Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand :)
Click to expand...

I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.
 
Nessie said:
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...amatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
 
Nessie said:
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...amatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...

so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...
 
...and wait...

Nessie said:
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.u...amatic-history-prorogation-british-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
Click to expand...

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?
 
I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power.
Click to expand...


Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.
 
Mojo said:
Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.
Click to expand...

So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.
 
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...
Demonstrating (again) that you do not understand the UK political system, the function, roles and powers of the UK Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Mojo said:
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:
Click to expand...
Where is John Marshall when you need him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom