So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
[SNIP]
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
A very good summary indeed.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
Pretty much agree. The SC could compromise by saying that the matter is justiciable, and that the Divisional Court has gone too far, but that in this case while borderline and an unimpressive use of political judgement it is not clearly unconstitutional.
The court's ultimate jurisdiction over prorogation is essential in defence of democracy and to avoid tyranny, and I hope they say so clearly. In this case I think the government will win by a majority.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
Firstly, I don't see finding against the govt as a crisis. It just shows that somebody in a position of power acted unlawfully. That's not an unusual or unexpected state of affairs. It doesn't change much other than this sort of chicanery is harder to do in future. But it's pretty rare anyway. Secondly, even if the consequences are profound in terms of the current leadership (and I think the PM should probably resign if the unlawfulness of his actions are confirmed), that's only a political drama, not a constitutional crisis. If politically motivated actions come up against the law, the law should not get out of the way. The government is not and should never be above the law.
He is giving them a chance to debate and vote that’s it .
Why are the ERG so frightened of MPs having a voice . Clearly they’re only allowed to if they support the no deal crash out .
Jenkin needs to STFU and stop talking garbage .
MPs have had three years to debate and come up with a position they agree on.
TBF for most of that time it's been delegated to the government. If you need the government to negotiate what parliament can then accept or reject then they can only really play a part for the brief periods that the government has an actual proposal, short of firing the government and making a new one.
The floor of the house isn’t the only place discussions can happen, it’s only where the motions/legislation need to be passed when a common position is agreed.
Sure, but if you've got a government that's in charge of the negotiations, and it's only interested in getting a common position between itself and the DUP, there's only so much everyome else can do until such time as it shows up with a proposal and realises, oh shit, we don't have the votes without involving the rest of these chumps.
There was a short period when TMay was in discussions like this, but she was swiftly deposed by her own party. And we may well be in another period now when parliament have a role, because the government's majority has spontaneously combusted. But mostly, parliament has had to wait for the government to bring it something, with each something followed by a short period of feverish activity.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
In the same way a southern accent doesn't equal metropolitan liberal elite.
So we now have the detailed reasoning of both the High Court in England and the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. The key difference of approach between them seems to me the question of justiciability. The High Court's conclusion was that this question had to be addressed first before considering the merits of the use of prorogation in this case. They concluded that it was not justiciable and had no need to say anything about the merits.
[SNIP]
I think that it is helpful that the SC will have 2 reasoned decisions from different courts setting out the position. There was a real risk, given the incredibly accelerated procedure, that the SC was going to be sitting effectively as a court of first instance with little to assist it.
For me, the argument of the High Court judges is by far the more persuasive in that it is much more consistent with precedent. Of course one of the attractive features of the common law system is that it evolves over time and it is not impossible that the SC will find the extended role for the courts implicit in the Scottish decision attractive and consistent with the application of the rule of law.
I think that the Scottish decisions firstly go too far in concluding that the prorogation was not for a proper purpose and secondly rather ignoring the point that there are no legal standards against which the use of prorogation can be measured. My guess is that the SC decision will find for the government but it is not going to be a walk in the park.
A very good summary indeed.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
The real question here, however, should be the extent of government power without sanction from parliament, rather than the amount of time that parliament can be not sitting. Government powers should be limited such that they *need* parliamentary approval for anything significant. Then the question of a long prorogation wouldn’t arise in the first place.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
Perhaps a repeal of FTPA plus prorogation length restriction act all rolled into one?
I fear that Boris' abuse of prorogation has fatally weakened the argument for repealing the FTPA. Our conventions work on the basis that those in office use them appropriately. That can no longer be assumed.
The argument for a written constitution (of which the FTPA is a first brick) in a nutshell.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
In the same way a southern accent doesn't equal metropolitan liberal elite.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
You're always on about the working class and FOM. Now you're saying you don't even know what "working class" means?
