One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
That isn't 'splitting hairs' as you claim. That's a fundamental tenet of the Supreme Court's role – and is integral to the Act of Union and Scotland's and England's status as legally separate nations.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
But that isn't the issue. The court isn't saying that prorogation needs a Parliamentary vote. As I understand it, they are saying that it remains a prerogative power but one which was exercised for an improper purpose.
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.
What I'm saying is that this should be left to Her Maj to decide (if you don't like that, get rid of the monarchy - but you'll need to win an election first).
As a general point, I don't particularly like laws where intent matters. I don't like the LBW law in cricket where it matters as to whether a batsmen was playing a shot or not. Similarly, I don't care what motives Boris had for calling a Queen's Speech. If it was in his gift to do so, then so be it.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
Wait, the Supreme Court doesn't have the competency to apply laws of other legal jurisdictions to judgements in Scotland.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was a properly applied.
People need to understand this.
Yeah, the difference in the US is there is one overarching federal legal framework; in the UK there is Scottish Law, English Law and Northern Irish Law. The Supreme Court is fluent in all 3 and must judge cases brought in those jurisdictions against the individual traditions and precedents. There is no one overarching UK law.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
Since we are talking about the UKSC in its form as the final interpreter of Scottish Civil Law we should refer to it under its Gaelic name: An Àrd-Chùirt….
Perhaps he has threatened Johnson with resignation unless he sacks Cummings (or whoever attacked the judges) and is waiting on his response. Living in hope.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You can look at it both ways. The Con share is down compared with Kantar's last poll.
On the other hand, the last Kantar poll was the only one they had produced for several months and as a one off the 14% lead then could in part be ascribed to sampling error with the expectation that the lead would revert more closely to the mean in the next sample. Now that they have produced another with the same lead, it's harder to make the argument that the Con lead (as opposed to the Con share) was down to sample variation as opposed to house effects.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
Since we are talking about the UKSC in its form as the final interpreter of Scottish Civil Law we should refer to it under its Gaelic name: An Àrd-Chùirt….
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
It's almost as though the opposition wanted the government to prorogue parliament...
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
I'm afraid to say that this has entitlement and us vs them written all over it. Hatched by Cummings no doubt and endorsed enthusiastically by his OE acolytes it simply looks as though they had enough disdain of the plebs so as not to care and that they would giggle and brazen (and lounge) their way through it.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
I personally believe it would take an Act of Parliament (ie passed by both houses or under the Parliament Act) to fetter the Royal Prerogative of prorogation. My dim memory of constitutional law at law school suggests De Kaiser’s Royal Hotel would be authority for that.
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
If the Scottish courts have indeed just made a ruling, the consequences of which are entirely unclear and result in lawyers arguing amongst themselves as to how it should be interpreted, can't we at least agree on one point from across the Brexit divide?
Namely that the Scottish courts are every bit as cr*p as their football team.
Careful: you’ll upset the nationalists.
We expect moronic comments like that from xenophobic unionist knuckle draggers.
A quote from Attwood in that interview: "Well, if you don't have parliament you're cooked, because you will have a dictatorship" ... "If that's what you want go ahead. You won't like it!"
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
I personally believe it would take an Act of Parliament (ie passed by both houses or under the Parliament Act) to fetter the Royal Prerogative of prorogation. My dim memory of constitutional law at law school suggests De Kaiser’s Royal Hotel would be authority for that.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
I personally believe it would take an Act of Parliament (ie passed by both houses or under the Parliament Act) to fetter the Royal Prerogative of prorogation. My dim memory of constitutional law at law school suggests De Kaiser’s Royal Hotel would be authority for that.
You say De Kaiser; I say De Keyser.
Like I say - a dim memory! TBF I probably made the same mistake in the exam though
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?
Some ignorant morons on here who cannot understand that England does not equal UK
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
Why do you say the English want to hold onto Scotland?
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution;of course there will be various political reasons for a Government to ask HM to do so some of which may be construed as "good" and some "bad" depending on your political viewpoint.A court cannot intervene to determine which it considers good and which not good as otherwise it would continually be intervening in executive political decisions.Pretty simple really.
