|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 19, 2019 15:52:04 GMT
So in our latest hit reality TV show, which way do you think the Supremes are going to jump?!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 19, 2019 15:56:36 GMT
It's going to be 'awful if for no other reason than to show those pesky Scots judges who the bosses really are
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 19, 2019 16:28:09 GMT
Personally, I think they'll accept the Government's argument.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 19, 2019 16:47:32 GMT
It's genuinely hard to tell.
Purely objectively, Lord Pannick had by far the better of the arguments (he must have privately wanted to kill that Northern Irish chap), but it would be a genuine legal, political and constitutional earthquake if they ruled in his client's favour and I do wonder how much appetite for that there is.
As such, I suspect they may well fudge it. By which I mean that they will decide that the matter is justiciable (thereby making it clear that the court has the right to rule on whether a prorogation is lawful and thus avoid setting a potentially dangerous precedent) but find that the prorogation was nevertheless not unlawful on this occasion.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 19, 2019 16:48:11 GMT
Lawful.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 19, 2019 16:53:19 GMT
But tablet and fudge are different things. One is hard (or at least firm to the point of breaking off) as opposed to soft. A bit like varieties of Brexit I suppose!
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 19, 2019 17:18:49 GMT
...I suspect they may well fudge it. By which I mean that they will decide that the matter is justiciable (thereby making it clear that the court has the right to rule on whether a prorogation is lawful and thus avoid setting a potentially dangerous precedent) but find that the prorogation was nevertheless not unlawful on this occasion. This is pretty much my view. I don't think they will want to make it unlawful, because prorogation in itself is clearly allowed. But they won't want to rule off their ability to dabble where they see fit. So some sort of fudge is guaranteed. Legal in this case, but unlawful in exceptional cases (like the one year example raised in the proceedings).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2019 17:19:44 GMT
Fudge or biscuit, fudge and biscuit, biscuit WITH fudge and chocolate. Homer J moment.......
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 19, 2019 20:02:23 GMT
At the very least, I suspect that the eventual ruling will be extremely narrowly-defined (that is, on the special facts of this particular case). I voted lawful, before reading the 'not unlawful' suggestion, which is probably more likely in my opinion. I think the Supremes will duck it to some extent and won't embarrass The Queen. You can't hurry it
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 20, 2019 9:40:39 GMT
Well that looks like a pretty unanimous view that the Supremes aren't going to rock Whitehall!
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 23, 2019 16:48:40 GMT
So 10.30am tomorrow we get to find out if BoJo has been naughty or nice...
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 24, 2019 9:03:44 GMT
Not long now.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Sept 24, 2019 9:45:19 GMT
Unanimously unlawful. Didn't see that coming.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 10:02:07 GMT
Indeed. Moreover an unanimous decision by 11 out of the 12 Supreme Court justices (the maximum number that can sit to avoid an inconclusive verdict) means that this cannot be considered anything other than correct.
So, I think they ruled:
1. It is justiciable 2. PM's advice to the Queen was unlawful 4. Prorogation was void and of no effect, and thus Parliament is not prorogued.
This is that earthquake I alluded to a few days ago. Scotch that. An atomic bomb.
Nothing less.
No idea what it achieves for now but this is truly extraordinary.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 10:07:54 GMT
I'm not sure it's an atomic bomb, is not just the case that the checks and balances in our democracy are working?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 10:14:08 GMT
I wonder if the court would find the behaviour of the speaker lawful then? If we're going to be moving to the American system of the courts ruling the land then surely the Prime Minister needs to appoint the judges like the President?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 10:16:25 GMT
I'm not sure it's an atomic bomb, is not just the case that the checks and balances in our democracy are working? I think one does not preclude the other. On the basis it should be astounding that this ever needed to happen. As Lady Hale noted, doubtless as another warning shot across the bows at the Government, "The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a “one-off”."
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 10:17:57 GMT
I wonder if the court would find the behaviour of the speaker lawful then? If we're going to be moving to the American system of the courts ruling the land then surely the Prime Minister needs to appoint the judges like the President? On the first point, they might. They haven't been asked though. And they cannot intervene without some bringing a case.
On the second point, you cannot be serious. The notion that the partisan nature of the US Supreme Court is in any way desirable is very worrying.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 10:28:17 GMT
I wonder if the court would find the behaviour of the speaker lawful then? If we're going to be moving to the American system of the courts ruling the land then surely the Prime Minister needs to appoint the judges like the President? On the first point, they might. They haven't been asked though. And they cannot intervene without some bringing a case.
On the second point, you cannot be serious. The notion that the partisan nature of the US Supreme Court is in any way desirable is very worrying.
