Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Keswick would bne closer to the middle of the UK ...
However in the Attlee case the purpose of the prorogation was clear and no one tried to pretend it was routine. All parties knew what was behind it and it had the full support of a majority of MPs.
Not at all the same as the current situation - the government has not been honest about the reasons for the prorogation and it is opposed by a majority of MPs.
Let's guess what the SNP will say if the Supreme Court rules against the Scottish court. Probably something to do with saying it's time for Scottish independence, (to state the obvious).
The Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme civil court. Blair’s “supreme court” is a breach of the Treaty of Union. One of many.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
Bending rules is not the same as bending laws, not always at any rate. I'm not a fan of bending rules but it might be legal.
I believe you have to refer every case in the final court to the EUCJ. They don't rule on any cases but will/might (I'm not sure which) provide guidance on EU law that must be taken into account when the court makes the judgment.
Hmm I don't think my Scottish ancestry is... quite close enough to get a Scottish passport in the case of independence. I think my mother is though...
Everybody will be welcome and if you want you can get a passport if you live there
Yes. You’re not anti English at all. In any way. It’s all cuddly civic nationalism. N’er an aggressive word is ever spoken nor discriminatory thought expressed. Unless you’re an English student of course. Or happen to live near a Siol nan Gaidheal chapter. Otherwise I’m sure you’re golden.
To be fair, I don't think any English holiday homes have been burnt down recently, have they. No equivalent of Meibion Glyndŵr?
Quite the opposite , Highlands is booming with English people moving up, they can buy big houses and live a great life for the price of a small flat down south.
Mr. Anabobazina, you didn't specify General Elections. And if you had, I could've just as easily cited the independent I voted for a few elections ago.
I'm mildly amused you're trying to lecture me on my own voting record.
Maybe the problem here isn't the way I vote, but the fiction you're basing your opinions on.
Rather, you are making my point perfectly for me.
You have voted Tory at the last few general elections, and say you would vote Tory again (for the odious fool Andrea Jenkyns) yet deny you are a Tory.
Worth noting that you voted for the dire Jenkyns in preference to the sensible moderate Ed Balls.
Did Attlee lie to the Queen? And just because no one challenged it, did it make it legal?
Firstly, Attlee would have been lying to King George VI rather than the Queen.
Secondly, there's no indication he lied - indeed, it appears he was quite open that the purpose was other than for the preparation of the King's Speech.
Thirdly, it is conceivable that the purpose for which he prorogued WAS proper, but the purpose for which this Government prorogued was not.
Finally, if Attlee acted unlawfully there is little that can be done now as it was not challenged and the limitation on action would apply due to the decades that have passed. It doesn't make it lawful but if, say, I breached a contract with you in 1983, the time has long passed to litigate it.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
The Speaker seems to be able to do pretty well whatever he wants in Parliament ollapse.
He does what he does largely under advice. Why don't you just admit it, you don't like him?
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
Because the Commons, uniquely, is the sole judge of its own procedure.
Head says the SC will strike down the Scottish ruling .
However the opinion might still be politically damaging for Johnson as to motive . I intend to do what I did with the original Gina Miller ruling and read all the Court transcripts .
Indeed you can get a good idea of where the judges might go in terms of ruling by their questions and responses .
Head says the SC will strike down the Scottish ruling .
However the opinion might still be politically damaging for Johnson as to motive . I intend to do what I did with the original Gina Miller ruling and read all the Court transcripts .
Indeed you can get a good idea of where the judges might go in terms of ruling by their questions and responses .
There is that but I think most people already think it was political and divide on Brexit lines like everything else as to whether he should have or not
Damage will be if it can be proven documents were withheld
No 10's reply is an absolubte howitzer at the Unionist cause. It's a visceral naked attack on the Act of Union itself.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
The fringe of SCotitsh Indy has been doing it's absolute nut in that Sturgeon/SNP hasn't already declare unilateral succession/had another indy ref. They see the SNP now as an anti-Brexi party with no drive towards independence.
What they don't get is that it is always (and has always been) an incremental process not an event. By "acting in Scotland's interest" by opposing Brexit doing so will generate moment after moment like this until even DavidL is begging for Scotland to be independent in the face of, I don't know, Scots Law being abolished by Westminster.
The Sturgeon/SNP are currently playing a blinder IMO.
Again, why haven't the opposition got rid of this dangerous government?
