Possibly stupid question - but why is this happening in Edinburgh and the Scottish courts, and not London?
Why shouldn’t it be happening in the Scottish courts?
Because the Queen and so the Privy council are currently in Scotland..
No the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts applies to the UK government if it has effect in Scotland. Nothing to do with the Queen. More to do with the earlier success in the revocation case and the fact that these proceedings were already ongoing with reasonably developed pleadings etc allowing the arguments to be canvassed in a focused way.
A random thought - the Royals ought to be shit scared of the NHS top trump card: let's take all the money we give to randy Andy and Di-hater Charles and give it to the NHS.
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
Possibly stupid question - but why is this happening in Edinburgh and the Scottish courts, and not London?
Why shouldn’t it be happening in the Scottish courts?
Because the Queen and so the Privy council are currently in Scotland..
Ah, ta.
The location of the Queen is of no relevance to the case.
The reality is that they have been preparing this for the Scottish courts for some time - whether they think that gives them a legal advantage is for others to say.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
He just wants Bercow, Grieve and all the others to block the prorogue... so he can tell the public he has exhausted every option, been blocked from Brexiting by undemocratic Remainers, and then call a GE asking for a mandate.
Three years? Parliament sat during the 2017 election campaign? Summer 2017, summer 2018?
I think the better point is that if prorogation was a day or 2 to give us a new session and the opportunity to reconsider May's deal there would be very little fuss about this. It's the 4 weeks at a critical time that is the problem.
MarqueeMark said: We will never go back in. Why? The NHS. It top trumps everything. Anyone proposing to rejoin gets asked this on every doorstep: "So, which hopsitals are you going to close to pay for our massive annual fees?"
Would there still be massive fees? This Conservative government is hell-bent on wrecking the economy, so we will undoubtedly be considerably poorer - as we are already. The EU will probably be subsidising us.
In any case, the NHS will by then have been handed over to the Americans, so it will be totally unaffordable and completely destroyed.
Don't understand all this stuff about handing over NHS to the Americans. The NHS is a state-run organisation which enters contracts with private suppliers for some goods and some services. However clinical staff are, and will continue to be, directly employed. Does the NHS develop and manufacture all the drugs it uses? If US companies can more effectively compete to provide services what's the problem?
As if the US is able to provide cheap health services!
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It is shorter than Major's prorogation. And that wasn't subject to legal challenge. He just used it to avoid scrutiny of the Cash for Questions scandal.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
A random thought - the Royals ought to be shit scared of the NHS top trump card: let's take all the money we give to randy Andy and Di-hater Charles and give it to the NHS.
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
Rubbish, as a President and his entourage would take most of the money now spent on the royal family while losing the tax revenue from the tourists.
With only 46% of Scots backing independence in the latest Ashcroft poll that is not clear either
He just wants Bercow, Grieve and all the others to block the prorogue... so he can tell the public he has exhausted every option, been blocked from Brexiting by undemocratic Remainers, and then call a GE asking for a mandate.
A random thought - the Royals ought to be shit scared of the NHS top trump card: let's take all the money we give to randy Andy and Di-hater Charles and give it to the NHS.
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
Rubbish, as a President and his entourage would take most of the money now spent on the royal family while losing the tax revenue from the tourists.
With only 46% of Scots backing independence in the latest Ashcroft poll that is not clear either
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
If it was a manifesto commitment fair enough, Corbyn was elected on it just as the British people voted to Leave the EU.
In both cases it would be MPs blocking the will of the people. Boris is right to be prepared to prorogue Parliament in such a circumstance
No.
We do not have a Presidential system (and even then, for a President to bypass the legislature in a Presidential system is controversial).
We have a Parliamentary system. Parliament decides.
Whatever Miliband might think, manifestos are not carved in stone and MPs must be allowed to exercise their authority - and then be held responsible for what they choose to do with that authority.
Yes, seems to me like there are two possibilities here.
Either Boris intends to implement a catastrophic No Deal at any cost because he's gone mad.
Or this is about forcing parliament to choose between No Deal or Theresa's WA.
I'm edging towards the latter. The recent spin we got from the euro-sceptic press - Boris has forced the EU to abandon the backstop! - feels like a softening-up exercise for when they have to portray Boris's inevitable humiliation as a triumph.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It is shorter than Major's prorogation. And that wasn't subject to legal challenge. He just used it to avoid scrutiny of the Cash for Questions scandal.
Possibly stupid question - but why is this happening in Edinburgh and the Scottish courts, and not London?
Because Scottish MPs , MSPs and Lords are petitioning. It could have happened in London too, in the High Court. This is not in front of the Supreme Court, yet !
I don't know whether this has already been said but surely the reason the Queen invariably accepts the advice of her first Minister is because he speaks for and has the confidence of Parliament. In this case it would be prudent of the Queen to ask him to confirm this is the case.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It is shorter than Major's prorogation. And that wasn't subject to legal challenge. He just used it to avoid scrutiny of the Cash for Questions scandal.
Ah, that makes it OK then.
Not saying it does - just putting things into a proper context is important.
There has to be the possibility that Johnson's action will make some Tory MPs and Change UK more receptive to having Corbyn as caretaker PM following a successful VNOC.
What a lot of cry babies Hammond, Grieve, Watson and Bercow are. All that’s happened is their plan to cancel the conference season has been foiled.
They had ample time to cancel the summer recess if it it’s that important for them to sit around and preen about Brexit for longer than they already have. But the call of the beach was too strong!
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
The problem Bercow has is that he has already been involved in changing the rules of parliament to stop Brexit, so him complaining that prorogation is being done to allow Brexit rings hollow.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
Bercow doesn't have to be impartial - his loyalty is to the House, not the government.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It is shorter than Major's prorogation. And that wasn't subject to legal challenge. He just used it to avoid scrutiny of the Cash for Questions scandal.
Since no one challenged the prorogation then (presumably because no one cared enough), the lack of challenge tells us nothing useful.
Yes, seems to me like there are two possibilities here.
Either Boris intends to implement a catastrophic No Deal at any cost because he's gone mad.
Or this is about forcing parliament to choose between No Deal or Theresa's WA.
I'm edging towards the latter. The recent spin we got from the euro-sceptic press - Boris has forced the EU to abandon the backstop! - feels like a softening-up exercise for when they have to portray Boris's inevitable humiliation as a triumph.
Actually you may well be right there... I'd enjoy watching @HYUFD spin that one!
He just wants Bercow, Grieve and all the others to block the prorogue... so he can tell the public he has exhausted every option, been blocked from Brexiting by undemocratic Remainers, and then call a GE asking for a mandate.
If he stands for No Deal he loses IMO
He won't - he'll stand for a tougher renegotiation in the hope of winning a majority. If he wins a decent majority then he can renegotiate with No Deal as a real possibility.
I don't blame Boris for his stance. The tits fell off the Brexit horse when Theresa May - who in my view was absolutely fucking useless - lost her majority.
The only way out now is a new GE. Boris knows that and is doing his best to lay the groundwork for one.
It might work, it might fail, but presenting himself as a guy willing to be friendly with Europe but tough on the EU isn't a bad plan, IMO.
Don't pull our plonkers, Dan. You know what this is about as well as we do.
Quite. The length of session point is true but nothing at all to do with why this is happening, its insulting to pretend it is even if we accept some of the outrage as overblown.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
It's quite an arcane subject and I don't pretend to have studied it in detail but the traditional view used to be that the procedures of the Commons were matters for the Commons and no one else. I will no doubt learn tomorrow but I am struggling to see what the "wrong" that is being sought to be prevented is, at least in law.
My guess is that the Court will say, well if Parliament wants to prevent this they can do so next week. But I may be wrong. The courts have been more ready to intervene in recent times as in the Miller case (although that was about changes to our domestic law, not Parliamentary procedure).
So if we assume that this is 4D Chess (is there any other kind, the whole point of chess being to calculate what the board will look like at some point in the future)
Where are you getting the 4th dimension from ? Chess is a well defined problem on a 2D plane
My pieces sat in 3 dimensions but I take the point that they moved in 2.
They move in three[1]: the horsey has to jump over the prawns. Obvs.
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
They could always have voted on the WA again if the votes to pass it were there, since they could amend standing orders to allow it .
Clearly the best path of action. I hope all sides come back from the brink and realise that no war can ever be won by permanent suppression of their opponents. We will have to come to a compromise eventually, so why destroy each other before we realise this?
Don't pull our plonkers, Dan. You know what this is about as well as we do.
Quite. The length of session point is true but nothing at all to do with why this is happening, its insulting to pretend it is even if we accept some of the outrage as overblown.
If it was a manifesto commitment fair enough, Corbyn was elected on it just as the British people voted to Leave the EU.
In both cases it would be MPs blocking the will of the people. Boris is right to be prepared to prorogue Parliament in such a circumstance
The Conservative manifesto on which Johnson was elected stated as follows:
"We need to deliver a SMOOTH and ORDERLY departure from the European Union"
"The Conservatives will deliver the best possible DEAL for Britain as we leave the European Union"
"Only the Conservative Party can... negotiate the best possible DEAL for our country"
"We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal".
I recommend you read it... all cracking stuff.
P7 of the 2017 Conservative manifesto 'We will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union.'
