Current Affairs The next Tory (strong and stable) leader is Boris Johnson

[The binman chronicles]

What I find interesting, is that in coming to their decision, the Law Lords have presumed to KNOW what was in the mind of the PM in taking the action that he did, and have declared what he did was unlawful on that basis.

Still don't think the 'Judiciary' should interfere with the 'Parliamentary', as there are no stated hard-and-fast rules about prorogation. To quote a point made in 1611, well...

It's more the length of time than the actual proroguing of parliament. During a national crisis 5 weeks was stupid.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Boris speech to New Yorkers is hideously cringeworthy.

Agreed. But I did like the British rulers quip.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It's more the length of time than the actual proroguing of parliament. During a national crisis 5 weeks was stupid.

Yeah, on that particular issue, I agree. But it appeared that the only way to get HIS way was to link the party conferences to the other limited time available and present it as a single package.

I still cannot accept that the Judiciary can interfere with Parliamentary process, when the process per se is not illegal.

From my time working in a Government department, and working on legal matters, the Judiciary (from the Social Security Commissioners, then the Court of Appeal, then the House of Lords) could rule on an Act of Parliament or any amending regulations as ultra vires if it was considered that the wording in the Act or regulation ran contrary, or was inappropriate, to what was already on the statute book, or could give a legal interpretation on the construction of a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. That was the extent of its remit. Not, in my view, parliamentary procedure.

I think we will all agree, Tbc, outwith any Brexit consideration, that it's going to be an interesting few weeks to see how Parliament functions, given that in recent times it has shown complete 100% dysfunctionalty!!!

 

[The binman chronicles]

Yeah, on that particular issue, I agree. But it appeared that the only way to get HIS way was to link the party conferences to the other limited time available and present it as a single package.

I still cannot accept that the Judiciary can interfere with Parliamentary process, when the process per se is not illegal.

From my time working in a Government department, and working on legal matters, the Judiciary (from the Social Security Commissioners, then the Court of Appeal, then the House of Lords) could rule on an Act of Parliament or any amending regulations as ultra vires if it was considered that the wording in the Act or regulation ran contrary, or was inappropriate, to what was already on the statute book, or could give a legal interpretation on the construction of a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. That was the extent of its remit. Not, in my view, parliamentary procedure.

I think we will all agree, Tbc, outwith any Brexit consideration, that it's going to be an interesting few weeks to see how Parliament functions, given that in recent times it has shown complete 100% dysfunctionalty!!!

I think the courts had a difficult decision to make. I think the biggest issue is what is stopping another PM in future to do something similar, using this case as precedent. Now people know where the line is drawn.

 

[peteblue]

Should resign really

We should have a GE really.....

 

[Kurt.]

 

[peteblue]

Yeah, on that particular issue, I agree. But it appeared that the only way to get HIS way was to link the party conferences to the other limited time available and present it as a single package.

I still cannot accept that the Judiciary can interfere with Parliamentary process, when the process per se is not illegal.

From my time working in a Government department, and working on legal matters, the Judiciary (from the Social Security Commissioners, then the Court of Appeal, then the House of Lords) could rule on an Act of Parliament or any amending regulations as ultra vires if it was considered that the wording in the Act or regulation ran contrary, or was inappropriate, to what was already on the statute book, or could give a legal interpretation on the construction of a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. That was the extent of its remit. Not, in my view, parliamentary procedure.

I think we will all agree, Tbc, outwith any Brexit consideration, that it's going to be an interesting few weeks to see how Parliament functions, given that in recent times it has shown complete 100% dysfunctionalty!!!

Boris will probably fly back and prorogue it again......

 

[The binman chronicles]

Boris will probably fly back and prorogue it again......

I can just imagine the Queen's face if he tried, "One is not amused Mr Johnson."

 

[peteblue]

I can just imagine the Queen's face if he tried, "One is not amused Mr Johnson."

She doesn’t have a choice.....

 

[Bluerover]

Yeah, on that particular issue, I agree. But it appeared that the only way to get HIS way was to link the party conferences to the other limited time available and present it as a single package.