If ever there was a time to not disturb your opponents whilst they are in the process of destroying themselves this has to be it.
Kinda of undermines the "these awful barbarians will bring down civilization" argument, though.
Yes. Either they want to get rid of the gov right now or they dont. If they dont they cannot honestly complain about it trying to do things (so long as it is legal).
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Keswick would bne closer to the middle of the UK ...
Fine by me, and it would make sure that the safety system at Sellafield Nuclear Centre is kept up to date.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
A VONC will make them no longer the govt
Which as long as it leads to a general election is what the Tories are hoping for?
If they arent there, a SO24 debate expressing confidence in JC would pass immediately, he would be PM and no election till they return and VONC him successfully
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
No 10's reply is an absolubte howitzer at the Unionist cause. It's a visceral naked attack on the Act of Union itself.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
As the Boris cheerleaders on here point out, the conservative and unionist party is neither conservative nor unionist but revolutionary
Rule of law - against Parliamentary sovereignty - against Business - against Party loyalty - against The Union - a price worth paying for revolution
Powerful unelected civil servants - pro Division of the country - pro Zero sum diplomacy with our neighbours - pro
If people want to vote for this rabble fine, but I ask all conservative with a small c people reading this to reflect on how such a party can possibly reflect your values. It is sad it has come to this but it is conservative in name only, it is revolutionary.
It doesn’t, but at present I think it’s best to stay in and try and win it back.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
I expect Kuennsberg and Brillo likely vote Tory, whilst Maitliss and Pienaar are Labour voters. Overall its output is neutral enough though, as evidenced by the fact it is attacked from both sides.
Laura K is the frontwoman. Agree that Emily is probably Labour but as she's buried on Newsnight at 10.30pm it hardly counts for much.
There’s also Emma Barnett, who while identifiably a ‘progressive’, is also an excellent journalist and interviewer.
Good political journalists don't let their personal political opinions get in the way. John Cole was IMO one of the best in that respect.
There was no attack on judges by No 10. Salmond did indeed make a full fronted attack on the High Court. No 10 just cited the fact that there were "reasons" why activists had taken their case through the Scottish courts, which can be interpreted in several different ways, not least the fact that different laws could lead to different rulings.
This all seems like a good justification to ditch Boris. Per OGH passim the MPs never liked him in the first place, they can get rid of him in a secret ballot and presumably put their own emergency guy in, hopefully that person will be able to win a subsequent membership ballot and they won't end up with Prito Patel.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
A VONC will make them no longer the govt
Which as long as it leads to a general election is what the Tories are hoping for?
If they arent there, a SO24 debate expressing confidence in JC would pass immediately, he would be PM and no election till they return and VONC him successfully
Personally I don't think Parliament will return until after SC judgment and if the Supreme Court finds the government has mislead the Queen the government will resign anyway.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
Our system was built for strong governments. Pre FTPA weak governments would just fail and need an election. Strong governments, even coalition ones, would govern until they failed. The FTPA has created a scenario previously untenable in the British constitution; the government can continually fail yet not call an election without the help of the opposition. And if the government continually keeps walking into rakes on the road, what sane opposition would lend them a hand instead of happily listen to every "thwack", thinking that when the GE finally does come, the governing party will be covered in bruises?
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Keswick would bne closer to the middle of the UK ...
Fine by me, and it would make sure that the safety system at Sellafield Nuclear Centre is kept up to date.
That too! Someone else said Haltwhistle which may well be right if you don't include Rockall as well as Muckle Flugga (as I think I did). (The CI's don't count, do they?).
It is also impossible for the court to assess by any measurable standard how much time is required to hold the Government to account, including by passing legislation that would require the Prime Minister to take steps to avoid leaving the European Union without an agreement. This is graphically illustrated by the speed with which the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill has been enacted. The ability of Parliament to move with speed when it chooses to do so undermines the underlying premise of the case for the claimant that prorogation would deny Parliament the opportunity to do precisely what it has now done. [57]
It is also consistent with Lord Doherty's reasoning. I frankly find the decision of the Inner House today quite bewildering. What's more, from the summary, 3 different Judges seem to have found 3 different reasons for reaching the conclusion.
I need to be careful what I say on a public website but Lord Reed will play a very important role next week. If Sumption, with his superb Reith lectures, is at one end of judicial activism then Lord Reed is at the other. Many of his judgments read more like a discussion of public policy than the law. The temptation on his part to decline any right to intervene will not be hard to resist. He may be outvoted though.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
Sky and ch4 for me
Channel 4 are highly impartial.
