British Politics

[DiamondGooner]

UFGN, JayRam just took you to school mate.

Basically what I've been complaining about but he said it much better.

[DiamondGooner]

I'm confused.

I thought a large part of the Leave camp wanted UK courts to have authority to rule on UK legal affairs so the UK could regain its sovereignty...or something like that anyway. Now it's a problem when a UK court does just that?

As JayRam said, Courts are there to enforce the law, not invent them on a whim.

A different set of opinionated Judges could rule different on any given day ............ that is not how laws work.

[UFGN]

A bias opinion then.

........... which they have.

Because there is nothing in writing giving them the guideline to suggest its "illegal".

Its a pathetic ruling made up on the spot.

I would give it more credence if they were at least were honest about it, i.e "In lack of a clear ruling or guidelines we have had to make a decision drawing a line to stay in step with previous suspension timetables of around a week".

That would be an unbiased ruling.

But that's too much integrity for the state of play today, we need serious changes in this country, we've let the ruling class wing it for far too long.

I think you misunderstand the function of the supreme court. Every single ruling they make is as a result of uncertainties in the law

If a law is clear or if there is clear case law, there are no grounds for appeal in the first place

The supreme court have simply done their job.

Yes, 'uncertainties in the law'
That is about interpretation and ruling.
The problem here is that there is no law to interpret.
Today, judges decided what the law should be, not how to interpret it - and that is NOT their job. That is the job of Parliament.

Inconsequential.

You still dont get it. The fact is that matters of what is and isnt lawful are ruled on all the time by the SC

Not all of those are actual laws. Often they are points of law, in particular sentencing, judicial review and conflicts of law

[DiamondGooner]

The only thing that's "Inconsequential" is your answer.

What is and isn't lawful is backed up by a law or rule to which a judge then states what is right or wrong according to that rule or the interpretation of it.

The prorouging of Parliament has no written rule or guideline so effectively the SC just inserted their own law, created today! creating laws is not their fkin job, that is the job of Parliament.

JayRam has you by the twinkies, stop squirming, I've seen you do this before.

He's right and that's the end of it.

[UFGN]

The only thing that's "Inconsequential" is your answer.

What is and isn't lawful is backed up by a law or rule to which a judge then states what is right or wrong according to that rule or the interpretation of it.

The prorouging of Parliament has no written rule or guideline so effectively the SC just inserted their own law, created today! creating laws is not their fkin job, that is the job of Parliament.

JayRam has you by the twinkies, stop squirming, I've seen you do this before.

He's right and that's the end of it.

I.am absolutely not squirming and I couldn't be clearer.

You agree with him but he is wrong

The only thing that is truly inconsequential is your opinion on a supreme court decision

I say that by the way as a statement of fact rather than a slight. Courts decide on their right to make a judgement as part of their process. In this case in fact, their right to make a ruling was part of the government case..... and despite that being clearly considered, they lost.

For that reason above all others, the judgement is sound as far as I can see.

[Phil71]

The Supreme Court has ruled on what they believe to be the generally accepted standards within the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom.

There are no laws that cover it. Just what is to be expected in the unwritten constitution.

What has always underpinned that unwritten constitution is that supposedly honourable people should always behave honourably, and respect the Houses of Parliament and the rights and powers of its Members to question the Executive unhindered. That, I'm afraid, does not include a Prime Minister abusing the process of Parliamentary prorogation by shutting down the democratic process for weeks on end for no other reason than to to suit and further his own political agenda. It should only be used for the generally accepted Parliamentary processes.

That is what the Court ruled on today, and it's very sad that it had to come to this.

I'm afraid Politics in our country has gone down a road from which there is no going back. It's a sad episode.

[alexafc12]

We need a general election

[Reverend Gooner]

The Supreme Court has ruled on what they believe to be the generally accepted standards within the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom.

There are no laws that cover it. Just what is to be expected in the unwritten constitution.

What has always underpinned that unwritten constitution is that supposedly honourable people should always behave honourably, and respect the Houses of Parliament and the rights and powers of its Members to question the Executive unhindered. That, I'm afraid, does not include a Prime Minister abusing the process of Parliamentary prorogation by shutting down the democratic process for weeks on end for no other reason than to to suit and further his own political agenda. It should only be used for the generally accepted Parliamentary processes.

That is what the Court ruled on today, and it's very sad that it had to come to this.

I'm afraid Politics in our country has gone down a road from which there is no going back. It's a sad episode.

That is my understanding of it, that the unlawful part was that the length of time and the timing prevented the sovereign parliament from doing it's job and serving it's purpose at a time of national crisis. No specific laws involved per se but more a question of honour like you said and respect for our democratic system which was being manipulated by the executive for political reasons. They said it was a unique ruling, unprecedented but at their door nevertheless, this sort of thing should never happen, but unfortunately it has.

The blurring of the issue comes from those that believe that pushing through a no deal brexit is the will of the people and thus Johnson was 'preventing our fundamental democratic entity (sovereign parliament) from functioning in order to see through the democratic will of the people' and that makes it justified. The supreme court was tasked to say whether it was justified and they said it no, they said it was not about an opinion on brexit but that no issue should be solved by shutting down the very fabric of our democracy which is a parliamentary democracy,

No witness statements from the government was really unusual for the situation and considered in itself bad form, and it sounded like the government knew it. The government lawyer even said himself that this was about politics and stated times in the past where a government prorogued for political reasons but from what I understand they are scant over the last 200 years and the time period was only a day or two for thoe politically motivated ones and not 5 weeks, 5 times the expected norm. I can see why the supreme court came to that decision and I am confortable it was not motivated by bias on brexit.

