Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:43
  #10521 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,043
Interesting question asked on Sky.

SC has ruled prorogue never happened, the ceremeny in Parliament never happened.

But as part of the ceremony the Benn bill was nodded through to give it Royal Assent. So presumably that also never happened?

If so, what is the status of the legislation, is it still a bill requiring Royal Assent?

And, similarly, are the other bills which timed out and died, now back on the legislative business list in parliament?
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:50
  #10522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,814
On your last point ORAC, the talking legal heads on the news have suggested they did not time out and die.

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:52
  #10523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5
It means that the legislation which "failed" - such as the divorce reform - are still active

The BREXIT bill passed into law before Parliament closed down - now deemed to be illegal - the two actions are separate
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:52
  #10524 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,043
Now that parliament has been recalled, will MPs be returning there and abandoning the Party conferences?
Corbyn giving his speech this afternoon to be in the HoC tomorrow and Tom Watson has cancelled his to do same. I would expect all shadow ministers to do same and only back benchers in Brighton for last day tomorrow,

Conservative MP has said the party will ask for a recess vote for next week so they can hold their conference now that the LibDems and Labour have held theirs; cynically I would expect the other parties to have a three line whip to defeat the motion.

With the rumours of the Speaker saying he will accept more SO24 motions tomorrow to let the opposition dictate business next week, I would think that all Conservative MPs might be required to be in Westminster next week and not Manchester.
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:55
  #10525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
So the dedicated members of Parliarment will pitch up for work at 11:30 tomorrow. Don't put too much effort in there people.....
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:55
  #10526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5
"I'm certain that it will be recognised by legal scholars in the years to come as a shocking piece of judicial activism."

Or a definitive action supporting Parliament against an over mighty executive

You were supposed to be leaving the EU "to take back Control by our Parliament" - funny some people don't like it when Parliament takes control....
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:55
  #10527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 53
Posts: 815
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
Interesting question asked on Sky.

SC has ruled prorogue never happened, the ceremeny in Parliament never happened.

But as part of the ceremony the Benn bill was nodded through to give it Royal Assent. So presumably that also never happened?

If so, what is the status of the legislation, is it still a bill requiring Royal Assent?

And, similarly, are the other bills which timed out and died, now back on the legislative business list in parliament?
The Benn bill received Royal Assent just before Parliament was prorogued (same day). The timed out bills will all be back in play as they only died because of prorogation, which legally now never happened.
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:55
  #10528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by [b
akindofmagic;[/b]10578082]It is a perverse judgment which is a frankly astonishing attack on fundamental constitutional principles.
Let me just fix that for you.


"It is a reassuring judgement which is frankly a splendid defence of fundamental constitutional principles."

There you go, now it is accurate and reflects both what actually happened and the political and historical context.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:57
  #10529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,081
Just go to Manchester and leave the seats empty, Corbyn can then shout at the wall..
NutLoose is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:59
  #10530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,176
Nutloose,

And further demonstrate their complete and total disregard of, and contempt for, parliamentary democracy.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:00
  #10531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,081
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Let me just fix that for you.


"It is a reassuring judgement which is frankly a splendid defence of fundamental constitutional principles."

There you go, now it is accurate and reflects both what actually happened and the political and historical context.

Let me just fix that for you.



"It is a suspect judgement which is frankly a dubious defence of fundamental constitutional principles, taken by those who while being members of the House of Lords should have exempted themselves from sitting on the grounds of a conflict of interests."

There you go, now it is accurate and reflects both what actually happened and the political and historical context.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:12
  #10532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
If MPs were decent and honest, they would chose not to sit while all other parties hold their party conventions, so that a '"fair's fair" situation will exist with all the parties that have already held their conventions without Parliament sitting. Are they decent and honest? It will be interesting to see...

A General Election is needed to regain public trust. The people need the opportunity to be the real judges on political matters.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:19
  #10533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
The Supreme Court has chosen to step into the political sphere. That is why this judgment is perverse and is being described by legal scholars as an earthquake moment in the field of constitutional law.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:27
  #10534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
The Supreme Court has chosen to step into the political sphere. That is why this judgment is perverse and is being described by legal scholars as an earthquake moment in the field of constitutional law.
Here is what Wikipedia says :
Originally Posted by Wikipedia on Supreme Court
The Supreme Court (Welsh: Y Goruchaf Lys, Scottish Gaelic: An Àrd-Chùirt, Irish: An Chúirt Uachtarach; sometimes colloquially referred to by the acronyms UKSC or SCOTUK) is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population
Britis law is very peculiar.
It would be interesting to hear how the Parliament prorogation legality case isn't a case of greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:38
  #10535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,382
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n..._content=22278


....we live in a parliamentary democracy governed by laws set by parliament. Or at least we should do. The referendum did not determine the date of leaving, nor did it determine the method of doing so. That is for MPs to decide. It is quite wrong to feel that the referendum mandate allows the government to ride over the wishes of parliament on these matters just because it disagrees strongly with the parliamentary majority.

It is also wrong to feel that the executive either should or will be able to outrun the law. The executive must obey the law and it will have to. The government is not cleverer than the rest of us, and it will not prove more ruthless than its opponents. It is dangerous and foolish for it to think that it is.
wiggy is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:43
  #10536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,226
A General Election is needed to regain public trust.
Presumably the standard British GE where it requires 10 times as many votes to win a non Labour/Tory seat as the number needed for one of the two major Parties? Utterly fair and representative? Not to mention the input of the unelected Boundary Commissioners whose decisions can change the results in as many as 20 seats! All very fair and British! Which particular definition of Democracy does that nonsensical process embrace? Makes even the Brexit referendum shambles look almost respectable.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:49
  #10537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 239
Now what ?



Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:53
  #10538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,814
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
The Supreme Court has chosen to step into the political sphere. That is why this judgment is perverse and is being described by legal scholars as an earthquake moment in the field of constitutional law.
Alternatively, the government of the day chose to unlawfully step outside political norms, and into the legal arena. That is why this judgement is sound, and reminds the executive of its remit.

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:56
  #10539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 705
Disgusting and highly politicised judgment.
If you had watched Lady Hale deliver the verdict of 11 senior judges who are, presumably, a bit smarter than you when it cones to interpreting the law, you wouldn't have made such a silly statement.
KelvinD is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:06
  #10540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
If you had watched Lady Hale deliver the verdict of 11 senior judges who are, presumably, a bit smarter than you when it cones to interpreting the law, you wouldn't have made such a silly statement.
The mere fact that nobody in the legal profession seriously expected the judgment to be either unanimous or as emphatic as it was suggests that it is far from a silly statement. There are already plenty of lawyers expressing surprise at the judgment. Until today the courts were and always have been above politics. That isn't the case anymore.

This judgment will be scrutinised by legal scholars (who are definitely smarter than me when it comes to interpreting the law) and the conclusion drawn will be that this is bad law. The Supreme Court has drastically overstepped its bounds.

Let's not forget that The Lord Chief Justice (who is of course the head of the Judiciary in England and Wales), the Master of the Rolls and the President of The Queen's Bench came to a completely different conclusion to The Supreme Court. It is stunning that The Supreme Court has chosen to discount their judgment.
akindofmagic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.