*guffaws*
Has Channel 4 often been fined for breaching its duty of impartiality, or is this another right (and left) wing meme: if you say often enough that a broadcaster is biased, people will believe it?
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
A VONC will make them no longer the govt
Which as long as it leads to a general election is what the Tories are hoping for?
If they arent there, a SO24 debate expressing confidence in JC would pass immediately, he would be PM and no election till they return and VONC him successfully
Personally I don't think Parliament will return until after SC judgment and if the Supreme Court finds the government has mislead the Queen the government will resign anyway.
A lit will come down to whether the SC decides that there must be specific reasons for prorogation. I.e. whether the RP is sound as constituted or requires further codification
A good time to remember that it is the cover up that gets you. Any attempt to destroy evidence regarding the discussions that led up to the decision to prorogue parliament would get the actors involved into contempt and prison territory.
I hope each of those mentioned in the Grieve SO24 motion have been wise enough to get their own legal advice. In the event of illegality the most sensible one would be the one that goes to see inspector plod first ideally with a journalist coming along for the record.
I'd be surprised if the majority don't tell him where to get off. Not least as they probably have a few more "Ayes" in them to opposition motions (eg on a VONC then VOC when parliament returns).
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
I expect Kuennsberg and Brillo likely vote Tory, whilst Maitliss and Pienaar are Labour voters. Overall its output is neutral enough though, as evidenced by the fact it is attacked from both sides.
Laura K is the frontwoman. Agree that Emily is probably Labour but as she's buried on Newsnight at 10.30pm it hardly counts for much.
There’s also Emma Barnett, who while identifiably a ‘progressive’, is also an excellent journalist and interviewer.
Good political journalists don't let their personal political opinions get in the way. John Cole was IMO one of the best in that respect.
She doesn’t - but outside her job doesn’t pretend to someone without opinions.
Let's guess what the SNP will say if the Supreme Court rules against the Scottish court. Probably something to do with saying it's time for Scottish independence, (to state the obvious).
The Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme civil court. Blair’s “supreme court” is a breach of the Treaty of Union. One of many.
England cannot be trusted to hold her word.
Rubbish. The UKSC is simply a rebadging of the House of Lords Judicial Committee which exercised the House of Lords function as Scotland’s Supreme Civil Court that it had held since the Act of Union. See Donogue v Stephenson for example, a 1930 appeal from the Court of Session to the HL which is now the leading case in negligence in all parts of the U.K.
The reason the HL was the highest civil court in Scotland was that it inherited the civil jurisdiction of the old Scottish Parliament- the HL declined to hear criminal cases from Scotland once it concluded that the old parliament in Edinburgh did not, so no such jurisdiction had been inherited. Throughout medieval and early modern Europe legislatures or monarchs were the final courts of appeal. This was not an English invention.
Aimed, surely, less at the rebels and more at the media and membership. The Government can portray it as an olive branch but who, honestly, is going to come crawling back after all that has happened? They'd only come back if allowed to vote as necessary to prevent No Deal.
Poor old Tom Watson. From being the saviour of the Labour party he now cuts a rather isolated, Carl beech fantasy supporting figure.
It was quite funny this morning when he made his big attention seeking statement, and then 30 minutes later the judgement came down from the Court of Session.
Not even a footnote in history.
He's actually steered the leadership quite a long way on this issue, and may yet steer them further.
I am not sure his latest statement is directed at the wider public so much as the Labour Party ahead of conference.
Not a great Watson fan in many ways (due to the Beech affair in particular). But he's been resilient and pretty effective as Deputy Leader.
Don't jump too readily to conclusions in respect of the Beech affair. I know a number of other reliable sources who were as convinced as Watson that there was some fire creating the smoke.
If Watson was at fault it was perhaps in trusting to much in the integrity of the police investigation.
Our system is built for strong governments. Pre FTPA weak governments would just fail and need an election. Strong governments, even coalition ones, would govern until they failed. The FTPA has created a scenario previously untenable in the British constitution; the government can continually fail yet not call an election without the help of the opposition. And if the government continually keeps walking into rakes on the road, what sane opposition would lend them a hand instead of happily listen to every "thwack"?
TMay never tried to use an early election procedure after she lost her majority, and probably wouldn't have made anything brexit-related a matter of confidence even if she could, because she'd have lost.
What's really scrambling things is that there's an issue that's 1) more important than the parties 2) operating with firm deadlines that require action, unlike most controversial issues that can be postponed to avoid breaking the party
The SC judges will be basically the same ones who ruled in the Gina Miller case . The leader who retired was replaced by Lady Hale from that bench , and then a new judge added . Lord Sales who heard the original high court case which found against the government .
He was paraded as enemy of the people by the right wing press after the original case .
I'd be surprised if the majority don't tell him where to get off. Not least as they probably have a few more "Ayes" in them to opposition motions (eg on a VONC then VOC when parliament returns).
Depends if they want to stand again and get in I guess, they are finished as indies
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Keswick would bne closer to the middle of the UK ...
Fine by me, and it would make sure that the safety system at Sellafield Nuclear Centre is kept up to date.
That too! Someone else said Haltwhistle which may well be right if you don't include Rockall as well as Muckle Flugga (as I think I did). (The CI's don't count, do they?).
I think there are about 100 towns that claim to be the centre of the UK. It's impossible to give a definitive answer. How does one measure it?
In response to @WhisperingOracle, I don’t know whether the government has released the documents it was asked to. If it hasn’t, then when Parliament reconvenes it can hold the government in contempt and may seek to make further demands.
Briggs and Arden are commercial lawyers (although Arden has made a late switch to human rights), I don't think they will be too miffed. I don't know much about Kitchin but he seems to be an IP lawyer.
It is also impossible for the court to assess by any measurable standard how much time is required to hold the Government to account, including by passing legislation that would require the Prime Minister to take steps to avoid leaving the European Union without an agreement. This is graphically illustrated by the speed with which the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 6) Bill has been enacted. The ability of Parliament to move with speed when it chooses to do so undermines the underlying premise of the case for the claimant that prorogation would deny Parliament the opportunity to do precisely what it has now done. [57]
It is also consistent with Lord Doherty's reasoning. I frankly find the decision of the Inner House today quite bewildering. What's more, from the summary, 3 different Judges seem to have found 3 different reasons for reaching the conclusion.
I need to be careful what I say on a public website but Lord Reed will play a very important role next week. If Sumption, with his superb Reith lectures, is at one end of judicial activism then Lord Reed is at the other. Many of his judgments read more like a discussion of public policy than the law. The temptation on his part to decline any right to intervene will not be hard to resist. He may be outvoted though.
It’s not bewildering at all - just that today’s judgment comes at it from the other end.
It is, of course, not up to the courts to decide how long Parliament might need to do any particular thing. That is really none of their business - not indeed is what other things Parliament might wish to consider in its own time. But it is a far simpler matter to decide on sensible limits to the power of prorogation, which unequivocally prevents Parliament from doing anything at all.
Again, why haven't the opposition got rid of this dangerous government?
If ever there was a time to not disturb your opponents whilst they are in the process of destroying themselves this has to be it.
Kinda of undermines the "these awful barbarians will bring down civilization" argument, though.
That's just the usual political hyperbole. Cummings cunning plan and desperation for a pre-Oct 31 GE is so transparent the opposition would have to be crackers to fall for it. With Cummings at the helm the Conservative party is in the process of doing itself lasting damage. It will get worse as Oct 31 rolls around.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage. U The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
Sky and ch4 for me
Channel 4 are highly impartial.
*guffaws*
Has Channel 4 often been fined for breaching its duty of impartiality, or is this another right (and left) wing meme: if you say often enough that a broadcaster is biased, people will believe it?
I like ch4 because it does investigative journalism it’s not trying to put both side of an argument. It is investigating government actions because it is the government not because it is tory. It also investigates uncomfortable issues for labour ie anti semitism.
For Millar: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge.
Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.
New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
Lord Sales found against the government in the original case at the High Court and would have clearly upheld his own view if he had been in the SC.
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
I would read almost nothing into this past history. Different case, different considerations. The Mail last time tried to study the judges’ Europhilia, complete with star rating. It bore no resemblance to the actual division of judges.
Is Lord Nimmo-Smith a funny name for Dominic Cummings?
I think it's fair to say DC isn't a former senior Scottish judge and pre-eminent expert on Scots law, unlike the good Lord. Can't imagine why Boris wants to see him.. probably just having a catch-up over a cuppa.
For Millar: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge.
Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.
