Damning...
But right...
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was unlawful and therefore the House's prorogation was also illicit and should be recalled as soon as possible, said a judgment handed down at the Supreme Court this morning. The surprising ruling [PDF] from the Supreme Court was the unanimous …
No, but declared the act was unlawful, ie. illegal, should someone decide to make a case, which I think they will at some point. Presumably Bojo will resign before he Parliament decides to hold him in the contempt which he deserves.
Difficult to fault the judgement on points of law, but that was the impression last week when the government's legal team (B-team at best) made their argument, that the court wasn't allowed to decide.
Government without a majority with a leader who broke the law…
PS. the IT angle is surely GNU (government of national unity)
"the act was unlawful, ie. illegal"
I think that "unlawful" and "illegal" are not exactly the same, especially when it's the legal profession talking.
To declare that I am the Queen is unlawful, as that is not how (these days) one becomes a monarch according to our laws but it is not, afaik, illegal for me to do so.
You aren't allowed to impersonate the Queen for the purposes of personal gain of the perpetration of a fraud or deception for other pecuniary gain.
But you are quite right... it isn't illegal to declare that you are the Queen, a queen, half a Queen on alternate weekdays, or even Brian May, but it is unlawful because it is without a lawful backing. Unless you actually ARE Brian May.
On unlawfulness and what that means for the government, it's not like the PM behaved criminally. This is a public law matter and unlawfulness only means that the public body overstepped its authority by exercising a power that it doesn't have or by exceeding the limits of that power. It happens all the time, but it's not usually the PM who is found to have done this. Other ministers are routinely found to have exceeded their authority. It also doesn't imply malicious intent. The remedy is usually that the decision is quashed and any actions flowing from it are nullified, which is what has happened here.
Pedant attack! Unlawful and illegal aren’t synonyms in their legal usage, e.g. the definition of murder requires that the killing be unlawful, plus some other requirements*. They approximately mean not according to the law versus directly contravening the law. Although not everyone even seems to agree about that. It’s a slightly fuzzy thing relating to the constitution not being particularly explicit in many areas.
Anyway, this was definitely the former rather than the latter. It’s harder to be lawful than merely legal.
* malice aforethought mainly, which, ummm, doesn’t really mean malice, just intent.
"Presumably Bojo will resign before he Parliament decides to hold him in the contempt which he deserves."
Should but not necessarily will. Parliament has a couple of options if he doesn't. On would be a vote of confidence, the other is to charge him with contempt of Parliament. In the latter case I wonder if that results of him being kicked out of his seat as well as out of No 10. Presumably Cummings would also be in their sights.
Having previously worked to help implement the IPSA expenses system I can confirm that 98% of politicians and their self appointed spouses/mistresses/proxies/whatever are exactly the same. Not a shred of decency amongst them (although I did have to chuckle at the irony when one MP's proxy, irate at having to navigate the complex signing on process in order to claim for a £3,000 rug, ranted that she was paying my wages and therefore deserved better service...)
Anon for obvious reasons due to having signed the Official Secrets Act
As warming as it may be to the cockles of your heart (or the heart of your cockles, if you are so inclined) to imagine BoJo receiving some rough justice from an armed robber in Wormwood Scrubs, the reality is that he did nothing wrong in proroguing parliament, it was in accordance with precedent, in accordance with the advice of the government's senior law officers, and his freedom to commit those actions was sanctioned in the High Court, by three of the senior judges in the country.
Let's try and avoid adding petrol to the flames...
Unlawful != Illegal
Unlawful - Not Authorised by law.
Illegal - Forbidden by law.
In the first case - no statute exists forbidding Boris Johnson's proroguing if parliament, however the courts ruled that in doing so for such a long time, he's effectively denying Parliament the opportunity to hold the Government to account . In determining this they took submissions from John Major that drawing up a new Queen's speech need only take around 5 - 6 days.
And yes I know the controversy over the cash for questions proroguing of Parliament. However this Judgement will make it harder for this and future Governments to use this as a tool to get round blocks by Parliament.
Yes, and will also lead to any unpopular decision being challenged.
Say for example a "Government of National Unity" forms to block Brexit rather than facing General Election.
I can see this going to the courts as it is formed for the sole purpose of "stymie" the referendum result.
"Say for example a "Government of National Unity" forms to block Brexit rather than facing General Election.
I can see this going to the courts as it is formed for the sole purpose of "stymie" the referendum result."
No. The forming of a government is a proceeding of Parliament. The courts can't touch it. If Parliament approves revoking notice under Article 50 and stopping Brexit, that is also a proceeding of Parliament. Parliament is sovereign. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Government is not sovereign. It requires the confidence of the House of Commons in order to govern. When the government tries to sidestep Parliament, the courts have a duty to preserve the separation of powers when such matters are brought before them. Acts of Parliament reign supreme. The referendum result has no legal or constitutional significance other than what Parliament decides to give to it. Nor do the courts have any say over whether or how a non-binding result is implemented.
"I think a lot of people don't get the distinction between government and parliament. If things were going better here they probably wouldn't need to."
If only people would simply read the judgement. It's all of 25 pages and took me about half an hour. It explains very clearly what this is all about. These distinctions are very easily understood.
Parliament does not require the confidence of the electorate, meaning that there is no process to replace Parliament apart from a general election, which the public may not call. And they block offers of a GE because they don't trust Johnson not to use the date of the election to frustrate Parliament's ability to control the exit from the EU. If Johnson really wants change so badly, all he has to do is resign government. He doesn't want to do this because it would allow Parliament 14 days to attempt to form another government without the need for a GE.
Say for example a "Government of National Unity" forms to block Brexit rather than facing General Election.I can see this going to the courts as it is formed for the sole purpose of "stymie" the referendum result.
It is more likely a "Government of National Unity" (or just another Government) forms to find a way forward with Brexit without just telling the EU "we're taking our bat and ball home because you're being mean to us" (a negotiation strategy which most school kids work out early on is unlikely to be successful).
Even so, the referendum result has no legal weight so the situation you specify couldn't be taken to court. As Leavers said they wanted so many times during the ref, Parliament is Sovereign and it is up to Parliament to implement the referendum result (or not) as they see fit. That's what Sovereign means, in this context.
Presumably Bojo will resign before he Parliament decides to hold him in the contempt which he deserves.
Nope: Parliament will prefer to ritually mutilate all of their sexual organs, rub the wounds with salt and chilli, while casting the antics on Twitch.tv, rather than doing anything that maybe even remotely, could result in parliament dealing with the unpinned grenade that Brexit has become!
--- Which of course means that Boris Johnson will be resigning exactly at the point in time where various procedural requirement and delays makes the 'October the 31'st Crash out' impossible to avoid.
Presumably Bojo will resign before he Parliament decides to hold him in the contempt which he deserves.
I doubt it.
However, many people have stated that this could actually be a good thing for BJ.
He has already set himself up as champion of the people over Parliament/the Elite (as laughable as this is). He is a populist, not concerned with the truth or anything else. He will merely present this (using weasel words so he can argue he isn't slagging off the judiciary even though he is) as the Supreme Court being another part of "The Elite" he has to fight against on behalf of "The People". This is likely to gain him more (or stronger) support.
They did implicitly though. Part of the Court of Session in Edinburgh's ruling stated that he had misled the queen. The government appealed against that ruling at the Supreme court in London who rejected the appeal, upholding the Court of Session's original ruling (including declaring the prorogation null and void).
The explicitly _didn't_ - they said there was no evidence.
And there is no higher court - the buck stops here.
Anyhow, the judgement told him how to do it properly next time, look at clause 59. If he has a good reason, (for example needing 3 weeks to set out the Queen's speech because of the massive backlog of Brexit legislation) he can do it again. Which he probably will.
>Anyhow, the judgement told him how to do it properly next time, look at clause 59. If he has a good reason, (for example needing 3 weeks to set out the Queen's speech because of the massive backlog of Brexit legislation) he can do it again. Which he probably will.
Unless, of course, MPs use the freshly re-opened Parliament to push through a bill requiring Parliamentary approval to prorogue Parliament in future (i.e. a majority of MPs voting in favour).
That would stop his second attempt in its tracks.
Illegal means what you have done is break an existing law.
Unlawful means there is no law allowing you to do it yet but no law to strictly forbid it.
In other words what you have done is outside the law as it stands because it has never been done before so there is no law to strictly forbid it.
That's how this armchair solicitor views it. I now await the down-votes, will then declare them unlawful, and demand a re-thread. (It is as much arguing the difference between civil law and criminal law as anything else.)
I remember back in the day when a certain Home Secretary increased the sentences of the murderers of Jamie Bulgar, only for the courts to rule that said Home Secretary acted unlawfully. Yet said Home Secretary didn't break any law, he simply believed he had the power to do so and the courts ruled he didn't.
"Unlawful means there is no law allowing you to do it yet but no law to strictly forbid it.
In other words what you have done is outside the law as it stands because it has never been done before so there is no law to strictly forbid it."
It's a possible answer to the question (we probably both found it here https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/special-shows/the-mystery-hour/is-it-unlawful-or-illegal/), but it doesn't sufficiently explain it in a public law context. In this context, "unlawful" simply means that the public authority has overstepped its authority. Either it exercised a power that was not available to it, or it exceeded the limits of that power. In the present case, it is the latter. "Illegal" has several different meanings and there isn't really one that would apply here. It can mean that someone broke an existing law (criminal or civil) or it can refer to a law that is not formulated with sufficient precision so that its application can be reasonably foreseen. It probably has other meanings too, but those would be the most common under UK law.
Luckily contempt of parliament does not need illegal or criminal actions. By ruling on the basis he has interfered with parliaments business, that's automatically contempt of parliament. Parliament can arrest him the moment he sets foot in the house if they don't feel like involving the police.
...and if he hides from parliament, that is also contempt of parliament ;)
Understanding politics through the medium of Dr Who.
Lesson 1. Judging the actions of a Prime Minister.
There is a distinction between an illegal act, such as murder, and an unlawful act, such as making things up to get your own way.
I mean, if Boris had just gone into Number 10, called a cabinet meeting, declared everyone there to be a traitor and then killed them all, it would be illegal, right? Whereas if he were to lie in order to further his own cause that would be unlawful, but not necessarily illegal.
And the so-called "people" who foisted disco on the planet.
someone might say the same about Punk, Pop or Captain Sensible (god, I hated that song).
It's not disco I have issue with but the flares and tanktops I see myself dressed in in my faded photo album.
80's men's fashion was terrible, I agree - all mullets and suit jackets with the sleeves pulled up. But ladies' fashion was great - big hair, leg warmers and chunky jumpers, a la Stephanie Beacham and Emma Samms.
Or maybe I just remember it that way because I was getting laid a fair bit.
And isn't lying to The Queen treasonous?
According to Private Eye they didn't lie to her, she told them how to do it.
This post has been deleted by its author
Not unsympathetic to the grumblings as the EU has grown and the bureaucracy with it, but on balance it seemed better to stay in the tent; I'd have voted remain if asked.
However, given the current state of affairs, does putting the parliament back in session get the UK closer to resolving this? The Parliament has already rejected the deal negotiated with the EU, no deal, an election. Wouldn't it be better to take your lumps and end the uncertainty?
It's a shame a referendum for Northern Ireland's future wasn't offered when the Scots were asked.
Given the risk of further violence, not an easy problem. That's why I said it was a shame the question wasn't asked before. As I understand it, NI demographics have been gradually shifting over time and are now such that there would probably be majority support for leaving the UK, leaving aside the EU factors. I'm guessing the EU factors would also support remaining in the EU if/when the rest of the UK departs, as appears to be the case with Scotland.
Then again, we shouldn't be cowed by fear. That way, the terrorists/freedom fighters win.
"As I understand it, NI demographics have been gradually shifting over time and are now such that there would probably be majority support for leaving the UK"
I'm not sure you understand it very well, NI benefits enormously from being part of the UK, I'm not sure many people want to pay EUR 50 to see a GP. There's a lot more trade with NI & the rest of the UK than with 'the South'.
"I'm guessing the EU factors would also support remaining in the EU if/when the rest of the UK departs, as appears to be the case with Scotland"
You're not making the mistake of believing the SNP are you?
A large majority here still want to be part of the UK, our problem is the unionist vote is split 3 ways so the SNP get elected. And they're the only ones you ever hear from.
BTW, an independent Scotland would be out of the EU for a considerable amount of time, and Sturgeon et al would have had us all out in 2014 without a thought. The current bloviation is
just convenient grievance mongery.
To be clear, it's not a matter of me wanting Irish reunification or NI independence from the UK or even NI rejoining the EU; that is properly a matter for the citizens of the 6 counties.
The trade situation is not a surprise; England is the economic powerhouse of the UK, and where Great Britain's GDP is over £2 trillion, NI's is less than £40 billion (2017). The republic's GDP is about £280 billion. Of course GB will be the bigger partner; it's almost 8 times the size.
I never paid 50 € to see a GP while I lived in the RoI; I did get an ambulance, hospital admission, surgery and an overnight stay all in for 45 € once, though. So I'm not sure that NI citizens have too much to fear on that score. I'd imagine the EU would be pretty keen for any process involving NI rejoining the fold as part of the republic, or as an independent state to go smoothly, politically and economically. If for no other reason to be mud'n the eye for the British.
Sorry for the confusion, my comparison to Scotland was specifically in reference to the EU referendum results, where NI and Scotland produced majorities for remain (unlike England and Wales). I would not draw a parallel between NI and Scotland in reference to remaining part of the UK because the demographic and historic situation is significantly different, and NI haven't had a referendum in recent years as Scotland has (or at all).
As a great man almost said once:
"The reason for my coming here has never been more clear. The union of the Northern Ireland and the Irish people will not be achieved by politics or by diplomacy, but it will be achieved. The answer has been here before us all along. An inexorable evolution toward a European philosophy has already begun. Like the first Europeans, these people are struggling toward a new enlightenment; and, it may take decades or even centuries for them to reach it, but they will reach it, and I must help."
The Irish reunification question is complex
And I suspect that Eire would like to wait until the current generation of 'loyalist' terrorists are dead before going for reunification - especially as the demographics of NI are gradually shifting to favour it.
The reason they voted against an election was that there was no way to stop Boris going ' OK, I've changed my mind it'll be on the 31st October and *dissolving* parliament...
And there is a major difference between prorogation and recess - in terms of what is actually shut down.
"Lock him up!"
My understanding of the relevant laws and documents is that there aren't any laws regarding this matter - there are interpretations of the constitution and precedence.
Precedence allows the PM to prorogue Parliament - effectively Boris's argument for prorogation and as PM he would normally have the majority of parliament supporting him. I think the Tories still had a majority at the time as I think the resignations/defections/etc happened after prorogation.
However, as Parliament effectively weren't represented by the PM between announcing prorogation and it coming into effect, the decision was that Boris's actions prevented parliamentary business taking place. This was unprecedented and would usually fall on the Speaker to try and force the house to follow convention.
Normal precedent would have been for Parliament to call a vote of no confidence, the Government to lose and an election would be called, but the 31st of October Brexit deadline was looming, so precedent was ignored and we end up in the current messy situation.
While I do not believe prorogation was the democratic way forward, the precedent of involving the legal system to resolve a constitutional matter will likely cause issues in the future as the Government no longer has the final say if a (private) legal challenge is brought and successfully argued in court. i.e. if this path had been followed for the invasion of Iraq under Blair on the basis that information provided was not correct, then potentially decisions could be rejected. While overturning Brexit/war decisions may be in the UK's best interests, not all cases will be favourable.
In the bigger picture, I'm not sure this outcome substantially alters the Brexit picture - Boris is still PM, he is still planning to try and leave on the 31st as he promised but he is being obstructed by remainers which plays into his election strategy. On the other hand, Parliament is too unstable to continue in its current state beyond the 31st of October (or sooner if legislation to delay past the deadline is put in-place) where we will likely see an election. In the meantime, we see a further delay as any legislation to potentially bind a future majority Governments decision would not last.
From that election, we then get to see the next stage but it is not clear what that would be.
My understanding of the relevant laws and documents is that there aren't any laws regarding this matter - there are interpretations of the constitution and precedence.
"Parliament is sovereign" is clear cut, well known, and pretty easy to understand and comprehend, even for the layman.
Parliament can choose to lend its powers to other authorities and it thus allows the government to exercise prerogative rights and to prorogue when "for good reasons". But the key here is that lent powers are constrained by purpose and intent.
Where the Johnson Junta over-stepped the mark was in taking the piss, proroguing for other than "for good reason".
Everyone could see that; even those supporting such subversion when being honest with themselves. So it was guaranteed the Courts would, though the High Court dodged the bullet by pretending it was 'none of our business'.
Some people seem genuinely surprised by the Supreme Court ruling. I believe it was an obvious inevitability. Anything else would have meant ruling that parliament was not sovereign.
And we all know that it is. Though some brexiteers would prefer that we had a dictatorship where the government could do as it damned-well pleased.
I wasn't surprised, but it could have gone either way.
For starters, Parliament _isn't_ sovereign. The sovereign is. Parliament has no role in government other than to advise the sovereign. The sovereign's power to prorogue Parliament doesn't come with a reasonableness test attached. But the courts seem to have decided that the sovereign is actually just the government's puppet.
Another argument that might have led to a ruling the other way is that it is not unreasonable to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks when it was already taking 3 weeks off for conference season, and has not scheduled sessions for many available days in that time and afterwards. There was nothing stopping Parliament largely circumventing prorogation by sitting 7 days a week on their return and making up most of the lost time.
I think one would have to be quite partisan to convince oneself it was an obvious result either way.
It's true that there were few parliamentary sessions planned, but prorogation (as opposed to recess) also prevents the sitting of committees, the submission of and response to verbal or written questions etc etc
The point being that it stops *all* parliamentary business, not just the sitting of the houses themselves.
Yes, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My point is that while the probabilities favoured the result we saw, it was far from a certainty. So a ruling in either direction shouldn't have surprised anyone, unless they were so partisan they'd convinced themselves it was a slam dunk.
The power of the monarch has been increasingly limited pretty much throughout our history, notably Magna Carta, but mostly in many small steps. Oddly enough the Civil War itself didn't have a huge effect, apart from, obviously, the interregnum. The Glorious Revolution is what really set us on the path of constitutional monarchy.
"For starters, Parliament _isn't_ sovereign. The sovereign is. "
Errrm, I'm neither a constitutional lawyer nor a politician or a political scientist. But I get the distinct impression that, according to you, an unelected bureaucrat holds sovereignty in this country? Could you possibly explain in plain English how that fits in with any concept of democracy, let alone 'bring back control'?
(Incidentally, the Supreme Court (legally trained gentlepersons, methinks) seems to disagree with you: "As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”." I think that refers to the Case of Proclamations against King James VI (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/1610/J22.html). Apologies for posting that umpteen times today but it does go to the core of UK democracy - for those who believe in that. For non-UK readers: "the law" is not always written law in the UK, esp. where constitutional law is concerned, as the UK has no written constitution.)
I have to pick a nit: The UK does have a written constitution - the problem is just that is is written on scraps here and there, and (a bit like the Bible), while there is agreement about the big lines, no-one are sure what all the right bits are, and there is no final edited version.
Gathering it together, identifying and cleaning up the loopholes would be a worthwhile exercise.
Probably not a good idea, it would only end up starkly revealing what a tangled mess with little foundation beyond belief that it was consistent, sane or even fit for purpose.
It usually appears to me to resemble a badly written play.
For starters, Parliament _isn't_ sovereign. The sovereign is.
Lady Hale and the rest of the Supreme Court would beg to differ as they made precisely this point in their judgement, which is now de facto law.
The Glorious Revolution and the Act of Union, amongst other laws, effectively put an end to the sovereignty of the Sovereign. Otherwise, why would the Queen be more or less obliged to accept the advice of the government?
"For starters, Parliament _isn't_ sovereign. The sovereign is."
This is a meaningless statement. The sovereign is Parliament and Parliament is sovereign. The monarch used to be the government and the government used to be sovereign until the Case of Proclamations (1610) held that "The King has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him." This is all in the judgement. You should read it.
"Parliament has no role in government other than to advise the sovereign. "
This is utterly false and backwards. The government can only govern if it has the confidence of Parliament, particularly the House of Commons. Only Parliament can make law.
"I think one would have to be quite partisan to convince oneself it was an obvious result either way."
I'm a firm remainder and I firmly believed the Supreme Court would affirm the judgement of the High Court. I was gob-smacked that the ruling was unanimous against the government. I read the judgement in full and feel it makes perfect sense, but only the Supreme Court could have held what it did. Please read the judgement. It's illuminating.
While I do not believe prorogation was the democratic way forward, the precedent of involving the legal system to resolve a constitutional matter will likely cause issues in the future as the Government no longer has the final say if a (private) legal challenge is brought and successfully argued in court.
Methinks you do not fully understand ... the Government has the final say, but the way the Government behaves -- the way it conducts its business -- is constrained by the legal framework within which it operates, which is intended to ensure that Democracy is respected.
The courts can't tell the Government that it has the wrong policies, only that it is trying to enact those policies in a way that is not supported by the Law.
My worry, here, is that a future government might attempt to reduce the power of the Courts, which would have grave implications for democracy.
"While I do not believe prorogation was the democratic way forward, the precedent of involving the legal system to resolve a constitutional matter will likely cause issues in the future as the Government no longer has the final say if a (private) legal challenge is brought and successfully argued in court. "
I don't think so. A key part of the legal argument was that Parliament couldn't sort itself out because it had been prorogued. The court's intervention to restore Parliament was therefore required in order that it (the court) did not, through *inaction*, get involved in politics.
We're back to parliament as it was in the 16th C. with fluid alliances being formed around individual bills as they are tabled for debate. We're lucky the ancient laws & precedents brought into play through these court cases exist as I don't believe the current shower could come up with anything remotely similar.
The supreme courts judgement boils down to "You can close down parliament but not for this long"
If BoJo now steps down, the clock starts ticking for a forced election because I can't see anyone getting a majority in the house in the time allowed.
While I do not believe prorogation was the democratic way forward, the precedent of involving the legal system to resolve a constitutional matter will likely cause issues in the future as the Government no longer has the final say
Lots of other countries have government decisions (and even laws) overruled the courts. In fact, it's a critical aspect of the separation of powers. Otherwise, as the Supreme Court argued, the government can decide it's had enough of parliamentary scrutiny. That door has now been firmly closed: the executive made a power grab and failed. Not only that but the attempt was ruled unlawful: do it again and criminal proceedings could be initiated. More unchartered territory but that's what the much-vaunted UK constitution is supposed to be good at dealing with.
Personally, I'd like to see Bojo done for Contempt or Parliament and Corbyn be sent down for being a waste of time. Then we might actually see some stuff being done.
