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

Status
Not open for further replies.
JEBUS_LIVES said:
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.'
Click to expand...

The problen is, JL, the judgement says 'will be unlawful'. But there is no law to set the practise of prorogation against. That is where I see the problem. Had there been a legal time limit of the length of prorogation, then I would agree. And also, is it now within the ambit of the Judicial system to be able to rule that 'frustrating or preventing' (filibustering) is illegal in Parliament? What is reasonable justification? And if that filibustering prevents Parliament carrying out its constitutional function, is that subject to challenge under the Judicial system? Mention was also made of an 'Order in Council'. Does it mean that no Government in the future can use this method to get legislation through?

I'm not asking you the above direct, JL, just posing the rhetorical questions. I believe this could leave Parliament open to judicial mischief should someone have the resources to take it down the avenue of judicial appeal.
 
JEBUS_LIVES said:
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.'
Click to expand...


Thanks for this. So, the SC has clearly ruled that the action of the Executive in proroging the Legislature is subject to constitutional scrutiny by the judiciary.

This would appear to make sense to me as, otherwise, what organ of the state could prevent further similar illegal acts by the Executive.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
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...
Click to expand...
I’m afraid Parliament is sovereign mate. It can’t just be shut down at will.
 
Groucho said:
Don’t really know mate I don’t take much notice.
Click to expand...

I think it will be embarrassing for both Boris and Corbyn tomorrow. Obv Boris will just shrug it off, but Corbyn now has few options. He can do what he’s been doing with Brexit and just sit on the fence, after all that’s what the Party just voted for, or he can call that vote of no confidence. With Boris having the SC result hanging over him Corbyn will look like a coward if he doesn’t force a vote now.....but we shall see......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top