Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Click to expand...
Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...
 
Garrison said:
At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?
Click to expand...
It's all just a useful tool to get their own agenda of a libertarian Paradise implemented in the UK.
 
catsmate said:
Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...
Click to expand...
Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.
 
ctamblyn said:
Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html
Click to expand...

Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims.

What is their evidence for their claim?

It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth.
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
Click to expand...

Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.
 
Arcade22 said:
Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law..
Click to expand...

If you need a final decision, you can flip a coin. If you accept the premise that the ultimate authority gets it right, then their opinion may be no more correct than the experts that disagree with them. The question is how do you actually get the right answer.
 
Arcade22 said:
Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.
Click to expand...

It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
Click to expand...
That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.

The Great Zaganza said:
are you a Monarchist?
Click to expand...
No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.
 
psionl0 said:
That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.


No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.
Click to expand...
The Queen is not supposed to have any real power. The courts are.
 
psionl0 said:
Wrong. The Parliament is supposed to. The Queen only acts on advice received but that is not codified anywhere.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention parliaments power.



You said


However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's
Click to expand...


I also note the Queen is not even appointed based on merit, but purely on inheritance.
 
psionl0 said:
However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.
Click to expand...


England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction. The courts are perfectly entitled to make law as long as they don’t actually contradict Parliament.

The idea of judicial review of administrative actions is well established. And that’s what this was: the court was reviewing the actions of the executive, not Parliament. See, for example, the comments in the section headed “What conclusions did the court reach” here:
The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and Johnson’s advice subject to the law. Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.”

They then ruled the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”.
Click to expand...
 
Actually this decision continues the centuries long tradition of stressing the supremacy of the parliament. As there is no such clear and formal separation of powers as in the US, this might confuse the American commentators. The PM and the cabinet have not been elected by the people - their position is founded on the command of majority in the parliament. This case goes against the cabinet and PM and for parliament - and only one of these bodies is directly elected by the people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom