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

Status
Not open for further replies.
roydo said:
Being involved in it all, I would have thought you would know that Parliament is in Recess (voted for) for conference season, not shut down without a vote. And deffo not shut down on iffy advice.
Click to expand...

"...Being involved in it all..."? I've never been an MP...
 
Old Blue 2 said:
"...Being involved in it all..."? I've never been an MP...
Click to expand...

Well you often reference your experience of working in the civil service as lending credence to a point you wish to make. Which is fine, we all draw on personal experience.

But as you were questioning the validity of the SC ruling earlier, I just assumed you knew the difference between Parliament being in recess, and being porogued. (Soz about the spelling)
 
roydo said:
Well you often reference your experience of working in the civil service as lending credence to a point you wish to make. Which is fine, we all draw on personal experience.

But as you were questioning the validity of the SC ruling earlier, I just assumed you knew the difference between Parliament being in recess, and being porogued. (Soz about the spelling)
Click to expand...

Quite right in what you say.

I was under the (mistaken) belief that the PM had grouped together the conference recess and the time he stated he wanted to allow for the Queen's Speech as a single prorogation.

Having said that, I still believe Parliamentary procedure should be outwith the ambit of the Judiciary.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
Quite right in what you say.

I was under the (mistaken) belief that the PM had grouped together the conference recess and the time he stated he wanted to allow for the Queen's Speech as a single prorogation.

Having said that, I still believe Parliamentary procedure should be outwith the ambit of the Judiciary.
Click to expand...

So it can be shut down on an unlawful basis? Sound.
 
Old Blue 2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the distinction lies in that filibustering is in action within Parliament, but the Executive in this instance has sought to prevent scrutiny or challenge by Parliament. It's precisely because there is no written constitution that the PM sould act in good faith rather than beyond the realms of what should be morally acceptable.

Again an 'order in Council' would be subject to approval or revocation by Parliament.

In this instance, while there may be no Statute that governs length, there is distinction in the justification for Prorogation in statute and a long history in overreach or unlawful action on behalf of the Executive which the courts have pushed back against.
 
Last edited:
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...

Are you for real?
Every judge and every jury makes exactly that presumption whenever they give their opinion. It's their interpretation of the case put before them.
 
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...

That would have required turning up... And probably lying.
 
It's going to be lost because of the times we live in, but it really is truly astonishing that Johnson didn't resign today.

At any other point in the history of our country, the PM would have walked with a few hours of that court decision.

There's no accountability or dignity anymore. Instead, we just have 'strongman' politics where egos dig their heels in and try to get their own way by any means necessary.

Cameron started all this, by the way. The recent attempt to repaint him as some sort of victim is ludicrous.
 
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