If the Scottish courts have indeed just made a ruling, the consequences of which are entirely unclear and result in lawyers arguing amongst themselves as to how it should be interpreted, can't we at least agree on one point from across the Brexit divide?
Namely that the Scottish courts are every bit as cr*p as their football team.
Careful: you’ll upset the nationalists.
We expect moronic comments like that from xenophobic unionist knuckle draggers.
Far be it for me to defend Casino Royale, but that is a bit rich coming from a nationalist. Nationalism of any stripe a philosophy that has xenophobia, hatred of others and parochialism at its core.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
Why do you say the English want to hold onto Scotland?
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
Except its not even a case of the English wanting to keep a hold of Scotland. Its bonds of family and history tying us together and which have resulted in plenty of people having a British or UK identity. The UK is full of people who might have been born in Wales, married someone from Scotland, whose kids were born in England and who are now living in Northern Ireland. Too much us and them in nationalism.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
An inconvenient fact which explains why the opposition don't want an election.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution;of course there will be various political reasons for a Government to ask HM to do so some of which may be construed as "good" and some "bad" depending on your political viewpoint.A court cannot intervene to determine which it considers good and which not good as otherwise it would continually be intervening in executive political decisions.Pretty simple really.
It is very unlikely the court is doing that. It is not a political decision it will be based on points of legal interpretation. Three judges are not going to open themselves up to the suggestion of political bias from their peers. They know they will have to endure that from the uninformed, but that goes with the territory.
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You can look at it both ways. The Con share is down compared with Kantar's last poll.
On the other hand, the last Kantar poll was the only one they had produced for several months and as a one off the 14% lead then could in part be ascribed to sampling error with the expectation that the lead would revert more closely to the mean in the next sample. Now that they have produced another with the same lead, it's harder to make the argument that the Con lead (as opposed to the Con share) was down to sample variation as opposed to house effects.
It depends heavily on how the 53% vote for Remain (including Labour) falls.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution;of course there will be various political reasons for a Government to ask HM to do so some of which may be construed as "good" and some "bad" depending on your political viewpoint.A court cannot intervene to determine which it considers good and which not good as otherwise it would continually be intervening in executive political decisions.Pretty simple really.
Agree. At the end of the day there's no way, short of getting Cummings, Johnson, Mogg, etc to tell the truth, to prove it was otherwise. Except it seems there was documentation which showed that the Queen's speech ruse was just that. Proroguing is not illegal. Lying about the reasons why proroguing happened appears to be.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution;of course there will be various political reasons for a Government to ask HM to do so some of which may be construed as "good" and some "bad" depending on your political viewpoint.A court cannot intervene to determine which it considers good and which not good as otherwise it would continually be intervening in executive political decisions.Pretty simple really.
That’s not what the judgment says. It says that the basis for the prorogation was not for the Queen’s Speech, but to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive, which is unlawful. If the UKSC disagrees then so be it but this judgment expressly says that the reason you recite for the prorogation was not the true one.
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
Except its not even a case of the English wanting to keep a hold of Scotland. Its bonds of family and history tying us together and which have resulted in plenty of people having a British or UK identity. The UK is full of people who might have been born in Wales, married someone from Scotland, whose kids were born in England and who are now living in Northern Ireland. Too much us and them in nationalism.
So? Exacty the same could be said about (the rest of) Ireland, Canada, NZ, etc. before and after independence. T
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution;of course there will be various political reasons for a Government to ask HM to do so some of which may be construed as "good" and some "bad" depending on your political viewpoint.A court cannot intervene to determine which it considers good and which not good as otherwise it would continually be intervening in executive political decisions.Pretty simple really.
If the government's omission of the witness documents are for the reasons some have speculated on, it may not be sharing your confidence.
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?
Some ignorant morons on here who cannot understand that England does not equal UK
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
Grounds for Brenda to fire Boris? Historically, ministries had to have the confidence of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
As I say, observe Zimbabwe. Having the largest number of supporters does not always demonstrate purity or legitimacy. Besides those numbers will most probably change. People don't like corrupt government as a whole.
The depressing thing is you could see that this Culture War was likely to arrive here from the United States about 20 years ago. It was always going to take a long time to migrate across the Atlantic but was inevitably going to do so eventually. Politicians and judges at loggerheads for example. Identity politics, etc.