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
Insofar as you can judge anything better by being on the spot, I’d be tending toward putting money on Warren, if I was able to use either Betfair or Ladbrokes from the US.
Was that quote referring to? Was it the Westminster stuff? If so, Boris is right. See also Madeleine McCann
The issue is he denied making it when asked thirty mins ago
In Tim Shipman's All Out War, it's said that Gove thought that Boris's memory was terrible. You'd have a conversation with him one day about a particular subject, and he'd forgotten about it by the next day.
That's not great, especially in situations like this.
I had a boss like that once. I learned to work it to my advantage.
Most weeks, at our Tuesday morning meeting, he would come up with a crackpot project idea.
I'd nod politely, then decline to implement it, safe in the knowledge that by the following Tuesday he would have forgotten all about it.
Worked every time.
Blimey I'd have had money on you arguing with him incessantly, refusing to admit you could be wrong, calling out other members of staff for personalty traits you don't approve off, then storming off for a while before coming back into the office demanding to be addressed by a different name
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
Firstly, I don't see finding against the govt as a crisis. It just shows that somebody in a position of power acted unlawfully. That's not an unusual or unexpected state of affairs. It doesn't change much other than this sort of chicanery is harder to do in future. But it's pretty rare anyway. Secondly, even if the consequences are profound in terms of the current leadership (and I think the PM should probably resign if the unlawfulness of his actions are confirmed), that's only a political drama, not a constitutional crisis. If politically motivated actions come up against the law, the law should not get out of the way. The government is not and should never be above the law.
I am not suggesting that the government should be above the law. I am simply observing that at the moment we barely have a government worthy of the name and if their leader had to resign we would arguably have no government at all. With Brexit still hanging around that would be sub-optimal and in my view a constitutional crisis.
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
You're always on about the working class and FOM. Now you're saying you don't even know what "working class" means?
Actually you are wrong on both counts. I talk about FOM in relation to those on low wages, not in relation to class.
And I didn't say I don't know what it means, I just refused to be put on the spot about what I think it means by people that will argue the toss all day over whatever I say.
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be eally despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
Yes, you would think the Midlands generally would be more promising, but maybe we need to refine our definition of that geographical area.
I see the Yellow Peril got a decent result last nite in Andrea Leadsome's seat, South Northamptonshire.
Some would regard that as the Midlands, others the Deep South, whilst Southern Softies like me think of it as The Frozen North.
All a question of perspective.
You're all ignoring the plain evidence of the video. Go to 00:40. Watch the three older northern voters give Boris their approval, as they say "We'll be all right!"
It's the world's tiniest subsample, but of the four members of the northern public here, 75% are fans of Boris.
Tories take Sunderland.
I wouldn’t risk £1000 on that.
Surely the most remarkable thing is that what appears to be an ordinary member of the public actually has a concept of what a “Labour Brexit” might be?
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be eally despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Yes, you would think the Midlands generally would be more promising, but maybe we need to refine our definition of that geographical area.
I see the Yellow Peril got a decent result last nite in Andrea Leadsome's seat, South Northamptonshire.
Some would regard that as the Midlands, others the Deep South, whilst Southern Softies like me think of it as The Frozen North.
All a question of perspective.
You're all ignoring the plain evidence of the video. Go to 00:40. Watch the three older northern voters give Boris their approval, as they say "We'll be all right!"
It's the world's tiniest subsample, but of the four members of the northern public here, 75% are fans of Boris.
Tories take Sunderland.
I wouldn’t risk £1000 on that.
Surely the most remarkable thing is that what appears to be an ordinary member of the public actually has a concept of what a “Labour Brexit” might be?
I am not suggesting that the government should be above the law. I am simply observing that at the moment we barely have a government worthy of the name and if their leader had to resign we would arguably have no government at all. With Brexit still hanging around that would be sub-optimal and in my view a constitutional crisis.