It would give me great pleasure to see that odious little man brought to account but it looks like he's scarpering before that can happen. I agree the last thing we need is a Supreme Court like the US.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 24, 2019 10:30:36 GMT
I didn't say it was desirable but we seem to be experiencing a massive shift in who runs the country.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 10:31:38 GMT
Well, that really depends on who you thought runs the country and how.
In my view, it has always been the case that the government is the CEO and senior management team and Parliament is the board of directors representing the interests of the shareholders and with a duty to hold the executive to account.
May and Johnson both forgot that, or tried to ride rough-shod over it.
For what it's worth I think Corbyn is cut from the same cloth, but that excuses nothing.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Sept 24, 2019 11:35:35 GMT
I'm mystified on all this. I'm sure no one is in any doubt as to why parliament was Prorogued. So now we are in complete stalemate. God our political class must be so proud of themselves
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 11:44:58 GMT
Well, that was democratic, not. Why elect any mp's? Just let lawyers run the country. I thought law was supposed to be about provable fact rather than opinion. Seems not.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 11:46:09 GMT
I'm mystified on all this. I'm sure no one is in any doubt as to why parliament was Prorogued. So now we are in complete stalemate. God our political class must be so proud of themselves We will never leave the EU, there are too many vested interests ensuring that we do not. The referendum could have been 80% in favour and we'd still be in this situation. I should be happy because I'm getting the result I voted for but I'm deeply uncomfortable at how it's been achieved and what it means for our country going forward. There's been recent talk of a coup by BoJo but I'm now convinced the coup happened a long time ago and we didn't see it. Well, back to the EU like a whipped dog we go.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 24, 2019 11:57:09 GMT
Well done to BoJo. He's been there 5 minutes, reinforced the split in his party, booted out a chunk of them, lost his working majority and pissed the Queen off (among many others).
Where can he go from here? Perhaps fall out with the Yanks as well?
Still, he's got his dream job, eh!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 11:58:04 GMT
Well, that was democratic, not. Why elect any mp's? Just let lawyers run the country. I thought law was supposed to be about provable fact rather than opinion. Seems not. I haven't been following this too closely, but I would have thought it was more democratic than it being the PM's whim.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 24, 2019 12:13:37 GMT
I'm mystified on all this. I'm sure no one is in any doubt as to why parliament was Prorogued. So now we are in complete stalemate. God our political class must be so proud of themselves We will never leave the EU, there are too many vested interests ensuring that we do not. The referendum could have been 80% in favour and we'd still be in this situation. I should be happy because I'm getting the result I voted for but I'm deeply uncomfortable at how it's been achieved and what it means for our country going forward. There's been recent talk of a coup by BoJo but I'm now convinced the coup happened a long time ago and we didn't see it. Well, back to the EU like a whipped dog we go. I really don't know what to think or believe anymore. Too many vested interests wanting to keep us in the EU but also calls that the rich, privileged classes want out of the EU to avoid new taxes being proposed by the EU (not that I know what they are). I won't change my tune on this one: a referendum about a massive change such as Brexit should always have a larger majority requirement (say 60%) so that if it is successful in overturning the status quo, it has enough weight to carry the minority. Civil unrest and civil wars arise out of situations such as the one we find ourselves in just now so I hope that the Politicians can now start to make decisions which are in the interests of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Sept 24, 2019 12:15:17 GMT
Well done to BoJo. He's been there 5 minutes, reinforced the split in his party, booted out a chunk of them, lost his working majority and pissed the Queen off (among many others). Where can he go from here? Perhaps fall out with the Yanks as well? Still, he's got his dream job, eh! Don’t forget he’s lost every vote he’s held in parliament so far. But he does now get his name on the plaque back at Eton that denotes past pupils who have risen to the heady heights of Prime Minister. Where does he go now? Surely only a general election. I’d be surprised if Labour didn’t now call for one.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 24, 2019 12:31:51 GMT
Well, that was democratic, not. Why elect any mp's? Just let lawyers run the country. I thought law was supposed to be about provable fact rather than opinion. Seems not. You are rather overlooking that the court case in Scotland was brought by no less than 78 MPs.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 24, 2019 12:32:10 GMT
Well done to BoJo. He's been there 5 minutes, reinforced the split in his party, booted out a chunk of them, lost his working majority and pissed the Queen off (among many others). Where can he go from here? Perhaps fall out with the Yanks as well? Still, he's got his dream job, eh! Don’t forget he’s lost every vote he’s held in parliament so far. But he does now get his name on the plaque back at Eton that denotes past pupils who have risen to the heady heights of Prime Minister. Where does he go now? Surely only a general election. I’d be surprised if Labour didn’t now call for one. If Boris does call an election where does your vote go? We've seen this week that the Labour Party is completely unfit to govern and the LibDems have decided that their brand of liberalism doesn't respect democracy. Who does that leave?
|
|