I fully expect this decision to be overturned in the SC for the reasons given by Lord Sumption on Newsnight. Proroguing for a new Queen's speech is legal and part of our constitution....
The court fully acknowledges that, but went on to rule that the principal purpose of this particular prorogation, on the evidence before it, was to frustrate Parliament.
Observing this government's death is almost getting revolting. It is like watching a medieval execution where the victim is kept alive to see his own organs and entrails slowly removed. The Executive is being slowly executed.
And yet we've just had an opinion poll giving this government a 14% lead which in an election would translate to a majority of nearly 150 seats?
lol - I very much doubt that will happen. It is the ground game that counts and the opposition parties have a tremendous advantage in numbers, motivation etc...
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
That isn't 'splitting hairs' as you claim. That's a fundamental tenet of the Supreme Court's role – and is integral to the Act of Union and Scotland's and England's status as legally separate nations.
I'm surprised you don't grasp this.
Argue it as you like. But I am sure that the UKSC will not in any circumstances reach a judgement that an action in respect of a parliament governing the whole of the UK was legal under English law and illegal under Scottish law.
With your "I'm surprised you don't grasp this" you descended into snide asides so forgive me if I don't bother responding further to you.
The full statement of the court explaining its judgment (not the full judgment itself);
The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.
A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).
A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.
The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts... contd.
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crook
You're actually going to spin a 14% Con lead as good news for REMAIN?
You surely don't think the blue rinses are going to stay loyal now that Boris has been caught telling their Queen porkies?
What "porkies" did Boris tell the Queen ? This is highly defamatory .
The court held that he misled the Queen as to the reasons for the prorogation. It held that he did it, not to prepare for the Queen’s Speech, but rather to prevent parliamentary oversight of the executive
Contd. ...The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.
All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.
The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.
Grounds for Brenda to fire Boris? Historically, ministries had to have the confidence of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
HMQ does not "fire" her Prime Minister.
But if the supreme court finds the PM has acted unlawfully in the advice he has given her then of course his position and that of his government would be untennable.
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; congestion around Parliament Square.... Plus lots more no doubt.
Grounds for Brenda to fire Boris? Historically, ministries had to have the confidence of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
HMQ does not "fire" her Prime Minister.
But if the supreme country finds the PM has acted unlawfully in the advice he has given her then of course his position and that of his government would be untennable.
If they want to leave the UK, so be it. Same with Scotland. Where did the idea come from that the English want to "hold on" to Scotland and NI?
Its an extraordinary failing of the Conservative and Unionist Party and perhaps some self reflection by the English Nats about why the other parts of the UK want to leave would be in order.
Indeed. The whole period of 2012-2014 shows that the English - or at least their reps in Westminster - want to hold on to Scotland. Not so much the English populace, according to polls not so long ago, especially if it gets in the way of Brexit etc. |Which is another reason why confirmation of the Scots court decision,l and of the English one, will have some very interesting political impacts.
Except its not even a case of the English wanting to keep a hold of Scotland. Its bonds of family and history tying us together and which have resulted in plenty of people having a British or UK identity. The UK is full of people who might have been born in Wales, married someone from Scotland, whose kids were born in England and who are now living in Northern Ireland. Too much us and them in nationalism.
You're quite right; there's a lot of mixing. Isn't Mr G's wife a Scot?
My sister was born in Wales, married an Englishman of part-Russian ancestry, moved to Scotland and had three children, but now lives in the last remnants of the Duchy of Normandy. One of her children still lives in Scotland, the other two are now in England. One's married to an Ulsterman; their children were, IIRC, born in the UAE.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
That isn't 'splitting hairs' as you claim. That's a fundamental tenet of the Supreme Court's role – and is integral to the Act of Union and Scotland's and England's status as legally separate nations.
I'm surprised you don't grasp this.
Argue it as you like. But I am sure that the UKSC will not in any circumstances reach a judgement that an action in respect of a parliament governing the whole of the UK was legal under English law and illegal under Scottish law.
With your "I'm surprised you don't grasp this" you descended into snide asides so forgive me if I don't bother responding further to you.
