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, 12:38
  #10601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by wiggy View Post
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
Ouch^^!
"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."
Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 13:04
  #10602 (permalink)  
 
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 ?
You are completely missing the point. 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. 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.

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.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 13:42
  #10603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 332
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
On the other hand we might be glad this precedent has been set should the marx brothers get into power. .

Speaking of which, those cries of Boris not having been elected to his position have gone strangely quiet lately haven't they.
felixflyer is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 13:49
  #10604 (permalink)  
 
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.
Hmmm... If PM misuses his powers who checks?
Aihkio is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 13:56
  #10605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
. 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.
Yet again, why not be more specific as to what those "constitutional conventions" might be ?
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 View Post
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.
So the Queen could decide which court has which jurisdiction ? What would we not hear if she intervened !

Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
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.
Thanks for that.
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 ?
Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 13:59
  #10606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by Aihkio View Post
Hmmm... If PM misuses his powers who checks?
"If no precedent, then do nothing ?"
Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 14:43
  #10607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
In the meanwhile, just observing the mess your "constitutional" decisions brought upon your heads - and ours.
I'm not sure what impact our constitution has on someone living in the French Alps.

Yet again, why not be more specific as to what those "constitutional conventions" might be ?
I don't know how it could be clearer. Once again, this isn't just my view; it's evidently the view of the two most senior judges in England and Wales (The Lord Chief Justice and The Master of the Rolls), The Attorney General and the Scottish Advocate General, both of whom are of course lawyers of great seniority.

So the Queen could decide which court has which jurisdiction ? What would we not hear if she intervened !
I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to make here. The case was heard in the high court by three of the most senior judges in England and Wales, including the head of the judiciary.

When and if you decide to get yourself a modern democratic constitution, I'll read it with great interest.
There is spirited debate about whether there is a need for a written constitution. It is an issue that has been and will continue to be grappled with by constitutional lawyers. There are strong arguments on both sides, made by legal scholars far more qualified than I am to comment (some of whom taught me public law many years ago). However, I'd say that the mere fact that the Supreme Court made the ruling it did should categorically rebut any suggestion that the UK is not modern and democratic, with real judicial checks on executive power.

You clearly do not understand the UK legal system, in much the same way that I don't claim to understand the French civil law system. As I don't understand your system, I wouldn't choose to comment on it and expose my obvious ignorance.

Hmmm... If PM misuses his powers who checks?
Parliament!! It has the power to pass legislation covering any matter. I think that the prorogation here was clearly a decision made for political gain. However, it is for Parliament to legislate and set statutory limits on the length and/ or reasons for prorogation if it wants to limit the executive's power to prorogue Parliament. The courts would then uphold this legislation in the event that it wasn't followed. It has never been the judiciary's role to take on the law making power of Parliament. That is fundamental to the concept of the separation of powers. Indeed, several MPs and the Attorney General suggested today in The Commons that legislation was likely to be brought forward in future on the subject of prorogation. Regardless of that, the principle has now been established that the courts can intervene in matters previously considered by long standing convention to be reserved to Parliament or the executive.

Last edited by akindofmagic; 25th Sep 2019 at 14:58.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 14:53
  #10608 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
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.
Surely not, that is a Parliamentary decision. Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary apply them.
Harley Quinn is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:01
  #10609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Surely not, that is a Parliamentary decision. Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary apply them.
Ultimately yes. However, such a fundamental change to the constitutional order will by necessity be led by lawyers. eg. through the Law Commission.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:08
  #10610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
I'm not sure what impact our constitution has on someone living in the French Alps.
Self-centered commentary, with maybe the slightest trace of x***phobia...But what would someone living in the Alps know ;-)
There's a world beyond Albion's shores, sir.
400-500 million people are being impacted and will be due to the self-serving antics of your country.

Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
I wouldn't choose to comment on it and expose my obvious ignorance.
And yet you wrote about not knowing the impact...
As to opposing some "most senior judges" with your own Supreme Court and calling other people ignorant, well...;-)




Fly Aiprt is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:17
  #10611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
Self-centered commentary, with maybe the slightest trace of x***phobia...But what would someone living in the Alps know ;-)
Yet again, this is not about Brexit. The Supreme Court said as much in its judgment. Hence we're discussing it on the UK politics thread rather than the dedicated Brexit thread. This is about a fundamental change to the established constitutional order in the UK. How does that affect someone living in the French Alps?

As to opposing some "most senior judges" with your own Supreme Court and calling other people ignorant, well...;-)
I genuinely don't understand your point and/or question.

The law (especially this area) is extremely complicated. If it wasn't complicated, David Pannick and James Eadie wouldn't be multi-millionaires. It is hardly surprising that I, in common with many practicing and academic members of the legal profession, strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in this case.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:33
  #10612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,816
I'm a remainer reconciled to leaving. I'm happy to share the advice the leavers constantly give me. You lost, get over it.