I can assure you we would have a government. The palace would invite someone new to be PM, and even though his/her premiership might also be short-lived, there would be continuity. Perhaps with a less divisive person in charge, things might actually improve. But the point is, a constitutional crisis would require a constitutional remedy. But this whole situation would be remedied with a political change, a change of PM. I would perhaps modify what I said before. We're in a rolling crisis that touches the constitution, which raises constitutional issues. But it's not, in my view, a constitutional crisis.
Any by the way, I really hate typing the word "constitutional"
I am not suggesting that the government should be above the law. I am simply observing that at the moment we barely have a government worthy of the name and if their leader had to resign we would arguably have no government at all. With Brexit still hanging around that would be sub-optimal and in my view a constitutional crisis.
I can assure you we would have a government. The palace would invite someone new to be PM, and even though his/her premiership might also be short-lived, there would be continuity. Perhaps with a less divisive person in charge, things might actually improve. But the point is, a constitutional crisis would require a constitutional remedy. But this whole situation would be remedied with a political change, a change of PM. I would perhaps modify what I said before. We're in a rolling crisis that touches the constitution, which raises constitutional issues. But it's not, in my view, a constitutional crisis.
Any by the way, I really hate typing the word "constitutional"
...and if he didn’t go up there she’d be moaning “these politicians never step out of their comfy London homes and come up here...”
iSam in 'working-class Northerner not conforming to pro-Brexit stereotype' shock.
Northern accent doesn’t equal working class
What does equal working class? Income? Job type? Background?
What would you say?
No, I'm asking you.
Why make it an row? You obviously have ideas about what makes someone working class, so why not say what they are? All I said was a northern accent doesn't make someone working class, in response to a claim that some random person with a northern accent was somehow definitely working class.
Not really. You Brexiteers are always wanging on about the Northern Working Class supporting Brexit and Boris. I want to know what you mean by 'Working Class'.
For example a bricklayer, on average, will earn more per year in the North East than a university educated Nurse or Teacher.
I just responded to a claim that a random Northerner was "working class", when there was no evidence of her class status one way or another, by saying a Northern accent doesnt equal working classs. I dont see that requires me to state what does constitute different levels of class status just because you demand it
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
You're always on about the working class and FOM. Now you're saying you don't even know what "working class" means?
Actually you are wrong on both counts. I talk about FOM in relation to those on low wages, not in relation to class.
And I didn't say I don't know what it means, I just refused to be put on the spot about what I think it means by people that will argue the toss all day over whatever I say.
A quick search in Vanilla reveals that you do, in fact, sometimes talk about FOM/working class. I withdraw the "always" but assert a "sometimes" in its place.
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
But the Scottish courts have found that Boris wasn’t truthful based on evidence not provided at the time of the initial decision.
So what is more important to the English Supreme Court, supporting the Scottish courts or ignoring hidden evidence, dismissing the Scottish judgement and avoiding answering the question.
Sorry to disappoint you and it is a hard decision but I suspect the Supreme Court May overrode the high court due to the hidden evidence bit.
I like Steph McGovern, but this really isn't a good look. It's also something of a category error for a BBC employee to boast about their likely tenure compared to an elected politician. https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1172504217581436928
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
But the Scottish courts have found that Boris wasn’t truthful based on evidence not provided at the time of the initial decision.
So what is more important to the English Supreme Court, supporting the Scottish courts or ignoring hidden evidence, dismissing the Scottish judgement and avoiding answering the question.
Sorry to disappoint you and it is a hard decision but I suspect the Supreme Court May overrode the high court due to the hidden evidence bit.
Legal question. Would the upholding of the Scottish court's decision really overturn the decision of the lower English court? Or is it possible that the same action could be legal in England and illegal in Scotland? I've been operating on the assumption that the latter is the case, but you seem to think the former?
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
But the Scottish courts have found that Boris wasn’t truthful based on evidence not provided at the time of the initial decision.
So what is more important to the English Supreme Court, supporting the Scottish courts or ignoring hidden evidence, dismissing the Scottish judgement and avoiding answering the question.