Osborne to be the next Tory leader?
If I remember the discussions correctly then this could actually cause major issues in the future specifically because it says the Supreme Court has authority over Parliament. This goes against the supposed seperation of powers which is presumed in how things 'work' in the UK.
It's not statute, but it is law. Our legal system is grounded in Common Law, which is essentially accumulated precedent. Of course we also have Statutes (written laws reviewed and passed by Parliament) and also Regulation (written law created by ministerial fiat and not reviewed by Parliament). It's overall a bit of a mess, but it's worked (more or less) for at around 300 years so far. However there's an increasing and worrying drift towards Regulation. This Supreme Court decision (although not setting any precedent) is a strong and welcome indication of resistance to the trend.
"A "principle" not codified isn't actually a law."
Your statement is correct wrt to many countries/jurisdictions. However, the UK has:
- Statute law: laws adopted by Parliament, i.e. what you are referring to
- Common law: based on custom, assumed to have existed always, but not codified
- Case law: based on court decisions
Which country are you based in?
The judgement addressed that question explicitly.
Quote: 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.
"And since "unelected judges" overruling parliament was one of the main complaints ..."
That sounds rather like hundreds of comments on the BBC website. It appears that quite a few folk are unaware that it was the PM (unelected, appointed by a party with a minority in Parliament) who effectively tried to overrule Parliament by proroguing it.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that, in accordance with UK constitutional law, Parliament is sovereign. The goverment/crown can indeed prorogue Parliament, but only in line with tradition/precedent, i.e. for 5 - 7 days, not 5 weeks.
As the SC states: "As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”."
I get the impression quite a few folk are unaware of the distinction between the legislative (Parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (courts). Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country? Or foreign folk who haven't been briefed properly? Am I just a grumpy sod?
I get the impression quite a few folk are unaware of the distinction between the legislative (Parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (courts). Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country? Or foreign folk who haven't been briefed properly? Am I just a grumpy sod?
It could be all of the above. But, for the record, you don't sound all that grumpy to me.
Brits are totally unaware of our constitutional laws - hence brexit, and the voters who voted to "punish" the EU for the faults of the UK government, and "take back control" we already had... and then complain when they perceive this control works against them.
to cheer up those who feel victimised because it's claimed the Brits are totally unaware of their / our constitutional laws - cheer up, you're not alone, the state of ignorance is typical for at least two other European populations I know somewhat better than most here, which makes me think that ignorance is, well, pretty much a common state of affairs for the huge majority in each and every population.
"ignorance is, well, pretty much a common state of affairs for the huge majority in each and every population."
Worse, it's willful, stubborn and very, very vocal ignorance. And the .gov of your choice likes it that way. Why do you think one of the first places that they make cuts is in education?
compulsory civics classes in school, which our American chums enjoy
If only. I imagine there are school districts in the US where civics classes are compulsory, but I believe that's relatively rare.
If this report is accurate, only a quarter of 8th-grade students in the US meet the basic proficiency requirement in civics. That's approximately the same as the fraction of Americans overall who can name all three branches of government,1 so the general population isn't doing better than the students (nor vice versa).
As that report notes, increased focus on the basics and "teaching for the test" in schools, thanks to heavy-handed interference like NCLB, is forcing out civics and other "breadth" curricula.
1Animal, vegetable, and criminal.
Unfortunately, we Brits do not have a codified constitution, but an unwritten one formed by acts of Parliament, the Courts and conventions.
I am of the opinion that the Supreme Court will now lobby for a written Constitution on the back of this judgement.
I don't think courts lobby for anything. They judge what others lobby for, though there may well be some doing that.
Personally I think a written constitution is probably a bad thing. What would be written is likely to be less liberal than the existing ambiguity, along the lines of 'it is better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission'.
Nit-pick: Acts of Parliament and Court judgements are both "written" things.
They may not all be gathered in one place, but that applies to any country that has ever amended its constitution or had its top court pass judgement on any article of it.
Free speech, freedom to assemble, free press, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom to own weapons for self defense. Yep, those plucky rebels really didn't get much when they left old England.
Someone's still bitter about not being invited to the Boston Tea Party...
“lobby for a written Constitution on the back of this judgement.”
Why?
Our checks and balances have done what they were meant to do.
Parliament will again be able to hold the government to account.
A flexible enough constitution to adapt to situations we wouldn’t have envisaged thirty years ago (like electing a bunch of blithering idiots to office and having them controlled by a very small group of disaster capitalists) is a good thing.
Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country?
In my experience, a good number of brits appear to be ignorant of a number of important distinctions; that between government and parliament, between representative democracy and mob rule, between the role of the police and that of the courts, between the concept of justice, and that of vengeance, and many many more.
I put it down to a lack of education in such matters, and mis-education from a diet of tabloid newspapers and biased TV news reporting. I'm not sure the remedy is an easy path, as I see it it requires root-and-branch education of the masses in difficult subjects such as critical thinking and social responsibility which are hard things to instil in people who have gone their whole lives with them absent.
>Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country?
The constitutional law of the country is what parliament / the PM / the palace / the editor of the Daily Mail think they can get away with.
One king can get fired for marrying a divorcee, another royal divorcee can get canonised by the press.
One PM can send in troops to break strikes, win a war then get fired because of it.
Another PM can lie to start a war and be proclaimed as the greatest leader ever.
Er, the king you're thinking of wasn't forced to abdicate because of Wallis Simpson being divorced. That was just the excuse, because it was less embarrassing than admitting he was a full blown Nazi who wanted Britain to join the Axis powers.
> the king you're thinking of wasn't forced to abdicate because of Wallis Simpson being divorced. That was just the excuse
That's rather the point. the constitution is entirely public opinion = a function of the prime minister and the editor of the Daily Mail
"Actually the law is what the judges say it is. Constitutional law is what the Supreme Court says it is."
Before today, I would have disagreed. Constitutional law was a combination of written laws and precedent, with great care taken to avoid precedent unless it was absolutely necessary.
From today, I agree, it is very likely that constitutional law is what the Supreme Court says it is and precedent maybe ignored if desired with little thought for the consequences.
I'm not sure that the UK has a constitution that is fit for that purpose, as there are a number of areas that could be interpreted in many different ways depending on the arguments presented.
It has always been the job of the courts to interpret and apply the law, taking into account Parliament's intentions. The ruling is unusual and I was very surprised by it, but I've read the whole thing and it makes perfect sense. Prerogative power is residual and cannot be used to usurp the power of Parliament to hold the government to account. This, by the way, has nothing to do with leaving the EU. If Parliament agrees to leave without a deal, that's that. Whatever happens, Parliament must approve it.
Parliament writes laws as accurately as it can,
Which Parliament does that? It's not the one in Westminster.
Recent Bills have been full of vagueness with the expectation they (or more accurately someone will) work out how to do it (if it's even possible) at a later date. Provided of course, that bits of it aren't subsequently struck down by some higher court at some later date.
I know I have been slapped down already (no excuse for lack of knowledge) but don't they normally recess for the conference season which I though was 2-3 weeks? Really need to catch up on this stuff but with so few of them being the kind of person I would want to be seen stood next to in the pub, I don't want to seem too keen
They normally break for the conferences, and with the way being PM changed ownership some sort of recess would have been expected, but the length and the timing was what upset everyone.
If Boris had said it was for a couple of weeks there probably wouldn't have been the cases.
They do normally "recess" for conferences, but that does not guillotine business in the way that proroguing does.
Amusingly, since they *haven't* recessed for the conferences this year, today's decision means that Conservative MPs will have to choose between voting in Parliament and going to their conference.
"Today's decision means that Conservative MPs will have to choose between voting in Parliament and going to their conference."
It will be interesting to see how petty MP's and the Speaker might be - not having a recess for the Tory conference will have repercussions at some point but closing for recess lends more weight to closing parliament in the first place.
The question will be what Parliament does after delaying Brexit beyond the 31st of October - they are likely to struggle to complete any further business given the current state of the parties and if they are perceived to be playing silly games to avoid an election, it is likely to hurt them come an election.
In another forum we had a discussion about the many times politicians have interfered with the education syllabus and how much it looks like deliberate attempts to ensure UK citizens know almost nothing about the constitution, their own history or their place in the world.
It's infinitely easier to trick people out of rights they never knew they had. Or in the case of Britain, never really had, in it's 'Democracy in Name Only'.
"I get the impression quite a few folk are unaware of the distinction between the legislative (Parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (courts). Are they Brits unaware of the constitional law of their country? Or foreign folk who haven't been briefed properly? Am I just a grumpy sod?"
I have found that most Brits I talk to are shamelessly ignorant of how the separation of powers works in practice. Even a former opposition leader wrote an article in a newspaper in which he interpreted the government defeat in the first Miller case as the courts saying what Parliament can and can't do. It's the EXACT OPPOSITE. He certainly ought to know the difference, but testimonies like that only serve to make matters worse. A great number of people would be a lot less angry and pitch-forky if they would only try to understand these fairly simple distinctions. Reading this judgement would be a great place to start.
The case before the court was that it was the PM overruling Parliament. So your "unelected judges" have prevented that "unelected PM" from doing that. In your, and presumably his, terms that's an outstandingly bad case to make to the people.
> In your, and presumably his, terms that's an outstandingly bad case to make to the people
But when "making cases to the people" that doesn't really matter.
Unellected establishment judges overuling the democratic will of the people / there are weapons of mass destruction / china will pay the tarrifs = all make good politcal slogans
"A Tony Blair, USA imported idea that the US is also suffering from."
You're suggesting a lawyer, married to a QC is in favour of abolishing the supreme court? Time to change the tinfoil hat. The US system of the president picking and choosing supreme court judges to suit his agenda is thankfully not what we have here, yet.
"When the lefty kids in the forum get older ..."
Some of us are hardly young, that includes me. And hardly lefty - in my case believing in the market economy (though not without restraints), running a small business, providing services to other capitalist businesses, and investing in yet other businesses. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're left-wing.
I just happen to believe in the sovereignty of Parliament and being an old-fashioned kind of git, I believe that the right to vote is accompanied by the duty to inform oneself of this issues and repercussions before casting one's vote, and the basic constitutional law associated with the body you are voting for. Now get of my lawn. (Can we have an icon for that?)
"When the lefty kids in the forum get older and have to deal with their errors I'll be laughing from across the pond. Get you Country back while you can or Guy will keep on robbing you."
Yes, there it is, the stupidest comment so far. I don't know where "you country" is, nor who "Guy" is, but you're talking bollocks. Get back in your box.
Because no-one bothered to take him to court over it. Duh. Assuming there was any such court in those days, before the "Supreme Court" existed.
If no-one feels strongly enough even to try to stop them, then the person who acts, wins by default. And you can't (re-)litigate it now, because the cause for action no longer exists.
"...it’s judges ruling that parliament ultimately has authority over the executive, which very much *is* how things ‘work’ in the UK."
You're correct - the majority in parliament has authority. When parliament was proroguated, the Tories/DUP had a slender majority so it was technically the will of parliament and no vote was required.
The current state in parliament is that there is no overall control - aside from delaying Brexit, does anyone expect any real business will be voted upon besides calling an election eventually? At which point, the bickering in September, the next deadline and potentially any further laws passed in September/October becomes the business of the new government (majority, coalition or otherwise).
The supreme court has attempted to plaster over a broken parliament with a constitutional change. The precedence that has been set for the future could be interesting given enough money and an argument now allows you to change Government decisions via the courts. Slightly flippant I know, but I predict further constitutional changes in the next 5 years as a result of this precedent.
If the Supreme Court had chosen to say this was a political matter that didn't require their input, it is very likely the same events would play out (opposition seize control of the house under friendly speaker, ensure delaying Brexit beyond Oct 31st, become deadlocked over Brexit again and realise that the only way forward is an election and roll the dice).
"When parliament was proroguated, the Tories/DUP had a slender majority so it was technically the will of parliament and no vote was required."
Errr....no, that's not how that works. You can't just assume what the will of parliament is based on the party allegiance of those in it. Has it escaped your notice that quite significant numbers of those Tory MPs have been voting against the government on a fairly regular basis lately?
In any case - the court addressed this perfectly clearly. Prorogation is done to Parliament, not by Parliament. It doesn't prorogue itself; the monarch prorogues it, based on the advice of the prime minister. Parliament *can't* vote to prorogue itself, that's just not a thing that happens.
"The precedence that has been set ... allows you to change Government decisions via the courts. "
Challenging the government (e.g. applying for a judicial review or lodging an appeal) has long been possible, this is nothing new. Applies to both the UK and other countries. (Where are you based?)
No, it maintains the sovereignty of parliament and is upholding that. It would have been difficult if it had gone the other way - the executive would have been free to suspend parliament (the UK has a parliamentary democracy) in order to get arbitrary changes through while preventing MPs having any say on the matter. It was made clear in the ruling that Parliament was not being usurped - but the executive being forced to listen to them according to the precedent in the UK.
No, it doesn't. It just says that they must abide to the law - whatever that is. The parliament and the government can of course make up and decide upon new laws (which might in some countries be challenged as being against the constitution), or change the constitution itself (in other countries that do have a written one).
This is the bit that I don't get. This judgement imposes substantial constitutional change, abrogating an Executive prerogative and imposes new conditions dictated by the court.
Given the court has no constitutional grounds on which to do that this judgement is itself unconstitutional.
The UK no longer has an independent judiciary which means, ironically, we are now in breach of EU law.
No it doesn't. It makes the proroguing illegal and means parliament hasn't been shut down. That's not the court telling Parliament anything other than "Do your job".
You don't want that to happen? You think if Jezza is the next pm he should be able to shut down parliament while he privatises whatever he likes?
Replying to you rather than others: The court judgement has just ruled that the monarch can not prorogue parliament except on advice from the Executive, and that this advice must have a "reasonable", erm, reason.
That is a change to the constitution. The court has no basis for doing this. We are in seriously uncharted territory here, in which the top court in the land has done something it has no authority to do.
See paragraphs 68 and 69 of the judgement; they basically say that the Royal Commissioners carry out the Queen's bidding, but that her bidding was unlawful. The court has just constrained the Queen in a way that she wasn't previous restrained.
I tend to agree, except I'm not sure the monarch has actually had the power to prorogue Parliament for any reason or none in centuries. It's not explicit in law, though, so I do find it a worrying case.
It's akin to ruling that Royal Assent is no longer required - it could be that it's already really the case in practice, and the courts would simply be ruling on the existing, unwritten law. But it would be a much better look to enact primary legislation in Parliament, for something like that.
not exactly every proroguing, just one that appears out of ordinary in extraordinary circumstances (brexit times now) AND when the gov side comes up with argument in court alongside the "fuckyou, we don't need to prove our reasons were genuine" reasoning.
"This judgement imposes substantial constitutional change ..."
No it does not. See the summary of the judgment:
"The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”."
All the Supreme Court has done is to remind us that Parliament is sovereign. Which most of use learned in school. But some members of HM government and quite a few commenters on web forums far and wide (and often less polite and considered than this one) seem to have forgotten that.
"Given the court has no constitutional grounds on which to do that this judgement is itself unconstitutional."
The court provided an argument (effectively that proroguing Parliament prevented Parliament acting as it wished) on the basis that it prevented Parliament from acting when it clearly wished to and was therefore.
It does amend the constitution - it provides more clarity around when prorogation can be used in future. From the BBC "The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line in the sand that a prime minister's executive powers in this most important area of how and when Parliament opens and closes are now curtailed - for ever."
The challenge is that while this judgement appears correct (IANAL), it applies to a situation where Parliament has chosen to get itself stuck with a minority Government and not act to address this in a timely manor. Normally, the inability for Parliament to act in this situation would result in an election has been the historical solution. Parliament has chosen not to follow this path - historically, ignoring this precedent has not worked well for Parliament.
The concern is that future decisions by Government may be challenged in a similar way, using this precedent (the courts stepping in from a private case to rule on the legitimacy of Government policy) to allow future Government decisions to be challenged, which may not always be in the UK's best interests even if the arguments are legally correct.
The concern is that future decisions by Government may be challenged in a similar way,
How is that a concern?
If a future governing person - be they minister, civil servant, judge, or even monarch - seeks to dispense with the elected parliament in pursuit of a controversial Agenda, is it not a Good Thing that the precedent says[1] they can't?
[1] insofar as it can be a precedent for anything.
>How is that a concern?
Because a future supreme court may extend their powers over parliament.
Governments have used lots of procedural tricks to avoid embarrassing debates - are all these going to involve a call to the judges?
Are judges going to rule on whether a speech in parliament is "economical with the truth"
If a government sets a law, the courts proceed to uphold it. If that law is errnouse, the fault is not with the courts.
There should be nothing preventing this standing from being changed, other than those who are lawfully allowed to prevent it from being changed.
We have a chicken and egg problem, and not really the responsibility of either (though fault and blame will be assigned as people wish).
"If a government sets a law, ..."
I don't know where you are based, but in the UK it is the legislature, i.e. Parliament, which adopts legislation (normally that legislation is proposed by the government, i.e. the executive). They are quite distinct bodies. (Though in the UK there is some overlap as government ministers are also members of Parliament, hence they wear two hats. This is different in some other countries.)
See: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/
There are multiple meanings of government, one of which is pretty much synonymous with state.
The government of the country in the normal colloquial usage includes the civil service, the monarch, the HoL, and the whole of the commons, including the government in the sense you mean (which is of the group of MPs which has formed a government), as well as the police, courts, etc etc.
"Because a future supreme court may extend their powers over parliament."
Have you read this far and learned nothing?
The whole point of the court's decision is to re-affirm the power of Parliament.
A cornerstone of the British constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. The PM has attempted to override that. All the court has done is to give effect to what has been the status quo in the face of that attempt.
Had the court ruled otherwise they'd have enabled a future government to extend its powers over Parliament.
My reading of English history is that we have relied on precedent for politicians to provide flexibility to act as situations change and courts have bowed to precedent rather than creating rulings that alter the dynamics between the monarch and Parliament.
This ruling ignores parliamentary precedent, establishes a new constitutional precedent and depends on how we view a relatively short time period in parliaments history for if it was ever necessary. It also signals that the supreme court is likely to act again on constitutional matters.
We got to this position (Parliament in 2019) due to MP's reaching a deadlock, the fixed-term parliament act tying the governments hands and instead of the speaker encouraging parties to resolve the issue at the ballot box, he ignored precedent and allowed the opposition to take control of the house, allowing laws to be passed that extend the crisis further.
The supreme court was a potential safety valve that could have released pressure with no verdict simply by following precedent and pointing to the ballot box as the solution - instead it has acted, likely allowing further precedents as politicians find further cause to avoid an election that may see their work undone.
Following the resumption of parliament, the issues causing Parliament to remain stalled over how to handle Brexit remain. The EU are unlikely to offer an alternative deal, it's unlikely that May's deal will be given a 4th vote, leaving a further extension and then what?
I disagree that an election would be siding with the PM - it is siding with the electorate and only acting if this fails.
If Parliament reaches a point where the government no longer has a majority, Parliament has a responsibility to address that (votes of no confidence and attempting to form an alternative government). If this is not possible, then call an election and only go to more extreme measures if the stalemate remains.
Parliament and the speaker have ignored this responsibility, ignored precedent and then the government has attempted to misuse its powers. The supreme court decision can be right (legally and morally) but still be the wrong decision for the situation - too many people in this argument are looking at the result (delaying Brexit and validating the methods used) rather than the larger picture of how to get a working government in-place.
"We got to this position (Parliament in 2019) due to MP's reaching a deadlock, the fixed-term parliament act tying the governments hands and instead of the speaker encouraging parties to resolve the issue at the ballot box, he ignored precedent and allowed the opposition to take control of the house, allowing laws to be passed that extend the crisis further."
Uh, no. The fixed term act had nothing to do with this - Johnson, despite squealing how awful it was when Brown was appointed without an election, has barged ahead without the slightest intention of having an election. The speaker has nothing to do with calling for an election. His job is to keep order in parliament and to make sure that MPs and ministers alike adhere to parliamentary law and practice. the only reason the opposition has any control of the house is because Johnson in his extreme hubris effectively sacked 21 of his own MPs for daring to disagree with him. Other tories have abandoned his regime already. What has happened is that an attempt to bypass parliament and therefore the basis of our democracy has been stopped.
This post has been deleted by its author
"...normally a minority government would ask for an election, but the fixed term parliaments act requires a two thirds of the commons or 434 MP's to vote for an election. As this requires support from both the Tories and Labour to achieve (the other parties number less than the difference to achieve the required majority they can be ignored in this case). i.e. it is out of Boris's hands unless Labour want an election."
Labour actually does want an election but not until we've secured an extension, otherwise there might not be time for an orderly exit. The problem is that not all of the Tories (and former Tories) want one. Oliver Letwin in particular doesn't want one. He would like to have an extension followed by another public vote.
The fixed term parliament act effectively stops the government calling an election - they need 434 votes which means support from both major parties. before the PM can successfully call an election versus the historical requirement to get a majority in Parliament which the current government could very likely get.
The Brown/Johnson comparison is irrelevant - we vote for MP's and by proxy parties and leaders but we don't directly elect leaders or parties.
The speaker does have a great deal to do with the current situation - you say "his job is to keep order in parliament and to make sure that MPs and ministers alike adhere to parliamentary law and practice". Bercow has ignored parliamentary precedent and practices to hand control of parliament to the opposition and then created further precedents in how he has allowed legislation to be presented and passed. Playing chicken with May for the first extension bent the rules and gave Parliament six months to do something to try and resolve the impasse - the Speaker was happy to let things continue to limp along rather than try and force MPs into taking action. We then see both sides bend or break the rules to achieve their goals in September and still no real resolution to the issues in Parliament as there is now clearly no overall control while before there was a fudge for everything except Brexit issues.
To use a bad sporting analogy, the two teams are arguing and not playing the game, the ref has been playing for one of the teams rather than being neutral, the other team got annoyed and tried to take their ball home but it has been stopped because it would ruin the game and meanwhile the crowd is getting tired and leaving. Given the chance, the spectators may choose a very different game next time.
I think the idea the judiciary can set that precedent is disturbing. It ought to require primary legislation.
It's always tempting to break liberal principles 'just this once', when we agree with the outcome.
In this case the courts have interpreted things that aren't explicitly expressed in law. The line between that and creating new laws is easy to cross.
I'm not yet clear on the detailed implications of this ruling, but it seems to have unintended consequences for the nature of our state. It's a bit like removing Royal Assent from the legislative process - in practice, it's merely a formality, but the law doesn't reflect that. If a judicial ruling had that effect, we ought to question whether the judiciary should be making new laws like that.
I kind of see what you mean, but the very purpose of courts is to interpret the law.