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:38
  #10613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,392
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post
. How does that affect someone living in the French Alps?

Without wishing to offend I do find that a strange comment.

Can't speak for Fly Airprt but there are plenty of non- UK residents, some living in the French Alps, who for professional, family, financial reasons and whatever else are discovering this whole issue very much does effect them.
wiggy is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 15:40
  #10614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
I'm a remainer reconciled to leaving. I'm happy to share the advice the leavers constantly give me. You lost, get over it.
Once again: the issue of prorogation is decidedly minor in this case. Hell...Brexit is a minor issue by comparison. This is not a matter of winning or losing.

This is THE landmark constitutional law decision in the last 50 years. Textbooks will have to be re-written. The way the legislature, executive and judiciary work together has fundamentally changed on the basis of one Supreme Court judgment. I'm not sure exactly who you think has "lost" here and by extension who has therefore "won".

Can't speak for Fly Airprt but there are plenty of non- UK residents, some living in the French Alps, who for professional, family, financial reasons and whatever else are discovering this whole issue very much does effect them.
Which issue though? I completely accept that Brexit has an effect beyond the UK's borders. However, and while realising I'm labouring the point, this case was NOT about Brexit. It was not even really about prorogation. It was about the court's jurisdiction to intervene in ministerial decisions. It was fundamentally about the scope of judicial review. That is very much an internal issue for the UK.

Brexiteers and Conservative voters should be delighted by this judgment because it plays into the narrative of people vs. establishment that will in all likelihood play a big part in seeing a convincing Conservative majority returned at the inevitable election, thereby making a no deal Brexit far more likely. However much this judgment ultimately may lead to a result that I am very much in favour of, it doesn't change my opinion that it is bad law and is being recognised as such within the legal profession.

Last edited by akindofmagic; 25th Sep 2019 at 15:51.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 16:13
  #10615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 322
UK charity The Public Law Project (PLP) provided some of the key legal advice for this case. The advice, written by Tom de la Mare and Daniel Cashman of Blackstone Chambers, and overseen by Alison Pickup from PLP, was provided 'pro bono publico', in keeping with fellow Blackstonian Lord Pannick's pro bono services to Gina Miller.

https://publiclawproject.org.uk/wp-c...n-for-UKSC.pdf
jez d is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 18:18
  #10616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by akindofmagic View Post

This is THE landmark constitutional law decision in the last 50 years. Textbooks will have to be re-written. The way the legislature, executive and judiciary work together has fundamentally changed on the basis of one Supreme Court judgment. I'm not sure exactly who you think has "lost" here and by extension who has therefore "won".



Which issue though? I completely accept that Brexit has an effect beyond the UK's borders. However, and while realising I'm labouring the point, this case was NOT about Brexit. It was not even really about prorogation. It was about the court's jurisdiction to intervene in ministerial decisions. It was fundamentally about the scope of judicial review. That is very much an internal issue for the UK.

Brexiteers and Conservative voters should be delighted by this judgment because it plays into the narrative of people vs. establishment that will in all likelihood play a big part in seeing a convincing Conservative majority returned at the inevitable election, thereby making a no deal Brexit far more likely. However much this judgment ultimately may lead to a result that I am very much in favour of, it doesn't change my opinion that it is bad law and is being recognised as such within the legal profession.


Your last point is already covered by an existing law. The law of unintended consequences.
yellowtriumph is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 18:27
  #10617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: BC Canada
Posts: 417
The UK has now entered the world of American politics where every decision of the executive can be taken to court. In the last couple of years the courts in America have ruled, mostly adversely for political reasons, on executive actions. Not even the Supreme Court but circuit courts in states have stopped government in it tracks. At this rate you will end up having lower courts decide what the government can or cannot do.

Essentially by their rulings the courts have made the law rather than acted within it.

Between the fixed date election act and the interference with prorogation the PM has lost two essential powers and the current mess in parliament is the unforeseen consequence. Looks like the PM's right to call an election was not so silly after all.
ChrisVJ is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 21:47
  #10618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: norway
Posts: 65
.Aihkio said...".That is the definition of a dictator, almost."
one of the British Monarch`s remaining powers is the ability to remove the Prime Minister.


pineridge is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 22:09
  #10619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Vantaa, Finland
Posts: 0
So we can still hope she'll use it when really needed.
Aihkio is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2019, 22:36
  #10620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 67
Posts: 58
Disgraceful behaviour by Pfeffel tonight. Bullying female members and encouraging violence. I can see the strategy. It is to appeal to Brexit voting Wetherspoons habitués. It might work a bit, but it's a further step along the road to worshipping hooliganism.
Effluent Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.