New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
Lord Sales found against the government in the original case at the High Court and would have clearly upheld his own view if he had been in the SC.
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
Although clearly this is a totally different case, I'm sure their honours look at each case on its merits!
I certainly advise following the case . I read every daily transcript . These QCs really earn their money . I never thought law could be so fascinating . Of course I need to get out more !
For Millar: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge.
Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.
New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
Lord Sales found against the government in the original case at the High Court and would have clearly upheld his own view if he had been in the SC.
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
I would read almost nothing into this past history. Different case, different considerations. The Mail last time tried to study the judges’ Europhilia, complete with star rating. It bore no resemblance to the actual division of judges.
Our system was built for strong governments. Pre FTPA weak governments would just fail and need an election. Strong governments, even coalition ones, would govern until they failed. The FTPA has created a scenario previously untenable in the British constitution; the government can continually fail yet not call an election without the help of the opposition. And if the government continually keeps walking into rakes on the road, what sane opposition would lend them a hand instead of happily listen to every "thwack", thinking that when the GE finally does come, the governing party will be covered in bruises?
It is not just the FTPA alone. It is that combined with the actions of a partisan Speaker who has made repeated rulings that blatantly disregard precedent in order to allow the opposition to take over the business of the HoC at will, so that those "thwacks" keep coming thick and fast.
In summary, for a government that has lost its majority, the FTPA has removed the discretion over the timing of a GE from the government and given it to the opposition. Bercow has provided the opposition with incentives to avoid holding a GE through improperly allowing it to control parliamentary business.
For Millar: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge.
Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.
New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
Lord Sales found against the government in the original case at the High Court and would have clearly upheld his own view if he had been in the SC.
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
I would read almost nothing into this past history. Different case, different considerations. The Mail last time tried to study the judges’ Europhilia, complete with star rating. It bore no resemblance to the actual division of judges.
What? Almost like they acted independently of their own prejudices and made an objective judgment based on the evidence before them? How very old fashioned...
Our system is built for strong governments. Pre FTPA weak governments would just fail and need an election. Strong governments, even coalition ones, would govern until they failed. The FTPA has created a scenario previously untenable in the British constitution; the government can continually fail yet not call an election without the help of the opposition. And if the government continually keeps walking into rakes on the road, what sane opposition would lend them a hand instead of happily listen to every "thwack"?
TMay never tried to use an early election procedure after she lost her majority, and probably wouldn't have made anything brexit-related a matter of confidence even if she could, because she'd have lost.
What's really scrambling things is that there's an issue that's 1) more important than the parties 2) operating with firm deadlines that require action, unlike most controversial issues that can be postponed to avoid breaking the party
But pre FTPA Cameron may have called an election during the coalition years (remember when it was kinda astounding that the government lost a vote to go to war?), May would have been pulled down earlier or had the ability to call another election (even if she didn't really want to) and Johnson could have immediately called an election on becoming PM rather than repeatedly being whacked in the face.
The idea of a GE was another whip with which to beat MPs. "If you don't support the PM on this issue and the government fails, we will have a GE". Without that whip, there has been a massive increase in disloyalty to the government within the governing party (something to bear in mind with a potential Corbyn premiership).
You can claim the Brexit mess created it, but I kinda think it is chicken and egg. Sans FTPA would MPs have rebelled against May the way they did, and would some Labour MPs have been more enticed to vote for the deal considering the governing party was unified. Many Labour MPs could hide behind the argument that even if they did vote for the Deal (at times) it would have failed due to ERGers, so why spend their political capital attempting to assist a government their voters and members hate for no outcome some of their voters may have wanted?
For Millar: Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge.
Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.
New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
Lord Sales found against the government in the original case at the High Court and would have clearly upheld his own view if he had been in the SC.
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
I would read almost nothing into this past history. Different case, different considerations. The Mail last time tried to study the judges’ Europhilia, complete with star rating. It bore no resemblance to the actual division of judges.
Dont tell hyufd that, he based his entire view that the judiciary is for remain on it.
This all seems like a good justification to ditch Boris. Per OGH passim the MPs never liked him in the first place, they can get rid of him in a secret ballot and presumably put their own emergency guy in, hopefully that person will be able to win a subsequent membership ballot and they won't end up with Prito Patel.
What I’m not clear on is whether that process can be initiated whilst Parliament is prorogued.
