UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
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.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,054
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.
Perhaps it was always inevitable, but it will now happen much sooner.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
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.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
...
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by ORAC
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.
Perhaps it was always inevitable, but it will now happen much sooner.
Are there many democracies where a PM or head of State can forbid a parliament to sit when he sees fit ?
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 48
I thought the English Civil War was fought exactly to protect Parliament from the rule of an oppressive Monarch who tried to rule without it.....
SOMEONE has to be able to call the Govt to account - if Parliament is closed down it has to be the judges...............
SOMEONE has to be able to call the Govt to account - if Parliament is closed down it has to be the judges...............
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,054
Are there many democracies where a PM or head of State can forbid a parliament to sit when he sees fit ?
Only ever invoked once - by DeGaulle in 1958.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
Maybe first putting robust constitution and laws in writing might be a more useful step to begin with ?
Are there many democracies where a PM or head of State can forbid a parliament to sit when he sees fit ?
Are there many democracies where a PM or head of State can forbid a parliament to sit when he sees fit ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Just north of Chester, UK.
Posts: 256
If you disagree with the Supreme Court judgement you are agreeing with the principle that any Prime Minister can, at his or her total discretion, send all the MPs home at any time, and for any period of time. Theoretically, that could be day one after a general election for 4 years, 364 days...
That is the fundamental point here; the SC has defended the principle (both in common and statute law) that Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive or indeed the Crown.
The decision only relates to Brexit because that is the situation which has created the environment in which this fundamental question needed to be decided. It has nothing to do with whether when, how or if we'll exit.
The decision is totally apolitical (and the judges should be commended for the speed and clarity with which they have come to a decision) and I am somewhat heartened to read that, along with common law principles, one of the authorities quoted was from 1362; we've survived a lot more contentious stuff than Brexit in the last 650 odd years!
That is the fundamental point here; the SC has defended the principle (both in common and statute law) that Parliament is sovereign, not the Executive or indeed the Crown.
The decision only relates to Brexit because that is the situation which has created the environment in which this fundamental question needed to be decided. It has nothing to do with whether when, how or if we'll exit.
The decision is totally apolitical (and the judges should be commended for the speed and clarity with which they have come to a decision) and I am somewhat heartened to read that, along with common law principles, one of the authorities quoted was from 1362; we've survived a lot more contentious stuff than Brexit in the last 650 odd years!
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234
As you say, there is nothing in the judgment that should cause Brexiteers to burst into tears. They will still be getting their way.
You honestly still believe that?, I reckon we havn't had a chance in hell of leaving the EU pretty much from the get go, the wreckers simply won't let it happen and have shown they will do anything to stop it.
It will of course be the ruination of the conservatives which is why we have any opposition at all to the wreckers, but the wreckers have Bercow on their side.
One part of parliament that most definately needs reforming is the position of Speaker, Bercow has abused the power of his position and with the backing of the wreckers invented new powers
A stop must be put to these underhand tactics, we have an elected government being held hostage by an elite that despises the views of the very people that they are meant to be serving, the whole thing is shocking
and such behaviour is wrecking our democracy
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234
That would be a good outcome from this fiasco, but how long would it take for a proposed constitution to be agreed by all interest parties (small 'p')?
Let's say...60 years ?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 369
I sat and listened to much of the evidence presented at the Supreme Court hearing, and although slightly surprised that the judgement was unanimous, the outcome doesn't seem surprising. One theme that came up several times during the presentation of evidence was the absence of a statement from the Prime Minister, giving his reasons for proroguing parliament. It seemed that all of the SC judges felt that he should have provided a statement, and in the absence of one they may have concluded that the PM did not wish to openly admit his true reasons for taking this action. That fits with their judgement, in that they clearly didn't believe that, because parliament would be in recess for most of the time covered by the prorogation, it was a given that the length of this prorogation was somehow justified.
As to whether this judgement has any significant lasting impact on the way parliament is run, somehow I doubt that it will. The judgement makes it clear that this was a unique set of circumstances, and as such it seems unlikely that a similar situation could arise again.
If anything, the recall of parliament tomorrow seems likely to increase pressure for an early GE, something that I suspect may strengthen the Brexit position overall. It seems clear that labour as split, the LibDems are, in effect, the only Remain party, and they haven't a hope in hell of winning a majority (although I strongly suspect that if there is a GE it will turn out to be their best for many decades). If there is a GE then I suspect that the Labour remain voters may vote LibDem (or possibly Green),, along with Conservative Remain supporters, the Labour Leave voters may vote Labour, and most Leave voters who have no normal political affiliation will probably vote Conservative. The outcome seems certain to be a stronger Conservative government; it's hard to see how there could be any other outcome, unless we have another bombshell that blows Boris well and truly out of the water.
As to whether this judgement has any significant lasting impact on the way parliament is run, somehow I doubt that it will. The judgement makes it clear that this was a unique set of circumstances, and as such it seems unlikely that a similar situation could arise again.
If anything, the recall of parliament tomorrow seems likely to increase pressure for an early GE, something that I suspect may strengthen the Brexit position overall. It seems clear that labour as split, the LibDems are, in effect, the only Remain party, and they haven't a hope in hell of winning a majority (although I strongly suspect that if there is a GE it will turn out to be their best for many decades). If there is a GE then I suspect that the Labour remain voters may vote LibDem (or possibly Green),, along with Conservative Remain supporters, the Labour Leave voters may vote Labour, and most Leave voters who have no normal political affiliation will probably vote Conservative. The outcome seems certain to be a stronger Conservative government; it's hard to see how there could be any other outcome, unless we have another bombshell that blows Boris well and truly out of the water.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 243
Originally Posted by ORAC
France - Article 16 of the Constitution.
Only ever invoked once - by DeGaulle in 1958.
Only ever invoked once - by DeGaulle in 1958.
Here is a link to French Constitution Article 16 about "exceptional powers"
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affic...Texte=20190718
As any reader can see, there is nothing about forbidding the Parliament to sit. On the contrary :
Le Parlement se réunit de plein droit.
L'Assemblée nationale ne peut être dissoute pendant l'exercice des pouvoirs exceptionnels.
L'Assemblée nationale ne peut être dissoute pendant l'exercice des pouvoirs exceptionnels.
les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la Nation, l'intégrité de son territoire ou l'exécution de ses engagements internationaux sont menacés d'une manière grave et immédiate et que le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels est interrompu
But the two parliament assemblies continued to deliberate.
There have been discussions in the past 3 decades as to the suppression of Article 16.
Bottom line : no sir, France isn't a totalitary state.
I'll add that comparing BJ with General de Gaulle seems a bit of a strecht...maybe a mini-Donald Trump might be more appropriate.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,231
The arguments will roll on and on; views, on both sides, are too entrenched to allow of a reasoned or logical view. The Supreme Court was established to provide a final arbiter on matters of Public concern and it would be difficult to argue against their relevance in this instance. Much of the vituperation directed against them ignores their combined experience. That experience derives from their ages and thereby lies a clue as to the unanimity of their pronouncement. They (as am I) are old enough to have either experienced or been well versed in the events of early 30s Germany. For those of you who are not, I recommend Count Harry Kessler's Diary of that period and the years before and after. The antics of the present so-called Government are much too reminiscent of political manoeuvring at that time to allow of comfortable acceptance. Racial phobias, Nationalistic extreme jingoism ... it's not new and it's as dangerous now as it was then. A dog-loving, vegetarian couldn't be a problem - could he? (maybe a dog-loving carnivore?)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 164
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack
The arguments will roll on and on; views, on both sides, are too entrenched to allow of a reasoned or logical view. The Supreme Court was established to provide a final arbiter on matters of Public concern and it would be difficult to argue against their relevance in this instance. Much of the vituperation directed against them ignores their combined experience. That experience derives from their ages and thereby lies a clue as to the unanimity of their pronouncement. They (as am I) are old enough to have either experienced or been well versed in the events of early 30s Germany. For those of you who are not, I recommend Count Harry Kessler's Diary of that period and the years before and after. The antics of the present so-called Government are much too reminiscent of political manoeuvring at that time to allow of comfortable acceptance. Racial phobias, Nationalistic extreme jingoism ... it's not new and it's as dangerous now as it was then. A dog-loving, vegetarian couldn't be a problem - could he? (maybe a dog-loving carnivore?)
An unthinkable thought only a couple of years ago. Not so much now.
