UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,609
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/li..._world_service
It's normally live on here, but I do not know if it is regional
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49807552
It's normally live on here, but I do not know if it is regional
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49807552
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,655
ORAC to expand your point; as the decision to prorogue Parliament was made on the assumption that it was legal under the then current law does a subsequent decision that it was illegal make the person, who at the time of action believed it to be legal and had had that legality demonstrated through previous court hearings, a law breaker?
Isn't that a case of hindsight is the clearest vision?
Isn't that a case of hindsight is the clearest vision?
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
Thx, I still can't understand how a system like that works but fortunately there is no real requirement for me. Bust be related to the few cases here when I got the opposing lawyers howling, just by logic.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,609
I thought the ruling was that the issue with him wasn't the act of actually proroguing Parliament, simply the length of time he chose as being unjustifiable..
Therefore the act is legal if the length is justifiable, and until we had the ruling no one knew what a reasonable time was.. Therefore until the ruling he was acting within the law as it was.
Therefore the act is legal if the length is justifiable, and until we had the ruling no one knew what a reasonable time was.. Therefore until the ruling he was acting within the law as it was.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by ORAC
In creating a new legal principle the SC has placed the courts in the position where, in future disputes in parliament between parties, one or more parties may now decide to appeal to the courts, rather than the people. Some may find that good, some bad, others be indifferent.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
The prorogation issue itself is a red herring here. This case has far wider constitutional implications.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has dramatically widened the scope of judicial review with regard to the exercise of executive power. In the common law system, judges have always ‘made the law’ to an extent. However, this power has been tempered by the reluctance of the judiciary to interfere in matters it considered reserved to Parliament or the government.
This judgment blows that assumption out of the water, and with it centuries of constitutional convention. That is why I described it as a perverse decision, and why it is being described in legal circles as a constitutional outrage.
With this judgment, the Supreme Court has dramatically widened the scope of judicial review with regard to the exercise of executive power. In the common law system, judges have always ‘made the law’ to an extent. However, this power has been tempered by the reluctance of the judiciary to interfere in matters it considered reserved to Parliament or the government.
This judgment blows that assumption out of the water, and with it centuries of constitutional convention. That is why I described it as a perverse decision, and why it is being described in legal circles as a constitutional outrage.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,947
Originally Posted by back to Boeing
Many commentators are suggesting that the attorney general's advice was leaked by someone in the cabinet/ number 10 specifically to make him the scapegoat and thus save face of those that suggested the prorogation in the first place.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Yes. However, Parliament has the right to legislate on such matters. There could be a statutory basis for a maximum length of prorogation. There could be a statutory change to the legal basis for prorogation.
The point is that it should be a political matter, not a matter for the courts. If Parliament feels strongly enough about it, it should introduce legislation limiting the executive’s power to prorogue Parliament.
The point is that it should be a political matter, not a matter for the courts. If Parliament feels strongly enough about it, it should introduce legislation limiting the executive’s power to prorogue Parliament.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by charliegolf
Per my post 10565
CG
CG
The Attorney General, the NI court judges and English High Court judges were not wrong, they were working within the limits of the law as then written and understood. Which is why they are not to be castigated, nor should they be required to resign.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Aihkio
Looking it from another direction:
Looks dangerous if PM can kick out the parliament at any time for as long as he wants and the Queen cannot interfere. That is the definition of a dictator, almost.
Indeed.
The "problem" here, is the that the ruling of the Supreme Court is not favourable to the PM, and so his partisans are objecting.
Had the judgment been otherwise, would those same people still object ? Not so sure.
And yet the Supreme Court is there to protect the Parliament decisions, not the PM's.
Wikipedia :
The United Kingdom has a doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, so the Supreme Court is much more limited in its powers of judicial review than the constitutional or supreme courts of some other countries. It cannot overturn any primary legislation made by Parliament.
But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy
Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 25th Sep 2019 at 11:40. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,913
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt
But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy
https://www.economist.com/britain/20...0a%20dogfight.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Indeed.
The "problem" here, is the that the ruling of the Supreme Court is not favourable to the PM, and so his partisans are objecting.
Had the judgment been otherwise, would those same people still object ? Not so sure.
The "problem" here, is the that the ruling of the Supreme Court is not favourable to the PM, and so his partisans are objecting.
Had the judgment been otherwise, would those same people still object ? Not so sure.
But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
Therefore it is blindingly obvious that had the judgment been otherwise, there would have been no objection on constitutional grounds. This is a judgment which is without precedent.
Now what would those "constitutional grounds" be, when there is no written constitution ?
As for the need for a precedent, Aihkio asked a good question.
Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 25th Sep 2019 at 12:32. Reason: Latin^^!
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by wiggy
I'm inclined to agree, but some strange reason many people are fond of the "good chap" model of Government....
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/12/18/britains-good-chap-model-of-government-is-coming-apart
https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/12/18/britains-good-chap-model-of-government-is-coming-apart
"Britain’s ramshackle constitution allows plenty of scope for such shenanigans. Whereas every other Western democracy has codified its system of government, Britain’s constitution is a mish-mash of laws and conventions, customs and courtesies."
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
QED, no objections when the judgment fits your goals...
Now what would those "constitutional grounds" be, when there is no written constitution ?
Now what would those "constitutional grounds" be, when there is no written constitution ?
As I previous posted, it's worthwhile remembering that The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls and The President of the Queen's Bench didn't consider the courts to have jurisdiction. What is greatly exercising the legal profession is that somehow every single Supreme Court justice disagreed with them. Any court judgments are rightly subject to scrutiny and criticism.
If you're really interested in learning about the UK's constitution, I'd suggest reading Jowell, Oliver and O'Cinneide's "The Changing Constitution". The UK doesn't have a written constitution; that is categorically not the same as saying that there isn't any constitution.
Last edited by akindofmagic; 25th Sep 2019 at 13:21.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 336
The effect of the judgment with regard to prorogation is actually of minimal importance. Of far more importance are the wide ranging implications for the balance and separation of powers in the UK
Speaking of which, those cries of Boris not having been elected to his position have gone strangely quiet lately haven't they.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
The Supreme Court has intervened in an area which has, by constitutional convention been reserved to the monarch on the advice of her (or his) ministers. It has thrust the judiciary into the political sphere. It has gone further than the court has ever done before.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
. Of far more importance are the wide ranging implications for the balance and separation of powers in the UK. The Supreme Court has intervened in an area which has, by constitutional convention been reserved to the monarch on the advice of her (or his) ministers. It has thrust the judiciary into the political sphere. It has gone further than the court has ever done before.
What exactly is the purpose of the Supreme Court, if not "hear cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population".
What do you mean by "balance and separation of powers in the UK" ? Seems very different from the same in western countries...
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
As I previous posted, it's worthwhile remembering that The Lord Chief Justice, The Master of the Rolls and The President of the Queen's Bench didn't consider the courts to have jurisdiction.
Originally Posted by akindofmagic
If you're really interested in learning about the UK's constitution, I'd suggest reading Jowell, Oliver and O'Cinneide's "The Changing Constitution". The UK doesn't have a written constitution; that is categorically not the same as saying that there isn't any constitution.
When and if you decide to get yourself a modern democratic constitution, I'll read it with great interest.
In the meanwhile, just observing the mess your "constitutional" decisions brought upon your heads - and ours.
What will be the next twist ?
