BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Sam Coates quoting someone in government saying the next election "would be one massive campaign of total abuse".

Great.

One day later

Downing St are furious about this. A No10 source tells me: “This is a politically motivated attack. Due process has not been followed and the timing is overtly political.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cruff wrote:

The question about immigrants suppressing wages is a bullshit one. It isn't the immigrants driving wages down, its the employers exploiting the situation for gain. Anyone who can't see that is wilfully blind, or doesn't want (or is unable to grasp) the immutable concept of profitability at the expense of labour.

It's just the impact of supply and demand in the labour market. If you're an employer and someone from the EU is willing to do the job for less than what you might normally have to pay (and they are as capable of doing the job as other applicants), what would you do?

Not that straightforward though as having an extra person to spend money boosts aggregate demand.

How is that relevant to the point, which is about the effect of supply and demand on pay?

That aside, why are you making an assumption that there will be an 'extra person'? And compared to what?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Cruff wrote:

The question about immigrants suppressing wages is a bullshit one. It isn't the immigrants driving wages down, its the employers exploiting the situation for gain. Anyone who can't see that is wilfully blind, or doesn't want (or is unable to grasp) the immutable concept of profitability at the expense of labour.

It's just the impact of supply and demand in the labour market. If you're an employer and someone from the EU is willing to do the job for less than what you might normally have to pay (and they are as capable of doing the job as other applicants), what would you do?

Not that straightforward though as having an extra person to spend money boosts aggregate demand.

How is that relevant to the point, which is about the effect of supply and demand on pay?

That aside, why are you making an assumption that there will be an 'extra person'? And compared to what?

In this context, didn't Rick leave out the word 'unemployed'? ie an extra unemployed person.

pblakeney

Anyone thinking that there wii be an improved situation for the low paid post Brexit is in for a disappointment.

ballysmate

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?
The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyone thinking that there wii be an improved situation for the low paid post Brexit is in for a disappointment.

Unlikely to be a uniform situation - It will likely depend on supply and demand for labour in different sectors/parts of the country etc.

Out of interest, how do you define 'low paid'?

sungod

Ballysmate wrote:

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?
The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

the role of the supreme court is to take decisions based on the law and precedent

the ruling was against the government, not parliament

the court unanimously upheld parliament's rights against an attempt by the government to limit those rights, nothing troubling about that, it's the only possible decision if parliament is to remain supreme

had the court decided the other way, it would have established in law that the government is above parliament, that would be the end of our democracy

parliament can always change the law, it is the ultimate authority

Alejandrosdog

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?
The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

The sc is clear, parliament is the senior body, its ruling didnt place the sc over parliament, it was judgement about the sovereignty of Parliament over the executive

I notice the rabble rousing press are deliberately misrepresenting what happened and framing the supremecourt as anti democratic

my_grandadʹs_bike

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?
The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

Given that the SC came about via an act of Parliament (Constitutional Reform Act 2005) I'd surmise that ultimately they answer to parliament in that should parliament consider them/it to not be working then they would amend the act accordingly.

I surmise you ask this question more for the fact that in this instance you didn't like their decision more so than any constitutional concerns you may have had since the SC came into being.

I've also read somewhere (may have been on here) that of the 12 judges 3 were appointed under Cameron's administration and 6 under May's so any suggestion this is a politically motivated decision is moot as far as I'm concerned

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?

The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

I don't think the Vice President sits on the appointment commission as of 2013 (if I've read this right).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appoi ... tices.html

The procedure is set out in statute, so I suppose the answer to your question is they are answerable to the law, which is created by Parliament.

I think I agree with Maugham and others in that the whole episode has shown that an unwritten constitution only appeared to have the advantages ascribed to it because it hadn't really been stress-tested.

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

The eu line give us a plan that we can accept is bull shoot . They refuse to say what they would accept other than that which is unacceptable.

They have you just haven’t been paying attention.

Bit like when you thought Parliament voted for no deal.

