BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Robert88 wrote: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.
Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...0 -
Ballysmate wrote: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.
The bit in bold isn't true.
Theresa May proved it.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
briantrumpet wrote:Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
No they haven't. Parliament makes the laws. The courts interpret/enforce them. That, quite literally, is their job.Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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 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?
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.
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.
Yep, I read that as well.
But still doesn't alter the fact that they have stated that "they" determine the scope of Parliamentary Privilege and not the elected representatives.
This is beyond the Brexit debate and strikes at the heart of our democracy. As I asked earlier, if the SC is above Parliament, to whom does it answer?
As you say, Parliament makes the laws, are you saying that the SC tells Parliament that their laws mean something else?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote: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.
The bit in bold isn't true.
Theresa May proved it.
Thought we were talking hypothetical. Was TM trying to prorogue Parliament to head off the Benn Act? Was their another court case I hadn't read about?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote: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.
The bit in bold isn't true.
Theresa May proved it.
Thought we were talking hypothetical. Was TM trying to prorogue Parliament to head off the Benn Act? Was their another court case I hadn't read about?
You're arguing that the Parliament should have used a VONC to squash the prorogation.
I've explained that this is flawed both in principle and in the practice (of the current scenario)
You've countered this by asserting that "the presiding government would carry the vote in any legislation as each of its MPs had demonstrated its intention to support the government."
I've explained that this is flawed too as we seen how it played out in real time with Conservative and DUP MP's voting with the government to defeat the VONC but against it on other matters.
I'm not sure what your point is.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It answers to the laws enacted by the politicians, not to the politicians' passing whims. By their very nature, laws must be interpreted in relation to the case in hand (hence the concept of precedent: even the most prescient wording of laws can't envisage every circumstance). That's exactly what you can see happening here.Ballysmate wrote:This is beyond the Brexit debate and strikes at the heart of our democracy. As I asked earlier, if the SC is above Parliament, to whom does it answer?
As you say, Parliament makes the laws, are you saying that the SC tells Parliament that their laws mean something else?0 -
You know what you never hear mentioned?
The Queen's Speech.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
If wages do go up then inevitably the higher costs of production will be passed on to consumers but I think that instead of paying more money to attract all those keen and eager UK residents who refused to work for the wages employers were willing to pay when there was a ready supply of European workers there will be a move to automate and replace workers with robots or similar technology. This will be easier in some industries than others but for example, it's what happened in the US when the supply of Mexican farm workers was reduced.PBlakeney wrote:
Precisely. With a downturn demand drops and supply gets shafted.Stevo 666 wrote:
Unlikely to be a uniform situation - It will likely depend on supply and demand for labour in different sectors/parts of the country etc.PBlakeney wrote:Anyone thinking that there wii be an improved situation for the low paid post Brexit is in for a disappointment.
Out of interest, how do you define 'low paid'?
Dunno, roughy £18k do for starters?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote: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.
The bit in bold isn't true.
Theresa May proved it.
Thought we were talking hypothetical. Was TM trying to prorogue Parliament to head off the Benn Act? Was their another court case I hadn't read about?
You're arguing that the Parliament should have used a VONC to squash the prorogation.
I've explained that this is flawed both in principle and in the practice (of the current scenario)
You've countered this by asserting that "the presiding government would carry the vote in any legislation as each of its MPs had demonstrated its intention to support the government."
I've explained that this is flawed too as we seen how it played out in real time with Conservative and DUP MP's voting with the government to defeat the VONC but against it on other matters.
I'm not sure what your point is.
I am not too sure where you are coming from either.
You gave a hypothetical scenario to which I replied and then you started blending the past, present and hypothetical. :? 0 -
Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
No they haven't. Parliament makes the laws. The courts interpret/enforce them. That, quite literally, is their job.Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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 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?
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.
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.
Yep, I read that as well.
But still doesn't alter the fact that they have stated that "they" determine the scope of Parliamentary Privilege and not the elected representatives.
This is beyond the Brexit debate and strikes at the heart of our democracy. As I asked earlier, if the SC is above Parliament, to whom does it answer?
As you say, Parliament makes the laws, are you saying that the SC tells Parliament that their laws mean something else?
This case related to Common Law, rather than Statute, and like all Common Law it's the judges deciding to some extent what the law is as well as how it applies to the particular case. In that sense there is nothing new about the SC determining what it's scope is. There's nothing to stop Parliament passing an Act to change the particular circumstances of this case if they chose to, and that Statute would then supersede the Common Law on this matter.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Courts step in when the laws are not clear. The problem with a constitution made up of overlapping laws, convention and precedent, is we can look back in time and find something to back your arguement. That where the court has to rule how the law should be interpreted and what the law should be to make it consistent with everything else. The government can propose a law which parliament approves that's changes the rules on prorougation. That's how the government can get out of this if it could.
