Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[psionl0]

This case goes against the cabinet and PM and for parliament - and only one of these bodies is directly elected by the people.

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

Oh heavens no.

In fine British Tradition™ the court ruled that she was given poor advice by her ministers. They are correcting a mistake that she was lead into making by either incompetence or disloyalty (or some mixture thereof) on the part of those in whom she entrusted the common weal and which would threaten to disrupt the Queen's Peace.

 

[a_unique_person]

You didn't read the post that you selectively quoted.

Let's just get that point out of the way first. The power of the Queen is irrelevant.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice

 

[psionl0]

No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice

Legalistic trickery.

 

[a_unique_person]

Legalistic trickery.

The decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks, you mean? Legalistic skullduggery at it's finest.

 

[Mojo]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law"

As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:

The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

You are conflating the legislature with the building it sits in.

Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

No, they have effectively overruled Boris.

 

[psionl0]

As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

 

[a_unique_person]

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

They effectively ruled that Parliament cannot be prorgued arbitrarily by the PM. That would be a good thing, as rule breakers like Boris could just prorogue parliament indefinitely. There is nothing that says he can't.

 

[jimbob]

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

See the post above yours

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.

As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:



You are conflating the legislature with the building it sits in.




No, they have effectively overruled Boris.

Exactly

 

[Pixel42]

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

Even if that were true, it's an improvement on the stage being left set so that an unelected PM can suspend Parliament to deliberately prevent it performing its oversight role.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

and the decision gives Parliament the chance to do exactly that.
It can't fulfill its function when prorogued.

 

[Darat]

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.



The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

In the UK all our governments are there to govern, and they of course have to act within the law. It is the courts' responsibility to make a judgement on whether a government has acted lawfully. The various parliaments' responsibility is to pass legislation. When a situation arises in which a constitutional point is to be decided (that is not already part of our constitution) it is the courts' role to decide on that.

If the Westminster Parliament is unhappy with how a court has judged on a constitutional point it can enact new legislation that renders that judgement null and void.

Now I originally thought the court would have decided that if parliament had wanted to limit the ability of the monarch to prorogue parliament it would have done so.

However the judges being canny about the law avoided all that by a crafty side step.

 

[Mojo]

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

How you think things should be is a red herring. As things stand the courts have the power to review administrative actions. If Parliament wants to prevent the courts deciding such matters, and remove the powers of the courts to subject the executive to scrutiny, it can do so through appropriate legislation.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

There is no specific piece of legislation that forbids the specific actions Johnson took. Instead, he acted outside what he is legally entitled to do.

This is why his actions were ruled "unlawful", rather than "illegal".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

That doesn't even remotely sum up my reply to you. Instead that reads like you had already made up your mind and are trying desperately to twist everything in order to allow yourself to convince yourself that you're right.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ.

How do you expect them to do that while prorogued?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

You clearly have no idea how English law works.

 

[Wudang]

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.

Well if that ever happens let us know. In this case the SC very explicitly ruled that power lay with Parliament and that nothing should interfere with Parliament's ability to perform its role. It's astonishingly clear for a legal document.