Sorry to disappoint you and it is a hard decision but I suspect the Supreme Court May overrode the high court due to the hidden evidence bit.
The Scottish court doesn't go quite that far. They first impose an onus on the government to justify the prorogation (which itself is a slightly surprising proposition) and then they infer improper intentions from (a) the court pleadings which argued this was entirely hypothetical when it was already being planned and (b) the lack of a clear justification. The risk I was describing is that if the government seek to address that by providing more of an explanation there is a risk that the SC simply says, we don't believe you.
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
The speaker should be on the side of Parliament and that is definitely what Bercow is - using any trick he can to ensure Parliament retains its say in Brexit as required by the Supreme Court.
Granted things are very different from how they were prior to 2010 but our constituent isn’t written so that changes can occur if necessary
For myself I find the English decision hard to support to the extent that any prorogation would be non-justiciable. That would be giving the executive huge power, in theory to prorogue indefinitely.
The lack of a benchmark is a problem but that can be overcome by arguing that any prorogation is acceptable if it does not transgress constitutional boundaries.
That leaves the key question of whether this particular prorogation transgressed constitutional boundaries. I’d say that was very borderline. The government certainly hasn’t helped itself by being both deceitful and uncooperative. The Scottish decision is very unhelpful for them on that front and the Supreme Court is going to find it hard to set aside its views entirely if it reaches that point.
I see this as a flip of a coin.
I think that this abuse of the prerogative by Boris means that there is going to have to be legislation about this going forward. I am no fan of the FTPA but I agree with you that the current position is unsustainable. The question is does the SC think that is a matter for it or Parliament itself? Given where we are the temptation to intervene will be strong.
One factor in the government's favour is that the SC will be aware that finding against them, and finding the Boris was not honest in particular, would create a constitutional crisis like we haven't seen since the abdication. Not what we really need right now.
But the Scottish courts have found that Boris wasn’t truthful based on evidence not provided at the time of the initial decision.
So what is more important to the English Supreme Court, supporting the Scottish courts or ignoring hidden evidence, dismissing the Scottish judgement and avoiding answering the question.
Sorry to disappoint you and it is a hard decision but I suspect the Supreme Court May overrode the high court due to the hidden evidence bit.
Legal question. Would the upholding of the Scottish court's decision really overturn the decision of the lower English court? Or is it possible that the same action could be legal in England and illegal in Scotland? I've been operating on the assumption that the latter is the case, but you seem to think the former?
The cases, including one from NI, are to be heard together and the decision will be a decision in all of them binding all 3 jurisdictions. The Scottish court specifically disavowed any specialty of Scots law and decided on their interpretation of UK constitutional law.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
Surely the most remarkable thing is that what appears to be an ordinary member of the public actually has a concept of what a “Labour Brexit” might be?
Quite - and made it seem coherent and reasonable, they should make her shadow Brexit spokesperson!
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
Yes, the loyalty of Labour voters in those areas isn't quite as strong as it is in places like Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales, North East, etc.
The Speaker's meant to be neutral, and he clearly isn't.
The speaker should be on the side of Parliament and that is definitely what Bercow is - using any trick he can to ensure Parliament retains its say in Brexit as required by the Supreme Court.
Granted things are very different from how they were prior to 2010 but our constituent isn’t written so that changes can occur if necessary
(Replying more to Morris Dancer than eek)
Neutral between whom?
Between the parties, yes - is there evidence that he has not been?
Between the government and parliament? I don't think it's unreasonable to for speaker to favour parliament. What has been different in the past few years is that a majority in parliament has opposed the government on the main issue of the day. I can't think of a time when that has happened in my living memory. The result is that the speaker, upholding the interests of parliament, is often acting against the government's interests.
I would be much more unsettled by a speaker who appeared biased towards the government against parliament than the opposite case.