If legislation is badly word, confusing, has loopholes, co afflicts with other laws or precedent then thats where the courts have to rule. Ultimately its parliaments fault for letting a messy system of government persist.
Our problem has always been a messy system of government not to mention an electoral system that once works when parties were broad coaltions. They no.longer are and given the party membership has narrowed in its viewed external coaltions are requited. That means PR. FPTP now voter want principled politicians to enact there way because the we have politically fragmented has recruited politicians that find it difficult to compromise. Hense the mess we are in. PR would hopefully encourage parties to recruit candidates that can compromise and change this winner takes all mentality.
Then there is the whole relationship between parliament and the government. Perhaps the some of the parliamentary rules should be laid down in statute. But then again flexibility may prove useful.
Changing any part of system even a move to PR will have unpredictable repercussions just like the fixed parliaments act
That needs to go.
The powers of the government and parliament should be looked at. Not sure how much these should be laid down in law. Some of the old prerogative powers may need to be removed. That will be hard for any government to accept.
Bad governance got us into this. Revoke wont get us out. A serious look at how we govern ourselves might.
The SC is the ultimate authority. That's what leavers dont like. Its unelected and has a liberal bent. Something they see imported from the eu whereas it originated here. Moving to a court where judges are poltical appointees though creates another battle ground. Judges will have to be approved by parliament or the lords. It would be easy to create a system that is easily paralysed.
This crisis maybe a culture war but under that lies a systemic issue that has added fuel to the fire.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
You are correct that the judgement is case law and will stand until superseded either by statute or new case law. Case law usually clarifies a legal point.
This judgement relied to some extent on a previous case, namely Rv Chaytor and built on that.
R v Chaytor and Miller v The PM are unusual in respect that they inform the lawmakers what their own laws actually mean. They have told the legislators what their own laws are.
As I ask, to whom do the courts answer if not the lawmakers?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:You are correct that the judgement is case law and will stand until superseded either by statute or new case law. Case law usually clarifies a legal point.
This judgement relied to some extent on a previous case, namely Rv Chaytor and built on that.
R v Chaytor and Miller v The PM are unusual in respect that they inform the lawmakers what their own laws actually mean. They have told the legislators what their own laws are.
As I ask, to whom do the courts answer if not the lawmakers?
Furthermore as I said on the other thread
First off, we all know that BJ's government was a minority government and shall we say not popular in the House of Commons. But that said, with no vote to the contrary , it nominally still enjoyed its confidence.
That being the case, on what basis does the court get to instruct Parliament how to act?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Ballysmate wrote: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.
The bit in bold isn't true.
Theresa May proved it.
Thought we were talking hypothetical. Was TM trying to prorogue Parliament to head off the Benn Act? Was their another court case I hadn't read about?
You're arguing that the Parliament should have used a VONC to squash the prorogation.
I've explained that this is flawed both in principle and in the practice (of the current scenario)
You've countered this by asserting that "the presiding government would carry the vote in any legislation as each of its MPs had demonstrated its intention to support the government."
I've explained that this is flawed too as we seen how it played out in real time with Conservative and DUP MP's voting with the government to defeat the VONC but against it on other matters.
I'm not sure what your point is.
I am not too sure where you are coming from either. You gave a hypothetical scenario to which I replied and then you started blending the past, present and hypothetical. :?
Ok.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
my grandad's bike wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Ballysmate wrote:bobmcstuff wrote:
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.elbowloh wrote:
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.bobmcstuff wrote:
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.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.
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.
BJ has overstepped the mark and defied convention.
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
I humbly submit that you surmise wrongly. I voted Remain and if asked to vote again I would not change my vote.
My concern is purely constitutional. The 2 court cases heard by the SC were brought by members of the public not Parliament. The upshot is that the government, which with no vote to the contrary, carries the confidence of the House, and Parliament have been instructed by unelected judges that they must sit.
Btw I have no interest under which administration the judges were appointed.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Robert88 wrote: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.
Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...
Yet again, some people need to be reminded that if you don't vote, it doesn't count. Dead simple."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not unreasonable as that is pretty close to the official definition, which is 60% of median pay of just under £30k IIRC.PBlakeney wrote:
Precisely. With a downturn demand drops and supply gets shafted.Stevo 666 wrote:
Unlikely to be a uniform situation - It will likely depend on supply and demand for labour in different sectors/parts of the country etc.PBlakeney wrote:Anyone thinking that there wii be an improved situation for the low paid post Brexit is in for a disappointment.
Out of interest, how do you define 'low paid'?
Dunno, roughy £18k do for starters?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Ballysmate wrote:You are correct that the judgement is case law and will stand until superseded either by statute or new case law. Case law usually clarifies a legal point.
This judgement relied to some extent on a previous case, namely Rv Chaytor and built on that.
R v Chaytor and Miller v The PM are unusual in respect that they inform the lawmakers what their own laws actually mean. They have told the legislators what their own laws are.
As I ask, to whom do the courts answer if not the lawmakers?
Furthermore as I said on the other thread
First off, we all know that BJ's government was a minority government and shall we say not popular in the House of Commons. But that said, with no vote to the contrary , it nominally still enjoyed its confidence.
That being the case, on what basis does the court get to instruct Parliament how to act?
It didn't instruct Parliament to sit or do anything else. It found that the prorogation void - if I've understood correctly, because the Royal prerogative power of prorogation was found to be enacted for purposes other than for which it was was intended - and of no effect. Parliament was thus still sitting.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Ballysmate wrote:You are correct that the judgement is case law and will stand until superseded either by statute or new case law. Case law usually clarifies a legal point.
This judgement relied to some extent on a previous case, namely Rv Chaytor and built on that.
R v Chaytor and Miller v The PM are unusual in respect that they inform the lawmakers what their own laws actually mean. They have told the legislators what their own laws are.
As I ask, to whom do the courts answer if not the lawmakers?
Furthermore as I said on the other thread
First off, we all know that BJ's government was a minority government and shall we say not popular in the House of Commons. But that said, with no vote to the contrary , it nominally still enjoyed its confidence.
That being the case, on what basis does the court get to instruct Parliament how to act?
Your arguments have logic but arent based in knowledge. You have the wrong end of the stick.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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 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?
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.
Well yes obviously, they are not elected.
Do you want elected judges instead?
They aren’t above the law. They also can’t make he law.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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 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?
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.
Well yes obviously, they are not elected.
Do you want elected judges instead?
They aren’t above the law. They also can’t make he law.
They can't make statute law but they do, incrementally, make common law as they always have done.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.
If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.
If they are sitting.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ballysmate wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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 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?
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.
Well yes obviously, they are not elected.
Do you want elected judges instead?
They aren’t above the law. They also can’t make he law.
They can't make statute law but they do, incrementally, make common law as they always have done.
I assumed anyone but a thicko would have known that.
0 -
Alejandrosdog wrote:Ballysmate wrote:Ballysmate wrote:You are correct that the judgement is case law and will stand until superseded either by statute or new case law. Case law usually clarifies a legal point.
This judgement relied to some extent on a previous case, namely Rv Chaytor and built on that.
R v Chaytor and Miller v The PM are unusual in respect that they inform the lawmakers what their own laws actually mean. They have told the legislators what their own laws are.
As I ask, to whom do the courts answer if not the lawmakers?
Furthermore as I said on the other thread
First off, we all know that BJ's government was a minority government and shall we say not popular in the House of Commons. But that said, with no vote to the contrary , it nominally still enjoyed its confidence.
That being the case, on what basis does the court get to instruct Parliament how to act?
Your arguments have logic but arent based in knowledge. You have the wrong end of the stick.
Which is the right end then?
We have courts ruling that Parliament was unlawfully prorogued. The government still held the confidence of the House and Parliament didn't go to court to seek remedy, it was a private citizen. So how is that seen as democratic where a court can instruct the elected representatives that the period of prorogue was too long as there was important matters to debate.
We have the courts deciding which matters are sufficiently important to warrant debate and which can wither on the vine.
Is that democracy?0 -
Robert88 wrote:Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.
If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.
If they are sitting.
Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"
“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.”0 -
Yeah, parliament, not government.Ballysmate wrote:Robert88 wrote:Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.
If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.
If they are sitting.
Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"
“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.”0 -
Lady Hale will be *so* embarrassed when she reads this.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
darkhairedlord wrote:
Yeah, parliament, not government.Ballysmate wrote:Robert88 wrote:Parliament makes the law and the wording may instruct how it is to be interpreted. Judges then apply it.
If Parliament don't like how it applied they can re-enact it through the normal process.
If they are sitting.
Yep that's how it works, how case law builds.
In this case, we have A9 which has been around for 340 years. The courts have turned around and basically said, "Yeah, that's what you wrote but you didn't mean it"
“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.”
The government still held the confidence of the House and with no VONC, acting with their consent. If Parliament had so wished, it could have prevented the prorogue, but it didn't even try. A private citizen, not Parliament, brought the case to court and the court found that the prorogue unlawful.
So, if the government was acting with Parliaments consent, we have the court deciding what Parliament must do.
I know this will be difficult for some on here to comprehend, but I am not arguing this from a Brexit/Remain perspective.What is done is done.
My concern is the ramifications on our democratic constitution now that the court has decided which matters are important enough for it to interfere with Parliament.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Robert88 wrote: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.
Will of the people to Remain. 34%
Power to the people! Err , hang on a min...
Just thought I would point out that the situation we are in was voted for by a minority of the electorate who didn't know what they were voting for.
That exactly fits the definition of stupid as demonstrated by the last 39 months of stupidity.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Lady Hale will be *so* embarrassed when she reads this.
I'm sure she will get over it. 0
