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, 15:56
  #10541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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.
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 ?
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 16:33
  #10542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,471
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...............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 16:37
  #10543 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,984
Are there many democracies where a PM or head of State can forbid a parliament to sit when he sees fit ?
France - Article 16 of the Constitution.

Only ever invoked once - by DeGaulle in 1958.
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 16:41
  #10544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
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 ?
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')?
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 16:43
  #10545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Just north of Chester, UK.
Posts: 271
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!
Captivep is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 16:58
  #10546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 446
Prorogation
Canada, Not much hoo-ha about it at the time.
ChrisVJ is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:00
  #10547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
As you say, there is nothing in the judgment that should cause Brexiteers to burst into tears. They will still be getting their way.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:00
  #10548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 446
Just thinking.

Can Boris not appeal to the H of Lords? I thought they were the ultimate court in the uK
ChrisVJ is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:16
  #10549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Paris
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
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
Commie is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:21
  #10550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 View Post
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')?
Hahaha !
Let's say...60 years ?
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:32
  #10551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 390
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.
VP959 is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:35
  #10552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
France - Article 16 of the Constitution.

Only ever invoked once - by DeGaulle in 1958.
I'm afraid you're in error, sir ;-)

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.
Please note that Article 16 may be invoked when
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
General de Gaulle invoked Article 16 to manage the coup in Algeria in 1961 (not 1958, which is the date of adoption of the Constitution).
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.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 17:48
  #10553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,416
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?)
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:09
  #10554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: yes
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
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?)
Agreed, just happened to be watching an excellent documentary on that era. Several uncomfortable parallels sprang to mind. Not that the current PM is any comparison. But if the precedent was set. It opens the door to a future even less scrupulous leader who finds parliament a nuisance.

​​​​​​An unthinkable thought only a couple of years ago. Not so much now.
Steepclimb is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:23
  #10555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,888
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
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 Id) 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?)
i agree with that, it's just did anyone foresee having judges ruling on items they are involved in by the fact they all hold peerages and are at the heart of the establishment they are judging on, that to me just comes over as a conflict of interests.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:24
  #10556 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 64
Worth a mention here, given her deserved reputation and today's findings.

Has already attracted condemnation from the ever self righteous indignation of the Mail, so possibly more to come from the rag tomorrow.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...iers-judiciary
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:34
  #10557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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.
But in all likelyhood, Bozza won't be driving that bus.

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:37
  #10558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by ChrisVJ View Post
Just thinking.

Can Boris not appeal to the H of Lords? I thought they were the ultimate court in the uK
No. The SC is the highest appeal court in the land. House of Lords used to be.

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 18:40
  #10559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,961
I see that the AG has gone under the bus in order that the Cummings Crew can say Boris, 'acted in good faith, and on legal advice'. Shirley could only have come from Downing Street?

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2019, 20:55
  #10560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips View Post
Worth a mention here, given her deserved reputation and today's findings.

Has already attracted condemnation from the ever self righteous indignation of the Mail, so possibly more to come from the rag tomorrow.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...iers-judiciary
Must say I love her beautiful spider broach.
Sallyann1234 is online now  

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.