Diamond makes a good point about the flaws of an unwritten constitution, who knows what the future holds on that one.

[Phil71]

The Supreme Court has ruled on what they believe to be the generally accepted standards within the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom.

There are no laws that cover it. Just what is to be expected in the unwritten constitution.

What has always underpinned that unwritten constitution is that supposedly honourable people should always behave honourably, and respect the Houses of Parliament and the rights and powers of its Members to question the Executive unhindered. That, I'm afraid, does not include a Prime Minister abusing the process of Parliamentary prorogation by shutting down the democratic process for weeks on end for no other reason than to to suit and further his own political agenda. It should only be used for the generally accepted Parliamentary processes.

That is what the Court ruled on today, and it's very sad that it had to come to this.

I'm afraid Politics in our country has gone down a road from which there is no going back. It's a sad episode.

That is my understanding of it, that the unlawful part was that the length of time and the timing prevented the sovereign parliament from doing it's job and serving it's purpose at a time of national crisis. No specific laws involved per se but more a question of honour like you said and respect for our democratic system which was being manipulated by the executive for political reasons. They said it was a unique ruling, unprecedented but at their door nevertheless, this sort of thing should never happen, but unfortunately it has.

The blurring of the issue comes from those that believe that pushing through a no deal brexit is the will of the people and thus Johnson was 'preventing our fundamental democratic entity (sovereign parliament) from functioning in order to see through the democratic will of the people' and that makes it justified. The supreme court was tasked to say whether it was justified and they said it no, they said it was not about an opinion on brexit but that no issue should be solved by shutting down the very fabric of our democracy which is a parliamentary democracy,

No witness statements from the government was really unusual for the situation and considered in itself bad form, and it sounded like the government knew it. The government lawyer even said himself that this was about politics and stated times in the past where a government prorogued for political reasons but from what I understand they are scant over the last 200 years and the time period was only a day or two for thoe politically motivated ones and not 5 weeks, 5 times the expected norm. I can see why the supreme court came to that decision and I am confortable it was not motivated by bias on brexit.

Diamond makes a good point about the flaws of an unwritten constitution, who knows what the future holds on that one.

But that's what makes it so great.

The respect shown for each other and the Houses - and honour.

[Phil71]

Part of the Supreme Court statement:

"It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks."

It's pretty damning. He has to come up with an answer to this (that he was badly advised or whatever).

What a complete shambles.

[DiamondGooner]

Part of the Supreme Court statement:

"It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks."

It's pretty damning. He has to come up with an answer to this (that he was badly advised or whatever).

What a complete shambles.

Well that bit I agree with, they never demonstrated a good reason why they were doing it.

But all they did was take advantage of a lack of written rules, all that spelled out to me was "Write the damn rules down".

Is it really that difficult to write up "Suspension of Parliament can be up to a fortnight unless agreed on a case by case basis by Parliament" ........... job done, everyone can go home.

You can't run a country on open interpretation to the rules because the day will come when someone will take advantage.

Imo Boris did nothing illegal at all, all he did was take the p*ss with the rules because there was no rule stating he couldn't, if anything he's done us a favor by potentially closing this loop hole moving forward.

I just wonder how many more loop holes we have in Parliaments procedures?

[UFGN]

Why is the AG allowed to use legal privilege to avoid disclosing what advice he gave to the government?

Hes a government minister as well. Its clearly in the public interest for him to disclose everything

[UFGN]

Theyre now discussing parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments

No.

No.

Never.

[Phil71]

Part of the Supreme Court statement:

"It is impossible for us to conclude on the evidence... that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks."

It's pretty damning. He has to come up with an answer to this (that he was badly advised or whatever).

What a complete shambles.

Well that bit I agree with, they never demonstrated a good reason why they were doing it.

But all they did was take advantage of a lack of written rules, all that spelled out to me was "Write the damn rules down".

Is it really that difficult to write up "Suspension of Parliament can be up to a fortnight unless agreed on a case by case basis by Parliament" ........... job done, everyone can go home.

You can't run a country on open interpretation to the rules because the day will come when someone will take advantage.

Imo Boris did nothing illegal at all, all he did was take the p*ss with the rules because there was no rule stating he couldn't, if anything he's done us a favor by potentially closing this loop hole moving forward.

I just wonder how many more loop holes we have in Parliaments procedures?

Parliament has operated for centuries with a set of abstract practices and conventions, most of which are not hard written into law. They are just accepted by Parliament and all those who operate within its encompassment.

Examples of the most high profile of these are the Monarch's supreme and judicially unchallengeable power to refuse to accept any bill passed to her for approval by either House. But she would never use that power because it would go against the unwritten convention.

Believe it or not, another thing not written into law is the actual post of Prime Minister. They only hold that position based on the accepted convention that if they are elected they can hold that Office.

It has worked for a very long time. What will spoil it is actions like those carried out here by Johnson, who has abused his right to invoke a prorogation that convention has determined can only be done in the generally accepted circumstances.

[DiamondGooner]

Why is the AG allowed to use legal privilege to avoid disclosing what advice he gave to the government?

Hes a government minister as well. Its clearly in the public interest for him to disclose everything

Because that's basic Client / Attorney practice, used all round the world.

Its the same for a Dr not exposing sensitive medical information without permission from the patient.

He may be a minister but his legal oath actually comes first, you can be disbarred for leaking legal information, again, without permission.