The Tory government produced a Deal, a majority of diehard Remainers voted it down 3 times, a majority of Leavers voted for it, so No Deal it has to be if the EU will not agree an amended Deal minus the backstop which is the only Deal MPs have voted for.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
Are they obliged under law to provide a reason? Genuine question.
"... a need for a Prime Minister to suspend his own parliament because he seems to lack a majority for his key policy – the approach to Brexit – is not exactly a sign of strength, to put it mildly." Holger Schmieding, Berenberg (German Bank).
Three years? Parliament sat during the 2017 election campaign? Summer 2017, summer 2018?
I think the better point is that if prorogation was a day or 2 to give us a new session and the opportunity to reconsider May's deal there would be very little fuss about this. It's the 4 weeks at a critical time that is the problem.
Most of the prorogation is during recess for conference. It costs 4 days of parliament sitting.
For all that I disagree with Boris doing this, Major is the last person who should be criticising him since he used the same tactic to avoid nothing more than personal and party embarrassment.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
The problem Bercow has is that he has already been involved in changing the rules of parliament to stop Brexit, so him complaining that prorogation is being done to allow Brexit rings hollow.
And his impartiality does not matter- his impartiality is preserving him at present.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
Bercow doesn't have to be impartial - his loyalty is to the House, not the government.
Bercow is loyal to only one thing. That is Bercow. When it suits his agenda he has no respect for the rules of the Commons - he has demonstrated that very clearly.
For all that I disagree with Boris doing this, Major is the last person who should be criticising him since he used the same tactic to avoid nothing more than personal and party embarrassment.
How long did he do it for? Was there a legal challenge back then?
Three years? Parliament sat during the 2017 election campaign? Summer 2017, summer 2018?
I think the better point is that if prorogation was a day or 2 to give us a new session and the opportunity to reconsider May's deal there would be very little fuss about this. It's the 4 weeks at a critical time that is the problem.
Most of the prorogation is during recess for conference. It costs 4 days of parliament sitting.
Only 100% above your acceptable amount!
I think that the Conference Season should also be at least truncated this year as well. 3 years of doing next to nothing makes this pretty urgent now.
Across all media the response to the Charles the First move has been simply furious.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
Bercow has made the biggest mistake. Exploding with anger at the “constitutional outrage”??? He’s finished after all this. His theoretical impartiality is gone forever.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
He has no impartiality - he is Speaker of the House of Commons. Constitutionally he represents the Commons in its relations with the Crown, so he absolutely is partial, biased towards representing the will, opinions and rights of parliament.
Again, what happens when the executive requests Her Majesty prorogues parliament and parliament refuses and continues to sit? Because if I read this correctly that is the stand-off to come
Don't pull our plonkers, Dan. You know what this is about as well as we do.
Quite. The length of session point is true but nothing at all to do with why this is happening, its insulting to pretend it is even if we accept some of the outrage as overblown.
Election was in 2017, that was only two years.
The general point about length not his getting the length wrong.
A random thought - the Royals ought to be shit scared of the NHS top trump card: let's take all the money we give to randy Andy and Di-hater Charles and give it to the NHS.
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
Rubbish, as a President and his entourage would take most of the money now spent on the royal family while losing the tax revenue from the tourists.
With only 46% of Scots backing independence in the latest Ashcroft poll that is not clear either
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No Government control of most of the economy is socialism, not a hereditary constitutional monarch as Head of State
So if we assume that this is 4D Chess (is there any other kind, the whole point of chess being to calculate what the board will look like at some point in the future)
Where are you getting the 4th dimension from ? Chess is a well defined problem on a 2D plane
My pieces sat in 3 dimensions but I take the point that they moved in 2.
They move in three[1]: the horsey has to jump over the prawns. Obvs.
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
Three years? Parliament sat during the 2017 election campaign? Summer 2017, summer 2018?
I think the better point is that if prorogation was a day or 2 to give us a new session and the opportunity to reconsider May's deal there would be very little fuss about this. It's the 4 weeks at a critical time that is the problem.
Most of the prorogation is during recess for conference. It costs 4 days of parliament sitting.
Only 100% above your acceptable amount!
I think that the Conference Season should also be at least truncated this year as well. 3 years of doing next to nothing makes this pretty urgent now.
I wouldn't argue against that, although there is a part of me that says the less parliament does the better for all of us.
I do wonder if remainer mp's would still vote down May's deal if they could go back in time.
I suspect they would wave it through with gusto.
I doubt it. They knew no deal was a risk if they said no but held out. As of now both no deal and remain are possible just as they wanted, so it has gone as expected. If they were willing to deal to avoid no deal we'd not be hear now.
Where the government is very vulnerable on any legal challenge is the why question. Why is this prorogation unusually long? The only answer is one that reflects its own lack of control of Parliament. Should the courts assist the executive in avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny? It’s very hard to see why that should be a permissible reason for proroguing.
Are they obliged under law to provide a reason? Genuine question.
Imagine you're the barrister in front of an eminent judge with limited patience. Your opposite number is alleging that you're doing this to frustrate democracy. The judge peers over his varifocals and says:
"So, Mr 4, why is your client taking such an unusually long period of time for prorogation at such a hectic period in British politics against a tight deadline?"
The response "I'm not at liberty to say" is not really going to cut it.
Comments
https://twitter.com/spajw/status/1166666244449329152?s=21
I used to think I knew a lot about Double tax Treaties until I got into a late nite discussion on here with an Oxford Don and an FT Journalist.
It was a chastening experience.
In both cases it would be MPs blocking the will of the people. Boris is right to be prepared to prorogue Parliament in such a circumstance
So that's the destruction of Union and the monarchy baked in by lack of foresight on the part of David Cameron. Well done him.
The reality is that they have been preparing this for the Scottish courts for some time - whether they think that gives them a legal advantage is for others to say.
BoJo has rolled the dice but it is NOT looking good. He will have to back off.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157?fbclid=IwAR0xZDEcMTEMXUJ6Ipm10EOt8SkWZL5IuEK8rceZPhuoRtyqvOCk-C-vbnA
Whereas this one to prorogue parliament has 20 signatures lol.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269054
He just wants Bercow, Grieve and all the others to block the prorogue... so he can tell the public he has exhausted every option, been blocked from Brexiting by undemocratic Remainers, and then call a GE asking for a mandate.
I doubt Boris would want to give parliament a week to some how stop his plans.
He should have expressed measured concern with a hint of concealed menace.
It would seem to me that there was no such outrage at the 3 years spent playing games in the hope of overturning the democratic will of 17m+ voters.
I'm afraid that it will look very much like "What's good for the goose..." to the vast majority of decent people.
With only 46% of Scots backing independence in the latest Ashcroft poll that is not clear either
In other words, I think he was joking.
We do not have a Presidential system (and even then, for a President to bypass the legislature in a Presidential system is controversial).
We have a Parliamentary system. Parliament decides.
Whatever Miliband might think, manifestos are not carved in stone and MPs must be allowed to exercise their authority - and then be held responsible for what they choose to do with that authority.
Either Boris intends to implement a catastrophic No Deal at any cost because he's gone mad.
Or this is about forcing parliament to choose between No Deal or Theresa's WA.
I'm edging towards the latter. The recent spin we got from the euro-sceptic press - Boris has forced the EU to abandon the backstop! - feels like a softening-up exercise for when they have to portray Boris's inevitable humiliation as a triumph.
Or are you saying he's a duplicitous little shit?
This is not in front of the Supreme Court, yet !
They had ample time to cancel the summer recess if it it’s that important for them to sit around and preen about Brexit for longer than they already have. But the call of the beach was too strong!
None - Corbyn can reply "scrap Trident instead, any spare money goes to building useful RN warships"
https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1166650292517187584?s=20
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1166627880522199040?s=20
https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1166648143334780928?s=20
I don't blame Boris for his stance. The tits fell off the Brexit horse when Theresa May - who in my view was absolutely fucking useless - lost her majority.
The only way out now is a new GE. Boris knows that and is doing his best to lay the groundwork for one.
It might work, it might fail, but presenting himself as a guy willing to be friendly with Europe but tough on the EU isn't a bad plan, IMO.
"We need to deliver a SMOOTH and ORDERLY departure from the European Union"
"The Conservatives will deliver the best possible DEAL for Britain as we leave the European Union"
"Only the Conservative Party can... negotiate the best possible DEAL for our country"
"We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal".
I recommend you read it... all cracking stuff.
My guess is that the Court will say, well if Parliament wants to prevent this they can do so next week. But I may be wrong. The courts have been more ready to intervene in recent times as in the Miller case (although that was about changes to our domestic law, not Parliamentary procedure).
[1] OK, as it involves motion thru time, also four. We happy now?
The Tory government produced a Deal, a majority of diehard Remainers voted it down 3 times, a majority of Leavers voted for it, so No Deal it has to be if the EU will not agree an amended Deal minus the backstop which is the only Deal MPs have voted for.
Only 100% above your acceptable amount!
Edit: never mind, beaten to it.
I suspect they would wave it through with gusto.
No doubt they hope the courts can take the dilemma away from them.
Again, what happens when the executive requests Her Majesty prorogues parliament and parliament refuses and continues to sit? Because if I read this correctly that is the stand-off to come
"So, Mr 4, why is your client taking such an unusually long period of time for prorogation at such a hectic period in British politics against a tight deadline?"
The response "I'm not at liberty to say" is not really going to cut it.