Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've just listened to a podcast, recorded yesterday evening, and one of the contributors said a couple of things that I hadn't heard before. The first was that the lack of written statement from the government is because they went round civil servants trying to find one who would sign a statement saying that the memos were an accurate representation of what the government's motives were for prorogation, and basically everybody refused because they'd be committing perjury and would go to prison. The second is that all the planning for prorogation actually took place on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, on burner phones.

I had heard the first of those accusations but not the second. If the second is true I am not sure if any crime has been committed or not but it is certainly very sketchy.

If his source is correct, then there can be no question that they knew that what they were doing was unlawful. It would also explain why their only defence has been to say that it's not a justiciable matter. I've not seen the reporting of this specific question myself, but it was said that a question put to the government's representation was that if someone gave the PM a massive bribe in order to prorogue parliament, would that still be non-justiciable, and he said yes.

A couple of the contributors also said that if the court case went Johnson's way, then there are plans for a second proroguement to help Johnson achieve his goals - although they were unspecific about exactly when.

I think the can of worms that would be opened otherwise will lead the SC to judge that prorogation is justiciable. Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It wasn't a "slip", it was a less cumbersome way of saying "in every legal system within the UK". There is absolutely nothing incorrect in what I said.

Well as I said its a confusing way to communicate what you meant and so is at best sub-optimal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.

I'm struggling to see how any second prorogation for the purposes of preventing parliament from sitting over the same period could be lawful, given that in essence the unlawful aspect of the current prorogation would be based purely on its being done with that intent. It seems tantamount to saying "If you rule that stealing is unlawful, then we'll take away our victim's property without paying by some other, lawful way."

Dave

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it is reasonable to call laws that cover more than one part of the UK, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988, as UK law.

Perhaps in casual speech but its probably better termed UK legislation. Because while the rules may be the same the implementation is not.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm struggling to see how any second prorogation for the purposes of preventing parliament from sitting over the same period could be lawful, given that in essence the unlawful aspect of the current prorogation would be based purely on its being done with that intent. It seems tantamount to saying "If you rule that stealing is unlawful, then we'll take away our victim's property without paying by some other, lawful way."

Dave

Really depends on the findings. If they find for example that a 5 week prorogation is unusual and thus suggests that this was done for motives other than just having a queens speech then they could prorogue again for say 3 weeks to have a queens speech.

Unless the judges specifically deal with that in the judgement I don't see what could stop them proroging again even if it ended up back to court again

 

[jimbob]

I've just listened to a podcast, recorded yesterday evening, and one of the contributors said a couple of things that I hadn't heard before. The first was that the lack of written statement from the government is because they went round civil servants trying to find one who would sign a statement saying that the memos were an accurate representation of what the government's motives were for prorogation, and basically everybody refused because they'd be committing perjury and would go to prison. The second is that all the planning for prorogation actually took place on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, on burner phones.

I had heard the first of those accusations but not the second. If the second is true I am not sure if any crime has been committed or not but it is certainly very sketchy.

If his source is correct, then there can be no question that they knew that what they were doing was unlawful. It would also explain why their only defence has been to say that it's not a justiciable matter. I've not seen the reporting of this specific question myself, but it was said that a question put to the government's representation was that if someone gave the PM a massive bribe in order to prorogue parliament, would that still be non-justiciable, and he said yes.

A couple of the contributors also said that if the court case went Johnson's way, then there are plans for a second proroguement to help Johnson achieve his goals - although they were unspecific about exactly when.

I think the can of worms that would be opened otherwise will lead the SC to judge that prorogation is justiciable. Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.

I'd heard the second but not the first. In the context of the requirement to provide documentation on the planning of the proroguation of Parliament. Apparently slithy Gove (or Smeagol - is it just me that's noticed the similarity) was unaware of what a burner phone is.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.

Wouldn't one of the checks and balances be that parliament, when in session, has the power to change the rules around prorogation? at any time in any way they please?

That seems way more balanced in parliament's favor than the prime minister.

Wait, does parliament have the power to just scrap the prime minister's office or any power they have? I'm not sure on the extent of parliamentary sovereignty.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wouldn't one of the checks and balances be that parliament, when in session, has the power to change the rules around prorogation? at any time in any way they please?

If the current prorogation is ruled as lawful, then that power would effectively be taken away, because any future government could frustrate any law parliament drafted by proroguing any and every time a law to do so was submitted for royal assent.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

If the current prorogation is ruled as lawful, then that power would effectively be taken away, because any future government could frustrate any law parliament drafted by proroguing any and every time a law to do so was submitted for royal assent.

Dave

If it was already submitted....wouldn't it go in effect before the queen got around to assenting to the prorogue request?

Further, didnt the house of Lords vote on the extension request between the time the queen approved and it went into effect? In the short window, could they pass a new law?

Third, the parliament has had decades to evaluate the rule. It seems their lack of modification to the system demonstrates that the current system is as they wish.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If it was already submitted....wouldn't it go in effect before the queen got around to assenting to the prorogue request?

OK then, prorogue any time after the bill passes its first reading. Parliament is dissolved and all pending legislation immediately lapses.

Further, didnt the house of Lords vote on the extension request between the time the queen approved and it went into effect? In the short window, could they pass a new law?

Even if that's the case, it should be obvious that they can't. Since the passing of a new law requires multiple actions across both houses, it cannot by definition be done in less than the time taken for a single measure to be voted on in a single house.

Third, the parliament has had decades to evaluate the rule. It seems their lack of modification to the system demonstrates that the current system is as they wish.

Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

OK then, prorogue any time after the bill passes its first reading. Parliament is dissolved and all pending legislation immediately lapses.



Even if that's the case, it should be obvious that they can't. Since the passing of a new law requires multiple actions across both houses, it cannot by definition be done in less than the time taken for a single measure to be voted on in a single house.



Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.

Dave

A) how long would it take them if they tried to pass something as fast as possible?

B) it would be a strategy sustainable only for 5 years? Then there would be an election?

C) we have the same inference. That is probability what happened. what you describe sounds like the will of parliament. Their prioritization and interpretation is on them.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You think he has a plan

 

[catsmate]

From the horse's mouth ...“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week."

It's in the article I posted which you didn't read.

Oh but I did, and the next sentence:

Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.

Your attempts at deception are truly pathetic.

 

[catsmate]

I wonder if it is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act to deliberately try to proactively circumvent it...?

It is in Ireland.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You think he has a plan

EU: "Solution to Brexit? A solution to Brexit! At this latitude, at this time of day, localized entirely within that folder!"
Johnson: "Yes!"
EU: "Can I see it?"
Johnson: "No."

 

[dudalb]

Never heard of him.

Well, the little episode is something many Brits would like to forget.....

 

[dudalb]

You think he has a plan

" I have a cunning plan"......

 

[angrysoba]

Well, the little episode is something many Brits would like to forget.....

Done and done!

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wow government and negotiation by passive aggressive behavior. That is sure to work out well.

The thing is, they don't want to actually do anything. They want to give the appearance of doing something and then be able to blame the EU.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.

Yes, both the US and UK systems of government have up until now operated on a kind of honour system which has assumed that everybody involved would disagree, but would act in reasonable faith and in the interests of the country and of democracy itself. But they're now faced with such unprecedented levels of corruption that it's been made obvious that this just isn't good enough.