In particular, the purpose of a constitutional court - as the SC is permitted to act - is to interpret the constitution. Having an unwritten constitution offers them considerable latitude limited only by prior precedent and custom.
If parliament wishes to strike down the precedent they merely have to pass legislation that invalidates it.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Normally, the inability for Parliament to act in this situation would result in an election has been the historical solution."
Elections have been known to give rise directly to the current situation*, namely a Parliament without an overall majority. In those circumstances an immediate further election is the last resort; normally there's an attempt to form a coalition or possibly a temporary government of national unity.
In the present circumstance May and BoJo have attempted to run down the clock to one of other Brexit that MPs as a whole either don't support for personal reasons or think is against the long term interests of the nation. That has produced a crisis situation in which case an election is untenable. The timing of it would present the incoming government with a dog's breakfast for the management of which he or she would be responsible.
* In fact the last election did just that. May only got a majority with the aid of DUP. The change since than is that what with MPs deciding to follow their consciences and what they considered to be the best interests of their country to change parties and BoJo chucking more out of "his" party, even that majority has gone.
It is however entirely in line with recent developments in English legal theory. The courts have been granting themselves greater and greater political power.
Although this is sort of natural, and exactly the kind of thing you expect from people, not just from lawyers, there is an argument that they are hanging themselves: that exercising political power makes them subject to political protest, and that in the long term the Supreme Court is going the same direction as the Star Chamber
@The courts have been granting themselves greater and greater political power.
Not really.
The house of Lords used to be the highest court and could have over-ruled the government in the past; it's powers were severely curtailed at times in the 20th century, though, so it no longer has the power required to over-rule the Executive. The UK Supreme court has effectively been constituted to fill the void left by the removal of the power of the Lords. It is still feeling its way to where the limits of its power are. And, as it's new, every judgement it makes is unprecedented...
Upvoted for the "Not really"
But the Supreme Court is just the original Law Lords under a new name and with new premises. It's just a consequence of Blair thinking we should have something called a "Supreme Court". The whole HoL didn't hear cases, just the Law Lords and the members of the Supreme Court are just the latest holders of those posts.
It's rulings may be "unprecedented" unless they find an existing precedent to follow but that's the norm for courts dealing with appeals.
"The courts have been granting themselves greater and greater political power."
Could you explain this in greater detail whilst allowing for the reality of this judgement: that it (a) excluded any consideration of the purpose of the advice to prorogue, of of the rights and wrongs of Brexit or of the party in government and (b) simply confirmed the sovereignty of Parliament which has been the cornerstone of the British constitution for several centuries.
Regarding your condition (a) the judgement explicitly didn't exclude consideration of the purpose of the advice to prorogue; Lady Hale explicitly stated that the stated purpose was to hold a Queen's Speech but that she had no evidence of the purpose for that prorogation being five weeks and in the absence of such evidence there was no lawful reason for the five week prorogation.
That in turn addresses (b), in that instead of confirming the sovereignty of Parliament she has no instead imposed a new obligation on the Executive to provide a "reasonable" reason to prorogue Parliament.
That sounds like the courts changing the constitution and making up new laws to me, and that's exercising political power.
How can you type "five weeks" repeatedly in the first paragraph yet have fogotten completely about the length of the proroguation by paragraph 2?
You twist and turn like a twisty turny thing, but you can't spin this as "the judges have taken over", however much you try. The verdict is "Go to parliament and govern" not "Govern as we tell you".
I didn't forget in paragraph 2. I pointed out that Lady Hale is demanding a reasonable purpose for the length of prorogation, in addition to the traditional and legal reason for the prorogation.
Tell me where that's ever been required before. Ever.
Then tell me which fucking law was broken, for the Prime Minister to have acted unlawfully?
It hasn't been required before, because there hasn't been such abuse before.
Arguably not even in the time of King John, when the Magna Carta first(?) formally limited the powers of a governing executive.
As for fucking law, strangely apposite.
>Are readers familiar with English laws relating to malfeasance/misfeasance in public office?
Johnson taking the UK out with No Deal against the wishes of Parliament (Benn bill) makes him guilty of misconduct in public office. Criminal offence with maximum sentence of life.
Misfeasance is a tort, making him (and his fellow conspirators/ministers) financially liable for any losses occurred as a result of the misconduct.
Regarding "Johnson prorogued Parliament in order to avoid scrutiny" there's not only no evidence for this
.. larely because Boris and his ministers did not submit any evidence to the Supreme Court - thus (in effect) enabling the court to find a default judgement against him.
The question is - why didn't he present any evidence? Is it (possibly) because he would have to lie under oath in order to say that it wasn't all about taking away Parliaments power at a critical time and that would have directly lead to a charge of perjury?
Their silence on the matter is (very probably) one of the reasons why the SC found as they did.
Then tell me which fucking law was broken ...
It is not that any law was broken, it is that no law exists to give the Prime Minister the power to do what he tried to do. That's why you can't find the law in question -- it doesn't exist -- that's the point.
The Prime Minister had the power to advise the Monarch to prorogue parliament. That was the lawful situation until around 10.45am this morning.
The Prime Minister no longer has that power. He now only has the power to advise the Monarch to prorogue parliament if the Supreme Court allows it.
That's the fucking insanity of today's ruling. There wasn't a law being broken, there is now apparently a law that Parliament didn't pass. So much for parliamentary sovereignty.
The Prime Minister no longer has that power. He now only has the power to advise the Monarch to prorogue parliament if the Supreme Court allows it.
Nope.
The PM still has the power to prorogue Parliament (via his advice, such as it is, to the monarch), and he is reasonably free to do so as long as the length of the prorogation is in line with previous ones. If he chooses to set out a significantly longer one he'd better have a bloody good reason to do that, and there's now a SC ruling that people (MPs or ordinary citizens) can use to dissuade him from going down that road.
Courts don't start cases all by themselves; there has to be someone outside them to start the process, which is, for exactly that reason, bringing the case (to court).
Re: "he is reasonably free to do so as long as the length of the prorogation is in line with previous ones" that's patently not true as the prorogation ruled unlawful was shorter than have been held in the past.
re: "If he chooses to set out a significantly longer one he'd better have a bloody good reason to do that" that's a new requirement that the Supreme Court today imposed.
As for "Courts don't start cases all by themselves", no, that's a right reserved exclusively for rich people.
"As for "Courts don't start cases all by themselves", no, that's a right reserved exclusively for rich people."
Possibly in the UK, but in other countries access to justice can be cheaper. Anyway, the Good Law project now runs crowdfunding campaigns to support various cases (e.g. workers' rights), thus improving access to justice. https://goodlawproject.org/
> Then tell me which fucking law was broken, for the Prime Minister to have acted unlawfully?
The actions weren't ruled illegal. They were ruled unlawful.
They are not the same thing, unlawful and illegal are not synonyms for each other.
The actions the PM took were not supported in law.
Exactly. It's a public law matter and the public authority exceeded its power. That's unlawfulness. Illegality is different and it means that a law is not formulated precisely enough for people to be able to predict its effects and behave accordingly.
"Then tell me which fucking law was broken, for the Prime Minister to have acted unlawfully?"
He lied to the Queen about why he wanted to prorogue parliament - the judges decided it was for clear political motives, not what BJ claimed. They have therefore called his action unlawful, ie having no basis in law, rather than illegal, ie against the law. What it means is he can't be arrested for it, sadly, but his actions have been overturned and parliament can sit and scrutinise his actions.
If you can't make a point or attempt to argue a view without swearing it makes you look like a surly teenager, by the way.
The courts have been granting themselves greater and greater political power.
Did you lift that drectly from one of Hitler's speeches? Our system of government is very clear - Parliament makes the laws and the Courts adjudicate upon both the laws of the land and on constitutional precedent. The Weimar republic had a very similar system, and the Nazis didn't like this, as it prevented them from doing whatever they liked, so as soon as they got a whiff of power they began to undermine the role of the courts. We all know how that ended up, so be more careful about the sort of bollocks that you post in duscussion groups online, because it sounds very much like you are advocating more of the same.
(This comparison is exempt from Godwin's law because it is an accurate and relevant comparison to the Nazis)
"(This comparison is exempt from Godwin's law because it is an accurate and relevant comparison to the Nazis)"
No need for an exemption. It is actually evidence that Godwin's law is accurate.
Godwin's law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".
"Godwin's law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"."
There was an interesting series on the bbc recently about the nazi's rise to power. I suggest you watch it and see if you can draw conclusions about similarities.
Slthough not strictly in the original wording of Godwin's Law, the convention is that when the comparison to Nazis/Hitler is made, the discussion is over; exemptions apply for when this doesn't occur.
Godwin himself said, in Dec 2015, "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."
It's a convention based on ignorance of what Godwin's law says.
Mike himself wrote "its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust."
Nowhere did he suggest that the discussion should be over when such a comparison was made. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It's a convention based on ignorance of what Godwin's law says.
This is true; it is a convention nonetheless, so I felt it appropriate to point out that the convention does not (conventionally*) apply in cases where the comparison is accurate.
*metaconventionally?
This was not a case against Parliament, it was a case against the Government. The court has just clarified two things, that frankly in a developed democracy would not have needed clarification, namely that:
1) Government gets it mandate from Parliament (and nobody else) and therefore has to do what Parliament instructs it to do.
2) Nobody, and that includes the Government and the Monarch, is above the law.
It should be obvious, Parliament is elected by the people, the Government is not elected by the people, and elected positions should always trump unelected positions. Democracy in Britain just became a tad more advanced today.
There are also laws that apply only to the monarch which restrict their ability to perform actions such as turning up in the commons without an invite. Everyone else can just walk into the visitors gallery (the queue can be long, booking tickets is very much advised).
it says the Supreme Court has authority over Parliament
No, the courts have no power over what hapens in Parliament. What they ruled on was the constitutionality of parliament being shuttered by the government, so what they have actually demonstrated is that Parliament is supreme over the governement - in other words, 650 or so MPs have collective authority over the nominal head of the house, which is exactly how it should be in a representative democracy, otherwise what you have is an autocracy (elected or otherwise).
If I remember the discussions correctly then this could actually cause major issues in the future specifically because it says the Supreme Court has authority over Parliament. This goes against the supposed seperation of powers which is presumed in how things 'work' in the UK.
The Supreme Court sentenced that Parliament holds the Executive to account, but as Parliament could not carry out its duties then it fell to the Judiciary to hold the Executive to account.
it says the Supreme Court has authority over Parliament
Not quite. As I read the ruling, the justices are very careful to stress the opposite, that the PM's advice to Her Madge removed parliamentary sovereignty and that it is for the parliamentary authorities to sort out now they have been restored in their prerogatives. All the SC did was reset the clock to before the Scruffy Scarecrow went beyond the pale and triggered a load of pomp, circumstance and archaic nonsense on a hollow pretence.
The ruling, in effect, has said "parliament had been castrated for no good reason; we've sewn its nuts back on but it's up to parliament to make sure they stay on from this point forward as we have no authority save upholding convention and the law."
This comment appears to make the very common mistake of conflating Parliament with The Government, which is composed of its members is is not directly elected. Even Iain Duncan Smith has done this, and as a former opposition leader he really ought to know better. Parliament is sovereign, and this ruling is a vindication of that. The government must not frustrate the sovereignty of Parliament and its accountability to it. The prerogative power is a residual power of the monarch that enables the government of the day to get on with its usual business without having to ask for Parliamentary approval for every single thing. In this case the government attempted to impose itself on Parliament by shutting it down.
If I remember the discussions correctly then this could actually cause major issues in the future specifically because it says the Supreme Court has authority over Parliament. This goes against the supposed seperation of powers which is presumed in how things 'work' in the U
This is absolutely NOT what happened. The judgement is that the government cannot suspend parliment to prevent it taking actions the government dislikes or finds inconvenient. The outcome reinforces the power and authority of parliment rather than undermining it anyway whatsoever.
This is a massive bitchslap to the People, not Boris.
When you have people that can ignore reality and assign blame, then it's over.
"damaging effect on Parliament's ability to do its democratic duties at a crucial time in the UK's constitutional history" - I believe your Duty was to deliver Brexit. You should all be sacked period.
You might believe that, but it doesn't make it correct. All the hysterical shrieking about 'delivering brexit' is from people who are well aware that it was a marginal and irrational result that would be ditched if sanity were allowed to prevail.
I believe your Duty was to deliver Brexit
Oh dear.
In short; your belief is wrong. It's a good thing our system of government is based on constitutional conventions, not the facile beliefs of an anonymous coward, eh?
Quite apart from the fact that the referendum was explicitly advisory (read the enabling bill available on Hansard if you don't believe me, which unabiguously lays down in law the rules for the referendum in question), the duties of a Member of Parliament are as follows, according to Winston Churchill:
The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.
Nothing in there about brexit - and furthermore, even though the government of the day appeared to promise to be bound by the result of the referendum (as Porky Boy Cameron did), it is recognised constitutional convention that no government can bind the actions of any subsequent government, and the government has no authority whatsoever over other members of the House (even within their own party, although tehy can threaten to withdraw the Whip, effectively expelling them from the party, if they don't vote the way the government wants).
The fact remains, that the individual members of Parliament are elected primarily to represent the best interests (note, interests, not wishes) of the country first, their constituents second (and not just the ones who voted for them), and their party last. This is, of course, after their oath of faithfulness and allegiance to the Monarch. One would think that this oath would preclude lying to the Queen about your reasons for wanting to stymie the legitimate democratic processes of the nation.
Loyal Commenter,
"Quite apart from the fact that the referendum was explicitly advisory (read the enabling bill available on Hansard if you don't believe me, which unabiguously lays down in law the rules for the referendum in question)"
BTW, I am not the original AC. Genuine Question follows.
Question: I am aware of the rules regarding referenda, as stated, *BUT* Cameron did state that the 'result' would be 'followed', implying that the 'advisory' nature of the referendum was going to be explicitly ignored.
Is this wrong ?
Does the PM not have the right to promise this ?
No one has ever stated, over the last 3+ years, that his promise was invalid/illeagal according to the rules/conventions of parliament or the powers/rights of a serving PM.
"Does the PM not have the right to promise this ?"
He/she has the right to promise anything (e.g. tame unicorns for everyone) they want, just as you and I have that right. But that does not mean it such a promise is binding on their government, and even less so on Parliament, let alone a future government or Parliament. That's the sort of thing I learned at school. It's probably also covered in books for the Citizenship Test and on www.parliament.uk and gov.uk.
"Don't election manifestos usually make promises that are never kept?"
Often, yes. But an election is a different beast to a referendum by definition. Additionally if your government of choice fails to deliver on its election promises you can vote them out again in 4 years' time. Leaving the EU has no such safeguards.
It's a good question, and can be answered by pointing out a couple of things - no government can bind the hands of a future government (i.e. nobody can pass a law that says a future government must act in a certain way, not least becase any future government can repeal such a law), and the government has no authority over the House - Bills are passed and become Acts in law by getting a majority vote in the house from all MPs, not just those in the government, or the government's party.
What Porky Boy was actually promising was that his government would enact whatever result the referendum came up with. As soon as it didn't go the way he expected, he resigned, effectively ending that government, and breaking that promise, which was nothing more than a personal promise from him, and in no way binding on anyone else.
No, but MPs are allowed to change their minds as facts appear (this has allegedly happened!) and in this case the promised "easiest trade deal ever/having your cake and eating it" was not available this could be a justification.
Election manifestos are what parties would quite like to do in government. Stuff always happen that was not foreseen and certainly not discussed at election time which is why MPs _have_ to be able to vote according to their conscience, even if that is often deposited with the whip.
"One could think that this oath would preclude lying to the Queen about your reasons for wanting to stymie the legitimate democratic processes of the nation."
You could possibly think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Anyone remember why Privy Council members are to be addressed as "Right Honourable"?
No, parliament's duty was - is - to govern the country. The referendum was advisory only, it didn't change anything about "their duty".
As for being sacked, that's for their voters to say - MP by MP, constituency by constituency. Nobody else has that right.
"I believe your Duty was to deliver Brexit."
You see, this is the problem. Boris said that prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit, it was to prepare for a Queen's speech. So if it wasn't anything to do with Brexit, why are Brexiteers up in arms suddenly?
Or, maybe it was actually about Brexit and about silencing Parliament for 5 weeks. This would explain Brexiteers suddenly being annoyed. However if so, then you accept that Boris misled the Queen, hence this judgement.
In short, every time someone connects this ruling to "disrupting Brexit", you are in fact justifying the supreme court's ruling - that Boris lied about the reasons for prorogation.
"Or, maybe it was actually about Brexit and about silencing Parliament for 5 weeks. This would explain Brexiteers suddenly being annoyed. However if so, then you accept that Boris misled the Queen, hence this judgement."
Indeed, Boris has said as much yesterday. This judgement will make it harder to secure a deal and he reminds us that there are forces in the country committed to thwarting Brexit.
"Indeed, Boris has said as much yesterday. This judgement will make it harder to secure a deal and he reminds us that there are forces in the country committed to thwarting Brexit."
He also has not said he will abide by the court ruling nor that he would obey the law which requires him to go to the EU and ask for an extension to A50 again.
Harder to make a deal? In what way does shutting the elected parliament and HoL out of anything make it somehow easier to get a deal (even if one exists) ? This alone should be ringing some very loud alarm bells in even the tiniest minds.
"Harder to make a deal? In what way does shutting the elected parliament and HoL out of anything make it somehow easier to get a deal (even if one exists) ?"
Quite right. If there actually were a deal being struck (sought?) then the more time you have with Parliament sitting the better the chance of getting it through.
This judgement will make it harder to secure a deal and he reminds us that there are forces in the country committed to thwarting Brexit.
Well there is the T.May deal on the table and given only 1-in-3 actually voted for Brexit, it would be normal to expect people would be thwarting Brexit? Just as there were forces in the country for several decades committed to thwarting the UK's participation in the EU...
I loved the interview with Charles Walker MP (Conservative & Chair of the 1922 Committee) on Radio 4 PM yesterday (circa 17:10~17:15) where he effectively said Mogg et al were "mascarding largely as leavers but are remainers", because they opposed their party's/government's Brexit deal.
"This is a massive bitchslap to the People, not Boris.
When you have people that can ignore reality and assign blame, then it's over.
"damaging effect on Parliament's ability to do its democratic duties at a crucial time in the UK's constitutional history" - I believe your Duty was to deliver Brexit. You should all be sacked period.
"
Ignore reality? Like ignoring the reality of what an appalling mess brexit actually is even before we stumble out of the EU? No? didn't think so. Typical leave fanatic - anything is good as long as it supports your fantasy about the EU. The moment parliament and the courts disagree with your hysteria then they are somehow the "enemies of the people" or are "conspiring to subvert the will of the people". You fondly believe that the role of parliament is to merely parrot what the "people" - in this case about 30% of the people - demand. Three things for you to try - first, look up what a parliamentary democracy is, second, look up some real facts about the EU, third, translate all those Daily Mail headlines into German and see if they don't start sending a chill up your spine.
For what? To declare that a prorogation that ended 22 years ago is null and void? What purpose would it serve? How exactly would it change anything? Can I take my primary schoolmate to court for gaining 1st place in the sack race by foul methods? Cool - I'm on it!
> Then why did John Major get away with it when he was PM?
You would have to ask the parliamentarians of the day why they chose not to bring the matter to the courts attention.
The courts can only rule on what is brought before them. If no one brings an action before the courts, there is nothing for them to rule on.
Why didn't you bring it to the courts attention 22 years ago?
"Then why did John Major get away with it when he was PM?
Put him before the courts. I demand justice be applied equally or not at all.
Then again maybe it should only be applied if people hate your hair? This seems to be the case.
"
because Major did not try to shut parliament down for effectively 5 weeks in order to bulldoze through something he knew that no sane parliament would allow - and nobody believes for a moment that BJ had any intention of doing anything other than forcing us out of the EU without a deal, something that was never voted for and is in fact explicitly against the law. The courts agreed that this was the case and declared the prorogation unlawful. Stop frothing about parliamentary events of 22 years ago and start thinking.
There are two questions here; who was trying to "take back control", and from whom?
If you think about who used to have control, and no longer does, and who control currently rests with, then the only logical conclusion here is that it is the rich backers of brexit trying to take back control from Parliament - is their true goal to reverse the Parliament Act perhaps?
The federalists that control what you eat, what you fish (if you even get to keep a fishing boat), what you can nationalise (nothing, no mater how many of your people demand you renationalise something its illegal in the EU so haha dont bother), that control who you talk to about trade, that control where you spend your money.. and so on
The federalists who show up just to vote, get paid for the day by simply voting and bugger off wherever.
The federalists who will let a country burn and collapse to save their own asses.
Seriously, where have you been since 1993? Leaving was being discussed way back on the radio in 2005 (I have recordings, its amazing just how the arguments are so much the same as today).
Please double check your Faragist talking points, because they're bullshit.
EU law doesn't prevent nationalisation - it limits how nationalised industries can behave, but it doesn't stop you creating them. Fishing is limited by international treaties for all countries, whether they're EU members or not - the freedom to cast any net you like, wherever you like, whenever you like, and from any boat you like, isn't coming back. (Some of us remember the Cod Wars.) And control of what you eat - yeah, I personally quite like having a government that prevents poison being sold as food, and it's not clear that having such regulations set at EU level is any worse than having them set individually by each member state. (It's certainly much more efficient, and more transparent.)
As for "where you spend your money", that complaint would be more aptly addressed to the US State Department, which will quite literally prevent you from spending your own money in countries like Cuba or Iran. The EU's restrictions are tiny in comparison.
the freedom to cast any net you like, wherever you like, whenever you like, and from any boat you like, isn't coming back
For very good reasons - one of which is that unresticted fishing was driving the fish stocks off a cliff and depleting them to the extent that some of the species were pretty close to being extinct.
I personally quite like having a government that prevents poison being sold as food
Indeed. And that sort of habit started with the Victorians - that's when Parliament started legislating about food standards and safety. So it's not just an EU thing - it's something that we too were doing, long before the EU existed.
"The federalists that control what you eat, .....Seriously, where have you been since 1993?"
Cant be arsed to copy /paste all your drivel but I'll happily take it to pieces for you. they control what we eat? You mean they apply standards to the food we consume and demand clear labelling of additives in food we buy? (something the UK tried to vote against by the way)
Fishing? Our own government sold fishing rights to other countries, not the EU. Your hero Farage was on the EU fishing commission, maybe if he'd bothered to turn up occasionally he might have been able to tell you that. Nationalising industr is perfectly legal in the EU, as is bailing out a private company despite the wailings of your ilk - if it wasn't why have we so far spent about £850 billion bailing out the banks? We have a huge amount of tariff free trade through the EU, of which 55% is outside the EU. Paid to vote then bugger off? Sure, if you believe the nonsense spewed by the brexit party freeloaders. Mind you they don't even bother to vote, do they?
