• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

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. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister's motive or purpose was unlawful.

The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen's Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen's Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.

It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the Advocate General's appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller's appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.
 
If judges are going to become political, it needs to be explicitly so, like in America. Say the 11 made up of 6 leavers and 5 remainers, as representative of the country.
 
Watershed years in politics as the way people consume their info and fact and vote is different to that of yester year of which the system is still set up.
 
Parliament will come back' - Johnson


Commenting on the Supreme Court ruling, PM Boris Johnson said:"Obviously this is a verdict we will respect, we will respect the judicial process.

"I don't think that it's right, but we will go ahead and of course Parliament will come back.

He added: "The important thing is we get on and deliver Brexit on October 31.

"They thought the prorogation that we chose was not something they could approve of.

"The main thing is that we will get on and deliver Brexit on October 31... but Parliament will come back and we will respect that.

Asked if he would apologise, Mr Johnson said he did not think the ruling was "the right decision".


Water off a ducks back, he couldnt give a fudge
 
It is a myth to think that parliaments can pass whatever laws they like. Some laws can be struck down as being 'unlawful.' As far as so called 'politicisation' of the courts go, that is an absurd claim, as clearly the Supreme Court has this jurisdiction, just as the Supreme Court in The US does and just as the High Court in Australia does. In these latter countries, legislation is challenged and struck out all the time, in fact recently in Australia, members of the public brought cases to the High Court challenging MPS eligibility to sit in parliament to the High Court and won. Just because it isn't common, doesn't mean it's not legal or in fact right. I'm loving this, you know the good old Tories, the conservatives, those protectors of ancient traditions, freedoms and institutions, well they are fudging wrecking the joint, which is what they always do if they think their grip on power is weakening. There is no democratic institution that they will not subvert in order to protect their vested economic interests. fudging hypocrites!
 
What response would there be from the media if Corbyn prorogued parliament and the courts ruled that it was unlawful? I doesn't bare thinking about. They would be rabid. I wonder what the response of the Murdoch fascist propaganda units will be about this?
 
  • Johnson said the supreme court ruling would make getting a Brexit deal harder. Asked if he was running out of options, he said “on the contrary”. He went on:
As the law currently stands the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, come what may.

But the interesting thing, the exciting thing for us now, is to get a good deal. And that’s what we’re working on.

I’ll be honest with you, it’s not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts. Obviously getting a deal is not made much easier against this background. But we’re going to get on and do it.

  • He said he would respect the supreme court ruling - even though he strongly disagreed with it. He said:
Obviously this is a verdict that we will respect and we respect the judicial process. I have to say that I strongly disagree with what the justices have found. I don’t think that it’s right but we will go ahead and of course parliament will come back ...

I don’t think this was the right decision, I think that the prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge.

  • He said he still wanted to go ahead with a Queen’s speech – which would require a fresh prorogation. He said:
I do think there’s a good case for getting on with a Queen’s speech anyway and we will do that ...

I don’t think the justices remotely excluded the possibility of having a Queen’s speech but what we will certainly do is ensure parliament has plenty of time to debate Brexit.

The supreme court ruling does not stop Johnson having a second prorogation, ahead of a Queen’s speech. But it would have to be a normal length one to be lawful – ie, lasting a few days, not weeks.

  • He claimed some MPs were trying to frustrate Brexit. He said:
More importantly, let’s be in no doubt that there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit. There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU. And we have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued, it doesn’t want to have an election, and I think it’s time we took this forward.

  • He refused to accept that the Benn Act made a no-deal Brexit on 31 October impossible. When it was put to him that the law would not allow a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, he replied:
As the law stands, we leave on October 31. And I’m very hopeful that we will get a deal. I think what the people of the country want is to see parliamentarians coming together in the national interest to get this thing done.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
  • Johnson said the supreme court ruling would make getting a Brexit deal harder. Asked if he was running out of options, he said “on the contrary”. He went on:
As the law currently stands the UK leaves the EU on 31 October, come what may.

But the interesting thing, the exciting thing for us now, is to get a good deal. And that’s what we’re working on.

I’ll be honest with you, it’s not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts. Obviously getting a deal is not made much easier against this background. But we’re going to get on and do it.

  • He said he would respect the supreme court ruling - even though he strongly disagreed with it. He said:
Obviously this is a verdict that we will respect and we respect the judicial process. I have to say that I strongly disagree with what the justices have found. I don’t think that it’s right but we will go ahead and of course parliament will come back ...

I don’t think this was the right decision, I think that the prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge.

  • He said he still wanted to go ahead with a Queen’s speech – which would require a fresh prorogation. He said:
I do think there’s a good case for getting on with a Queen’s speech anyway and we will do that ...

I don’t think the justices remotely excluded the possibility of having a Queen’s speech but what we will certainly do is ensure parliament has plenty of time to debate Brexit.

The supreme court ruling does not stop Johnson having a second prorogation, ahead of a Queen’s speech. But it would have to be a normal length one to be lawful – ie, lasting a few days, not weeks.

  • He claimed some MPs were trying to frustrate Brexit. He said:
More importantly, let’s be in no doubt that there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit. There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU. And we have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued, it doesn’t want to have an election, and I think it’s time we took this forward.

  • He refused to accept that the Benn Act made a no-deal Brexit on 31 October impossible. When it was put to him that the law would not allow a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, he replied:
As the law stands, we leave on October 31. And I’m very hopeful that we will get a deal. I think what the people of the country want is to see parliamentarians coming together in the national interest to get this thing done.
Click to expand...


Would’ve been nice if he’d been fully focussed on doing his job and getting a new deal alk this tone rather than playing silly illegal games to try and force through a no deal.
 
Who gives a fudge what Boris says, the man has zero credibility. Why hasn't he done the honourable thing and resigned. For the answer look to my post above.
 
Craig_J said:
Would’ve been nice if he’d been fully focussed on doing his job and getting a new deal alk this tone rather than playing silly illegal games to try and force through a no deal.
Click to expand...

I really think the brick he is pulling is in direct opposition to the brick the rest of the house is pulling. They are all to blame.

Doesnt condone any of it, of course, they are all clams as far as Im concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back