Parliament voted to leave the eu. That was explicit. There were no conditions implied or otherwise on the manner in which it did it.

But perhaps you could point me to the acceptable euproposals or infact, any proposals from the eu to break the deadlock at all.

tailwindhome

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Parliament voted to leave the eu..

That was the previous parliament

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?

The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

I don't think the Vice President sits on the appointment commission as of 2013 (if I've read this right).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appoi ... tices.html

The procedure is set out in statute, so I suppose the answer to your question is they are answerable to the law, which is created by Parliament.

I think I agree with Maugham and others in that the whole episode has shown that an unwritten constitution only appeared to have the advantages ascribed to it because it hadn't really been stress-tested.

The set up and selection is, I agree, set out in statute, but until recently, Article 9 was quite unequivocal

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Now the SC has ruled in its own favour to assert that the court is the last arbitrator of the scope of Parliamentary Privilege, to whom does the SC answer?

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Regardless of where you sit politically or regarding BJ, yesterday's judgement throws our Constitution into the limelight for those that are interested.

eg
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/09 ... vereignty/

I accept that some/most will find it a bit dry.

David Allen Green's take on this was that prorogation needs to be put on a solid legal footing in future. It is one of the few things the executive can do unilaterally with no check to stop parliament sitting - both the other ways (recesses and dissolution before a GE since the FTPA) have supporting legislation behind them. Whereas prorogation can occur basically on the PM's whim.

A key thing in the SC's judgement was that 5 weeks is unusually long compared to the normal one or two weeks - I think if he had been less greedy it might have gone through.

The reason it hasn't been is because our system is reliant on the the PM not abusing their position and up until now, even though we may have questioned their character, they have not done so.

BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.

Exactly, and that's why it needs to move to a more formal basis rather than the government simply exercising royal prerogative to prorogue parliament.

I can't see how it is in anyone's benefit for the government to be able to shut down parliament whenever they want for however long they want. If the court had found the other way, I would argue that could be much more damaging because there would then be precedent for future governments to do exactly the same.

Parliament has always had the power to hold the executive to account. The people in turn hold Parliament to account at the ballot box.
Normally if Parliament thought that the executive was abusing its power, there would be a motion of no confidence. In this instance Parliament chose not to act. Call it cowardice or failing in its duty, it doesn't matter. I would have thought it better for Parliament to fulfil its role rather than courts getting involved in politics.

Sorry to go back to this, although only a few days ago it is 17 thread pages ago. :shock:
Regardless of how you see Brexit/BJ/prorogue etc, do you not find this troubling?
The Supreme Court has stated that it has authority over Parliament in the scope of its jurisdiction vis a vis Article 9, decreeing that proroguing Parliament is not a procedure. As I have said, the arbitrators have set themselves above the lawmakers. Parliament was for centuries the ultimate body but perhaps no longer.
It also troubles me greatly that the President and Vice President of the SC are on the selection committee to appoint new members.
What is the mechanism to demonstrate the SC's accountability?

The Executive answers to Parliament (or should do), Parliament answers to the electorate, but given this new ruling, to whom does the SC answer?

I don't think the Vice President sits on the appointment commission as of 2013 (if I've read this right).

https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/appoi ... tices.html

The procedure is set out in statute, so I suppose the answer to your question is they are answerable to the law, which is created by Parliament.

I think I agree with Maugham and others in that the whole episode has shown that an unwritten constitution only appeared to have the advantages ascribed to it because it hadn't really been stress-tested.

The set up and selection is, I agree, set out in statute, but until recently, Article 9 was quite unequivocal

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

Now the SC has ruled in its own favour to assert that the court is the last arbitrator of the scope of Parliamentary Privilege, to whom does the SC answer?

It determined that prorogation was not a proceeding in parliament - as I understand it, because it is an act of the monarch on advice from the executive - and so outside that restriction. That was one of the key points of the case.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Now the SC has ruled in its own favour to assert that the court is the last arbitrator of the scope of Parliamentary Privilege, to whom does the SC answer?

