Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nessie said:
OK, so if the court has the authority to adjudicate on proroguing, that means proroguing is a law, not a parliamentary procedure.

From the House of Commons Library website;

https://commonslibrary.parliament.u...preme-court-on-the-prorogation-of-parliament/

"On 11 September, the High Court of England and Wales held that the legality of the prorogation was not justiciable in a court of law. That meant that the High Court had determined the question to be beyond the scope of judicial review. On the same day, the Court of Session in Scotland reached the opposite conclusion. It determined that the issue was justiciable."

That disagreement is why it went to the Supreme Court. The SC ruled in favour of the Scottish Court of Session;

"The Court held that the power to prorogue Parliament is a prerogative power: “a power recognised by the common law and exercised by the Crown… on advice” of the Prime Minister."

From the judgement itself;

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

"30.Before considering the question of justiciability, there are four points that we should make clear at the outset. First, the power to order the prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative power: that is to say, a power recognised by the common law and exercised by the Crown."

Prorogation is a common law.
Click to expand...

Some of this seems.confused. the english and scottish cases were two seperate things. its not right to frame it as the SC deciding which one was right.
 
Nessie said:
Prorogation is a common law.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be any problem with recognizing that, since the Supreme court of the UK has been given the responsibility of being ultimate authority on British law (at least in this case, from what I understand other courts have remit over certain other matters), their conclusions determine what the British law is simply by definition.

This is not an endorsement of this or any other decision they have made or will make in the future. Again, if the prime minister objects to the law there is a very straight forward solution to the problem: enact legislation to permit proroging parliament for any reason whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
There shouldn't be any problem with recognizing that, since the Supreme court of the UK has been given the responsibility of being ultimate authority on British law (at least in this case, from what I understand other courts have remit over certain other matters), their conclusions determine what the British law is simply by definition.

This is not an endorsement of this or any other decision they have made or will make in the future. Again, if the prime minister objects to the law there is a very straight forward solution to the problem: enact legislation to permit proroging parliament for any reason whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Given his 0% success rate enacting anything seems far from straightforward for this PM
 
psionl0 said:
I have. The only time the SC referred to an actual law was when they rejected the argument that this was parliamentary business as defined in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...


Again, as anyone can see by reading the judgment, they cited numerous judicial precedents. In a common law system, judicial precedent is a source of law.

If you want to claim that the precedents cited are not “actual law”, you will need to cite legislation (or judicial precedent) that overturns them.
 
Tory MP says we should abolish the Supreme Court.

"In the long term, I also believe that in the election manifesto we should have a commitment to abolish the Supreme Court and return to the status quo ante.

"After all its only in the last decade we had the law lords in Parliament resolving great disputes rather than a Supreme Court of people that are frankly accountable to no one."
Click to expand...
 
Nessie said:
There was a party political broadcast the Brexit party this evening. Farage complained that May's deal was still giving the EU too much power over the UK and that Johnson is just pushing for something very similar. With time running out I waited with bated breath as to what Farage's plan was.... It turns out he wants a "clean break" so that the UK will get all its power and sovereignty back.

That's it. Farage is selling no deal as if it is a deal. But it is not. There will need to be negotiations to get trade deals, travel, residency, customs etc etc

He is a snake oil salesman.
Click to expand...

I think what he actually wants is no Brexit. As long as he can campaign for Brexit without actually getting it, he has a nice little racket going.
 
timhau said:
I think what he actually wants is no Brexit. As long as he can campaign for Brexit without actually getting it, he has a nice little racket going.
Click to expand...

It is notable that rather than rejoin UKIP, he formed a new party. I suspect there was more money in it for him that way.
 
SezMe said:
At the risk of a derail, what does this mean?
Click to expand...
He's facing an investigation for corrupt activities while in public office.

SezMe said:
Is there no longer a "London" city government?
Click to expand...
Not a such. There is a Greater London Authority which is a local authority with a mayor and elected assembly that handles matters relating to London; principally transport, policing and emergency services, and economic planning and development but lacks real revenue raising powers.
 
catsmate said:
He's facing an investigation for corrupt activities while in public office.


Not a such. There is a Greater London Authority which is a local authority with a mayor and elected assembly that handles matters relating to London; principally transport, policing and emergency services, and economic planning and development but lacks real revenue raising powers.
Click to expand...

Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?
 
Mojo said:
Tory MP says we should abolish the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

"After all its only in the last decade we had the law lords in Parliament resolving great disputes rather than a Supreme Court of people that are frankly accountable to no one."
Click to expand...

Of course it's only proper for judges to be held to account for frustrating the elective dictatorship of the day. If they dare to make a perfectly reasonable legal decision that is unpopular with a part of the legislature then the legislature should be able to unseat them immediately and vacate their judgement.

It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws in such a way that it's pleasing to elected politicians, instead of the elected politicians making sure that the laws can only reasonably be interpreted in the way they want.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Of course it's only proper for judges to be held to account for frustrating the elective dictatorship of the day. If they dare to make a perfectly reasonable legal decision that is unpopular with a part of the legislature then the legislature should be able to unseat them immediately and vacate their judgement.

It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws in such a way that it's pleasing to elected politicians, instead of the elected politicians making sure that the laws can only reasonably be interpreted in the way they want.
Click to expand...


The thing is that under “the status quo ante” the Appellate Committee was really no more accountable to Parliament than the Supreme Court judges are. The basic principle of judicial independence has been established for several hundred years.

ETA: There’s certainly a provision in the legislation setting up the SC allowing for removal of a judge by Parliament.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?
Click to expand...
The GLA incorporates the old City as well as Greater London (the 32 boroughs). All 33 districts (in the local government sense) have a lower level of local government, either by Borough Council or the City's unique arrangements.

It's complicated. And I haven't even got down to wards or the Temple liberties yet.....
 
What did peeps think of Geoffrey Cox' theatrics on the return of parliament t'other day? He has a great Shakespearean voice(could always get a job introducing the X-Factor) but what caught the news headline here in Finland was...Barry Sheerman (sp_?) spitting with rage in reply. Cox only got a short clip as a follow up to show viewers what Barry was so angry about.

Cox is a better orator than BoJo, with his all too predictable punching the air, silly quips and three-words per breath sentences.
 
Vixen said:
What did peeps think of Geoffrey Cox' theatrics on the return of parliament t'other day? He has a great Shakespearean voice(could always get a job introducing the X-Factor) but what caught the news headline here in Finland was...Barry Sheerman (sp_?) spitting with rage in reply. Cox only got a short clip as a follow up to show viewers what Barry was so angry about.

Cox is a better orator than BoJo, with his all too predictable punching the air, silly quips and three-words per breath sentences.
Click to expand...


Here’s a report of the proceedings: Incredible Sulk's anger is compounded by ranting of Geoffrey Cox.
 
jimbob said:
Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?
Click to expand...

The City of London Corporation governs the Square Mile, which was the extent of the city through the Roman, Saxon and the Medieval periods. They are headed by the Lord Mayor of London, which many people confuse for the Mayor of London. They've been around for about a thousand years and their rights and privileges are guaranteed by Magna Carta, which is still part of English law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom