuaded to do so by the press. It’s like advertising unhealthy food or other stuff we don’t need, the power of persuasion over reason. It’s an easy message to put across, blame the ‘foreigner’ or the feckless for our problems. Put it in stark simple language or headlines. People see it over someone’s shoulder on the bus, people down the pub repeat it. It spreads. It’s made worse by the television news programmes often repeating newspaper stories like they are news. I see the Mail and the Mirror fairly regularly, the difference in their take on things is amazing. Either one equally persuasive but the right leaning papers outnumber the left significantly. Remember ‘ lt’s the Sun wot won it’ and they’re still winning it.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, possibly yes, I think.

So if any referendum (on any matter) is to be 'legally binding', all necessary legislation would have to be passed before the referendum took place, including the necessary legislation for the result to be enacted automatically following the count. That way, once the results are in, it just 'happened', without parliament having to do anything.

Yes, I get how that could work.

So, next time a referendum is suggested the electorate should insist on all of these steps being in place first before the subject is put to a vote.

The specifics of Brexit however also required negotiation of both the withdrawal agreement and the future trade relationship with rEU and foreign relations and treaties have always been the preserve of the gov't. So, logically, these things also needed to be in place before the referendum. It's a pity none of our politicians were wise enough to notice this before we started "digging the hole we are now in."

[2 Bee Holed]

I voted leave.
One of the reasons for this was that I wanted parliament to make all our laws and our court to be the highest court no European involvement. Ie for the UK to be sovereign.
Now to shut parliament down in order to avoid scrutiny is quite frankly anti democratic.
If he was to get away with this it sets a presedent that makes it much easier for a dictator to emerge in the future.

[Paul Waine]

Neither did Brexit apparently, but today its all about how its frustrating the will of the people.

Is there anyone Brexiteers won't blame for the imperfections of their vision, and the frankly illegal ways they are going about it?

Have a great day too, and think on about what is important and what isn't when it comes to things like this.

Is it on the Brexit thread that I read yesterday (or maybe Monday) that someone suggests that only people with IQ below 80 voted for Brexit. I think this was accompanied by a suggestion that an intelligence test (or some other form of testing) should be required before anyone is allowed to vote.

I defend the right of everyone to have equal voting rights, however informed or uninformed they may be and without regard to the subject of the vote.

It would be great if someone can find that post and look into the measure of IQ and how it is distributed around 100.

[martin_p]

If I've got this right, he's made a persuasive argument that no UK referendum can ever be legally binding if it requires Parliament to pass laws in order to enact the result.

This is quite a conclusion - that any UK referendum can, at a fundamental level, only ever be considered an opinion poll. Fascinating. Presumably this would also apply to a second EU referendum, too.

This is absolutely the case yes, it’s why referenda have been traditionally avoided by uk governments. There effectively no more than a state sponsored opinion poll. We can all argue about what moral imperative there is to implement the result, but they don’t force the government or parliament to do anything.

[claretspice]

Interesting read that Paul Waine. One thing I was just saying to my other half. Constitutionally, potentially any British subject could potentially stop any and every decision made in parliament. We lurch ever closer to America even as remainders aim for Europe.

Welcome to the Federal Unrepublic of British European Islands.

Just wanted to pick this up - because it is incorrect.

This judgement does NOT mean that any British subject could challenge each and every decision parliament - because this judgment does not in any way question a decision made IN parliament, but rather a decision made TO parliament by the executive/crown/prime minister.

In truth, I can't help but feel that the significance of the precedent that this case sets is overstated. Judicial Review is a long established mechanism for clarifying the limits of the powers of the government, and in particular the use of so-called prerogative powers.

The really novel feature of this decision is that it confirms that the power to prorogue parliament is not a special category of power that cannot be reviewed by the courts. Which when you think about it, is common sense, because if there are no limits to the power to prorogue, then the prime minister/monarch could shut down parliament whenever it liked, to achieve whatever it wanted. Which obviously cannot possibly be right.

So this case sets a precedent, but it will only be used in the highly unlikely event that a prime minister/monarch again wants to use it do frustrate parliament without good reason.

[elwaclaret]

[quote="claretspice"]Just wanted to pick this up - because it is incorrect.

This judgement does NOT mean that any British subject could challenge each and every decision parliament - because this judgment does not in any way question a decision made IN parliament, but rather a decision made TO parliament by the executive/crown/prime minister.

In truth, I can't help but feel that the significance of the precedent that this case sets is overstated. Judicial Review is a long established mechanism for clarifying the limits of the powers of the government, and in particular the use of so-called prerogative powers.

The really novel feature of this decision is that it confirms that the power to prorogue parliament is not a special category of power that cannot be reviewed by the courts. Which when you think about it, is common sense, because if there are no limits to the power to prorogue, then the prime minister/monarch could shut down parliament whenever it liked, to achieve whatever it wanted. Which obviously cannot possibly be right.


Watched a lot of constitutional experts on news 24. Not only has the tripiller been undermined. An unelected elite have imposed its will on Parliament, at Parliaments behest, they have claimed authority over Parliament by definition. More than one arguing that not only has Parliament been undermined but The Royal authority in the shape of the Lords. It is a power grab by the Supreme Court . By getting involved they have not only threatened our constitution, but driven a bus through it. An unelected body of ten people can hold sway over Government... we are no longer a democracy. We have become a Judicial quasi dictatorship. We either need to vote for our Supreme Court judges now or Boris needs to make Parliament itself arrest him for ignoring the Supreme Court , thus keeping our Constitution. If Johnston continues to push, Parliament can either arrest him and follow constitutional process.... putting Johnston with the constitutional defender rather than most dangerous threat. Parliament have made the country Federal, at best. We are now a dictatorship in all but name.

[claretspice]

[quote="elwaclaret"][/quote]

I'm sorry, but this is tosh, and whatever constitutional experts you've been listening to on News 24, you've been tuning out of the ones who actually know what they're talking about, or indeed who have read the judgment.

The courts have NOT claimed authority over Parliament. They go to great lengths in the judgment to do precisely the opposite - uphold the "supremacy" of parliament over the executive AND the courts.

This case was absolutely nothing, 0%, about the court reviewing the decisions of parliament. The court reviewed the actions of the government to ensure they were within the limits of the powers that the government had at law. It decided that the government had acted beyond its powers precisely because any other judgment would have meant the executive - i.e. the prime minister, or even the monarch - being able to subvert the will of parliament on a whim.

In other words, far from establishing a dictatorship, the court reached its decision to ensure that no politician can act as a dictator, by shutting down parliament.

The court expressed no opinion whatsoever on any action or decision taken by parliament, or what parliament should do. It's really important that this is understood and that people aren't misled - whether deliberately or by lack of understanding.

[elwaclaret]

Again, he hasn't acted illegally and there's no judgement to 'ignore' as such because the judgement was that, basically, prorogation didn't happen and he had no legal authority to call it. He hasn't actually been found in contempt of parliament in any of his...what...five days? sitting as PM and besides, even if he had there are more civil and effective means of bringing him to heel than the archaic but admittedly hilarious would-be spectacle of literally arresting him and throwing him in the cells.

He still has a constitutionally endowed right to request parliament be prorogued for a shorter period of time and the Queen would be constitutionally obligated to grant it, but, based on the govt's own argument that an extended prorogation was lawful on the grounds that parliament had within its capacity the ability to block prorogation by way of an amendment to a bill, (a busted argument, now it seems, though I'm not sure if the ruling means the argument is legally baseless or just not strong enough to justify an extended prorogation), parliament could, and would/will scupper any such attempt to prorogue by amendment/emergency debate, or, far more likely, would go for a simple VONC before he tries any more stunts. We'll end up with a letter-writing government seeking and being granted an extension before calling a GE. There's no way Johnson is asking for an extension, and with the small window of time available I doubt parliament would waste its own time with the theatre of contempt proceedings. Enough political capital has already been cultivated with the SC ruling. He isn't gonna' look any more of a crook/martyr (take your pick) than he already does. No fetters, unfortunately! Down to business, now. Geoffrey Cox will be the first scalp.

But in our constitution our Parliament and Lords are the highest law in the land...not any more the Supreme Court has decided they outrank the other two pillars of our democracy... they are not elected, by definition we are are dictatorship, where the unelected call the shots above our democracy.... it is not a simple one off... this is president... the Law outranks Parliament and the crown... We either need to elect the Supreme Court or we become a dictatorship by default.

[Greenmile]

Watched a lot of constitutional experts on news 24. Not only has the tripiller been undermined. An unelected elite have imposed its will on Parliament, at Parliaments behest, they have claimed authority over Parliament by definition. More than one arguing that not only has Parliament been undermined but The Royal authority in the shape of the Lords. It is a power grab by the Supreme Court . By getting involved they have not only threatened our constitution, but driven a bus through it. An unelected body of ten people can hold sway over Government... we are no longer a democracy. We have become a Judicial quasi dictatorship. We either need to vote for our Supreme Court judges now or Boris needs to make Parliament itself arrest him for ignoring the Supreme Court , thus keeping our Constitution. If Johnston continues to push, Parliament can either arrest him and follow constitutional process.... putting Johnston with the constitutional defender rather than most dangerous threat. Parliament have made the country Federal, at best. We are now a dictatorship in all but name.

[elwaclaret]

Glad you find the potential end of our democratic system a source of amusement. Says it all

[Lord Beamish]

Glad you find the potential end of our democratic system a source of amusement. Says it all

Wow! I always knew you were pro-Brexit, but I never had you as as rabid as Wrongo.

[Lancasterclaret]

But in our constitution our Parliament and Lords are the highest law in the land...not any more the Supreme Court has decided they outrank the other two pillars of our democracy... they are not elected, by definition we are are dictatorship, where the unelected call the shots above our democracy.... it is not a simple one off... this is president... the Law outranks Parliament and the crown... We either need to elect the Supreme Court or we become a dictatorship by default.

Thats a hot take!

This is probably a much more realistic take on it

https://twitter.com/BBCDomC/status/1176495273964658689" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Spijed]

Glad you find the potential end of our democratic system a source of amusement. Says it all

Can you point out where we no longer have elections (every five years at the latest)?