Greece was not allowed to crash and burn, it was already doing so when they lied about their economy to get entry to the EU. The European bank bailed them out, not the EU.
Curious that you mention 1933. A time when a populist right wing party took control in the name of the "will of the people" and shot democracy stone dead while blaming foreigners and minorities for their own problems. sounds familiar? Probably not to you, youre lost in the fantasy lands of brexit,
what you fish (if you even get to keep a fishing boat)
haha - maybe the fishing industry in this country should have thought about that before they sold off the quotas? Or are you advocating having no fishing quotas, and as a result, no fish?
FWIW, Iceland is not an EU member (although is in the EEA) for a couple of reasons relating to fishing - firstly, until recently their principle industry was fishing (now tourism), opposed to a tiny part of the UK economy, so they didn't want to apply fishing quotas, and secondly, they still have whaling for the tiny number of backwards areseholes who eat cetaceans, and all killing of cetaceans is forbidden in the EU.
So, the question here is - what part of EU fishery policy don't you like? The bit where we don't destroy all the fish stocks, or the part where we don't murder whales and dolphins?
The full text of the judgment, linked to in the Reg article, is a good example of clear writing to explain a very technical matter.
But those of us who have work to do today might prefer to read the summary: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf.
A unanimous verdict confirming the primacy of Parliament over various unelected folk. A good day for British democracy and the rule of law.
Regarding "A unanimous verdict confirming the primacy of Parliament over various unelected folk" you missed
- the part where the courts ignored precedent allowing prorogation of Parliament for political purposes
- Lady Hale stating that the prorogation prevented Parliament from conducting its business just seconds after describing how Parliament had been able to conduct its business
- the way Lady Hale said that although there was a lawful and reasonable reason provided for prorogation she was going to ignore it
- the fact that this parliamentary session is the longest since the Civil War and we're so far overdue a Queen's Speech it's embarrassing
- that Parliament is repeatedly failing to deliver on its manifesto commitments and that MPs are collectively doing their best to overturn democracy
Apart from that, sure, it confirmed the primacy of Parliament, just as long as Parliament does what the courts want.
the fact that this parliamentary session is the longest since the Civil War and we're so far overdue a Queen's Speech it's embarrassing
If you'd be paying attention, you would know that the previous government explicilty decided that pariament would run for two years, not one, so that May could do a proper job of sorting out brexit. The fact that she failed to do so was irrelevant, the current Government still had unconcluded business in Parliament when Johnson illegally proprogued it, such as the Domestic Violence Bill, that was shamefully dropped.
There is absolutely nothing that would ahve stopped the tories from proproguing parliament for a new Queen's Speech a year ago, for four of five days, according to normal conventions, and to be honest, there was nothing to stop Boris from doing the same for a sensible amout of time, and he still could. A Queen's Speech doesn't take five weeks to prepare unless the governemnt is planning some pretty radical stuff, and if you think our government has any such plans, you are living in a fantasy land.
Lady Hale ignored the stated reason for the prorogation as it was not the question at hand.
Had it have been a five day prorogation, nobody would have blinked an eye, much less pursued the matter in every jurisdiction.
It wasn't a 5-day prorogation, though, it was a 5-week prorogation that encompassed the majority of remaining time (pardon the pun) before an irreversible constitutional change in which parliament had shown a particular appetite to have a say.
You *must* accept that prorogations cannot be arbitrarily long, surely? In which case, the Executive, when challenged, must surely be able to offer some reasonable explanation for the length of time specified. The Executive offered only the Queen's Speech as justification, which was clearly a nonsense.
What if a 5-month, or 5-year prorogation had been advised by the PM and Privy Council? Would a Queen's Speech have been sufficient justification then?
This post has been deleted by its author
It is a contraption that existed many years ago when I was a young girl that had a load of numbered levers. You pushed the levers related to the price of the product, they would appear on pop-up metal plates, then you pushed another level, and a drawer would spring open, and the shopkeeper put some round metal disks called "cash" into the drawer which represented your payment for the product.
Pull the other leg' it's got bells on...
Like the pneumatic tubes that once conveyed this mythical "cash" around department stores. An unlikely story!
(I would comment on the actual story but a very irate commenter ordered me not to mention brexit on another thread earlier, so I won't.)
The big lever on the side that looked a bit like a leg did indeed have a bell on it, which would give a very satisfying ping when you pulled it.
And you are right, they did indeed have pneumatic tubes to send cash, as well as handwritten memos, around the building.
Pneumatic tubes still exist. I remember them, and also "real" cash registers - some of which, especially in Germany, were works of art. The one at Beamish is particularly impressive.
It's interesting that as the technology gets more impressive, the outward shell gets more boring. Mobile phones are rapidly approaching TMA-1 when not working, the future of car dashboards also seems to be glass slabs. And cash registers are being replaced by almost featureless little boxes as even the mobile terminal with buttons is being downsized.
Not my fingers, but I had such a drawer open semi-spontaneously by the setting down of a litre bottle of cola, full, near it. This opening of the drawer then wiped the bottle off the table as in some kind of protest, and from there gravity had free play.
This was back when those bottles were glass.
And the floor was concrete.
and the shopkeeper put some round metal disks called "cash" into the drawer which represented your payment for the product.
Didn't the drawer also have compartments for those little bits of coloured paper that are said to be strongly tied to happiness?
"all accompanied by a series of sounds best reproduced in a song [...]"
Which is a good cue for the German supermarket's tills' flash mob performance of Xmas tunes for their shoppers.
This post has been deleted by its author
You pushed the levers related to the price of the product
And (according to a serial documentary that I watched) is possessed by an evil spirit that likes to try to remove your fingers by closing rapidly and unexpectedly.
"The surprising ruling from the Supreme Court was the unanimous decision of all 11 judges."
I don't think it was that surprising. I watched some of the evidence, and Eadie was particularly useless. Of course, he was only playing the hand he was dealt, and it was full of jokers. The significant time they spent talking about what rememdy should happen if they were to find against the government suggested this as well.
Yes, Eadie and Keen were terrible. But they were a legal B-team to match the current B-team in government. Rarely a good thing to tell judges what they can and cannot do, and quite a slapdown of the High Court's poor judgement.
This is now precedent, which means any further attempts by Bojo and the toy soldiers are likely to be served with injunctions.
The difference was that given the fleet he was supplied with and the incompetent orders from Petersburg, Zinovy Petrovich Rozhestvensky did a bloody good job in the circumstances, a fact recognised by the Japanese.
I can't somehow imagine Dominic Grieve going round to Cummings's bedside, presenting him with flowers and saying, in effect "Bad luck old chap, still it wasn't your fault." Unless it was a bunch of lily of the valley wrapped in poison ivy.
"Rarely a good thing to tell judges what they can and cannot do"
When a case goes to appeal the issue is usually a point of law and the role of counsel is to present arguments about what legal principles the lower courts should have applied. In this case one of the issues was about the rights of courts over a particular aspect of prerogative. It would be one where the court itself expected such arguments to be presented. It's a subtle difference between telling the court and presenting an argument. If you read the judgement it discusses areas of prerogative where the court can and can't intervene.
Most of the MPs have jetted off to foreign climes for a late season holiday, free and gratis, courtesy of the PM who got very good bulk purchase savings on package deals from Thomas Cook a couple of weeks ago.*
*I made this all up, but it _is_ bordering on credible at the moment.
"the newish (less than 20 yo?) UK Supreme court "
Newish? It's just the continuation of the HoL sitting as a court. They now have their own building instead of having to put up in some room in Westminster Palace. Its legitimacy as a forum descends directly from the medieval royal court.
31 downvotes, the remainers are happy today. Another chance to force brexit to get cancelled.
Hopefully the EU will see sense and either give a deal that actually works (I dont see how) or simply refuse an extension.
If we end up staying in the EU I know they wont like it. A "member state" (state, lol how that will change in a few decades) full of anti EU sentiment. Just what they want.
Perhaps they will bundle leavers and their kids into vans and take them to a facility when the time is right? I wouldnt put it past them, cancelling brexit will have the word "leaver" turn into a slur thrown and anyone that a "righteous person" doesnt agree with. Maybe some tv channel will make a reality TV programme out of the "identify the leaver" campaign.
Maybe I read too much 1984?
"Hopefully the EU will see sense and either give a deal that actually works (I dont see how)"
I don't see how a deal can actually work either. Not unless HMG actually intends to repudiate the Good Friday Agreement and that in turn would be a peculiar interpretation of "work".
"If we end up staying in the EU I know they wont like it. A "member state" (state, lol how that will change in a few decades) full of anti EU sentiment. Just what they want."
Not really. The only way we'll stay is if there is another referendum (or if the next general election is sufficiently obviously hi-jacked to that purpose) and remain gets a majority. We would then be a country that had considered the matter at great length and decided to stay and abide by the same rules as everyone else. There are other, current, EU members who cannot make that claim.
And if we don't stay, the Scots and Irish will leave "England" and rejoin the EU with a majority of the population behind the decision. I say "England" because that's what it will be and if the Welsh are unhappy about that then perhaps they should start considering their position. I'm sure there is perfectly reasonable "UK" or "Celtic Union" that could be formed.
"If we end up staying in the EU I know they wont like it. A "member state" (state, lol how that will change in a few decades) full of anti EU sentiment. Just what they want."
ooh,let me guess, you've read the Lisbon Treaty? The one your lot claim comes into force in a couple of years? You want the eu to give us everything we had before but not actually pay for it?
From a group of people who have done nothing but threaten violence, acted like thugs, hurled foul abuse and actually murdered people, I think your whining rhetoric is not merely contemptible but bordering on the deranged.
So Gina Miller has now shown that she knows the law better than the Government, the Attorney General all the political advisers and all their legal representatives, not once but twice. Not bad for an investment manager who was born in Guyana.
Maybe the Government should run policies & strategies through her before deciding on them?
You don't understand how our laws work. No-one knows what some bits of legislation mean in practice until they're tested in court.
If we'd known what the law was beforehand in this case, for example, there wouldn't have been a case. The lower courts would have simply applied the law. If the same thing were to happen again, we now know what the law is, so lower courts can rule.
Yes I do understand how your laws work. Someone says it's not illegal, someone else says it is illegal. They take it to court and the judges agree with one side or the other. Therefore the fact that Gina Miller had observed that what was being done was illegal and the courts agreed means that she would have a better understanding of what is legal and what isn't (twice).
Just because the law isn't written down explicitly for every single scenario does not make it fair game to do anything you want. That is what the legal advice given to Government is about (generally legal advice is only sought when they feel they may be doing something illegal) so they already know they are on the boundary and it was shown that they were on the wrong side of that boundary, it shouldn't have taken Ms. Miller to point that out to them and get the court to agree.
You don't really seem to understand how it works. In British civil law anything that is not explicitly ruled illegal is, on the face of it, allowed - that's your starting point.
Therefore the 'Govt.' is quite entitled to attempt anything it feels it can 'get away with', and will sometimes do this in the hope that no one will bother to take the time or expense to put their actions to the test. if they get away with it that establishes a precedent which then makes it more difficult (but not impossible) to demonstrate 'illegality'.
Gina Millar has had the guts, determination and help of appropriately placed 'friends' to immediately put Govt. claims to the test, and has so far made the Govt. look like cynical fools two times running. it certainly does the Govt. and it's advisors no credit whatsoever.
There is a danger in this that once this precedent has been set, that it will be cited for some other prorogation in future, where the actual circumstances are far less constitutionally significant than the current Brexit fuck up situation. For example, in 10 years time Parliament is unexpectedly prorogued for 6 weeks, mid-session, during the trial of a retiring former PM who has allegedly embezzled millions through backhand deals, and to save the government/senior party the embarrassment of answering questions on the matter in the house, it is suspended without challenge. A public interest matter effectively silenced in the house for reasons of party politics which may have gone unchallenged in the courts in the past, due to other routes where the public interest could be served, is now presented to the Supreme Court again for a ruling.
The Supreme Court decision could not be challenged, as it is not an appeal concerning EU law. A few years ago, the appeal would have been heard in the House of Lords, which would have been interesting.
There is a danger in this that once this precedent has been set, that it will be cited for some other prorogation in future...
Danger?
I think that is a good thing, basically, it would seem that any future PM wanting to progorate Parliament will need to furnish to Parliament with a justification and - to avoid any doubt, ask for Parliament's approval...
On the whole, I agree. Self-suspension of parliament is a progressive move.
The danger is that recourse to the judiciary becomes a new political tool. Once you've seen the sledgehammer at work, it gets turned to as an instrument of first choice. It has the power to define the limits of political tools used for centuries. The Houses of the Parliament operate with a certain amount of legal freedom, and this is rightly so for many good reasons. It's one reason why there's so much archaic pomp and ways of doing things in the houses - the judiciary, the LAW is a reflection of current moral opinion and society - it has to be so in order that the population subscribes willingly to the rule of law - basic theories of jurisprudence. Just look where you get dissent and protest - the law is incredibly fluid.
Obviously when Parliamentary privilege gets taken too far, then you get this situation, but you don't want the judiciary getting involved in everything.
"A few years ago, the appeal would have been heard in the House of Lords, which would have been interesting."
Not really different. The name and venue might have changed. But these are just the current law lords who would otherwise have sat in the name of the HoL. A case going to the Lords wasn't dealt with by the whole House, just by the senior members of the judiciary.
"There is a danger in this that once this precedent has been set, that it will be cited for some other prorogation in future"
The judgement said it was a one-off. I think this translates as "nobody's been daft enough to try on this before and we don't think anyone will be daft enough in the future". I hope they're right.
The men who come to me say, “So and so wants to declare what we call ‘a war.’ These are the facts, what do you think?” and I say. Sometimes it’s a smaller thing. They might say, for instance, that “a man called Donald Trump is President but he is in financial collusion with a consortium of high-powered Russians who want him to order the building of a wall because of some sort of social media experiment…
Yes I do understand how your laws work. Someone says it's not illegal, someone else says it is illegal.
Incorrect; in lower courts, someone says a law was broken, and another says they didn't break it, or, rarely, that this law doesn't apply, or even more rarely, a case is not about a law at all, but about a constittional precedent.
In this case, there was no law as such (no law based on an act of parliament), it was a case based on constitutional precedent. When the lower courts are unable to reach a verdict, or there is an appeal, it gets passed up to a higher court, in this case, all teh way to the Supreme Court. They generally only hear cases where there is ambiguity in the law (due to badly worded or contradictory Acts, in which case I believe the later Act takes precedent), or where there is no legal precedent, in which case they have to weigh up the existing constitutional and legal precedents, and make an appropriate judgement.
IANAL, of course, but clearly, neither are you.
"No-one knows what some bits of legislation mean in practice until they're tested in court."
I'm not sure it even goes that far in this case. It was simply a matter of BoJo thinking he could get away with it. Nothing very different to a young lad being caught scrumping but in this case it needed to go further up the legal food chain before he got the telling off he deserved.
He's been brought up to 'get away with it'. His track record, especially as Foreign Secretary, makes that abundantly clear, when he routinely performed hit-and-run operations so he was conveniently far away when his s**t hit the fan.
The Bully-and-Coward may be a classic public school trope, but I think Boris is rather more so than some of his fellow old-Etonians. Nice-but-dim Cameron, for instance, showed natural politeness, and would never have taken such drastic action against Parliament.
I think the real issue here is that Cameron got a First in PPE,considered harder than Johnson's 2:1 in Greats, and Johnson hugely resents it because he was a King's scholar - but then decided to play Union games rather than work. Johnson thinks he should have had a First,and seems to have daddy issues vis-a-vis Cameron.
Cameron's mistake was not getting enough of the right experience after U. Johnson worked in Grub Street which is full of vultures and hyaenas, Cameron worked in PR. As a result Cameron failed to understand what utter bastards Johnson and Gove are, and that he should have got the flamethrower out early instead of trying to win Johnson over with niceness.
Not entirely.
If you've been to Eton you have already had intensive teaching in Latin and Greek, both there and at your prep school, so you have something like a nine year start. As a result it is said to be possible to coast to a 2:2 in Greats and get a 2:1 with not a lot of effort. PPE may be an equally vague subject not requiring exact knowledge of anything real world practical, but students are likely to have done no more than a couple of years Economics at A level, so it is much harder to coast.
Or so I'm told, by those who went to the Other Place, because we don't have special degrees for would-be politicians where I went. Which is probably why Oxonians dominate Parliament and the Supreme Court has a lot of Fen Poly graduates.
"My thinking was that you can get at least a third in PPE just waffling"
For entertainment only, you might want to look up the story of Ferdinand BongBong Marcos (start at e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bongbong_Marcos#Education but use the sources as well).
The University had to create a special diploma process so he didn't leave with nothing to show for his time in Oxford, nominally studying PPE..
"So Gina Miller has now shown that she knows the law better than the Government, the Attorney General all the political advisers and all their legal representatives, not once but twice."
Not really. What Ms Miller has shown is that she was right. The Government knew this was shady, they just hoped to get away with it.
Bo Jo no show, pro ro no go, co ho properpappajabber. Mo fo.
well, she might not be able to demand his head, literally, but there was this phone call conversation tonight, and she might have expressed the "displeasure" in sufficiently clear terms to make it understood that he's expected to resign tomorrow. Or else. Certainly he got a slap when the fact of this conversation has been shared with the media and while they bluntly refused to mention the content, the context makes it clear that that conversation was about "we are not amused".
What it tells us, is what many have been saying for a while: that the government was getting bad legal advice because it was partial. They should have kept Dominc Grieve as AG but he wouldn't tell them what they wanted to hear.
May wanted to sideline parliament in the negotiations and got told that she couldn't.
Bojo tried to pull a fast one and is quite likely to end up personally in court.
I don't think they were getting a bad advice, in fact we don't know what advice they got, possibly "don't go there" and this advice was, clearly, ignored. Boris decided to take a gamble, perhaps more convinced by the voice whispering in his ear than the voice of his legal counsel, and he lost.
Of course, what's more important than this (hugely) important ruling is, what next. He's very unlikely to come up with any deal by the deadline, I can't see the EU wanting to give HIM that and to see him as a PM to rule in the future, they really, really have had enough of Boris. I'm sure they'd be more happy to see ANYBODY else (well, with exception of a few of his Praetorians ;), but do they really still hope that anybody else would keep the UK in the EU? Do they really want us in the EU any more? I have a strong feeling they just want us to get the fuck out at last...
"Boris decided to take a gamble"
The only gamble was that people would get distracted by this, and his supporters would forget he promised them we'd leave on 31 Oct. Not much of a risk there.
All he's really done is give himself another excuse for u-turning on that pledge.
a naturalised citizen, of colour and a woman to boot should show up the idiocy of our current set of politicians.
While I congratulate and thank her for doing so, in the circumstances, one would have thought that a tame guinea pig could show up the idiocy of our government.
Make her a Dame of the Empire or similar, for services to democracy and the law.
Surely an honorary LLB at the very least.
Yep, me too. But I feel strongly about it, and I feel that it needs to be handled very carefully.
I also feel strongly about our Parliament being steamrolled by an inner cloister who believe they can impose their will on the rest of the House. This was genuinely important for our country.
To be quite honest, I don't feel great about the constitutional implications of this ruling. I am not at all convinced we haven't just smashed a nut with a sledgehammer. Great, bits of nut everywhere, but what damage has it done to whatever the nut was resting on?
I'm certainly no fan of Al, but he's precisely the kind of person who leads us to overlook important long term principles that actually protect us against people like him, just to have the short term satisfaction of giving him a metaphorical slap. We have to be careful not to fall into the traps that exist here, like accidentally changing the role of the judiciary.
However there were just as big constitutional implications about ruling the other way.
I mean, if the Supreme court rule that proroguing is a legitimate political tool, or that it is entirely up to the government, then the current or future prime minister, could prorogue for a lot longer , maybe a few months to avoid a vote of no confidence, or impeachment or many other reasons. Once the supreme court had ruled it was nothing to do with them then it would be fair game without putting some of the constitution and Westminster 'decencies' down into legislation.
It's part of our long established constitutional arrangements that courts do rule on matters not covered by Statute Law. It's called Common Law. It's worked well for centuries. Apart from anything else it's enabled courts to adapt rulings to a changing world whilst Statute Law requires Parliament finding time to update or repeal obsolete laws.
steamrolled by an inner cloister who believe they can impose their will on the rest of the House
A house that had shown absolutely no sign of coming up with any other options, though.
If the opposition had actually tried putting forward some usable policies it would have helped, instead one lot just want to ignore the referendum, and the other will do anything to prevent the government getting what it wants, whether their voters agree or not. Suggest they put it to the voters, though, and they won't allow that either.
This is a time for proper parliamentary action, not petty party politics, but Corbyn knows that he'd be lynched by his own lot if he tried it.
I disagree. The current state of Westminster is reflecting EXACTLY the results of the referendum, namely knife edge opinion, opinion which transcends party allegiances, a lack of understanding or knowledge of the consequences, a disregard for the future relationship with the EU and other nations. The national mood reflected in microcosm in the hallowed halls of the Palace of Westminster.
Yay politics! It works.
You're in good company:
"'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. ..."
Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774
"'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. "
Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament
Source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmmodern/337/33706.htm
TRT,
Well one problem is that Parliament in this case doesn't represent the voters. While the voters are roughly evenly split on leaving the EU - a vast majority of MPs were remain voters - and a decently large chunk of them would rather ignore the referendum and stay in. Had MPs views relfected the country's views more we might have actually ended up with a workable compromise by now. The problem is that the remain-at-all-costers and the leave-with-no-dealers have so far had just enough votes between them to stop any compromise - and for some bizarre reason both seem to be happy with this situation. Where they block all solutions, but with much less chance of getting all of what they want.
For the tiny minority of leave-without-a-dealers I guess this sort of makes sense. If the process goes to the wire enough times, eventually we could end up leaving without a deal. And they've not got the votes in either Parliament or country to get that as a first choice.
The remainers didn't have the votes to get another referendum, let alone Article 50 revoked. But sufficient numbers of them seem to have calculated that they'd rather avoid compromise in the hopes of making remain more likely - but at the huge risk of no deal happening. I know they think they can keep legislating no deal away, but they can't - because Article 50 is part of the EU treaties - and they don't control the other side of the negotiations. So I guess it's the all-or-nothing approach that the no-dealers seem to be going for too.
Obviously there's a bunch in the middle that have tried to vote the compromise route (which does include Johnson by the way, who voted for May's deal) - and they're a mix of remainers and leavers themselves with different ideas of what they want. The only thing everyone seems to agree is they don't like May's deal - but that's what they're probably going to end up signing.