But, if it’s recalled, and Boris doesn’t resign, I’d have thought Brady would easily get his now 44 letters, and I suspect there are still enough honourable Tory MPs to defeat him.
He’d probably lose by 162 to 126 MPs, or something like that.
Poor old Tom Watson. From being the saviour of the Labour party he now cuts a rather isolated, Carl beech fantasy supporting figure.
It was quite funny this morning when he made his big attention seeking statement, and then 30 minutes later the judgement came down from the Court of Session.
Not even a footnote in history.
He's actually steered the leadership quite a long way on this issue, and may yet steer them further.
I am not sure his latest statement is directed at the wider public so much as the Labour Party ahead of conference.
Not a great Watson fan in many ways (due to the Beech affair in particular). But he's been resilient and pretty effective as Deputy Leader.
Don't jump too readily to conclusions in respect of the Beech affair. I know a number of other reliable sources who were as convinced as Watson that there was some fire creating the smoke.
If Watson was at fault it was perhaps in trusting to much in the integrity of the police investigation.
Back in 1997, I got my first invite to visit parliament by a friend who was involved (in a minor way) in the Labour campaign, and who had gone to work there. He was a trustworthy bloke, and he told me nudge-nudge, wink-wink that Lord McAlpine was a wrong 'un. (He mentioned it as he knew I was heavily into civil engineering, and the McAlpine name was familiar to both of us).
My friend was utterly wrong, and McAlpine had to suffer years of innuendo whispered behind his back before Newsnight, Sally Bercow etc did their stupidity and he could take them to court to clear his name.
*If* Watson, goldsmith etc thought that Beech was credible, they should have been 100% sure before abusing parliamentary privilege in that manner.
And as for Watson trusting the police investigation too much; it seems to me that he and Exaro News were involved too much in the investigation. Coaching Beech, almost.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
Solution to several issues at once - reconvene the UK parliament in Edinburgh.
Addresses: widespread distaste among voters for Westminster; unlawful prorogation; London-centricity; feeling that Scotland is ruled from 'abroad', issues with the fabric of the Houses of Parliament.... Plus lots more no doubt.
It would certainly be a good idea to rotate it, through all four parts. MPS would have an excuse for a house in each location. In retrospect it would have been far better than devolution which has just given us loads more lightweight politicians.
Can you name any other country which uses this model? It would be very impractical. The usual way around this problem is to have a clearly defined federal sytem, so that it is clear who has responsibility for what.
Decamping the UK government to a town in the middle of the UK, maybe Chesterfield, would be worth considering though.
Keswick would bne closer to the middle of the UK ...
Fine by me, and it would make sure that the safety system at Sellafield Nuclear Centre is kept up to date.
That too! Someone else said Haltwhistle which may well be right if you don't include Rockall as well as Muckle Flugga (as I think I did). (The CI's don't count, do they?).
I think there are about 100 towns that claim to be the centre of the UK. It's impossible to give a definitive answer. How does one measure it?
If your asking! I found out this weekend, that to measure the geographical centre of the DDR, researchers at Leipzig Uni made a wooden cut out of the country and found the point where it balanced on a large needle. This is marked by a post in a wood in Fläming (Brandenburg) which I randomly happend to cycle past.
The DDR only had 2 islands of note which are both close to the mainland, so I'm guessing they included the water in between. The UK of course is very non-contiguous and would be difficult to find the centre using this method. I guess you would just have to use the boring method of a computer and some maths to calculate the centre.
Table stakes but there’s a bit of money on Exchange at 10.5 for Boris to go by the end of September.
Probably 5/2 chance Supreme Court upholds the judgement so perhaps a tiny bit of value there. His premiership looks untenable if it rules against, though he might try and hold on.
A genuine question. How do we know the privy council didn't advise HMQ to prorogue parl because they want a QS AND it would assist their Brexit policy? She cant refuse so the advice seems somewhat irrelevant?
If your asking! I found out this weekend, that to measure the geographical centre of the DDR, researchers at Leipzig Uni made a wooden cut out of the country and found the point where it balanced on a large needle. This is marked by a post in a wood in Fläming (Brandenburg) which I randomly happend to cycle past.
The DDR only had 2 islands of note which are both close to the mainland, so I'm guessing they included the water in between. The UK of course is very non-contiguous and would be difficult to find the centre using this method. I guess you would just have to use the boring method of a computer and some maths to calculate the centre.
