LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

I remind you that I voted Remain, but I understand the importance of democracy in our system of government.
Or are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Simple question from a simple man.
How is parliamentary process meant to do anything once it has been prorogued?

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

I remind you that I voted Remain, but I understand the importance of democracy in our system of government.
Or are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Simple question from a simple man.
How is parliamentary process meant to do anything once it has been prorogued?

Notice to prorogue Parliament on 9 Sept issued on 28 or 29 August, can't remember which. Ample time for Parliament to do its job and hold the executive to account if they felt it had lost the confidence of the house.
If on the other hand, the government retained the confidence of the house, what right has any court to interfere.

Btw I accept tht the government had lost confidence of the house so Parliament should have so demonstrated by holding a vote.

ballysmate

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?

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament makes the laws, the supreme court is the highest authority for applying them. I presume there is a body that holds the supreme court members accountable if they behave outside the law. I don't know all the ins and outs but they have been appointed to uphold the law, they didn't play politics.
Why is democracy the winner?
Democracy won because a government unable to impose it's will due to being defeated in the parliamentary process chose to explore all aspects of a loosely defined contitution to subvert the normal parliamentary processes. What was established in the supreme court was that our democracy does have a legal mechanism to defend it from such undemocratic behaviour.
I know the split in interpretation of this has a large correlation to Brexit opinions but, I genuinely think the ruling is far more important than Brexit. I don't want any government, especially not a minority one having free reign for 5 years to bypass parliamentary democracy.

Parliament has the legal means to defend the country from undemocratic behaviour and as I have previously said, should have used it.

The SC stated ref the proroguing


Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.

So here we have the SC deciding which Parliamentary business is important enough to prevent proroguing Parliament and which legislation is deemed unimportant enough to be dropped.
I would like to think that was up to our elected representatives and not the court.
I too feel that the ruling is as important as Brexit. But no government has free rein to bypass Parliamentary democracy. Parliament has the tools to prevent it but on this occasion, failed to use them.

You are so het up by Brexit you can not see the wood for the trees

I remind you that I voted Remain, but I understand the importance of democracy in our system of government.
Or are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Simple question from a simple man.
How is parliamentary process meant to do anything once it has been prorogued?

Notice to prorogue Parliament on 9 Sept issued on 28 or 29 August, can't remember which. Ample time for Parliament to do its job and hold the executive to account if they felt it had lost the confidence of the house.
If on the other hand, the government retained the confidence of the house, what right has any court to interfere.

Btw I accept tht the government had lost confidence of the house so Parliament should have so demonstrated by holding a vote.

Fair answer to a fair question.
I’ve been on holiday a lot recently and haven’t kept up. I get the impression that those paying attention are struggling as it is.
My assumption is that everyone in parliament is playing political strategies some of which are known, some unknown, and some unwittingly.
PS - Apologies for the multiple replies but dealing with this sh|t on a phone is nigh on impossible.

morstar

Parliament cannot be above the law.
The particular circumstances of timing were the reason for not pursuing the VONC. It is not impossible to imagine other scenarios where it may not be appropriate to use. That does not change the law that is applied.
If parliament functions outside the law, what is to stop the use of criminal methods to enforce your policies. E.g. a minority government wins a vonc through use of violence to force their opponents to vote with the government.
An extreme, hypothetical example admittedly but underlines the principle that the law must apply to parliament other than anywhere explicitly allowed for (parliamentary privilege etc.)

ballysmate

morstar wrote:

Parliament cannot be above the law.
The particular circumstances of timing were the reason for not pursuing the VONC. It is not impossible to imagine other scenarios where it may not be appropriate to use. That does not change the law that is applied.
If parliament functions outside the law, what is to stop the use of criminal methods to enforce your policies. E.g. a minority government wins a vonc through use of violence to force their opponents to vote with the government.
An extreme, hypothetical example admittedly but underlines the principle that the law must apply to parliament other than anywhere explicitly allowed for (parliamentary privilege etc.)

So because of politics, Parliamentarians refused to use the tools of the constitution to hold the executive to account.
The Government still held the confidence of the House as there was no vote to the contrary.
Miss Miller went to court and the court decided that it considered the matters in Parliament important and decreed that Parliament should continue.
So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

rick_chasey

Depends on what way they ruled bally

tangled_metal

A rather circular argument with hindsight but the SC verdict was that proroguing parliament like BJ did was unlawful. As a member if the general public Miller and the Scottish politicians are entitled to present a legal argument to a court. The government is entitled to question legal rights if court to decide on legal arguments. Personally with the many grey areas of our loose, unwritten constitution I think courts have to take a view from time to time.

If politicians don't like it then there's a simple solution. Debate and vote through a formal, written constitution. Take out the grey areas that need interpretation. Interpretation of laws is a legal domain, creation of laws is a political domain.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

ballysmate

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

elbowloh

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

Indeed and the Government tried to stop Parliament for deciding its business, so the SC deemed this unlawful.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

But they were taking that into account in regards the motives of the government: had they ignored that, then their judgement would have been faulty. As I say, all that parliament needs to do is to decide not to sit, if that's what it wants, and the SC would not be able to overrule that: in effect, the SC was giving the choice back to the elected representatives, who can also decide how the SC operates, or any changes to the constitution it deems desirable.

ballysmate

elbowloh wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

Indeed and the Government tried to stop Parliament for deciding its business, so the SC deemed this unlawful.