We could have voted for a second referendum and had it done by now, but everybody will keep waiting until the last minute. And so there's never going to be time for a referendum.
I'm reading suggestions that EU thinking is changing now to trying to get a deal through lest Parliament just rescind Article 50 and we stay in. Because without holding a specific Brexit election (that the voters also think is only about Brexit) - or re-running the referendum - that's almost certainly not going to be seen as a legitimate decision, and our membership of the EU will be incredibly unstable. Particularly if there's another recession and Eurozone crisis in the next couple of years. And some party might just decide to leave with no referendum, using its Parliamentary majority and the last one as its justification.
Sorry, but Parliament isn't meant to "represent the voters" directly, each member is supposed to vote on their own conscience, on their own understanding of what is best for the country as a whole, and their constituency in particular.
Moreover, they are supposed to consider the best interest of ALL of their constituents, not just the ones that bothered to vote.
We are in fact supposed to elect MPs to look after our interests so we don't have to spend all our time understanding complicated matters and discussing them. And that means that if an elected MP honestly believes his or her constituents have been lied to and fooled, it is their duty to oppose it.
Sorry, but Parliament isn't meant to "represent the voters" directly,
That's not what I said, and wasn't my point. I thought my post was a reasonably non-partisan look at the situation.
My point was simply that the MPs and the "political class" / "establishment" / whatever term you want to use are vastly more pro-EU than the electorate. And that in these specific circumstances that's helped create this log-jam.
It seemed to me that there should be a majority for a compromise of something like Norway - but there's never really been a major movement towards that. Partly because May didn't go for it initially, but also because a large chunk of the people who ought to have been at least somewhat happy with free movement and single market membership have decided to campaign for the full remain instead. whcih of course they're perfectly entitled to do - it's just that by doing that, they massively increase the risk of no-deal which is an outcome almost nobody wanted at the start.
I would say the risk now is that if they succeed, and we stay in, that this won't be seen as legitimate. And then some government will come to power on 40% of the vote and say "we're triggering Article 50" and we're not even going to bother to negotiate because what's the point.
Given that before the referendum there were only a tiny number of genuine federalists, who believe in some sort of eventual move to the EU becoming a state - then Single Market membership with all the 4-freedoms stuff shouldn't look like an unreasonable compromise. That's what polls said was the preferred option of about 60% of people straight after the referendum - with about 60% wanting rid of freedom of movement, but more also wanting very close ties to the single market, such that enough were willing to accept more immigration in exchange for single market membership. My memory of the polling after the referendum was that position was the only one that had a majority and was remotely possible to negotiate.
"It seemed to me that there should be a majority for a compromise of something like Norway "
Not an expert, but as far as I'm aware Norway has many of the benefits of EU membership, at a cost similar to membership - but without the voting rights associated with membership.
Always struck me as an odd and unattractive option. Possibly proposed by those who are unfamiliar with Norway's actual costs and benefits.
H in the Hague,
Norway's deal is not perfect. But I would argue at this point that there are no perfect solutions. Clearly staying in the EU has annoyed a very large number of voters - and I think it's going to be hard to make membership a sustainable position long term.
But we're going to have to have some sort of stable future relationship.
Freedom of movement is one of the big reasons we left. And remember that the European Commission forecast (and the World Bank's) was that Britain's population would hit 80m by the early 2030s and overtake Germany's by 2040. Increase a country's population by 30% in a generation, expect political instability - it may also lead to economic growth (that's predicted too) - but politically that's too much change for any country to handle easily. But government can stop ignoring the situation and change that, and I'm also generally scepitcal of those long-term forecasts that take current trends and basically just extend the graph as if circumstances don't change.
There's also a majority in this country against any further EU political convergence. Actually that's true in most of the EU now. But the logic of the Eurozone (as designed) is that it requires closer union to work properly.
So I'm wondering if some sort of compromise on single market membership is what would do best? It continues with a similar cost (but EU membership isn't that expensive, it's only 1% of GDP) - and it means freedom of movement and having to take EU law on product standards and such. But that's only a small portion of EU law, and gets us out of the political union bits that so many people don't like. Norway isn't in CAP or Common Fisheries Policy or the customs Union - so can organise its own trade policy. That doesn't suit us as well, but I don't think there's any situation on offer that does. And outsourcing our trade policy to the trading block we have a trade deficit with (we have a trade surplus with the rest of the world) doesn't seem that sensible. I'm not even sure it's all that beneficial when we do have a vote on trade agreements, as now, given how hostile the EU is to trade in services (which is what we are global leaders at).
The options on the table - ND, TM's deal, or cancel Brexit - are the three worst.
Better ideas include Breakaway - take Germany etc al with us, have a two-part EU, with two currencies, to suit the different economies - and reform-and-remain, as well as potentially some sort of Brexit where the downsides are minimised and the upsides maximised. As far as I know, that latter idea is so staggeringly far outside the mainstream that no one sane has worked out even a vague notion of what it might entail.I
Hi IAS,
Thanks for your considered posting. Up to my ears in work so no time for a full response. But one thing jumped out "...given how hostile the EU is to trade in services (which is what we are global leaders at)."
I don't get that: the EU makes it possible for British financial services providers (who, I think, account for most service exports) to serve customers throughout the EU. As it happens my professional indemnity insurance is provided by a UK broker and underwriter - they've already informed me that they may not be able to serve me in future, in which case I'll go for a Dutch insurance policy. Also got a letter from a UK equity fund (a UCITS) I invest in - they are now planning to move to Luxembourg. Indirectly I work for UK tech businesses providing services to public sector bodies in NL (they are as eligible to submit a tender as their NL colleagues) - that's going to go. Just three examples of how the EU gives UK service businesses access to a very large home market. Somehow I doubt that's going to be replaced by equally favourable access to, say, the US market.
H in the Hague,
Sorry, missed this post.
You are right that we can do something trading in services within the EU. In terms of consumer level services that we don't do much of in other markets. Though London is a global leader in wholesale insurance, trade deal or no.
But the Single Market in services has never been completed. Or even close to. Is it a coincidence that the UK is a massive exporter of services and France, Germany and Italy are exporters of goods? Because Britain has usually been more pro free trade we hoped that getting both would work. But unsurprisingly progress in the services Single Market has been slow for decades now.
Which is partly why we run a massive trade deficit with the EU. I'd still favour that as a trade policy, because even when the other side won't reciprocate in opening up their markets free trade is still generally a better policy, once your economy has modernised.
The UK runs a trade surplus in services to almost every country, and surplus even in goods to non-EU countries.
But actually my comment about trade policy was more about trade deals with non-EU countries. At the moment we're only part of the EU team, so we only get part of what we want in the deal. And the EU is more hostile to accepting the other party's services exports into the EU - whereas we'd like to put services in the deal too, to help us export. So in our own trade negotiations we might give more ground on goods and food, in order to improve what we get on services. If we stay in the Customs Union and Common Trade Policy, then we're giving away the carrot of exporting goods to the UK via EU trade deals, and can't offer that to get our services exports into their markets - where we have a competitive advantage.
However other parts of our industry would like to be in the Customs Union, like the car industry. Where the supply chains are cross border. So Norway doesn't suit us for that. This is the circle May was trying to square with the Chequers compromise and the whole-UK backstop. That's what Corbyn says he wants too - he just calls it a jobs first Brexit (but equally wants customs union with UK input into future trade deals that he won't get).
"So in our own trade negotiations we might give more ground on goods and food, in order to improve what we get on services."
I'm sure the farmers who advocated Brexit will be delighted to hear that - not. Another issue is that, as far as I understand, potentially attractive large markets such as the US and Canada do not even have fully open service markets within their countries. There are barriers such as recognition of qualifications, registration as engineer, local exams, preferential treatment of suppliers within the federal state/province, etc. However, I'm far from familiar with the nitty-gritty of all this.
By the way, in relation to Canada the UK currently benefits from CETA: "CETA has effectively eliminated most tariffs between the EU and Canada, aims to reduce other non-tariff barriers, and ensures that EU and Canadian companies are treated equally and have the ability to bid on government procurements in each country/member state." Of course, the UK could try and duplicate that, but probably at a price.
Source: https://www.inf.gov.nt.ca/sites/inf/files/resources/gnwt_procurement_guidelines.pdf
"However other parts of our industry would like to be in the Customs Union, like the car industry."
Somehow I doubt the EU are likely to grant such an a la carte deal (potentially more favourable than what's available to members) to a non-member of the club.
Incidentally, which services do the current EU arrangements prevent UK service providers from providing to other EU countries?
Roland6,
Given services form a major part of UK exports, it just shows how ignorant those who parrot "we can trade on WTO rules" are.
Perhaps a bit less smugness and a bit more thought might go down well...
We're already the second largest exporter of services in the world (after the US) and have a trade surplus in services (including with the US - which might upset Trump in any attempted US trade deal). So we're can already successfully trade on WTO terms - because we already do.
The difference is that in charge of our own trade policy, we'd be able to ask for more access to export services - presumably in exchange for allowing imports of stuff that other countries in the EU want to block and we don't mind about as much. Obviously the more countries you've got involved in any trade negotiation, the more things are going to be hard to accept politically. So in merging your trade policy with the EU you've got a bigger market to offer, but a much more complex negotiation to make.
Obviously WTO would be worse terms than with the EU. Hence the requirement to find a future arrangement. But at the moment the EU get the benefit of a deal where we have opened our market completely in goods, but they haven't reciprocated by doing the same in services. Although to be honest that's not something I think is going to change - and I'm not sure it would change even if we stayed in. Though there's been a bit of movement recently on fully completing the Single Market.
My personal choice would have been to go for full Single Market access - and then work out some way to dial down the levels of immigration at lower wage levels a bit so we can actually get some wage rises rather than constantly pulling in more labour. Because that gets us away from all the ever closer union stuff - which aggravates a lot of people - and hopefully people will have learnt from the shock and will actually do something about the problems that increasing the population by 10% in a decade causes. And also the problems that free trade causes. Both should make us all richer as a society, but some groups benefit disproportionately and others suffer disproportionately. And something needs to be done about that. And that isn't calling them all racist idiots. We tried that, and how that worked out...
"But at the moment the EU get the benefit of a deal where we have opened our market completely in goods, but they haven't reciprocated by doing the same in services."
I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with barriers in the EU services market. Could you give some examples? (I've been providing services to various EU countries for a decade or two and haven't come across any barriers, but that might be due to the markets I serve.)
I ain't Spartacus wrote:
""at the moment the EU get the benefit of a deal where we have opened our market completely in goods, but they haven't reciprocated by doing the same in services."
H in the Hague responded:
"I'm afraid I'm not that familiar with barriers in the EU services market. Could you give some examples? ""
I too would be interested in hearing in some real examples of these alleged barriers to trade in services within the EU. Pointers welcome.
Meanwhile here are some facts another organisation prepared earlier, together with some interesting 'what if' analysis and guesstimates:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-services
...
But those services industries that are traded make up 44.7% of total UK exports – amounting to £283.9 billion in 2018. Those “exports” include services such as education and tourism where people come to the UK to spend money.
...
The EU accounted for 42% (worth £119.4bn) of the UK’s services exports in 2018 – the highest of any trading partner.
...
The biggest single country the UK exports to is the US, which accounts for 22% of UK exports.
[etc]
"Clearly staying in the EU has annoyed a very large number of voters "
No, it has annoyed a very small number of very rich people. The voters have been told to be annoyed after years of drip feeding them lies followed by a campaign of such breathtaking bullshit that they were fooled into suddenly giving a damn about the eu. Not one of them gave a flying fig about the EU really before 2016.
Mooseman,
You can keep telling yourself that comfortable fiction - if it makes you feel that you only lost a vote you weren't expecting to because of "dark forces". But it's bollocks. Their always been a strong strand of opinion that didn't want to join the EEC in the first place, and liked it even less when it became the EU. Which is why a third of people voted against our staying in back in the 70s, when we joined without a referendum - and has continued every since.
I think polls have consistently showed a quarter to a third of voters wanting to leave from then on - with highs and lows. Remember it was Labour party policy to leave for the first half of the 80s - which is where Corbyn cut his political teeth (along with some of his allies).
It's never been a top priority issue (except for a tiny minority of voters) - but don't think that means that people don't have an opinion.
Also the referendum happened at a very unfortunate time with the Eurozone crisis (and obvious failure to fix things) and the migration crisis.
So while I'd agree with you that the referendum campaign was awful - I'd say that was true of both sides. And I'd also agree that most voters don't understand how the EU works.
To dismiss opposition to the EU as all made up of stupid people misled by evil rich people is a really bad idea. Firstly, politically. Telling people they're thick racists is unlikely to make them vote for you. Secondly, tactically. Because it's like the Marxist idea of people being led to vote against their class interests - those people don't think that is true - and if you fail to understand why people vote the way they do you'll likely fail to persuade them to change their minds. Thirdly, it's delusional. Which relates back to two. It's often a comforting self-delusion for people who keep losing the vote. They think they've won the argument, and rather than accept that other people disagree with them and they might be wrong sometimes resort to assuming it's impossible to win because they're the only clever ones who've seen the truth. It's not an attractive look for the outsider who might otherwise vote for you - and it's usually delusional bollocks.
I was amazed that enough people actually voted leave to get the win. But I'd say, from observations of polling and talking to people, that before the referendum say 5% of voters were genuine federalists and maybe 15-20% leave-at-all-cost types. And that there were probably about 15% of voters who thought the EU was about right. And then the rest of the electorate (60% ish) were about evenly split between people who didn't like the EU much but thought it too risky to leave - ones who liked it but would like to scale its powers back - and ones who didn't like it much and wanted to leave. And all three of those groups didn't feel all that strongly about the issue compared to healthcare, taxes, jobs etc.
The EU's more popular now. Some people who were hurt by losing the referendum, now definitely identify with the EU in a way that was unusual before the referendum. And I'd bet that quite a few who voted to leave would have moved back into the "don't like it but too risky to leave" group. But I'd also say the don't like it and leave at all costs group has grown too. Hence there's more support in polling for leave with no deal than for signing May's deal - which is surprising.
Maybe part of that is because in the half decade or so since the EU's Anti Tax Dodging Directive was first mooted, there's been almost no coverage of it in the UK's mainstream news media. It was due to come into effect in the UK this year, which would have been a bit of a problem for multinationals using cross-border transfers to dodge taxes in creative ways created for them by those lovely people in the City's tax dodging consultancies.
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/is-the-anti-tax-avoidance-directive-the-reason-the-rich-want-out-of-eu-1-5669763
https://www.pwc.ch/en/services/tax-advice/corporate-taxes-tax-structures/atad.html
Anon,
If evil corporate tax-dodgers tricked the stupid sheeple into voting for Brexit, then how come almost all of big business was campaigning for Remain? And since has been campaigning for Single Market access?
"more thinly veiled antisemitic conspiracy theories "
Dave - what the hell are you on about? I'm jewish, I don't see any such conspiracies. Nor do any other jews I know. If you are suggesting that using words like "rich" or "wealthy" is a codified antisemitic slur then I suggest you need to get out more and leave your own prejudices behind.
"My point was simply that the MPs and the "political class" / "establishment" / whatever term you want to use are vastly more pro-EU than the electorate."
I'm not sure it's a matter of being pro-EU on a matter of principle but on informed consideration of the economic well-being of the country as a whole and being determined to do what's best for that well-being in the long term.
"And that in these specific circumstances that's helped create this log-jam."
Quite so.
"If the opposition had actually tried putting forward some usable policies it would have helped"
Why should they? The PM is in charge. It's up to him to produce something that parliament can pass.
If you want to change constitutional law so that the legislature is in charge of negotiating treaties as well as ratifying them, then I would like to look at your proposals. It probably would be a worse system, though.
'If the opposition had actually tried putting forward some usable policies it would have helped...'
we'd have left ages ago if the government's own members had voted for the deal they'd negotiated. but the people most convinced that that the brexiteers definitly voted for a no deal are also the most convinced that they *didn't* vote for May's deal. they'r wrong on both counts,of course but yeah, sure, blame Corbyn and the opposition.
To be fair, I blame those who spent a lot of time and money convincing people who otherwise had no opinion on the matter, through a carefully constucted set of lies, to vote to leave, against their own better interests. People like the tax exile owners of the gutter press, unscrupulous insurance moguls, and gravy-trainers like Nigel Farage.
Perhaps the Lib Dems can do better
And, come the next election I suspect that they will - remainers of all political credds will vote for them on the basis that they are the only major party that has clearly stated that they support remain. Labour *could* have had that support but Corbyn managed the hatchet job[1] in conference to ensure that they still have to sit on the fence and can only make a decision which side to support after an election.
[1] Count the votes? Can't do that, it might give the wrong result..
72% turnout and the largest ever vote in favour of a specific policy?
Reinforced the next year by a general election in which 80-85% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?
Reinforced earlier this year by a European election in which 60% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?
I'm struggling to comprehend why you think that this was not in any regard democratic?
72% turnout and the largest ever vote in favour of a specific policy?
But still a marginal difference swamped by that 28% of non-voters. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
"Reinforced the next year by a general election in which 80-85% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?
Reinforced earlier this year by a European election in which 60% of the votes went to parties promising to deliver the referendum result?"
It would be wonderful if the british people started voting for their beliefs instead of along the usual party lines. Unfortunately it doesn't look like happening any time soon, and both of the parties that get most of the votes were too scared - despite their internal divisions - to stand on a platform that contradicted the referendum result. That situation is slowly changing but we still don't have a major party offering anything more than another referendum.
That 28% of non-voters didn't vote to remain in the EU either. No matter how you dress it, fewer people wanted to stay in the EU than leave.
Over 80% of the votes going to Labour and the Conservatives in the General Election is incidentally highly unusual, so people were not voting their traditional party politics.
72% turnout and the largest ever vote in favour of a specific policy?
If the vote had been for a specific policy, they'd have implemented it by now.
It wasn't. The vote was for a blank slate, onto which different people projected very different visions. So they couldn't agree on what that vision actually was.
Why not democratic?
Hundreds of thousands of non-resident Brits were prevented from taking part in a vote that concerned them the most.
The campaign was fraught with lies, financing irregularities and possibly foreign interference.
The advisory referendum was interpreted as a binding decision by Cameron and his successors
(I need to learn how to quote on here)
re: "Hundreds of thousands of non-resident Brits were prevented from taking part in a vote that concerned them the most."
Even if every non-resident Brit ruled ineligible to vote had voted Remain, Leave would have still won. I did the maths in 2016.
re: "The campaign was fraught with lies, financing irregularities and possibly foreign interference."
The Remain campaigns were indeed fraught with lies, financial irregularities and very explicit foreign interference.
re: "The advisory referendum was interpreted as a binding decision by Cameron and his successors"
Implementing the referendum result was a commitment in party manifestos.
I'll only respond to one of these assertions because it's actually true.
"Implementing the referendum result was a commitment in party manifestos."
Yes. Implementing the referendum result means trying to leave the EU on terms that are favourable. The referendum did not explore how we would do that, the difficulties of which have been revealed over several years. Since 2017, the government negotiating with the EU did not have a single party majority and had to rely on a confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP. This prevented us from treated Northern Ireland differently for customs. And this significantly weakened the mandate. The current government has no majority at all. At any rate, Parliament enacted a withdrawal bill requiring that they have approval of the terms of withdrawal in order to ensure a smooth transition. It's their job to see that through.
The other two are true as well. For the first, do the maths yourself. For the second, the Electoral Commission has found that multiple Remain campaigns broke the law, there were numerous lies (emergency budget and housing market collapse anyone?) and asking the President of the Unites States to intervene is about as interfering as you can get.
And yet MPs wonder why the people of this country that voted to leave the EU are now angry.
"The Remain campaigns were indeed fraught with lies, financial irregularities and very explicit foreign interference."
Such as? Let me see, you're happy for the blatant racist lies of Farage etc to be accepted, for the role of an ex pat Australian who doisnt live here or pay tax here in telling people those lies and others, a bunch of non dom tax dodgers lies to be accepted, etc etc but you whine about what, Obama warning that trade deals would have to be renegotiated from scratch? Yes there were some overexcited warnings about budgets and the threat to national security, I grant you, but really? As far as I know Turkey hasn't joined the EU, there is no EU army, we are not being swamped by immigrants that we cant control because of the evil EU - as you know perfectly well if you have half the intelligence you think you have - we have trade deals with more countries than the USA and China combined can manage, but somehow the glorious sunlit uplands of brexit will allow us to carve out our empire anew, kick out all those foreign types and watch our economy crash and burn as people suddenly realise who is paying for all our pensions now, let alone in 25 years.
It's not about "democracy" - if people were daft enough to vote to jump off a cliff would you say it was democratic and we had to do it? no? I fail to see what benefit 99.99% of the population gains from leaving the EU. I haven't had a single rational explanation of it yet that doesn't, in the end, boil down to "we don't like foreigners". Feel free to try.
Hmm! How many actions by previous prime ministers have been unlawful and can we pursue them retroactively to obtain justice?
Tony, I'm looking at you (among others).
This particular ruling just illustrates how much of a chancer Bojjer is, maybe we should give the Slender Man a chance, what could go wrong?
sal II,
There was loads of evidence of WMD in Iraq. They used it, had about 2/3rds of it destroyed by UN inspectors in the 90s and then kicked the inspectors out before they'd finished the job.
100% - 70% = 30%. The question was whether it was useable and deployable. Given that every set of UN inspections involved the Iraqis denying they had any left, the UN finding more - then them admitting to what had already been found - no Iraqi government statement on the matter could be relied on.
Also they had, and used, SCUDs during the second war, which they also agreed to give up as part of the ceasefire that stopped the first war. Hence I believe the legal argument was partly based on the original 1990 UNSC resolutions, because Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire agreement.
Useability was the only bit where the Blair government weren't wholly truthful. In the sense that they deleted the words "have some indications that" Iraq has WMD deployable in 45 minutes. That wasn't considered to be confirmed intelligence, because it was only from one source. The rest of that dossier basically talked about the 90s UN weapons inspectors and what they'd destroyed and what they'd found the paperwork for but not yet tracked down when they were thrown out. Plus the SCUDs and what their range was. Which was also a falsehood by implication, because they gave the range of the SCUDs but didn't mention that they probably couldn't use chemical weapons as they'd never invented or purchased the necessary dispersal technology. I think Iraq's only effective chemical weapons delivery was by artillery shells - and mostly mustard gas, as their Sarin production wasn't very pure and was generally a bit rubbish. As were their biological programs.
Sorry, I got the reference from my blog: https://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2006/12/15/body-language-is-the-liars-friend/ . Sadly the article linked from that is gone, along with the entire Indy's site of that era.