A genuine question. How do we know the privy council didn't advise HMQ to prorogue parl because they want a QS AND it would assist their Brexit policy? She cant refuse so the advice seems somewhat irrelevant?
We don't - but based on the evidence submitted to them, the court has formed a view.
A genuine question. How do we know the privy council didn't advise HMQ to prorogue parl because they want a QS AND it would assist their Brexit policy? She cant refuse so the advice seems somewhat irrelevant?
The suggestions that the government misled the Queen seem to be coming from alleged whistleblowers via MPs.
A genuine question. How do we know the privy council didn't advise HMQ to prorogue parl because they want a QS AND it would assist their Brexit policy? She cant refuse so the advice seems somewhat irrelevant?
We don't - but based on the evidence submitted to them, the court has formed a view.
Yes but if HMQ cannot decline the request to prorogue anyway, i'm not sure how it matters?
The idea of a GE was another whip with which to beat MPs. "If you don't support the PM on this issue and the government fails, we will have a GE". Without that whip, there has been a massive increase in disloyalty to the government within the governing party (something to bear in mind with a potential Corbyn premiership).
Was there much evidence of disloyalty in the Coalition government? Was disloyalty really greater between June 2015 and June 2017 than in the Major Years or the Callaghan Years?
Many political observers including Thatcher in the Major Years have said that MPs are allowed to be freer when the government has a healthy Majority and a certain amount of disloyalty is tolerated. When the majority is small or negative then every abstention can potentially make a difference, which is why it makes big news.
Disloyalty to the Johnson government has been a feature of his short term in office, but that has everything to do with Johnson and little to do with the FTPA.
A genuine question. How do we know the privy council didn't advise HMQ to prorogue parl because they want a QS AND it would assist their Brexit policy? She cant refuse so the advice seems somewhat irrelevant?
Firstly, the Court of Session decided the purpose (stymying Parliamentary debate) was improper whether or not it was also pursued dishonestly.
Secondly, the Court of Session in fact had (redacted) background documents.
Comments
Not at all the same as the current situation - the government has not been honest about the reasons for the prorogation and it is opposed by a majority of MPs.
England cannot be trusted to hold her word.
You have voted Tory at the last few general elections, and say you would vote Tory again (for the odious fool Andrea Jenkyns) yet deny you are a Tory.
Worth noting that you voted for the dire Jenkyns in preference to the sensible moderate Ed Balls.
It has always been thus. This is just a very obvious example of the phenomenon.
Secondly, there's no indication he lied - indeed, it appears he was quite open that the purpose was other than for the preparation of the King's Speech.
Thirdly, it is conceivable that the purpose for which he prorogued WAS proper, but the purpose for which this Government prorogued was not.
Finally, if Attlee acted unlawfully there is little that can be done now as it was not challenged and the limitation on action would apply due to the decades that have passed. It doesn't make it lawful but if, say, I breached a contract with you in 1983, the time has long passed to litigate it.
However the opinion might still be politically damaging for Johnson as to motive . I intend to do what I did with the original Gina Miller ruling and read all the Court transcripts .
Indeed you can get a good idea of where the judges might go in terms of ruling by their questions and responses .
Damage will be if it can be proven documents were withheld
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1171773986277089280
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1171774091583528962
*guffaws*
Edit: Note he has retired...
No Kitchin, Briggs or Arden.
You wrote: "Indeed it’s rather like those PB Tories who vote Tory at every election yet deny they are Tories."
And then cited me as an example of such.
Now you claim that which denies the truth of your argument (namely I have many times voted for others) as proof of its veracity.
Your heart is black or your head is empty. You jester. You fool. You Boris Johnson.
John Cole was IMO one of the best in that respect.
Our system was built for strong governments. Pre FTPA weak governments would just fail and need an election. Strong governments, even coalition ones, would govern until they failed. The FTPA has created a scenario previously untenable in the British constitution; the government can continually fail yet not call an election without the help of the opposition. And if the government continually keeps walking into rakes on the road, what sane opposition would lend them a hand instead of happily listen to every "thwack", thinking that when the GE finally does come, the governing party will be covered in bruises?
I need to be careful what I say on a public website but Lord Reed will play a very important role next week. If Sumption, with his superb Reith lectures, is at one end of judicial activism then Lord Reed is at the other. Many of his judgments read more like a discussion of public policy than the law. The temptation on his part to decline any right to intervene will not be hard to resist. He may be outvoted though.
I hope each of those mentioned in the Grieve SO24 motion have been wise enough to get their own legal advice. In the event of illegality the most sensible one would be the one that goes to see inspector plod first ideally with a journalist coming along for the record.
The reason the HL was the highest civil court in Scotland was that it inherited the civil jurisdiction of the old Scottish Parliament- the HL declined to hear criminal cases from Scotland once it concluded that the old parliament in Edinburgh did not, so no such jurisdiction had been inherited. Throughout medieval and early modern Europe legislatures or monarchs were the final courts of appeal. This was not an English invention.
But that was uncalled for!
If Watson was at fault it was perhaps in trusting to much in the integrity of the police investigation.
What's really scrambling things is that there's an issue that's
1) more important than the parties
2) operating with firm deadlines that require action, unlike most controversial issues that can be postponed to avoid breaking the party
The SC judges will be basically the same ones who ruled in the Gina Miller case . The leader who retired was replaced by Lady Hale from that bench , and then a new judge added . Lord Sales who heard the original high court case which found against the government .
He was paraded as enemy of the people by the right wing press after the original case .
Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale,Lord Mance, Lord Kerr,Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson,Lord Sumptionand Lord Hodge.Dissent: Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and
Lord Hughesdissented.New: Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales
So the split from Millar is 4-2 with 2 new justices.
I’m on him at 35/1.
Not necessarily, though. As CoDL he has a very wide ranging brief and may have been party to this, particularly since he’s close to Cummings.
It rather depends on what happens in the courts.
Interesting times!
So just on GM the split is 5 to 2 .
It is, of course, not up to the courts to decide how long Parliament might need to do any particular thing. That is really none of their business - not indeed is what other things Parliament might wish to consider in its own time.
But it is a far simpler matter to decide on sensible limits to the power of prorogation, which unequivocally prevents Parliament from doing anything at all.
The unconstitutional takes a while to fall apart.
In summary, for a government that has lost its majority, the FTPA has removed the discretion over the timing of a GE from the government and given it to the opposition. Bercow has provided the opposition with incentives to avoid holding a GE through improperly allowing it to control parliamentary business.
The idea of a GE was another whip with which to beat MPs. "If you don't support the PM on this issue and the government fails, we will have a GE". Without that whip, there has been a massive increase in disloyalty to the government within the governing party (something to bear in mind with a potential Corbyn premiership).
You can claim the Brexit mess created it, but I kinda think it is chicken and egg. Sans FTPA would MPs have rebelled against May the way they did, and would some Labour MPs have been more enticed to vote for the deal considering the governing party was unified. Many Labour MPs could hide behind the argument that even if they did vote for the Deal (at times) it would have failed due to ERGers, so why spend their political capital attempting to assist a government their voters and members hate for no outcome some of their voters may have wanted?
But, if it’s recalled, and Boris doesn’t resign, I’d have thought Brady would easily get his now 44 letters, and I suspect there are still enough honourable Tory MPs to defeat him.
He’d probably lose by 162 to 126 MPs, or something like that.
My friend was utterly wrong, and McAlpine had to suffer years of innuendo whispered behind his back before Newsnight, Sally Bercow etc did their stupidity and he could take them to court to clear his name.
*If* Watson, goldsmith etc thought that Beech was credible, they should have been 100% sure before abusing parliamentary privilege in that manner.
And as for Watson trusting the police investigation too much; it seems to me that he and Exaro News were involved too much in the investigation. Coaching Beech, almost.
Refreshingly unhyperbolic
The DDR only had 2 islands of note which are both close to the mainland, so I'm guessing they included the water in between. The UK of course is very non-contiguous and would be difficult to find the centre using this method. I guess you would just have to use the boring method of a computer and some maths to calculate the centre.
Probably 5/2 chance Supreme Court upholds the judgement so perhaps a tiny bit of value there. His premiership looks untenable if it rules against, though he might try and hold on.
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2014/08/where-is-the-centre-of-great-britain-2/
NEW THREAD
Many political observers including Thatcher in the Major Years have said that MPs are allowed to be freer when the government has a healthy Majority and a certain amount of disloyalty is tolerated. When the majority is small or negative then every abstention can potentially make a difference, which is why it makes big news.
Disloyalty to the Johnson government has been a feature of his short term in office, but that has everything to do with Johnson and little to do with the FTPA.
Secondly, the Court of Session in fact had (redacted) background documents.