I agree that the court found it unlawful.That is fact.
My point is the unintended change to the constitution.

ballysmate

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

But they were taking that into account in regards the motives of the government: had they ignored that, then their judgement would have been faulty. As I say, all that parliament needs to do is to decide not to sit, if that's what it wants, and the SC would not be able to overrule that: in effect, the SC was giving the choice back to the elected representatives, who can also decide how the SC operates, or any changes to the constitution it deems desirable.

We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in
doing what he did.

From the ruling.

tangled_metal

No change to the constitution just that nobody had taken it to court before I guess. Surely the right to a court process was always there for such cases just very exercised in the past.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

No change to the constitution just that nobody had taken it to court before I guess. Surely the right to a court process was always there for such cases just very exercised in the past.

When before have courts decreed on the importance of Parliamentary business?

morstar

Ballysmate wrote:

morstar wrote:

Parliament cannot be above the law.
The particular circumstances of timing were the reason for not pursuing the VONC. It is not impossible to imagine other scenarios where it may not be appropriate to use. That does not change the law that is applied.
If parliament functions outside the law, what is to stop the use of criminal methods to enforce your policies. E.g. a minority government wins a vonc through use of violence to force their opponents to vote with the government.
An extreme, hypothetical example admittedly but underlines the principle that the law must apply to parliament other than anywhere explicitly allowed for (parliamentary privilege etc.)

So because of politics, Parliamentarians refused to use the tools of the constitution to hold the executive to account.
The Government still held the confidence of the House as there was no vote to the contrary.
Miss Miller went to court and the court decided that it considered the matters in Parliament important and decreed that Parliament should continue.
So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

I understand your argument, I just think the VONC is probably the more normal route you'd expect to be followed but the law also applies.
For practical reasons a legal ruling was the preferred route.
If nobody has asked the courts to rule, they wouldn't have done so they haven't chosen to indulge in politics. They have ruled on the matter brought before them.
If the SC, had simply stated out of the blue that proroguing was unlawful without having been asked, that would be a political intervention.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in
doing what he did.

From the ruling.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

tangled_metal

Ballysmate wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

No change to the constitution just that nobody had taken it to court before I guess. Surely the right to a court process was always there for such cases just very exercised in the past.

When before have courts decreed on the importance of Parliamentary business?

It was always open to people but it hadn't been taken up. Different attitudes from public and politicians. Long prorogation have happened but society probably wasn't as ready to test legality until our modern, divisive political climate.

Put simply there only needed one first case and we've had it now.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

elbowloh wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

So we have a court telling our elected representatives, Parliament - the place where ultimate power rests, which matters are important enough so that there can be no proroguing, which mattersare not and insisting that Parliament sits.
And you say that is democratic?

No, they concluded that the prorogation was unlawful, based on the law as it stands and the actions of the government. Parliament can then decide to do what it wants to do. That's democracy.

Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not
matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already
explained, quite exceptional.



That is what the court stated. The inference being that if the court deemed that Parliamentary business to be of low importance then there would be no problem with proroguing. My belief is that it is surely for Parliament to decide its business.

Forget the Brexit/Remain debate, my concern is the effect on the Constitution

Indeed and the Government tried to stop Parliament for deciding its business, so the SC deemed this unlawful.

I agree that the court found it unlawful.That is fact.
My point is the unintended change to the constitution.

What is the change to the constitution? You keep saying it has changed, but the courts have always interpreted Acts of Parliament, so what is different?

kingstongraham

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

There's just no hope for morons like that is there. Housing minister without even the glimmer of an idea of how buildings are made.

Pross

KingstonGraham wrote:

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

One day they'll do it in a way that works with the rest of the design team

tailwindhome

rjsterry wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

There's just no hope for morons like that is there. Housing minister without even the glimmer of an idea of how buildings are made.

You laugh, but in the future there'll be a computer in every office in the country.

rjsterry

Pross wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

One day they'll do it in a way that works with the rest of the design team

Oooooh. My favourite note on an engineer's drawing: "by others" :P

bompington

I was so disappointed when I bought my new house 12 years ago only to discover that it was only 2D. Maybe I'll be able to afford one of these new-fangled ones next move.

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Esther McVey, Housing Minister:
"Yes there will be traditional build and if we look at the workforce in traditional build a lot of them are in their sixties and younger people aren’t necessarily following into path, well we’ve got to get more people going into construction full stop. Well, if we have this new way of doing it, 3D architects, 3D visionaries doing it on a computer, there’s a whole new raft of jobs."

Architects making buildings in 3D and using computers? This vision of the future is so inspiring.

One day they'll do it in a way that works with the rest of the design team

Oooooh. My favourite note on an engineer's drawing: "by others" :P

In keeping with the fee client's pay us!

rick_chasey

I would love to spend 5 minutes with someone who has seen the performances at this party conference and now think “I was unsure but I’m f@cking voting for them now!”

Wall to wall dross and mediocrity, with the only change in flavour being “so thick I don’t realise how thick I’m sounding”

rjsterry

I can't tell whether this is satire, trolling or IDS genuinely thinks this is some new insight.

IDS wrote:

the consequences of buying illegal drugs is that somebody dies [...] Yes of course we can crack down on the symptoms of that, which are criminal behaviour and violence, but the truth is you can crack down on your behaviour by saying I’m not going to do this any longer because I can’t bear the thought that somebody out there gets abused, killed or doesn’t make it to 22 because I was to busy indulging myself.

rolf_f

Rory Stewart has now bailed from the Tory party; presumably he is following this thread......