[edit] My blog comment finds it at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html
Nick Kew,
Thanks. That's not actually overwhelming evidence though, but the opinion of one diplomat. And agrees with my statement above that Iraq didn't have usable chemical weapons (the 45 minute claim was wrong and from only one source) - actually German intelligence had that source according to the BBC documentary I saw a few years ago. But he doesn't say Iraq didn't have any CW, just that they weren't currently a threat.
Almost everyone assumed Iraq still had the remains of their old program. More importantly they had most of the scientists and knowledge that they'd used to build the program in the first place - and once sanctions collapsed they'd have the oil money to rebuild it again. And mustard gas isn't that difficult to make - even if their nerve gas programs had never been all that successful.
So while Blair definitely exaggerated the threat, it's also pretty obvious that everyone believed Iraq still had the remains of the program the UN hadn't finished destroying in the 90s and the will and potential cash to build it again. The question was what to do. And as both France and Russia were helping to undermine the sanctions regime (because they wanted to get paid back for all the weapons they'd sold Iraq - and maybe sell them some more), it was pretty hard to get a reasonable solution. Whereas it was US and UK troops and aircraft that were preventing Iraq from attacking the Kurds, or continuing the genocide they'd started against the Marsh Arabs.
Someone (not you) said there was "No evidence". My post was to disprove that. The strength of the evidence is a different question, but what I posted is just one among many examples that could be dug up if you were to spend more time and effort than me looking.
As for the revisionist history in your last paragraph, bear in mind that all Saddam's worst atrocities - including against the Marsh Arabs, took place in the 1980s when he was a regional henchman of the West, and the US/UK were violating their own sanctions.
Nick Kew,
The Iraqi army was equipped with Russian tanks (T55, T63, T72), Russian AK47s (and Chinese knock-offs), Russian artillery, Russian APCs, Russian anti-aircraft weapons, Russian helicopters and Russian MIGs and some French Mirages. Funded by loans from the French, Russian and Kuwaiti and Saudi governments.
Not that I disagree that we should have done something when he started gassing the Kurds, or the Iranians for that matter. But this situation does not boil down to a simplistic US/UK bad everyone else good - and there were many hands that made the crisis.
But also that guy's statement simply isn't evidence of anything. He says that the UK government didn't see Iraq as an immediate threat to the UK - and other than giving WMDs to terrorists neither did Blair say that. Whether that was a genuine fear or Blair was making that up is pretty hard to prove.
So accusing Blair and Campbell of sexing up the intelligence is almost certainly fair. Lying is a different matter entirely, because as I said everyone believed Iraq had WMD. The question was whether it was in a fit state to actually use. If you genuinely believe something to be true when you say it you are at worst wrong - not a liar. And it's not like there wasn't ten years of weapons inspection evidence to back that belief up.
Incidentally the phrase "sexing-up the dossier" may itself be a lie. As Andrew Gillligan never made any notes of his meeting with David Kelly and was already under an improvement plan (or some such HR-speak) at the BBC for "sexing up" his news reports. Which is why I think the BBC had already edited his news story before the next news bulletin to remove that bit - even before Labour had started complaining. And why they sacked him - rather than back him up. It's such a memorable phrase that it sounds true, but because he'd broken journalistic rules and not written it down, they weren't prepared to back him.
> Being wrong isn't normally a crime
Really?
So ignorance of the law also means you are not guilty?
If I go and take any car I wish because I was totally ignorant of the rules surrounding car ownership for some reason I should get off the hook?
If I breed a banned breed of dog, thats fine if I say "I thought it was ok, never heard of that law, nobody told me...".
Doesnt fly. Blair helped invade Iraq with mo hard evidence, going behind the backs of the UN itself. Personally I think the man got off lightly.
"How many actions by previous prime ministers have been unlawful"
If you are talking about these right-on people who keep trying to make a citizen's arrest of Mr Blair because of the crime of aggression, you should know that that particular law didn't exist at the time of the invasion of Iraq.
One the best tweets came from The Guardian's political sketchwriter:
"Amazed that so many Brexiters who insisted the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit are now adamant prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit"
I believe they hit the nail on the head with a very satisfying thump.
Did anyone say the prorogation wasn't about Brexit? I don't remember many people seriously suggesting that. As it was obvious. It may also have been about getting a Queen's speech, because presumably a new government wanted to put forward its program - but it was also about forcing Parliament to make a decision - as May had been trying to do for a year.
But the only thing there's a majority for in Parliament, is not to decide. Which is why they didn't vote to overturn the prorogation, or to have an election, or to put through May's deal, or to cancel Aritcle 50, or to have a referendum. They just voted to delay Brexit. Well technically to ask to delay Brexit, as of course that decision isn't in Parliament's gift.
"Which is why they didn't vote to overturn the prorogation"
Not within Parliament's power. They can vote on a recess but not on proroguing.
"or to have an election"
Which would have presented BoJo with a fait accompli on a no deal Brexit and, as an additional benefit to him, left someone else to deal with the consequences. Not even Corbyn was going to fall for that.
They had time for one thing within their power. They chose to ban no deal.
Are you serious?!
The PM's position throughout, and that of the Tory party and many of their supporters, is that this was NOTHING to do with Brexit; it was just a normal prorogation leading up to a normal Queen's Speech, and it was a complete and total coincidence that it covered a period when Parliament would have been very engaged in scrutiny of the executive, and possibly legislating, over Brexit, and it was just an accident of timing that it was for five weeks instead of the usual five days.
THAT WAS THE LIE.
It was transparently obvious to the dogs on the street that it was a lie, a complete load of cobblers, and the Scottish courts saw right through it instantly.
If Parliament plays its cards wisely, they can have until Jun 2022 to kick the danglies of every Tory who steps into Boris's shoes...
Whilst in some respects not a lot would get done by Parliament, the country would not be having to worry about the extreme policies of the Tory and Labour party; a period of rest, just what the doctor ordered to recover from the nuttiness of the referendum.
"Parliament agrees on is that while this goes on, they're not getting asked any questions about actually running the country, so it should be spun out for as long as possible."
What this doesn't address, and Corbyn fails to understand, is that until this brexit nonsense is dead and buried we CAN'T get on with anything else - we are losing money at a stupid rate already, no amount of fanciful policies about free this and fair that will work if there is no money to pay for it. Even Labour are still trying to push for brexit, but only their special one that will magically appear once they are elected, neatly ignoring that any brexit will knacker our economy, let alone the no deal disaster.
Charlie Clark,
The EU doesn't negotiate with Parliaments. Or at least it's not supposed to. It's supposed to talk to governments. Who then have to judge what they can get through their own system.
Various people are betting heavily the EU governments will give them an extension to avoid no-deal. They may be surprised. Because the EU still seems to be claiming they've offered the only withdrawal agreement they're going to - which leaves the choices of signing it, leaving with no deal or staying (something Parliament does have the power to vote for).
The EU negotiates with the appointed representatives of the member state. So my understanding is that, should Parliament seriously believe that Johnson will defy Parliament and not go to the EU and ask for an extension they could table an emergency motion removing Johnson from being the UK's appointed representative and nominate someone to request the extension on behalf of the UK (probably John Bercow).
"I'd be surprised if the Speaker can legally act on behalf of the Executive."
No but AFAIK he can act on behalf of Parliament. In fact, only on behalf of Parliament.
"I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this House is pleased to direct me" was how one Speaker put it at another time when the sovereignty of Parliament was under attack.
Parliament have the power to bring down Boris Johnson any time they want. But won't. The only way to change the PM is to change the law (which this wouldn't be a simple one-clause bill that can go through in a couple of days) or to have a vote of no confidence. Or have a election of course. But Parliament hasn't had the vote of no confidence and voted against an election.
The election and no confidence options leave him as PM until replaced - by someone who can win a vote of confidence in Parliament. This is the fundamental problem, there's a majority against everything - but not enough people to create a majority for any compromise. So far. They can keep playing that game, right up until the EU refuse to grant any more extensions. Then what?
A majority have legislated that Johnson has to ask for an extension, but I'm not sure how watertight that law will turn out to be. Or what happens if he say resigns and refuses to do it. Or if the EU say no dice unless there's a plan for how to resolve the issue. Which they might if it's requested with 2 weeks notice.
They don't have to replace him as PM; Parliament can vote to appoint a representative who speaks for the UK in negotiations without replacing him; the wording appears to be something along the lines of "as the Prime Minister no longer commands the confidence of this house the said insert name here is commanded and authorised by the House to speak for the United Kingdom on matters related to Article 50".
They can try. But I'd argue that's against our constitution - which by the way is written down in places like Erskine May. I don't think the Supreme Court would be able to rule on that one in only a week. The Executive gets to decide matters of international treaties - Parliament gets to vote on laws. And the EU rules talke about the government asking for stuff.
The problem with creating a full-on constitutional crisis to keep us in, is that the deadline might pass first, and that's EU treaty law and not British law and so Parliament can't act on it. Once the deadline has been allowed to pass - that's it. We're out and will need to re-join.
The answer is to vote for May's withdrawal agreement or to vote to remain, or to vote to hold a referendum that decides - an extension for which the EU will probably grant. Though I don't think it's certain at this point.
The government could also revisit May's red lines and the EU will be more than happy to offer a new deal
This probably isn't true. With the proviso that if we agreed to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union it might be - but it's probably too late for that now. Though of course in signing May's withdrawal agreement that is still a possible future relationship.
May's deal is not actually a deal. It's specifically an instrument to withdraw us from the EU with a transition period and agreements on how to negotiate the future relationship. There is no deal and has been almost zero negtiation on a deal because the EU refused to do so.
The only deal is the 28-odd pages of the non-legally-binding political agreement which they only started negotiating in July last year, and spent about 2 months on and basically says very little - other than that both sides will use their best endeavours to come up with something in 2 years. At this stage that is the only thing that's on the table for discussion - and that's the only thing the EU have been willing to discuss since about November last year, although what's discussed in private and what's publicly admitted to may not be exactly the same.
Actually the EU have indicated on several occasions that they would be happy to negotiate a new deal if the UK removed its "red lines". It is my belief that any second referendum should have 4 options:
Revoke A50
Accept May's Withdrawal Agreement
Leave the political EU but remain in the single market and customs union (which would clear the way to negotiating a new WA with the EU)
Leave on WTO terms
The referendum should be single transferable vote.
We now have a lame duck government, but not parliament, ie. the government is forthwith wholly accountable and dependent upon parliament and Bojo can either resign, can his bluster or beheld in contempt of parliament and be led off to the Tower of London. The Supreme Court has just confirmed the sovereignty of parliament. I suspect that there is already a motion to take control of the agenda tomorrow and presumably to use the powers of the fixed terms act to look at selecting a caretaker government.
The patience of the other 27 member states isn't boundless, but there is also no desire among them for the UK to leave without a negotiated settlement. The terms of the last extension explicitly stated that future extensions might be granted but only if there was a substantial chance of them leading anywhere, including the chance of any deal being approved by parliament.
Bojo blew it, and now we'll get to see that all his brinkmanship was just showmanship. Time for someone else, who can find a majority in parliament by including it in the process, to take over.
Dave-pi-letters,
I believe the correct phrase is the Crown-in-Parliament. Which expresses the system as it's evolved in England, and later, UK.
In so much as the head of state is sovereign, that soveignty is delegated to Parliament and not actually possible to excercise without causing a constitutional crisis which will destroy the whole system. The monarchy holds certain powers in theory only, but can't actually use them - or at least uses them "on the advice of" Parliament or the Prime Minister. It's a nice legal fiction that keeps the reins of power out of any one individual's hands.
The Supreme Court disagrees. Note, that when it comes sovereignty, Parliament is more than just the two houses. But the time when the monarch, or their government, can act unilaterally has long since passed. And, important for any legal cases such as, let's say injunctions, we now have legal precedent: the courts can indeed rule on government decisions.
"And, important for any legal cases such as, let's say injunctions, we now have legal precedent: the courts can indeed rule on government decisions."
Nothing new, the courts have been able to hear applications for judicial review or appeals against government decisions for a v long time. The latest statistics I can find are for 2011 when there were close to 12,000 applications for judicial review. Sorry, no time to look up the number of appeals.
Source: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review-reform/supporting_documents/judicialreviewreform.pdf
For an example (relating to a discharge consent in NI) see: https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McGurk%27s%20%28Frank%29%20Application.pdf
Bojo blew it, and now we'll get to see that all his brinkmanship was just showmanship
Unfortunately, he's been sucking at the Trumpian teat for a while now and demonstrates a similar level of organisation and ability as Trump..
His utter failure as Foreign Secretary should have been a warning - especially as his waffle helped get a dual-nationality British citizen get locked up by Iran for a much longer time.
"but this is slippy slope were on"
It only becomes a slippy slope if the Government ignore the rulings from the independent Court and introduce new policies and legislation bypassing Parliament, the elected representatives of the people. That's pretty much the point of the ruling - the government have deliberately blocked the operation parliament.
The government can't create legislation that bypasses parliament unless parliament itself passes it as primary legislation (an Act of Parliament). Government can introduce secondary legislation but the courts can rule that as incompatible with existing primary legislation and therefore unlawful. The courts cannot rule primary legislation to be unlawful (although they can point out that it's incompatible with other primary legislation and tell parliament to work out what it wants)
As an aside, the European Communities Act is an example of parliament passing some of its soveregn power to another body (the EU)
And this is exactly the thing Brexiteers don't get: The wishes of one man (or a small group of them) is not democratic. Yes, the country voted, in its infinite wisdom, to leave Europe. And how we leave Europe should be democratically decided...
Yes, I live in a naive world, and yes, I understand that those who govern are, ironically, those least suitable to do so.
You don't see my point here, brexit supporters see proroguing parliament as necessary to facilitate brexit, the judiciary (our last line of defence against government actions) have just rightly ruled that unlawful therefore they will see them as against brexit because people really are that basic sometimes. What if Boris and the other idiots run an election campaign with a mandate to shackle them? They are already right wing and this is the sort of shit the right wing would pull. That's my concern anyway.
The court didn't make that judgement. It said the government didn't even bother to provide a reason for stopping parliament doing its job.
This is parliament taking back control. Isn't that what this was all supposed to be about? Note, no need to appeal to the European courts over this either.
Except that.. Government did give a reason for proroguing parliament. The court said that this didn't justify the length of the prorogation.
I hope Boris prorogues parliament, ending its longest session in centuries, for the legal reason that we need a Queen's Speech, and states very explicitly that the reason he's proroguing until 14th October is so that his party can hold its conference (something the other parties have done, and a political purpose for which there is precedent) and to give the Civil Service and Government time to prepare a Queen's Speech, something the Government is distracted from at present by their party conference. That is then a shorter prorogation, with sound reasons, for legal purposes, and the court can go fuck itself.
"What if Boris and the other idiots run an election campaign with a mandate to shackle them?"
With the fixed term Parliament Act he can't have an election now without their permission.
OTOH Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence in him and agree to get behind someone else to avoid an election right now. There are enough grown-ups still in the room, especially those who BoJo expelled from the Conservatives, to provide such a person.
This is how the judiciary prevent BoJo and the Mog becoming totalitarian.
Nah, it's the judiciary enabling a totalitarian Parliament. Point being we, the people still voted Leave. Or the majority did, which is that old 'democracy' chestnut. Especially as a large chunk of Parliament have been acting contrary to their electors, ie MPs with constituencies that voted 'Leave'. And then also demonstrating to the world that our MPs are completely incapable of negotiating a simple* treaty, ie failing to agree to a deal, or propose a viable counter-offer.
But the best part is figuring out what's been 'won' in this victory. Miller's had another 15mins of fame, Corbyn's said Johnson should resign (again). So what next? BoJo goes 'OK!, first order of business is a general election!'.. Assuming Bercow permits this, and Parliament votes for it, then Parliament is dissolved, not just prorogued. Clock's still ticking, Halloween is still the deadline, and the EU can stil veto any extension request..
*OK, Perhaps that's a bit oversimplified. But.. illegal prorogue= amrogue?
"Nah, it's the judiciary enabling a totalitarian Parliament."
The only democratically elected branch of government cannot, by definition, be totalitarian.
"Point being we, the people still voted Leave."
Yep, in an advisory, non-binding referendum. Which was then superseded by a general election. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that no parliament can bind its successors. Even if the referendum were binding, it would have no impact on the 2017 parliament.
That's how democracy works. You cannot tell your successors what to do.
"Especially as a large chunk of Parliament have been acting contrary to their electors, ie MPs with constituencies that voted 'Leave'."
Quite a few MPs are elected on less than 50% of the vote. So I assume you would like an alternative voting system, like PR, IRV or STV?
" And then also demonstrating to the world that our MPs are completely incapable of negotiating a simple* treaty, ie failing to agree to a deal, or propose a viable counter-offer."
The executive negotiates treaties. The lesiglature ratifies (or not) them. Bring the legislature something it likes, and don't try to bounce it.
"'OK!, first order of business is a general election!'"
Parliament votes No. Resign or do your fucking job, Johnson. No more playing politics and trying to ram through your own demented vision.
A million upvotes: "an advisory, non-binding referendum."
A good use of that would have been to make the EU reform itself - British politicians were in fact part of the EU's governing bodies, so they did have a say in all the carp that everybody including the same politicians are always complaining about. For a long while I had hoped that the UK would stay in. Looking at the shit show of the last years: meh. Stay or leave, but make up your mind! (I'd rather they would stay, I do believe that we are better off together, and actually I do wish for a closer union - as per the original idea developed early on between France and Germany - hey they have not been at war with each other for over 70 years!)
The big problem that I have is the whole situation in Northern Ireland. I am old enough to remember The Troubles, and I thought UK's political leaders (stretching that term) would be as well - but owing to quasi-nobility-like family relations they might not remember. Or maybe it is substance abuse, I don't know / care.
If we weren't playing out a farce, we would have explored the sensible options, including getting some reform and staying in.
The Irish border is a good example of the farce. It's obviously not the UK's problem to have an open, entirely unpoliced border. If the EU wants to erect a hard border on its side... Well, I can only see that ending with the RoI leaving the EU too, because leaving the EU is less bad than restarting the Troubles.
"The Irish border is a good example of the farce. It's obviously not the UK's problem to have an open, entirely unpoliced border. If the EU wants to erect a hard border on its side... Well, I can only see that ending with the RoI leaving the EU too, because leaving the EU is less bad than restarting the Troubles."
Whatever drugs you're on, I'd get off them fast. The NI border is explicitly required as part of the WTO, and as an external non member of the EU we are also required to have one if we have no deal or agreement. It is ENTIRELY our problem. If you think that we can just have an open border to part of the country while the rest of it is behind tariff walls then you're in for a world of problems. RoI leaving the EU? On what planet? The Troubles are a uniquely British problem, currently we have a peaceful settlement (some of which I find repugnant but nevertheless) that allows NI to grow without pyschpaths of either side blowing people up for <reasons>. RoI will not lamely roll over just to keep idiots happy.
The only democratically elected branch of government cannot, by definition, be totalitarian.
Sure it can, which to an extent is what this case was about. So there's no 'law' defining prorogation, it's just something governments do, and long been custom and practice. One of the points made in the ruling is if that's desireable, ie a government deciding it'll prorogue for say, 54months. Bearing in mind we do have legislation setting out fixed term Parliaments. So perhaps the first order of business once MP's bums are back on seats would be to propose a Prorogation Bill setting out reasonable limits..
The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that no parliament can bind its successors. Even if the referendum were binding, it would have no impact on the 2017 parliament.
I take it you're not a fan of representative democracy? Again, the people voted 'Leave'. But the judiciary has decided Parliament can bind it's successors. So the point of prorogation is a mechanism by which a new government can clear out old legislation, and present it's own programme for the new Parliament. The court ruling has prevented this, thus clearly binding Johnson's successor government..
But see also-
A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge. The people have decided that.
Yet that decision by the people is being frustrated by MPs...
The executive negotiates treaties. The lesiglature ratifies (or not) them. Bring the legislature something it likes, and don't try to bounce it.
The legislature has bounced it 3 times so far. The treaty was negotiated by May's government and the EU. The EU has been unwilling to modify the treaty, and 'Parliament' hasn't proposed any alternative.
Parliament votes No. Resign or do your fucking job, Johnson. No more playing politics and trying to ram through your own demented vision.
Parliament is saying it has no confidence in the Johnson government, although not officially, ie via a vote. This ruling frustrates Johnson, government and Parliament's ability to do it's job, which should be working through a new government's proposals, as set out in their Queen's Speech..
Obvious solution is to hold an immediate general election where the electorate can decide whether this Parliament has been acting democratically, or not..
I take it you're not a fan of representative democracy? Again, the people voted 'Leave'. But the judiciary has decided Parliament can bind it's successors.
Where to start with how wrong that is...
Firstly, a referendum is not representative democracy, if the enabling act states that it is advisory, it is technically and legally an opinion poll. Representative democracy involved electing representatives (the clue's in the name) to represent a constituency; note that it is their duty to represent the interests of all their constituents, not just the ones they agree with, or who voted for them, and it is their job to represent the interests of the country as a whole above that. Loyalty to a political party comes third, and to opinion polls, somewhere much further down the list of priorities in the land of what is personally politically advantageous.
Elected politicians are expected to weigh up the facts in a way that normal people don't have the time or expertise to do (which is why it's a paid full-time job), and call on expert opinion to support that decision making process.
Secondly, I'm not sure where you got the idea from that Parliament can bind its successors, or that the judiciary decided this. What the judiciary demonstrated is that Parliament has supremacy over government, not the other way around. Parliament is perfectly free to pass any Act of Law amending this position, if they can get a majority for it, and any subsequent Parliament (or even the same Parliament) can pass further Acts to supersede, amend or repeal that original act. If there's no explicit Act of Parliament dictating the position to be taken, then it is perfectly well within the remit of the Supreme Court to look at precedent and constitutional convention and make a ruling, which in turn becomes precedent. None of this restricts the laws that a Parliament can bring in the future - all it says is that the government cannot sideline Parliament when it is inconvenient, for purely political purposes, because it is the constitutional role of parliament as a whole to make policy, not the government of the day. Normally, of course, a government would command a majority in parliament, and woudl expect its business to pass the House with a majority as a result, unless they try to do something that both the opposition, and enough of their own MPs object to.
"Which was then superseded by a general election. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that no parliament can bind its successors. Even if the referendum were binding, it would have no impact on the 2017 parliament."
However, given that over 80% of the vote and over half of the MPs in Parliament were elected on a promise to leave the EU, I think it's reasonable to expect the UK to have left the EU before the end of this Parliament.
Don't you?
"I think it's reasonable to expect the UK to have left the EU before the end of this Parliament.
Don't you?"