Not sure it “ruled in its own favour.”

Given parliament set the SC up presumably it can get rid of it too.

It’s ruling is fairly pro democracy wouldn’t you say?

ballysmate

I noted in an earlier post that the SC referred to R v Chaytor in its judgement,

That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”;

My point was 'accountability' To whom does it answer?

The SC did come about via The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and I assume to abolish it would require another Act.
If not challenged in court, obviously.

ballysmate

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

surrey_commuter

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

As I understand it Parliament set up the SC, so presumably can reverse that decision. Again as I understand it the SC ruled in favour of Parliament over the Govt meaning that no nutter who happens to be PM can shut Parliament and do what he wants.

Remove the emotion by replacing BoJo and Brexit with JC and some lunacy and you will see it is a good thing.

ballysmate

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

As I understand it Parliament set up the SC, so presumably can reverse that decision. Again as I understand it the SC ruled in favour of Parliament over the Govt meaning that no nutter who happens to be PM can shut Parliament and do what he wants.

Remove the emotion by replacing BoJo and Brexit with JC and some lunacy and you will see it is a good thing.

Ruled in favour of Miller and Cherry not Parliament.
Replace the players with whom you want, Parliament should have done its job and not relied on private court cases.

tailwindhome

Ballysmate wrote:

Parliament should have done its job.

You've said this a couple of times, but I'm not sure what you mean.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

But then we get into the whole point of the SC, in that it exists to apply the law without political bias. And all healthy democracies have a judiciary who are independent of the politicians, so that the law is not skewed or flouted by the transient politics of the day. You seem to be arguing that that separation is not necessary.

ballysmate

TailWindHome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Parliament should have done its job.

You've said this a couple of times, but I'm not sure what you mean.

In the UK, governments continue as long as they have the ‘confidence’ or support of the House of Commons. This is tested through votes of confidence.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... parliament

ballysmate

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

But then we get into the whole point of the SC, in that it exists to apply the law without political bias. And all healthy democracies have a judiciary who are independent of the politicians, so that the law is not skewed or flouted by the transient politics of the day. You seem to be arguing that that separation is not necessary.

So who do you think should hold ultimate authority? Elected representatives or un-elected appointees?

The SC have stated that they determine the extent of Parliamentary Privilege and not Parliament.
The courts have decreed that they are above the elected lawmakers.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

But then we get into the whole point of the SC, in that it exists to apply the law without political bias. And all healthy democracies have a judiciary who are independent of the politicians, so that the law is not skewed or flouted by the transient politics of the day. You seem to be arguing that that separation is not necessary.

So who do you think should hold ultimate authority? Elected representatives or un-elected appointees?

The SC have stated that they determine the extent of Parliamentary Privilege and not Parliament.
The courts have decreed that they are above the elected lawmakers.

No they haven't. Parliament makes the laws. The courts interpret/enforce them. That, quite literally, is their job.

Are you really arguing that the courts shouldn't have that power, and that politicians should be the ultimate arbiters of what's legal, and should be able to judge themselves? As you've been reminded, parliament chose to create the SC, and, by definition and mandate, they are charged with deciding what's legal.

tailwindhome

Ballysmate wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Parliament should have done its job.

You've said this a couple of times, but I'm not sure what you mean.

In the UK, governments continue as long as they have the ‘confidence’ or support of the House of Commons. This is tested through votes of confidence.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... parliament

Ok. I see what your getting at.

I'm not sure that it's a great argument.

This would mean a govt with a majority of 1 could abuse the ability to prorogue parliament for any reason including avoiding parliamentary scrutiny

In the present scenario it would have eaten up the time required to pass the Benn Act and would have taken 14 days out of the parliamentary calendar for BJ to try to form a government meaning parliament would have gone into prorogation anyway.

ballysmate

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

But then we get into the whole point of the SC, in that it exists to apply the law without political bias. And all healthy democracies have a judiciary who are independent of the politicians, so that the law is not skewed or flouted by the transient politics of the day. You seem to be arguing that that separation is not necessary.

