Conservatives continue to rise in polls under Boris's tough EU stance

[-:Undertaker:-]

Conservatives continue to rise in polls under Boris's tough EU stance

In the last two weeks, we've seen a Remainer Supreme Court and a Remainer House of Commons conspire against the people, the government and the Prime Minister to desperately deny the 2016 referendum result. Remain journalists laughed, as they did at Vote Leave during the 2016 referendum, yet here the latest polls are. It's almost like..... the rest of the country is different to north London?

1180572947364417536

1180573531656118278

Meanwhile it emerged tonight that if the government absolutely cannot avoid asking for an extension due to the Benn Act, it will veto everything in the European Council and senior ministers are considering appointing Nigel Farage as Britain's EU Commissioner.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGJMsIRU8AQU57t?format=jpg&name=small

At the moment, Boris has my vote. Keep tough and deliver, and you'll have my vote.

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

jesus just because the supreme court didnt rule in your favour doesnt mean theyre biased one way or the other

[-:Undertaker:-]

jesus just because the supreme court didnt rule in your favour doesnt mean theyre biased one way or the other

Well firstly, we shouldn't have a 'Supreme' Court (which is in fact laughingly not even supreme a la ECJ). It's a bad 2005 Blairite invention.

Secondly, the courts should not get involved in politics which is a long standing convention in this country. If they are to get involved in politics and judge political decisions, then like in America they're going to have to be appointed by the executive in future and scrutinised by Parliament. I would rather not have politics by courtroom, but the actions of the Supreme Court over prorogation mean something must be done. Either abolish it and return to the Law Lords (my preference), or checks and balances will have to be put on judges who now wield enormous political power.

And thirdly, you mean these non-biased Supreme Court judges?

1180114844961398784

1176433684385271808

1176434994404831233

[dbgtz]

have you actually read their ruling rather than reading the leave.eu twitter and getting angry

[-:Undertaker:-]

have you actually read their ruling rather than reading the leave.eu twitter and getting angry

I have read a summary, and like the High Court and other legal and constitutional experts I disagree with it completely. Even the ruling itself I read made clear that this decision was a break with the past, and fundamentally has changed the constitution adding to the power of the courts.

The Supreme Court made a power grab, ruling on a political decision - it is *not* written in law or convention that the Prime Minister must not use a political motive to prorogue (see Sir John Major and Ramsay MacDonald prorogations). However now that it has made such a power grab, it must now be kept in check - either with abolition and a return to the Law Lords (my preference) or with the executive nominating justices from now on. Like the corrupt Speaker making it up as he goes along, yet another institution is now politicised and damaged. Well done Remain.

Lady Hale, like Speaker Bercow, cannot sit on their golden thrones and get away with proclaiming their word as our new constitutional norms.

[dbgtz]

struggling to find any of these experts you speak of that disagree

in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984) it was ruled that prerogative power is subject to judicial review, so this is not a power grab and should someone have brought the major prorogation to court, it could have been quashed then too (but nobody did as far as I see)

i also want to ask if youre aware of what common law actually is?

[-:Undertaker:-]

struggling to find any of these experts you speak of that disagree

The High Court of England and Wales, the Advocate General for Scotland, the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, University of Oxford's Professor Richard Elkins and constitutional emeritus Professor John Finnis. My teacher, The Lord Norton, now has to re-write part of his constitutional book as the judges have in effect altered part of the constitutional relationship between the executive and Parliament.

1177915446533775360


in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1984) it was ruled that prerogative power is subject to judicial review, so this is not a power grab and should someone have brought the major prorogation to court, it could have been quashed then too (but nobody did as far as I see)

This does not state that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes as it was in 1997 and under MacDonald. In fact, more modern examples in common law Canada and Australia have seen prorogation used for explicitly political purposes as recently as a decade ago. The power to prorogue is a royal prerogative power vested in the Prime Minister, it is not a power vested in Parliament or the Supreme Court.

The Blairite 'Supreme' Court invented it out of thin air, like Speaker Bercow invents and bends rules at his whim. Now as a result, our judges are politicised and something will have to be done to add checks and balances, as well as the fact that every time we now have a prorogation there are going to be legal challenges against Prime Ministers' questioning their political motives behind each prorogation. A legal quagmire for eternity.

Constitutionally - after Brexit - there are now a number of things on the to do list that the government has already said it will look at for the next party manifesto. The first is binding the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons, ensuring that he or she *must* follow the advice of the clerks as to prevent another rogue Speaker. The second is either abolishing the Supreme Court and reverting back to the Law Lords or adding executive oversight into the selection of Supreme Court justices. And thirdly is the repeal of the Fixed Terms Parliament Act (FTPA) which I said at the time was a stupid idea from Cameron & Clegg where we could end up with a zombie government and paralysis, and a few years later... here we are with one.


i also want to ask if youre aware of what common law actually is?

Of course, one of the reasons I want to leave the European Union is to preserve common law and not have civil law imposed on us, which European law is. But as you'll see above I addressed this in my first post, that British courts have always sought to avoid involvement in political affairs especially when it comes to Parliament as Parliament (consisting of the Crown-in-Parliament) is sovereign over any court, even if it laughingly calls itself 'Supreme' when it is anything but.

The Supreme Court acted totally out of precedent both in British law and in regards to other common law countries on this matter.

[dbgtz]

The High Court of England and Wales, the Advocate General for Scotland, the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, University of Oxford's Professor Richard Elkins and constitutional emeritus Professor John Finnis. My teacher, The Lord Norton, now has to re-write part of his constitutional book as the judges have in effect altered part of the constitutional relationship between the executive and Parliament.

1177915446533775360

the high court ruled it not within their power, but would now follow the precedent set by the supreme court in future
the AGs are literally part of the government & advised it so of course they will disagree
canada is irrelevant to this discussion
the other 2, fine, but obviously theyre just biased leavers so im going to ignore them


This does not state that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes as it was in 1997 and under MacDonald. In fact, more modern examples in common law Canada and Australia have seen prorogation used for explicitly political purposes as recently as a decade ago. The power to prorogue is a royal prerogative power vested in the Prime Minister, it is not a power vested in Parliament or the Supreme Court.

The Blairite 'Supreme' Court invented it out of thin air, like Speaker Bercow invents and bends rules at his whim. Now as a result, our judges are politicised and something will have to be done to add checks and balances, as well as the fact that every time we now have a prorogation there are going to be legal challenges against Prime Ministers' questioning their political motives behind each prorogation. A legal quagmire for eternity.

Constitutionally - after Brexit - there are now a number of things on the to do list that the government has already said it will look at for the next party manifesto. The first is binding the role of the Speaker of the House of Commons, ensuring that he or she *must* follow the advice of the clerks as to prevent another rogue Speaker. The second is either abolishing the Supreme Court and reverting back to the Law Lords or adding executive oversight into the selection of Supreme Court justices. And thirdly is the repeal of the Fixed Terms Parliament Act (FTPA) which I said at the time was a stupid idea from Cameron & Clegg where we could end up with a zombie government and paralysis, and a few years later... here we are with one.


i dont get why you mention canada and australia, they may be on similar systems but they are not the same country and the laws arent the same

the supreme court invented what?


Of course, one of the reasons I want to leave the European Union is to preserve common law and not have civil law imposed on us, which European law is. But as you'll see above I addressed this in my first post, that British courts have always sought to avoid involvement in political affairs especially when it comes to Parliament as Parliament (consisting of the Crown-in-Parliament) is sovereign over any court, even if it laughingly calls itself 'Supreme' when it is anything but.

The Supreme Court acted totally out of precedent both in British law and in regards to other common law countries on this matter.

ok so if you are aware of what common law is then why are you getting annoyed they act on something that isnt written down
i also just gave you some case law to show that it isnt out of precedent in british law to review prerogative powers - you make claims without anything to back it up

fundamentally what you seem to not understand (probably because you havent read it) isnt that they say that prorogation cant be political in nature, but that there was no real justification for the length
given that they said (lied) it was for a queens speech, which normally only requires a few days, theres no just reason to suspend parliament for 5 weeks

and the government just failed to defend their position, perhaps to avoid being caught out but perhaps to get people like you angry at judges

[-:Undertaker:-]

As The Lord Sumption - a former justice of the 'Supreme' Court - said...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177020/brexit-news-gina-Miller-supreme-court-lord-sumption-sky-channel-4-prorogation-parliament


In a Sky News interview debating whether the courts should be involved in politics, Lord Sumption took the view that the Scottish ruling was “essentially political”. He said: “The question is whether it is actually a highly political argument or, as Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry are arguing, whether it is really a question of law. My own view is that it is essentially political."

He added: "The whole issue turns not on whether the Government has power to prorogue Parliament, it obviously does, but on what kind of motives will justify that. I think it would be very far-fetched to suggest that political motives cannot enter into a decision to prorogue Parliament.

“So the problem is how do you distinguish between good political motives and bad political motives. That is not a function in which courts are well adapted to perform. That essentially was the view taken by the divisional courts in England and it represents the orthodox view.”

English judges rejected Gina Miller’s prorogation challenge, ruling that prorogation was a political matter that should not be reviewed by courts.

Now the courts are going to be involved in assessing political motives, driving a coach and horses through our constitution.


the high court ruled it not within their power, but would now follow the precedent set by the supreme court in future
the AGs are literally part of the government & advised it so of course they will disagree
canada is irrelevant to this discussion
the other 2, fine, but obviously theyre just biased leavers so im going to ignore them

The High Court obviously will follow rulings by the Supreme Court, that is why it was referred to the higher court.


i dont get why you mention canada and australia, they may be on similar systems but they are not the same country and the laws arent the same

The relationship between Parliament and the Executive is identical in those countries, after all they only became constitutionally independent in the 1980s with constitutional repatriation. Like those common law countries, there is no rule or convention in British law that states that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes which is why it's been used multiple times in Britain, Canada and Australia - probably other Commonwealth realms too if I bothered to look.


the supreme court invented what?

The "law" that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes. Where was it stated beforehand that it could not be?


ok so if you are aware of what common law is then why are you getting annoyed they act on something that isnt written down
i also just gave you some case law to show that it isnt out of precedent in british law to review prerogative powers - you make claims without anything to back it up

Because I just told you by giving you multiple examples in our own country as well as other Commonwealth realms that prorogation has been used multiple times by Prime Ministers' for political purposes. Canadian PM Harper in 2008, and British PM Major in 1997.

If you can point me to any precedent that states prorogation must not be X length because of Y political purposes, show me.


fundamentally what you seem to not understand (probably because you havent read it) isnt that they say that prorogation cant be political in nature, but that there was no real justification for the length
given that they said (lied) it was for a queens speech, which normally only requires a few days, theres no just reason to suspend parliament for 5 weeks

and the government just failed to defend their position, perhaps to avoid being caught out but perhaps to get people like you angry at judges

Clearly you don't understand because if the courts admit they need to rule on prorogation as to what is a suitable time to prorogue for, therefore there must be political reasons for a more lengthy prorogation. De facto the courts are now ruling on the motives (political) behind prorogations.

Whether you agree with having courts rule in these areas or not, you cannot deny that the court has now stepped into a political area. As a result, all future prorogations are going to be subject to judicial review - something that is *not* normal in the Westminster system.

[dbgtz]

As The Lord Sumption - a former justice of the 'Supreme' Court - said...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1177020/brexit-news-gina-Miller-supreme-court-lord-sumption-sky-channel-4-prorogation-parliament



Now the courts are going to be involved in assessing political motives, driving a coach and horses through our constitution.


explain to me how his opinion has more value than the 11 who made the ruling
because i doubt you value his opinion that their should be a second referendum


The High Court obviously will follow rulings by the Supreme Court, that is why it was referred to the higher court.

but you just said they disagree with the ruling, which as far as i see is false


The relationship between Parliament and the Executive is identical in those countries, after all they only became constitutionally independent in the 1980s with constitutional repatriation. Like those common law countries, there is no rule or convention in British law that states that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes which is why it's been used multiple times in Britain, Canada and Australia - probably other Commonwealth realms too if I bothered to look.

The "law" that prorogation cannot be used for political purposes. Where was it stated beforehand that it could not be?

show me where the ruling states it cant be for political purposes

to reiterate, it has been established in courts that prerogative powers can be subject to judicial review with some exceptions - literally common law in action



Because I just told you by giving you multiple examples in our own country as well as other Commonwealth realms that prorogation has been used multiple times by Prime Ministers' for political purposes. Canadian PM Harper in 2008, and British PM Major in 1997.

If you can point me to any precedent that states prorogation must not be X length because of Y political purposes, show me.


and if someone took major to court it could have easily been quashed then, but nobody did
the fact is johnson claimed that the prorogation was for a queens speech - the precedent for only needing ~5 days for a queens speech has been set by queens speeches beforehand. To say they need 54 days for a queens speech is clearly excessive by the previous trends. the only time prorogation has really been longer is around elections

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0111


Clearly you don't understand because if the courts admit they need to rule on prorogation as to what is a suitable time to prorogue for, therefore there must be political reasons for a more lengthy prorogation. De facto the courts are now ruling on the motives (political) behind prorogations.

Whether you agree with having courts rule in these areas or not, you cannot deny that the court has now stepped into a political area. As a result, all future prorogations are going to be subject to judicial review - something that is *not* normal in the Westminster system.

the official claim was it was for a queens speech
they did not defend themselves on this

i actually cant believe youre defending what is effectively the silencing of political opponents
you claim to want parliamentary sovereignty but you are happy for the executive to shut them down for an excessive amount of time with no checks at all
and lets be honest, its not actually normal to prorogue parliament for political reasons yet you seem fine with that because it suits you