UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by KelvinD
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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" ?
Had the ruling be different, would have the Court "interfered" ?
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 ☺️!
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.
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
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: 2,653
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?
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: 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.
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: 161
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: 1,839
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: 161
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 10:40. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,572
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 11:32. Reason: Latin^^!