No. I think it's up to MPs to take an informed view of what's in the best long term interests of the country, including their constituents and do that, irrespective of what their constituents want at the time, especially in respect of something that might prove difficult to reverse. To follow a referendum that binds future generations should require a much larger majority than it got and it should be explicitly binding.
However I suspect that the only way to put this issue to bed will be to leave, discover the consequences, and get back in with the best terms then available (which will probably be less agreeable to most of us than those we have now). That might not be reasonable but it would at least end the arguments.
MPs were elected on a promise to leave the EU. We'll just have to disagree on whether their constant refusal to deliver on that promise is in the best long term interests of the country and their constituents.
Not least because failing to deliver on their promises destroys any trust in Parliament, inherently damaging democracy.
MPs were elected on a promise to leave the EU.
Mine (a Labour MP) most definitely was not. Her opinion about brexit is clear and well-informed and quite comprehensively against leaving the EU. She was elected with an increased majority (by about 30,000 votes - I'll spell that out for you, an increase of thirty thousand votes), so your rhetoric about votes for Labour being votes in favour of brexit in 2017 is, to put it politley, uninformed bovine excrement.
If we left without a deal we would not be admitted back into the EU. Any member can veto, and after all this who could blame any one of them? Even if we do make a deal, I doubt we'd ever seriously consider joining again. We're stuck with whatever comes out. My fantasy is that we have a general election and the Lib Dems win (don't laugh) or are asked to join a coalition. If the former, then Brexit is dead. Done. Kaput. If the latter, then surely a condition of that we'd be another public vote.
People would be angry if we didn't go through with the result of the referendum, but I don't see that as worse than what we have now. Anyone who still thinks this is going to happen and is or will be angry, all I can say is welcome to the club. As this article has pointed out, it's a shit-show.
"Especially as a large chunk of Parliament have been acting contrary to their electors, ie MPs with constituencies that voted 'Leave'"
Referendums are not run on a constituency basis, so its almost impossible to determine which MPs constituencies are "Remain" or "Leave". One can only use the stated stance of an elected MP to take any inference about that set of electors in any constituency. Not sure what it says about the electors if Leave voters selected an MP who campaigned to Remain and continues to act that way in Parliament. Perhaps that they didn't understand the question?
"Especially as a large chunk of Parliament have been acting contrary to their electors, [...]"
Our Westminster system is a representative democracy. That means our MPs are supposed to think about decisions and make one that appears to be in the best interests of all - including those who didn't vote them in. In the FPTP system their election is often on less than 50% of the votes cast in their constituency.
If MPs slavishly followed what their own voters appeared to want - then we would effectively have mob rule on many complex emotional issues. That would be open to populist manipulation by vested interests.
That would be open to populist manipulation by vested interests.
That would be nothing new. A bit like Gina Miller using her husband's money to get the result she wanted? Despite what she says, she's a Remnant, and she has support from other wealthy/influential people happy to ignore the referendum results to protect their own interests. Which is all somewhat ironic given the left's traditional opinions when it comes to banksters. Banksters have a different view of the left, ie they can always find a use for an idiot.
Then of course there's the doublespeak. So this is all about defending democracy and Parliamentary sovereignty, even though 'Remain' means handing ever more of that over to Brussels.. It's a funny old world, after all the SNP are determined to be both independent and dependent on the EU.
and she has support from other wealthy/influential people happy to ignore the referendum results to protect their own interests.
And that referendum result, such as it was, wasn't bent towards Leave by some rich, influential people who saw fit to use their wealth and influence to do exactly what you're accusing Remain of, but in the opposite direction?
And that referendum result, such as it was, wasn't bent towards Leave by some rich, influential people who saw fit to use their wealth and influence to do exactly what you're accusing Remain of, but in the opposite direction?
It was ever thus. Power without abuse loses it's charm after all. There are however some subtle differences, like accusations against Leave influencers.. Aaron Banks being one notable example. Election Commission found nothing wrong, but referred it to the NCA, who also found nothing wrong. But such is politics. See also the US, where having failed to prove any Russian connection, Dems are now trying to suggest impropriety around Ukraine.. Ignoring Biden & Sons.. questionable behaviour.
Meanwhile, the electorate watches on, and awaits the next election(s). So we've been spared Tom Watson going down in Brighton, seen Corbyn's approval ratings beat Michael Foot as least popular opposition leader, and according to Guido, in a ComRes poll, 60% of us just want Parliament to get on and Brexit..
So hardly suprising our 'sovereign' Parliament are desperate to avoid an election and some form of democratic end to this fiasco.
Despite what she says, she's a Remnant
And has every right (legal, moral and political) to defend her views. Or don't you think that she should have been allowed to take the Government to court? Because saying that she doesn't have that right is a pretty retrograde step into the bad old past..
"Point being we, the people still voted Leave. "
We the people? Really? ONLY 17.4 million out of over 45 million registered electors voted to leave. That was a flaw of the referenudum, the result cannot claim to be the view of ALL the electorate. The SC's judgment was on behalf of ALL the people, and the future population, not just the special 17.4 million who think they have an absolute right to silence all oposition to their suicide pact.
"Nah, it's the judiciary enabling a totalitarian Parliament."
For the one hundred millionth time, Parliament is sovereign. It is in one sense totalitarian, yes, because it can enact any law it wants to (has the votes to). But it is democratic because it is composed of members who are elected by the public and their conduct in office is a factor in whether or not they will be re-elected. While they are there, they represent the national interest and the interests of their parties and constituents to the best of their abilities and in line with their consciences.
I wish that people would simply take the time to try to understand how the separation of powers works in UK government. Government is accountable to Parliament and Parliament are (not immediately) accountable to the people. Parliament is not bound by the result of the 2016 referendum, though they have passed a law that approves it. They could pass another that stops the whole mess. If you didn't like that, then you would be free to vote for someone else. In the meantime, Parliament absolutely has the right to be involved in the process of leaving the EU and has already set a number of conditions on that through various Acts of Parliament which the PM still seems to think he can get around. It's true that the EU could refuse an extension request, but that would be an act of spite and against both parties' best interests. What amazes me after hearing some of what the AG said today is that Number 10 are looking at what exactly it is required to do. Can it ask for an extension and then once granted refuse to take it and let us crash out? That would be a farce. It would not stand up.
Seeing as though I'm getting lots of downvotes which I don't really care about let me put it a different way just to get my point across.
52% of people want to buy cheese from Tesco, Tesco wants to sell you cheese.
Then the regulator comes in and says were going to put a stop on this selling Cheese even thought the way they tried to do it wasn't above board.
There is now a new vote for the owner of Tesco and the current owner says we are going to stop the regulator telling us what to do if you vote for us by changing the rules.
What do those cheesy fuckwits do? Do they think hell yeah lets stop the regulator without thinking of the consequences or do they think no that's not right we need that regulator?
Answers on a postcard usual address via the cheese factory.
Politicians can run on pretty much whatever promises they want to make, even if they know they are bollocks (buses with £350 million written on them as a random example). Of course the far-right (or the pretend not-far-right like Farage and his merry band of "I'm not racist, but..." arseholes) will promise to abolish the judiciary and the establishment, just like Trump did. Here's the joy of democracy though, they can't abolish the institutions that provide checks and balances to their power unless they have support from other politicians.
Your argument is also utterly invalid as you attempted to use twitter as a source to prove you are right, despite the fact that you keep stating that you don't care about downvotes.
Wow. That's a contrived and wildly inaccurate analogy.
Maybe if Tesco were the only place you could buy cheese it would carry more water.
And if Tesco sent people out to force everyone to buy cheese, whether they wanted it or not. Whether they could afford to or not. And then forced everyone to eat the cheese.
And only 37% of people would choose to buy cheese.
And 28% of the people didn't care about cheese.
And 35% of the people didn't like cheese.
And a significant (undefined) percentage of people were lactose-intolerant, in all three of these groups.
And the best argument anyone can come up with for doing it that hasn't been proven to be total bullshit is that we all get Clubcard Points. Woohoo!
There, we're a little closer now. Does it have to be British cheese, or can I get some nice Camembert?
I'm impartial to smoked Austrian cheese myself. The point though is we don't know how people will vote and we don't know what they will be asked to vote for. People voted brexit the first time round not because they were old, poor and uneducated, none of that mattered, the reason we are in this mess is because people feel disenfranchised with politics and the country in general. We've all watched the slow train wreck shit show over the last two years but does anyone think anything has changed for those people? I hope I'm wrong but it feels to me like people will still vote to fuck this country up and if the Tories put forward something that really fucks us up then we have a huge problem.
See this is the basic thing with leave supporters; you can't actually understand what you are supporting, and contort yourselves with analogies to a card game, or selling bloody cheese in order to prove to yourself and your brainwashed allies that it's the same thing. It isn't, not even faintly.
52% of people decide they want to buy cheese from Betfred. A lot of influential people told them they could buy cheese from Betfred, so they thought they'd give it a try. It turns out Betfred don't sell cheese, they're a betting shop and only sell misery, but those influential people are continuing to egg folk on and demanding that Betfred sell them some cheese. They send a stooge to negotiate a cheese sale with Betfred. Betfred says they have a small amount of mouldy cheddar in the back of a fridge, but the people would really be much better off buying their cheese from the local cheese shop. The stooge goes back to the people and asks if they will accept that, but no, they are demanding that Betfred now sells them all the cheese that local shop sells, but for a lower price, and while we're at it, we have some losing betting slips that we want paying out for. One of those same people who told the lies in the first place then takes over the 'negotiations' in an attempt to prevent people from changing their mind and going to the cheese shop instead, promising a glorious future of unlimited free cheese, in the hope that they can drive the local shop out of business and flog off a load of gone-off processed 'cheese' slices that they've been stockpiling in the hope of making a massive profit. They don't care if the people all get food poisoning after this, becuase they'll have fucked off to the Bahamas.
that's a more accurate analogy
How to turn part of the country against the judiciary part one, this is how you end up with a totalitarian state.
Yes, the Brexit rabblerousers are already spinning this as being the judiciary being against Brexit and other such b*llocks.
However, this case was about the sovereignty of Parliament - given the level of comments on many media websites about the case and all things Brexit, I suspect many Brexiteers will believe Farage rather than the facts and continue to believe that Parliament/"the establishment" is under the thumb of the EU...
"Yes, the Brexit rabblerousers are already spinning this as being the judiciary being against Brexit and other such b*llocks."
Actually, to his credit (and this must be the only time I've said such a thing) even Farage has said "The calling of a Queen's Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever."
*Actually, to his credit (and this must be the only time I've said such a thing) even Farage has said "The calling of a Queen's Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever."*
Shortly after he was all in favour of it, you mean? The man is a walking cesspit. what he meant to say was "its the worst decision ever because you got found out" and also because bojo has ruled out a collaboration between the tories and the fuckwit, sorry, brexit party - you know, that party without a single MP.
The so called soveriegnty of parliment derives from the soveriegntity of the people. The people are soveriegn, because we traded that with the monarchy in various treaties over the centuries for rights to the Crown, such as the right to tax us. Parliment exercise the soveriegnty of the peopel by the consent of the people. That means Parliment, and MP's are servants of the people, elected to undertake the will of the people. This country belongs to the people, not 600 random oiks that sit in Parliament. If you do not want to undertake the will of the people, then you shouldnt be an MP. The will of the people was expressed in a free fair democratic referenum in 2016. What we have here is a coup by 400 MP's who think THEY own the country, and are trying to sieze power by unelected means. We demand an election now, but the remainer mp;s, who are going directly against the will of thier constuents (70% of Lab voters voted Leave, for example), these MP's know they will get thrown out before they can stich the UK up into a BRINO that directly goes against what was voted for, hence they refuse to vote for an election. These people are stooges of the EU, and undertaking treachery on behalf of a forign power, and are denying the peopel there right to have thier democratic choice enacted.
But given that parliament derives from the soveriegntity of the people, isn't the 400 MPS servants of the people, elected to undertake the will of the people doing so, given those against represent greater numbers than those for.
To let a mere 200 MPs decide is certainly not democratic, it's minority rule.
What is soveriegn-tity anyway? Sounds like a potentially treasonous reference to 'er majesty
No, no, no and no. When will people like you stop this rubbish about parliament being there to enact the will of the people? Look up what parliamentary democracy is. We are not living by mob rule.
and for gods sake use a flipping spell checker - why are leave supporters always incoherent and unable to spell? Oh let me guess, you're dyslexic or have fat fingers? That's excuse is old and over used.
The high blood pressure from being angry about everything printed in the Daily Mail not only makes their faces an attractive rosy red colour, it also causes glaucoma which affects their ability to see, and therefore double check, not only the spelling and grammar of what they write, but also the factual accuracy.
David Cameron made it law that the Referendum would be a legally binding vote and that Parliament COULD NOT do anything to interfere with the result being carried through.
Teresa May made it law that the UK WOULD leave the European Union 2 years after Article 50 was invoked, and Parliament COULD NOT interfere as it was a legally binding decision, thanks to that nice Mr Cameron.
So if you want to talk about people breaking laws and refusing to respect the electorate, how about you start with the MPs who are blocking Brexit. Or does the Referendum not count because it didn't go the way the political elite wanted it to, and are Remainers so full of their own self-importance that their idea of "one man, one vote" only applies to the majority (who voted Leave), and that Remainers are allowed as many votes on the decision as it takes to get their own way?
or are you on glue?
I'm leaning more to gas 'n air.. hmmm.. gas 'n air
(Yes - I'm old enough to remember when dentists used it - horrible-smellimg mask went over your face and you sat there, high as a kite while someone drilled your teeth. I also seem to recall that it didn't do too much to supress the pain..)
The referendum was not legally binding.
Go away, read the act, come back and apologise for your ignorance/lying.
As there's plenty of time before our violated democracy is restored, here's a joke...
Q: What do you call brexiters in the basement?
A: A whine cellar.
Cameron said in the Leaflet he circulated (and I quote) "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide". So lets not have this rubbish about 'advisory'. we voted on the firm promise the result woudl be implemented. To not implement it will be an utter betrayal of trust between the goverment and the people. The government, and the rest of PArliment , is both duty and honot bound to keep its word. Failure not to do so, completely undermines the soicial contract beteen people and government - the social contract that demands democracy is respected by the losers honouring the result, and the government keeping its word. The rejection of the result by remainers has already fatally damaged demcracy. How can we ever have faith in a vote again, when half the people in the country have clearly demonstarted they are in fact only going to respect demcratic results they agree with? Thats not democracy, thats fascism.
another brexiter justifying lies and unlawful behaviour, seems a common trait
fascism is brexiters using lies and deceit to mislead voters, inciting hatred and destroying democracy
one of the biggest brexiter lies is that "the people" voted for whatever it is they want, something they never truthfully defined, and repeatedly lied about
fact: there are 50-60 million british people in this country, most did not vote 'leave', any claim that "the people" voted either way is clearly a lie
"How can we ever have faith in a vote again, when half the people in the country have clearly demonstarted they are in fact only going to respect demcratic results they agree with?"
This is why we should never have popular referendums. That's not how our democracy works. It works by electing Members of Parliament and forming governments. A non-binding popular vote has risen to the status of some sort of Biblical covenant. It was never anything other than a political instrument. It's only because Parliament approved it that we went ahead with Article 50. Parliament reserves the right to abandon it. At the very least, Parliament has carved out the right to be involved in it. Parliament represents the people and the interests of the country. That's how it works.
"This is why we should never have popular referendums. "
Margaret Thatcher, in 1975: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d620b8c6-5fc9-11dc-b0fe-0000779fd2ac
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/01/17/how-britain-embraced-referendums-the-tool-of-dictators-and-demagogues
Though I suppose referendums can work if you have them regularly as in Switzerland, people are used to them and study the issues at hand, and don't force anything through which the government simply cannot implement. Or like in Ireland where in relation to the abortion and same sex marriage referendums the government clearly indicated what legislation they would implement.
"Though I suppose referendums can work if you have them regularly as in Switzerland, people are used to them and study the issues at hand, and don't force anything through which the government simply cannot implement."
The worst and most destructive aspect of this referendum has been that it has undermined faith in democracy because it has exploited general ignorance of how Britain's representative democracy actually works. And neither side has done much to educate the electorate. In the 2017 election there was not a single party who were prepared to put in their manifesto that if elected they would revoke Article 50. All were too afraid of the public wrath to suggest such a thing (though in the case of Labour, Jeremy Corbyn showed his true colours the day the result came back). A bunch of craven fools. They all let us down.
The Referendum was EXPLICITLY non-binding. The legislation that allowed it was very clear that it was advisory, and that there would be literally zero legal consequences of the result.
Both Parliament & Government were free to act as they saw fit - in the interests of the country, as is their role in this parliamentary democracy.
What David Cameron said, or put on a leaflet, or had tattooed on his arse-cheeks has no bearing whatsoever on the law.
If you don't like the democratic system of the UK, you're welcome to campaign to change it. (Or go live somewhere else.)
No, David Cameron said in his leaflet (and I quote) "This is your decion. We will implement whatever you decide". So in fact far from being 'explicitly non binding' the democratic vote was undertaken on the full understanding the decision had be refferred by MP's to us, and was now that of the people's and the govenrment would implement it. And any attempt to deny that is simply fascism, and an attempt to undermine the basis of the vote and the entire basis of trust in democracy - which has already been fatally undermined by peope like you, who have trashed the social contract that democractic votes are based, ie , that the losers accept the results.
If the referendum had been legally binding it would have said so in the Act. This is an extract from the (legally binding) Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011:
The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if—
(a)more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”
There is no such statement in the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Furthermore had there been such a statement then the irregularities discovered by the Electoral Commission regarding spending and data misuse would have been sufficient grounds to declare the outcome null and void. The government would then have had to decide if it wanted to re-run the referendum. Because the referendum was advisory the Electoral Commission can only report, not act.
"which has already been fatally undermined by peope like you, who have trashed the social contract that democractic votes are based, ie , that the losers accept the results."
I only take lessons on democracy from people who can spell democracy or democratic and who actually show a clue that they know what they are talking about. There is no requirement in a democracy for people who lose a vote to accept the results. If this were so, then the endlessly whining quitters should have shut up way back in 1975 when they lost by a landslide. But they didn't they plonked on about it for the next 41 years and are still plonking on about it 44 years after the vote. It is quite astonishing that those screaming "democracy" seem to think that it means that everyone must do what they want. It doesn't mean that and it never has.
And this is before we get to the fact that Western democracies are, for the most part, representative democracies where the people elect someone to represent their best interests not where they elect a puppet to carry out "the will of the people". That term "the will of the people" being of course the rallying cry of the National Socialists.
"This is your decion. We will implement whatever you decide"
And he had precisely zero right to say that since the Act that was passed in order to enable the Referendum explicitly said that it was not a legally-binding referendum.
"David Cameron made it law that the Referendum would be a legally binding vote and that Parliament COULD NOT do anything to interfere with the result being carried through."
False.
"Teresa May [sic] made it law that the UK WOULD leave the European Union 2 years after Article 50 was invoked,"
Yes.
"and Parliament COULD NOT interfere"
No. Parliament can (and did) amend the act.
The referendum was not legally binding, and was so badly drafted that it left us in this crisis situation. Not a surprise as we all know the current batch of politicians are not great thinkers. May especially (given the changes she made as Home Secretary) is poor at writing things. Should have given the task to a coder / computer scientist - they know how to think through noisy input data.
e.g. 2/3 majority either way is binding, a simple majority or parity result triggers a repeat of the referendum every year until the first condition is satisfied or we take a best-of-five result.
"David Cameron made it law that the Referendum would be a legally binding vote and that Parliament COULD NOT do anything to interfere with the result being carried through."
Just because you can find numpties to believe that an Farcebook and Twatter you shouldn't believe you can get away with bollocks like that here.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
David Cameron made it law that the Referendum would be a legally binding vote and that Parliament COULD NOT do anything to interfere with the result being carried through.
It is hard to find the adjectives to describe just how wrong you are. Fake news, alternative facts, lies, bullshit, garbage, nonsense and invention just doesn't cover it.
That some people believe all this shit, and everything which derives from it, is why we are stuck in this existential crisis we find ourselves.
I agree with the first part, but the idea everyone you disagree with is an idiot is actually much more to blame for the state of modern politics.
People who believe complete nonsense like that are fairly rare, but all of us are well capable of fooling ourselves that our arguments are why we believe something, when in fact we have merely come up with justifications for what we want to believe. Some of us do it all the time, some of us are better at recognising it when we fall into bad habits, but we can all do it when we're not careful.
You can't have an election when the current prime minister lies, he gets to call when the election happens and would just put it after brexit had already happened and there would be no one in parliament to stop it or make an agreement with the EU to extend it. He has also made it clear he will do anything within his power to drag us out no matter what.
"The courts are the wrong place to be doing this"
What was the "this" you had in mind?
If you were thinking about Brexit the court explicitly rules that out as being up for consideration:
1. It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on
what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union.
Take a good look at that number. 1. It's the very first thing the court has to say in the judgement.
"The courts are the wrong place to be doing this"
We have a general election. Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister. His first act is to prorogue Paraliament. Then he sets our to nationalise all property in the UK with no compensation payments. He then nationalises all companies and forces companies that have intellectual property rights to surrender those rights for free to the government.
You're telling me that the Supreme Court should not adjudicate on the legality of his actions? You actually want to live in a dictatorship where the Prime Minister can rule by diktat?
Looking forwards to that!
The shortest PM is 2 days in 1746 as he couldn't get anyone to accept a cabinet post under him.
Next shortest PM is 4 days in 1757 but the official post was First Lord of the Treasury, which is a sub-title of the Prime Minister, and he also failed to form a government.
Third (or first proper PM who formed a government) is 119 days in 1827
A contender is #44 on the list, serving 478 days, but split into two terms of 382 days in 1795/76 and only 96 days in 1782.
Nearly Headless Boris has a nice ring to it.
Of course what we really need is for this whole sorry mess to go away and get back to proper Government. No Deal would be like pushing the button and then trying to get to the nuclear bunker before the trickle turns into a stampede.
Does anyone remember when Tony Blair or Maggie were PM and they thought the country had gone to shit? Because the person in charge was a lying, out-of-touch, self-centered moron? Oh hello 2019, how much we'd love to go back to that time.
Really hoping that we'll look back on this as the worst possible period of our modern history** and use the phrase "it could be worse" to describe the absolute clusterfuck that is Brexit.
** No, I don't think using WW1/WW2 as an analogy is a good idea because at that point most people in the country were actually united with certain nations in Europe at least.
Don't have to go back that far. Maggie was as in touch as any politician has bern, generally honest, and very bright.
In hindsight, she had her upsides as well as the downsides. We could do with her ability to cut through the political bullshit at a time like this. Someone like her is needed to sort out this mess - she wouldn't have been afraid to cancel Brexit if necessary, for example.