So who do you think should hold ultimate authority? Elected representatives or un-elected appointees?

The SC have stated that they determine the extent of Parliamentary Privilege and not Parliament.
The courts have decreed that they are above the elected lawmakers.

No they haven't. Parliament makes the laws. The courts interpret/enforce them. That, quite literally, is their job.

Are you really arguing that the courts shouldn't have that power, and that politicians should be the ultimate arbiters of what's legal, and should be able to judge themselves? As you've been reminded, parliament chose to create the SC, and, by definition and mandate, they are charged with deciding what's legal.

Are you sure? Their ruling

"it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”;

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyone thinking that there wii be an improved situation for the low paid post Brexit is in for a disappointment.

Unlikely to be a uniform situation - It will likely depend on supply and demand for labour in different sectors/parts of the country etc.

Out of interest, how do you define 'low paid'?

Precisely. With a downturn demand drops and supply gets shafted.
Dunno, roughy £18k do for starters?

robert88

Why "The Will of the People" is simply bowlocks:

“will of the people” is seriously flawed.
Here are some figures which might help put things in focus:

1. UK Population at time of the EU Referendum: 65.64m = the Populace

2. Of which Electorate with the right to vote: 46.5m = the People

3. The Electorate voting Leave: 17.41m = the Leavers (37.44 per cent)

4. The Electorate voting Remain: 16.14 m = the Remainers (34.71 per cent)

5. The Electorate not voting: 12.95m = the Abstainers (27.85 per cent)

Thus: 62.56 per cent of the Electorate did not vote Leave.

Which is bleedin' obvious really.

WE HAVE BEEN CONNED.

ballysmate

TailWindHome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Parliament should have done its job.

You've said this a couple of times, but I'm not sure what you mean.

In the UK, governments continue as long as they have the ‘confidence’ or support of the House of Commons. This is tested through votes of confidence.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... parliament

Ok. I see what your getting at.

I'm not sure that it's a great argument.

This would mean a govt with a majority of 1 could abuse the ability to prorogue parliament for any reason including avoiding parliamentary scrutiny

In the present scenario it would have eaten up the time required to pass the Benn Act and would have taken 14 days out of the parliamentary calendar for BJ to try to form a government meaning parliament would have gone into prorogation anyway.

As I said, Parliament has the tools. In your example the government with a majority of 1 could prorogue Parliament if every single elected member of the governing party voted to defeat a vote of no confidence. In such circumstances, a court victory would be somewhat hollow as the presiding government would carry the vote in any legislation as each of its MPs had demonstrated its intention to support the government.

Pretty pointless getting a judgement from the court compelling the government to keep Parliament in session if you know that you will be defeated in any vote.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards democracy, surely the ultimate power should rest with Parliament? If SC doesn't answer to Parliament somewhere along the line it can't be seen as democracy can it?

But then we get into the whole point of the SC, in that it exists to apply the law without political bias. And all healthy democracies have a judiciary who are independent of the politicians, so that the law is not skewed or flouted by the transient politics of the day. You seem to be arguing that that separation is not necessary.

So who do you think should hold ultimate authority? Elected representatives or un-elected appointees?

The SC have stated that they determine the extent of Parliamentary Privilege and not Parliament.
The courts have decreed that they are above the elected lawmakers.

No they haven't. Parliament makes the laws. The courts interpret/enforce them. That, quite literally, is their job.

Are you really arguing that the courts shouldn't have that power, and that politicians should be the ultimate arbiters of what's legal, and should be able to judge themselves? As you've been reminded, parliament chose to create the SC, and, by definition and mandate, they are charged with deciding what's legal.

Are you sure? Their ruling

"it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”;

Bench added to its observation that prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence of Members of both House. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote.

Supreme Court is not, therefore, precluded by Article 9 or by any wider Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. That advice by the Prime Minister was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.