I still cannot accept that the Judiciary can interfere with Parliamentary process, when the process per se is not illegal.

From my time working in a Government department, and working on legal matters, the Judiciary (from the Social Security Commissioners, then the Court of Appeal, then the House of Lords) could rule on an Act of Parliament or any amending regulations as ultra vires if it was considered that the wording in the Act or regulation ran contrary, or was inappropriate, to what was already on the statute book, or could give a legal interpretation on the construction of a word, phrase, sentence or paragraph. That was the extent of its remit. Not, in my view, parliamentary procedure.

I think we will all agree, Tbc, outwith any Brexit consideration, that it's going to be an interesting few weeks to see how Parliament functions, given that in recent times it has shown complete 100% dysfunctionalty!!!

I take your point but I would argue that what Johnson did was more than mere Parliamentary procedure, but in fact was tantamount to misleading the Head of State.

It is difficult to be precise in the absence of a written constitution in the UK. However, where the Executive (including the Head of State) acts improperly in relation to the Legislature, then the Courts must act to remedy the wrong. This would appear to me to be appropriate.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I take your point but I would argue that what Johnson did was more than mere Parliamentary procedure, but in fact was tantamount to misleading the Head of State.

It is difficult to be precise in the absence of a written constitution in the UK. However, where the Executive (including the Head of State) acts improperly in relation to the Legislature, then the Courts must act to remedy the wrong. This would appear to me to be appropriate.

1. The procedure was prorogation. There has never been any comment on 'intent to mislead' by him, so parliamentary procedure ergo should not have been subject to legal challenge. He did nothing illegal, although we (all?) suspect there was nefarious intent behind it. I believe the test was 'Is it illegal with regard to the rules and procedures of the House'. If that test is not proven, then the case should have been thrown out. Perhaps there are other forces at work here...

2. In the absence of a written constitution concerning the matter, it cannot be illegal. There is no precedent or legal basis upon which to judge it. Who is to say that the length of time of the prorogation was improper without a sound foundation in law. That is the problem I see.

I would also add that there is a legal tenet that says: 'He who asserts must prove'. No proof was offered regarding the mindset of the PM (i.e. his exact thoughts on the matter), only what can be termed as conjecture given the actual fact of prorogation. I believe it is a dangerous path to go down if legal decisions such as this one are founded upon conjecture.

I hope I have explained myself satisfactorily with the above.

 

[Jebus_lives]

1. The procedure was prorogation. There has never been any comment on 'intent to mislead' by him, so parliamentary procedure ergo should not have been subject to legal challenge. He did nothing illegal, although we (all?) suspect there was nefarious intent behind it. I believe the test was 'Is it illegal with regard to the rules and procedures of the House'. If that test is not proven, then the case should have been thrown out. Perhaps there are other forces at work here...

2. In the absence of a written constitution concerning the matter, it cannot be illegal. There is no precedent or legal basis upon which to judge it. Who is to say that the length of time of the prorogation was improper without a sound foundation in law. That is the problem I see.

I would also add that there is a legal tenet that says: 'He who asserts must prove'. No proof was offered regarding the mindset of the PM (i.e. his exact thoughts on the matter), only what can be termed as conjecture given the actual fact of prorogation. I believe it is a dangerous path to go down if legal decisions such as this one are founded upon conjecture.

I hope I have explained myself satisfactorily with the above.

The key bit in the judgement:

'The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.'

 

[gonetomorrow]

Agreed. But I did like the British rulers quip.

I thought it was rather lower fourth form.

 

[orchard]

The key bit in the judgement:

'The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.'

Thankfully they' d been tipped off by those stating they will do it again and safeguarded against unreasonable use.

 

[Chewbacca]

I can kind of understand Rees Mogg more. Rees Mogg behind the scenes is by all accounts quite an affable nice bloke. He's been chosen by Johnson because if the intention was to sell a deal back to the ERG he'd be influential. He's pretty committed to Brexit and is not in it in any way for his own personal political gain

Correct. He is in it entirely for personal financial gain.