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 25th Sep 2019, 08:33
  #10581 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 783
Charles Day QC may not agree. He reminds me of my days in basic training in the Army. "Look Serge, I am the only one in step, the rest of the squad is out of step"
KelvinD is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 08:38
  #10582 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
If a system needs a precedent for everything there can't be a first case. So how does it work? Or is as it looks just now it does not?
Aihkio is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 08:50
  #10583 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by KelvinD View Post
Much as I don't like Corbyn as Labour party leader, I have to say, in his defence, he is the only politician thus far to have come up with a sensible proposal re the Brexit/Referendum conundrum. He is proposing his party would negotiate with the EU, then return to the UK and have a referendum with 2 choices; 1) Exit the EU under the terms tentatively agreed with the EU (and ensuring the terms are spelled out to the electorate) and 2) Cancel the whole thing, remain within the UE (and ensuring the consequences of remaining are spelled out to the electorate).
Media savages and party hacks refer to this as being uncommitted or unable to make up his mind. These people are crying that Labour should adopt a Go/Leave stance and fight a General Election on that basis. At least Corbyn's proposal will have the electorate telling the politicians what to do, rather than the other option which will have the politicians telling us what to do. And, it seems to me, was the political mindset that got us into the current chaos.
Jo and the Libs have a plan. I guess you don't like it so you ignore it.

It is the job of politicians to tell us what to do. They are the experts. They guide us. They do the graft we don't have the time to look at. Bit like pilots. We know where we want to go. They do the taking. Also do the diverting if the destination looks shit.

If we don't like what happened last time we fly with another airline. Dont let the pax try the flying. It ends in disaster. Simples
Islandlad is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 08:56
  #10584 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,267
All precedents start out by a judge, or judges, inferring a right or based upon basic principles or combining other precedents. Which ia what, as they are entitled to do, the SC has done on this occasion.

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.

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.

However, it does mean that, inevitably, the appointment of SC judges will now always be seen, as in the USA, with an eye on their political affiliation and views.

As I said previously, perhaps it was inevitable once the SC was founded that it would become subject to political scrutiny, thie cases around Brexit have just accelerated the process.
ORAC is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:00
  #10585 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Supreme Court interfering in politics : pity this objection wasn't raised before the case was brought before the Supreme Court, and not after the judgment.

Had the ruling be different, would have the Court "interfered" ?
The central question the Supreme Court was determining was whether prorogation was a matter for the courts. The whole point is that the court could (and many legal commentators say should) have refused to intervene on the grounds this was a political and non-justiciable matter.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:04
  #10586 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 600
Radio Coverage

Hello all,

I'm on the beach in Bali rehydrating as you do. For entertainment I thought I'd listen to the antics in the House of Commons this afternoon, promises to be fascinating. But the parliament link I found doesn't work. Can anyone recommend a link to listen to this upcoming comedy show?
Thanks!
Edit: While I'm at it, this will be perhaps controversial, what is a reasonable online English newspaper not using a paywall that is worth reading? If it exists ☺️!

Last edited by Octane; 25th Sep 2019 at 09:58.
Octane is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:09
  #10587 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,653
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
NutLoose is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:11
  #10588 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,653
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?
LowNSlow is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:11
  #10589 (permalink)  
 
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.
Aihkio is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:14
  #10590 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,653
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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:19
  #10591 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by ORAC View Post
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.
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.
back to Boeing is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:23
  #10592 (permalink)  
 
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.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:29
  #10593 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
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.
Aihkio is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:29
  #10594 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,839
Originally Posted by back to Boeing View Post
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.
Per my post 10565

CG
charliegolf is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:32
  #10595 (permalink)  
 
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.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 09:33
  #10596 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Sunnydale
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
Per my post 10565

CG
Ha just realised i quoted the wrong bit of ORAC's post . i meant to quote the following

​​​​​​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.
back to Boeing is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 10:40
  #10597 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by Aihkio View Post
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.
Many modern democratic countries have a Parliament, and some sort of Supreme or Constitutional Court, to which those cases can be submitted without being accused of "interference".
But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy

Last edited by Fly Aiprt; 25th Sep 2019 at 10:40. Reason: Typo
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 11:04
  #10598 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,572
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy
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/20...0a%20dogfight.
wiggy is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 11:06
  #10599 (permalink)  
 
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.
This is not a Brexit issue. The actual quashing of prorogation is a red herring. Of far greater importance is the constitutional impact of the decision, which dramatically expands the scope of judicial review without any statutory basis. 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.

But as a begining, a written constitution could be the first step towards real democracy
The UK legal and political system has performed perfectly adequately for centuries without a written constitution. However, if the judiciary as a whole takes its lead from the Supreme Court (as it must under the doctrine of stare decisis) and is emboldened to pursue a judicially activist approach, greatly increased statutory intervention is likely to be required. Whether that means a written constitution is for m'learned friends to determine.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 11:31
  #10600 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
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.
QED, no objections when the judgment fits your goals...
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 11:32. Reason: Latin^^!
Fly Aiprt 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.