Not necessarily in this case - but given the different foundations of government and sovereignty in England&Wales and in Scotland (different acts of different dates, different constitutional principles and precedents) I would have thought that such a conflict is a priori entirely possible while conforming entirely correctly to each legal system.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
But that isn't the issue. The court isn't saying that prorogation needs a Parliamentary vote. As I understand it, they are saying that it remains a prerogative power but one which was exercised for an improper purpose.
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.
What I'm saying is that this should be left to Her Maj to decide (if you don't like that, get rid of the monarchy - but you'll need to win an election first).
As a general point, I don't particularly like laws where intent matters. I don't like the LBW law in cricket where it matters as to whether a batsmen was playing a shot or not. Similarly, I don't care what motives Boris had for calling a Queen's Speech. If it was in his gift to do so, then so be it.
Even worse in the LBW rule the intent of playing a shot only matters if the ball hits the batsman outside off stump. The problem here is that against spin bowlers lots of batsmen will bring the bat down behind the front leg only pretending that they are playing a shot.
What I dislike the most is the leg bye rule where your team only get runs if you intended to hit the ball. Either all leg byes should be disallowed or allowed even if no shot was intended.
Comments
"YOU WANTED BJ.
SUCK IT UP!"
I'm surprised you don't grasp this.
Con 32.8%, Lab 25.7%, LD 18.0%, BRX 12.8%, Greens 3.9%, SNP 3.9%.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1171736621181526017
As a general point, I don't particularly like laws where intent matters. I don't like the LBW law in cricket where it matters as to whether a batsmen was playing a shot or not. Similarly, I don't care what motives Boris had for calling a Queen's Speech. If it was in his gift to do so, then so be it.
1. VoNC Boris
2. Put Blackford in as PM
3. Revoke A50
4. Pass a Scottish Independence Act.
(The HoL might hold them up on step 4. though.)
https://twitter.com/RobertBuckland/status/1171737006688362496?s=20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom
Will just Scottish MPs sit in parliament?!
I didn't have high hopes for Boris but this shambles is beyond all expectations of incompetence.
Has to be an election sooner rather than later, one way or another, right?
Sounds like the answer like most of political questions in 2019 is maybe! The speaker would be key so it would have certainly have been plausible, and that parliamentarians didnt even seem to initiate an attempt to do this does give your argument considerable weight.
Who knows if anyone else manages to go into government then.
On the other hand, the last Kantar poll was the only one they had produced for several months and as a one off the 14% lead then could in part be ascribed to sampling error with the expectation that the lead would revert more closely to the mean in the next sample. Now that they have produced another with the same lead, it's harder to make the argument that the Con lead (as opposed to the Con share) was down to sample variation as opposed to house effects.
Obviously there is a large persistent difference from other pollsters.
"Well, if you don't have parliament you're cooked, because you will have a dictatorship" ... "If that's what you want go ahead. You won't like it!"
Lets see if that will cut though with middle England.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/10/justin-trudeau-canadian-election-survival-1712761
of Parliament and the Crown. The latter has become a dead letter as in effect the ministry is the Crown for almost all practical purposes, but it is based on the assumption that ministers are actually telling the Queen the truth when advising her on exercising her prerogative powers.
With your "I'm surprised you don't grasp this" you descended into snide asides so forgive me if I don't bother responding further to you.
Of course, nobody really knows how that split would play out in a general election.
The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.
A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).
A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.
The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts...
contd.
...The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.
All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.
The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.
But if the supreme court finds the PM has acted unlawfully in the advice he has given her then of course his position and that of his government would be untennable.
"Boris lies to the Queen" could have cut-through.
Incidentally has the Lord Chancellor publicly condemned No 10's attack o the Scottish judges for doing their job, as he is legally obliged to do?
And if not why not?
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; congestion around Parliament Square.... Plus lots more no doubt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
My sister was born in Wales, married an Englishman of part-Russian ancestry, moved to Scotland and had three children, but now lives in the last remnants of the Duchy of Normandy. One of her children still lives in Scotland, the other two are now in England. One's married to an Ulsterman; their children were, IIRC, born in the UAE.
What I dislike the most is the leg bye rule where your team only get runs if you intended to hit the ball. Either all leg byes should be disallowed or allowed even if no shot was intended.