To me the woman in Donny sums up what some of us have been saying for the last several years:
For the majority of Labour members & voters Brexit is a second order issue. They see public services, jobs, prosperity and (in the case of reverse watermellons) the environment as much more important issues.
So if you are a Labour Leaver. a Tory twat agreeing with you on Brexit is still a Tory twat.
This penny may be dropping with the Tories. It leaves their electoral strategy looking decidedly iffy.
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
I see there was a drive by shooting outside your sister's pub! Nasty. Hope all are OK.
Just got a £25 ticket for the final day at The Oval. Pretty good value for the highest standard of cricket. How much does it cost to watch Arsenal v Chelsea?
A least Boris gets out there and faces the voters.
Imagine Theresa May in that situation!
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
I see there was a drive by shooting outside your sister's pub! Nasty. Hope all are OK.
Straight outside. My sister's boyfriemd was the first on the scene and knew the bloke was dead straight away. It's all on their CCTV apparently. It's the second murder on their street in a year. My sister is very nonchalant about it all. She says it's all gang stuff and does not affect them. There is never any trouble in the pub. I think she's a bit too sanguine. My Mum thinks she's mad!
Legal question. Would the upholding of the Scottish court's decision really overturn the decision of the lower English court? Or is it possible that the same action could be legal in England and illegal in Scotland? I've been operating on the assumption that the latter is the case, but you seem to think the former?
------------------------------------
Replying to Noo
Parliament is a uniquely UK institution; devolution makes no difference to this, neither does the fact that Scotland, E and W, and NI have different legal systems. The SC is the only court with a UK wide remit and its judgements on UK matters will bind all courts. (Its judgements on English only matters don't bind Scotland and vice versa). As matter of practice therefore cases which touch on parliament in UK wide sense are likely to end in the SC (with a generous-hearted tax payer helping keep the wolf from the lawyers' door) but can in principle begin anywhere.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
The Tories came very close to winning a number of Labour seats in the North as well as the Midlands in 2017, without quite getting over the line.
There are 36 marginal seats which the Tories would win off Labour with a swing of 4% or less. 15 are in the North (NE, NW, Y&H) and 3 in Wales. 9 are in the Midlands, 3 in the East, 2 in London and 4 in the rest of the South. The Tories should be very much focused on all of these, except maybe 3 heavily Remain seats. 29 out of 36 are in Leave constituencies. Of the Remain constituencies, 5 out of the 7 are in London and the South.
So there is plenty of low hanging fruit for the Tories in the traditional Labour heartlands of the North and no reason not to focus there as well as the Midlands. Clearly Johnson thinks the same judging from where he's spending his time.
Legal question. Would the upholding of the Scottish court's decision really overturn the decision of the lower English court? Or is it possible that the same action could be legal in England and illegal in Scotland? I've been operating on the assumption that the latter is the case, but you seem to think the former?
------------------------------------
Replying to Noo
Parliament is a uniquely UK institution; devolution makes no difference to this, neither does the fact that Scotland, E and W, and NI have different legal systems. The SC is the only court with a UK wide remit and its judgements on UK matters will bind all courts. (Its judgements on English only matters don't bind Scotland and vice versa). As matter of practice therefore cases which touch on parliament in UK wide sense are likely to end in the SC (with a generous-hearted tax payer helping keep the wolf from the lawyers' door) but can in principle begin anywhere.
Devolution doesn't come into it and wasn't mentioned. The different legal jurisdiction do, I feel, matter. You can certainly have actions that are legal in one country and not in another, and cases relating to this can reach the supreme court. But a result from the supreme court does not always entail homogenisation between the different legal systems. So that is why I ask about this case. As far as I know, it could uphold both the English and Scottish results, making the prorogation unlawful by virtue of Scots law. Thought experiment: if the result is upheld, and Scotland later becomes independent, would an identical prorogation in future be justiciable? England & Wales and Northern Ireland have said no, and unless the supreme court decision flows back down into England & Wales and/or Northern Ireland, that would be the precedent, right?