So I have to go to the polling station a second time to vote in the justices?
I thought our system was careful to keep them out of politics, because, unelected and all that annoying democratic stuff.
Oh well, maybe they can have us vote for the justices at the same time we vote for our MP's. Every time I go to the polling station I end up with more and more
bits of paper to put marks on!
Whats one more.
Wait, whats that? Did I hear some say they wont be running for election? What?
I think I'm usually quite rational and I can see what he and the remaining Conservative members are trying to accomplish.
You can't negotiate if the other side knows you are bluffing or cannot follow through on your demands.
I very much doubt Boris wants a no deal exit but with every other party trying to keep no deal out of the mix it seriously weakens our position at the table.
Suspending parliament was a tactic to prove to the EU that no deal is an option and therefore more likely to result in a deal.
This crap has gone on too long, just decide something FFS!
"it seriously weakens our position at the table"
The problem with believing that line of thought is that it is akin to him going into a meeting with a can of petrol, that he threatens to pour on himself if he doesn't get what he wants.
Yes, there will be collateral damage, but it's him that would be the smouldering carcass.
It's not a very smart negotiating tactic, and the only thing that it "brings to the table" is that he's a fucking moron with no clue about this diplomacy thing.
That's what the PM is stating. But it's likely fantasy rubbish. Just like the Norway ++ / Canada++ , or London becoming the Singapore on the Thames, or the hulk bursting out of captivity. With Enthusiasm.
Of course no deal is an option.
No position has been put on the table according to Merkel or Varadkar, so it's pretty much a decided certainty.
The notion that 27 other countries will immediately sign a piece of paper because it's the only one in front of them, to give preferential treatment to a competitor with a deadline imposed by that competitor's stalling. Stinks of nostalgia for gunboat diplomacy and utter contempt for the other side.
If the UK takes that approach to Chinese and Indian negotiations, the results will not be pretty.
All the whining about the backstop. Missing the problem, that the EU rules forbid negotiating on trade rules with a current member. So the conditions negotiated with UK will be the precedent, and they will not rush it, Ireland will just have to deal with it and put in the WTO trade borders for 4-5 years.
It's been less than 100 years since the Irish republic did a hard Brexit from the reviled militaristic Union, (prompted by nationalism, getting dragged into international conflicts, domestic oppression, and maybe a couple of famines while food was exported. ) and went through the decades of economic downturn afterwards.
And as such, readers of recent Irish history might have an inkling about how bad these things can be if not done with competence and goodwill.
Ireland will be the only EU country keeping freedom of movement with the UK (until the UK government decide to tear that up, and maybe the British Commonwealth while it's reneging on it's international treaties.)
EU opinion seems to be that another extension would make the political mania in the UK grow worse still, and will reject the extension. Is that not all the help the brexiteers need?
The Irish government wasted a lot of political capital trying to get a soft transition for the UK and themselves, keeping trade open while negotiating the replacement trade deals. And little to stop a hard brexit during that period if the UK government chose that it had enough trade deals done.
But now they'll be punished by some parts of the electorate for setting up border posts, and increasing violence and crime, and job losses brought on by Cameron's protest opinion poll. (Yes, Ireland's had anti-EU referendum results also ).
unfortunately doing a deal with the EU is nothing like a game of sodding poker. The EU doesn't care about his mandate or the size of his majority, they want this whole thing over with. We have a deal already - its rubbish compared to what we already have as members of the EU, but there it is.
I cant believe the comments on here. Borid Johnson is trying to implement the results of a democratic vote. Because he has a minority govcernment, what we now have is the Opposition plus rebels, having refused to subject themselve sto a General lection, have in fact seized conrtol of the United Kingdom and are de factro tranying to istall themselves as the government without having to go through the tedious tiring process of actually subjecting themselve sto the wil of the people. Thes epeopel KNOW they are goping to get summrily thrown out at the next GE, because , for example, 70% of Labours core vote voted to leave. We have 400 or so MP's actively opposi9ng the will of the people, who have demonstaerted they clrealy support leaving by any means , in three separate elections. Instead. 400 Mp's have decided THEy ar going to thwart the will of the peopel and do all they can to keep theUK tied tot he Eu. THESE are the peopel who are destroying democracy. The will of the peopel is leave by whatever means the Govt can summon. Instead, 400 Mps ar eworking as enemy agents for the EU, undermining the elected government and thwarting the will of the people.
The whole "proroguing parliament" idea was floated in some circles months ago, meaning it's all part of the preplanned circus of psyops to keep the people distracted. We can confidently ignore the whole spectable. All that matters is that we the people voted for Brexit and those who serve us have to deliver it.
"400 Mp's have decided THEy ar going to thwart the will of the peopel and do all they can to keep theUK tied tot he Eu. [...]"
May's negotiated withdrawal agreement failed to be approved on its final try by Parliament by 58 votes. The 44 members of the Brexit ERG and DUP made the deciding number of votes against it.
There is no freedom in poverty, there is no freedom in having to take any deal offered out of necessity, there is no freedom in throwing everything away for no reason. I voted remain, but could have been swayed to accept leaving if it had been done in a considered way - say three years to look at the best way to proceed, then invoking Article 50 and negotiating a deal that works for everyone (alongside setting up treaties with other countries, perhaps). The biggest mistake made was rushing into it - only the loons that just want to see the world burn can really want what we have here.
all days of that case, live, and likewise, today's ruling. In the meantime, the Register, over 400-strong thread... WTF?! Where are your principles, people?! Surely the topic with most posts should be about, I dunno... apple (shit), MS and W10 (shit), google (shit) and amazon (shit).
that said, on the technical note, when they started live transmission from the court today, this was that long, long, very long awkward moment when the voice was distorted (on all tv channels, and the presenters all panicked), then the sound was gone, then it was distorted again, and the court's own live stream went kaputt before it even showed anything, and I thought: is this the biggest SNAFU of the modern times, when the, apparently, most important court ruling is given on mute?! :D
Unlike in the USA, the Parliament and Court system in the UK has the cojones/ovaries to stand up to a leader that is trying to destroy their constitution. Bravo
The main questions behind the US turmoil have not been presented to the US Supreme Court The current administration, with the collusion of the Senate Majority leader having packed the court with like-minded cronies. I doubt if that remedy is open to us anymore.
Just tune into BBC Parliament at 11:30am and see what happens....
Drama, scorn, hatred, shouting, a little bit of "ORDER, ORDER"....might even be a "Contempt of Parliament" motion...I can't wait for BoJo to be arrested by Parliament and taken to the cells...
Ditto with the three members of the Privy Council who took BoJo's "command" to Her Maj...
No herman. no.
What happened was we were told a deal would be a piece of piss. Then the people who told us that a deal would be a piece of piss wouldn't support the deal that their party got. Then they started pretending that if we don't have a deal by Oct 31st we won't have to get a deal.
We still have to deal with the EU.
If we leave without ratifying the deal we brokered the EU will be even less amenable to our bullshit and bluster.
BoJo's rich buddies have bet millions on us crashing out. They stand to make a pretty penny picking over the wreckage of UK businesses.
And here you are, throwing a chidish tantrum, pretending that the reasoned judgement presented yesterday was unfair and undemocratic.
Grow up.
"Piece of piss" = your words. Yes a trade deal with the EU would be easier than with any other nation because we are already in the EU and are fully compliant with all current EU regulations. However, once we leave that wont be the case for long. Collectively our politicians have had >3 years to sort this out, that's not the fault of the Brexit voting majority. Unfortunately the collective failure of our politicians to co-operate and implement the electorate's will makes a mockery of democracy on the world stage.
A kangaroo court set up in the 21st Century by Prime Minister (and lawyer) Blair.
As a point of comparison for readers the other side of the pond, imagine the US Supreme Court, founded in a considered fashion centuries ago, suddenly populated entirely by Clinton/Obama followers. Voters, despair.
No, you are dead wrong - the Appelate Committee of the House of Lords (what you refer to as the House of Lords) was a supreme Court in all but name. The members of the "HoL" were all experienced judges appointed by the Lord Chancellor (with the exception of Lady Hale - she was an academic who was specifically approached to become the first female appeal judge - first in the Court of Appeal, but always earmarked for the HoL). The first judges in the Supreme Court were those from the "HoL just moved to a new building. "There are no significant differences between the "HoL" and the Supreme Court.
I've said this once before but now I feel the need to shout it. PARLIAMENT IS SOVEREIGN! Please educate yourself on how representative democracy works in this country. Also, what the f&ck does this ruling actually have to do with leaving the EU, which Johnson still insists will happen on Halloween no matter what?
The Supreme Court's decision appears to be at odds with Parliament, who only a few weeks ago, voted that they had confidence in Johnson and his government. They did this in full knowledge that parliament was to be prorogued. Had they wished to stop it, they should have voted for the motion of No Confidence, removed the government and proposed their own government (they have the majority needed for this). The only barriers to this are the egos of those involved and their lack of unity.
Under normal circumstances that might work, but these are not normal circumstances and it's not that simple. The former Tories who backed the Act of Parliament to force the PM to seek an extension if he can't get Parliamentary approval by the 14th of October do not want a general election. They (particularly I've heard from Oliver Letwin) are suggesting an extension followed by a second referendum to get the Brexit issue out of the way so that electoral politics are not totally eclipsed by it. I personally think this is wrong. Right after the referendum result came in we should have had a general election to decide what to do about it. That's how democracy is supposed to work here. What we had instead has been a matter of the utmost national importance treated as though it were a party political issue.
The Attorney General has just stated clearly in Parliament that the Supreme Court does have the right to create a new law, and that they have done so.
I have in a number of comments here expressed my belief that they did not have that right. I was wrong and I apologise for raising constitutional questions as a result.
The AG isn't entirely impartial, as he acknowledged in his own speech. I am not convinced that new law has been created and I suspect there is something political to be gained from saying it is new law while also saying it is acceptable to do that. Perhaps cementing the first as fact while leaving the second open to further debate?
As I see it, the Supreme Court has merely put into written law an unwritten law which was already a part of our constitutional principles.
You may have no need to apologise. The government could again be lying to us.
It's also worth reinforcing that law based on precedent can be superseded by Parliament by the passing of a new Act in Parliament, in exactly the same way that a law based on an Act of Parliament can be.
For the purposes of an IT-related analogy, think of laws based on precedent as new documentation on previously undocumented software features (possibly those that have emerged as side effects of other features), and of laws based on Acts of Parliament as software updates (secondary legislation could be thought of as minor patches).
"The Attorney General has just stated clearly in Parliament that the Supreme Court does have the right to create a new law, and that they have done so."
The AG is mostly performing a backside covering exercise. He wants to have people believe that the Supreme Court made a law and therefore the advice he gave was correct at the time he gave it until the evil Supreme Court came along and changed the rules.
If you read the judgment you will see that their Lordships carefully spell out the laws and legal precedents that guided their decision. It's too tedious to repeat here but it was a thorough, forensic, examination of the facts and the conclusion was inevitable. As witness the fact that it was unanimous. There is no creation of a new law, there is simply the application of the best legal minds in the country to determine what constitutional law says on the subject of the power of the Prime Minister over Parliament. The law makes it clear that Parliament is sovereign.
You can read the judgment here. I recommend that you take time to read it. It is not overly long and it is written in clear, concise English as Supreme Court judgments always are. All of the objections raised here are considered and dismissed.
"I have read it. Could you perhaps help me understand it by highlighting where in that document it cites precedent and/or law imposing upon the Prime Minister a restriction on prorogation?
There is none. It's never happened before. This is new law."
I suppose our mistake was in assuming that having read it you would understand it. You have to read it with an open mind, first of all. The common law works by case law precedent. There was much precedent cited in the judgement. The one novelty that the Supreme Court indulged in is to devise a standard for testing the lawfulness of the exercise of this power, an exercise that has never before been challenged and that the government argued had no legal limitations. The court found that this proposition was absurd, otherwise the government could arbitrarily prorogue Parliament for any length of time it wished and thereby assume unfettered power to govern unaccountably. Having established that the decision to prorogue is justiciable, they devised a test derived from the lawfulness of the exercise of a statutory power. It's not a new law. It's a new standard of testing lawfulness which resulted from the first ever challenge to this particular exercise of power. Anyone familiar with the common law understands that this is hardly revolutionary. The prerogative powers have gradually been circumscribed through Acts of Parliament and judicial interpretation. It's just a shame that they had to do it on this topic. Now the government are threatening to try it again.
If you have only read the summary judgement, please read the full one which is only 25 pages long. It's concise yet thorough. If you are still concerned, just keep asking questions and I'm sure someone can help.
...By the way, it is always open to Parliament to enact a law giving the government of the day unfettered powers to suspend Parliament, and that would override this judgement. I hope this helps to illustrate the point. This is what Parliamentary sovereignty really means and that is why the Supreme Court have effectively vindicated that principle.
It's probably also helpful to quote paragraph 49 {my curly braces}:
49) In answering that question {what is the legal limit of the prerogative power to prorogue which makes it compatible with the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions}, it is of some assistance to consider how the courts have dealt with situations where the exercise of a power conferred by statute, rather than one arising under the prerogative, was liable to affect the operation of a constitutional principle. The approach which they have adopted has concentrated on the effect of the exercise of the power upon the operation of the relevant constitutional principle. Unless the terms of the statute indicate a contrary intention, the courts have set a limit to the lawful exercise of the power by holding that the extent to which the measure impedes or frustrates the operation of the relevant principle must have a reasonable justification. That approach can be seen, for example, in R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51; [2017] 3 WLR 409, paras 80-82 and 88-89, where earlier authorities were discussed. A prerogative power is, of course, different from a statutory power: since it is not derived from statute, its limitations cannot be derived from a process of statutory interpretation. However, a prerogative power is only effective to the extent that it is recognised by the common law: as was said in the Case of Proclamations , “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. A prerogative power is therefore limited by statute and the common law, including, in the present context, the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.
"The one novelty that the Supreme Court indulged in is to devise a standard for testing the lawfulness of the exercise of this power"
So you agree, the Supreme Court did indeed devise a new standard, thus introducing into law something which wasn't previously in place.
Thank you for clarifying this.
I agree that the Supreme Court devised a new standard, thus introducing into the body of law an approach to testing lawfulness of the prerogative power to prorogue. This was born out of necessity because there had never been such a legal challenge before. That's not the same as legislating, or creating a new law. If the AG actually said that then he is up his own arse. Since the Case of Proclamations (1610), which held for the first time that "the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him", prerogative power can only be used if the law allows it. The law of land has changed a great deal in four centuries. The law on prorogation has only formally changed because of the way it was exercised by Boris Johnson in this instance on the advice of the AG. Most observers are surprised by the forcefulness of the ruling, but the AG ought to have realised that proroguing Parliament against its will for such an extended period at a crucial time would raise lots of constitutional questions.
Having read the AG's statement before the House, I can see the excerpt that is relevant:
"The court of last resort ultimately disagreed with it, but in doing so it made new law, as it was entirely entitled to do."
There is a subtle distinction to be made between making new law and making "a" new law. Making a new law is legislating. Courts do not legislate. The higher courts will sometimes make new law by overturning previous decisions which then become bad law, especially where that body of law is on the move (not settled). As this was the first time such a challenge has been heard, there has been no body of law on prorogation. The Court would have either denied themselves jurisdiction or would have made new law. Even if the court had established justiciability but found that the exercise was lawful, it would have been making new law, as indeed it is entitled to do.
Although you most recently wrote "There is none. It's never happened before. This is new law.", originally you had written "The Attorney General has just stated clearly in Parliament that the Supreme Court does have the right to create a new law, and that they have done so." That was incorrect, and it's not what the AG said, thankfully.
I can recommend the UK Human Rights Blog (https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/). It's extremely good writing mostly by barristers and very accessible to the lay person. It's not all about human rights law cases either. I've been reading that blog religiously since about 2011. I've read some of your earlier comments under this article, which are honest commentary and it's good of you to ask questions. Hopefully we're all a bit better informed now.
"So you agree, the Supreme Court did indeed devise a new standard, thus introducing into law something which wasn't previously in place."
You are twisting someone's words in an attempt to claim that they agree with you. The Supreme Court states clearly the precedent for limitation of prerogative powers, in this instance the Case of Proclamations which establishes that prerogative powers are limited by law. This is not making new law it is an exercise of extant law.
Using your approach to this, since you quote the precedent you are clearly agreeing with the SC that there was no introduction into law of something that wasn't previously in place.
I think it's right to say that the ruling creates new law, meaning new legal authority. This is what the AG said in the House of Commons, and the AG ought to know. It is new law and the lower divisions will have to follow that approach now. The High Court would have to decide another case with exactly the same facts differently because they are bound by this precedent.
The court did not make a new law, and the courts restrain themselves from legislating. The AG is being very misleading here if you are correct. It would be self serving and false. What the Supreme Court did is to uphold a challenge that has never previously been made and in doing so to clarify some previously vague aspects of constitutional law as regards the separation of powers and the limits of the prerogative power to prorogue. The AG is entitled to say that his advice was sound based on the understanding at the time it was given, but after the highly unusual defeat without even so much as one dissenting voice, he really ought to consider his position. The advice may have appeared sound, but giving it has turned out to be very unsound. Caution is what he ought to have advised.
The Attorney General's words are available in Hansard:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-09-25/debates/F3541B98-D4E9-487F-BE17-D51C6EF870F2/LegalAdviceProrogation
Within that document are also his responses to the other points you raise, as they were also raised within Parliament.
Personally I rather enjoyed his accurate observation that this is a dead Parliament.
Oh I think it's a rather good day for democracy. The Court made an unpopular decision, but not necessarily wrong.
The next step is for the electorate to be overule their elected representatives - say when they suddenly forget the manifesto they were elected on.
I look forward to this being challenged in court.
The government is now being held to account by MPs.
MPs deserve the same standard of oversight and compulsion from the electorate - and not just when they decide they are ready to defend their seat with a new set of lies... I mean manifesto.
The manifesto they were elected on said on this topic, for the most part, that the referendum result would be respected. That, for the most part, is how the parties have conducted themselves. The problem is that the House of Commons is as divided as the nation that put them there. There has been no clear path to resolving this issue. The issue, by the way, is how to leave the EU on acceptable terms. The referendum result should be interpreted as "Yes, we want to leave the EU." After all, the question was whether we should leave or remain. It should not be interpreted as "We must leave the EU no matter what the result after a set period of time trying to bash it out mostly with a minority government led by a party whose own members can't even decide what to do."
"So now a sitting Prime Minister can be overruled by the Judiciary"
There's no "now" about it. The Prime Minister has always been subject to the law. You are simply showing that you are ignorant of the constitution. If things worked as you imagine a Prime Minister could commit murder and not face judgment in court. Even in the days of the law being made by the crown, the monarch was bound by the law as much as their subjects were. This is the sort of thing that we had Civil Wars and beheadings to establish.
What I witnessed in Parliament last night is the most frightening thing I've ever seen in British politics. Johnson is modelling himself on Trump and it could actually work. Every time he oversteps his authority and is challenged, he is able to turn that into a populist appeal against the establishment elite. He may try to prorogue Parliament again on a faulty reading of the Supreme Court judgement, which will be challenged and the challenge will succeed. But he doesn't care, because it increases his popularity with the base.
Dominic Cummings may actually be a genius. In removing the whip from most of the Tories who might have gone along with a no contest vote in the leadership, he has ensured that the only paths to removing Johnson are the government resigning (which it won't), Johnson resigning (which he won't), or a no confidence vote in the House. They are using opposition insecurity about the date of an election to make it look like the opposition are afraid of an election. Can he actually be impeached? It would probably take too long.
I think the House should table the motion of no confidence because the Benn act would mean that whoever is in charge (caretaker or whatever) is still bound to seek an extension unless Parliament can approve a deal or no deal by then. Why won't they do it? Possibly they want to try to humiliate Johnson further by making him seek the extension he has sworn he will never do. I think we've now seen that Johnson is incapable of humiliation. He is setting fire to all convention. This country will be debased to the dysfunctional style of politics that has taken over the United States if he is allowed to carry on. It may already be too late. For once can the Labour Party please just put the interests of the nation ahead of Jeremy Corbyn's vision?
Possibly they want to try to humiliate Johnson further by making him seek the extension he has sworn he will never do.
I think it's probably for (legitimate) political gain, just as an election now would be for poltical gain on Johnson's part. Johnson is currently riding high in the polls (helped at least partially by a sympathetic mass media). His opponents know that the longer he is allowed to carry on, the more this "honeymoon period" will be tainted and disillusionment will set in. Nobody on the opposition benches wants Johnson to be able to call an election at the point that most suits him, so they are holding off, in the knowledge that when he is finally forced to go cap-in-hand to the EU to ask for the extension, his far-right support will drop off and go back to the Brexit "Party" (quotes here, because they are technically a private company not a political party). At this point, the right-wing vote will be split between Tory and BP, Parliament will call a vote of no confidence, an election will be had and Johnson will lose. His opponents know that this is the best way of unseating him from power, in the best interests of the country. Even then, he'll probably still refuse to resign, because above all else, he is ruled by his ego. If he does refuse to extend A50, then there will be a VoNC at that point, and a caretaker PM (probably Ken Clarke, although Corbyn will want the job, it won't be appropriate for someone with long-term goals of leading the country to be a short-term unity PM) will do the notification-to-the-EU thing, before calling an Election. Johnson will have broken the law, be in contempt of Parliament, and possibly also in contempt of Court. He may even get a custodial sentence; whatever the result, he won't be making politicla capital from his actions.
These are all good points. Unfortunately Boris seems to be making capital by turning every black eye and bloody nose into a call to arms. It's Trump's play book. Turn every disadvantage around onto your opponents and behave like they are enemies of the people. No good can come of this. I feel it cannot continue.
"the only paths to removing Johnson are the government resigning (which it won't), Johnson resigning (which he won't), or a no confidence vote in the House."
Don't you think he's starting to look a bit tired recently?
He's not as young as he used to be, maybe it wouldn't be a complete surprise if he had an unfortunate health incident while doing a bit of horizontal consulting with one of these technology influencers he reportedly likes to spend time with, when not on official business.
"the only paths to removing Johnson are the government resigning (which it won't), Johnson resigning (which he won't), or a no confidence vote in the House"
You missed one. Since Johnson does not command a majority in the house it is clear that he has no mandate to govern. The Queen can therefore request that the other parties organise to form a majority with a nominated leader who will become Prime Minister. Normally this coalition would be lead by the Opposition. If they manage to agree a coalition the Queen can appoint the leader as Prime Minister.
The Queen is said to be investigating this option and looking at precedent for removal of a failing Prime Minister.