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, 13:55
  #10521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 853
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
  #10522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,455
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
  #10523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,876
Just go to Manchester and leave the seats empty, Corbyn can then shout at the wall..
NutLoose is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 13:59
  #10524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,455
Nutloose,

And further demonstrate their complete and total disregard of, and contempt for, parliamentary democracy.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:00
  #10525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,876
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 offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:12
  #10526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 139
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
  #10527 (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
  #10528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
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
  #10529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,931
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 online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:43
  #10530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,416
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
  #10531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Now what ?



Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 14:53
  #10532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,959
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
  #10533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 73
Posts: 819
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
  #10534 (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  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:10
  #10535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,655
Cornish Jack; what's your problem with the Boundary Commission? Seems to me they are just doing what they were tasked with back in 2011. Pity it hasn't been executed yet.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:22
  #10536 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,980
What does ensure is that, since the SC has stepped into politics, politics will step into the SC. It means that, inevitably, Parliament will demand a voice and scrutiny of all future appointments to the SC in the same manner as occurs in the USA.

Perhaps it was always inevitable, but it will now happen much sooner.
ORAC is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:33
  #10537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
What does ensure is that, since the SC has stepped into politics, politics will step into the SC. It means that, inevitably, Parliament will demand a voice and scrutiny of all future appointments to the SC in the same manner as occurs in the USA.
Exactly this. Centuries of constitutional convention blown away by one judgment.

The judiciary should never allow itself to be politicised; that is however the consequence, unintended or otherwise, of today's judgment. I think that the (very senior) judges in the divisional court recognised this when making their decision.

As an aside, today's judgment probably makes a resounding Conservative election victory and no deal Brexit more likely as it feeds neatly into the narrative of People vs. establishment, which is likely to be the central pillar of Boris Johnson's electoral campaign.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:50
  #10538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
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.
If the Supreme Court is bound to agree with those other judges, it would be redundant. Of course it is entitled to a different view.
Sallyann1234 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:52
  #10539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 139
...
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.
Hence the need for a General Election.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 15:54
  #10540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 139
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
... a bit smarter than you when it cones to interpreting the law, ...
Remind me again, which law was it?
NoelEvans is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.