Yes good point. This is a peoples' PM sans pareil. Any lesser person would be destroyed.
Shows how much people really despise him.
I was just thinking it shows how much Remain people despise Brexit. If he were in favour of overturning the referendum result, the reactions, and gleeful reporting of them, would be less vitriolic
Not 100% sure that that anti-austerity person was a remainer. What were the telltale signs?
I doubt that a Leave voter would be out there heckling a PM who is trying to get Leave done
You are making the @HYUFD error of thinking that because it does here on PB, Brexit overwhelms usual party loyalties in the rest of the country. It doesn't.
I don't think so. I think it is far fetched to imagine someone would be politically motivated enough to heckle Johnson despite agreeing with the policy of his that dominates 99% of the political media.
Not at all. I just watched the video in full, and as I posted above... "The full video shows her bringing up Labour vs Tory Brexit, saying she wants a vote on a deal, then saying she's not interested in talking about Labour, and by the end of it she is agreeing with Boris!"
Watch it yourself and you will have to agree
I've watched it he did well but her "rather have a Labour brexit" shows that she is much more pro-Labour and anti-Tory than anything about Brexit, which was just a stick to beat him with as he is a Tory.
And that's what some Northern Labour MPs are starting to say out loud. Their Leave Labour voters are Labour first but their Remain Labour voters are Remain first. The issue is this might not the case in places like the West Midlands. I kinda feel Johnson would get a warmer welcome in places like Stoke.
The Potteries, the Black Country and the East Midlands generally is where the Tories should be focusing laser-like. These are places where they could take a number of Labour constituencies.
Yes, the loyalty of Labour voters in those areas isn't quite as strong as it is in places like Yorkshire, Lancashire, Wales, North East, etc.
Comments
The court's ultimate jurisdiction over prorogation is essential in defence of democracy and to avoid tyranny, and I hope they say so clearly. In this case I think the government will win by a majority.
AS it happens I dont know that I have ever said a word about the Northern working classes supporting Boris or Brexit, so even less reason to do so
As my ol' muvvah yoused to say "You'll have to know what its like to want"
Secondly, even if the consequences are profound in terms of the current leadership (and I think the PM should probably resign if the unlawfulness of his actions are confirmed), that's only a political drama, not a constitutional crisis. If politically motivated actions come up against the law, the law should not get out of the way. The government is not and should never be above the law.
There was a short period when TMay was in discussions like this, but she was swiftly deposed by her own party. And we may well be in another period now when parliament have a role, because the government's majority has spontaneously combusted. But mostly, parliament has had to wait for the government to bring it something, with each something followed by a short period of feverish activity.
That.
Chill out.
Yes.
Insofar as you can judge anything better by being on the spot, I’d be tending toward putting money on Warren, if I was able to use either Betfair or Ladbrokes from the US.
And I didn't say I don't know what it means, I just refused to be put on the spot about what I think it means by people that will argue the toss all day over whatever I say.
Surely the most remarkable thing is that what appears to be an ordinary member of the public actually has a concept of what a “Labour Brexit” might be?
Perhaps with a less divisive person in charge, things might actually improve. But the point is, a constitutional crisis would require a constitutional remedy. But this whole situation would be remedied with a political change, a change of PM.
I would perhaps modify what I said before. We're in a rolling crisis that touches the constitution, which raises constitutional issues. But it's not, in my view, a constitutional crisis.
Any by the way, I really hate typing the word "constitutional"
So what is more important to the English Supreme Court, supporting the Scottish courts or ignoring hidden evidence, dismissing the Scottish judgement and avoiding answering the question.
Sorry to disappoint you and it is a hard decision but I suspect the Supreme Court May overrode the high court due to the hidden evidence bit.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1172504217581436928
I advise the latter. It's too hot for duelling.
Granted things are very different from how they were prior to 2010 but our constituent isn’t written so that changes can occur if necessary
Neutral between whom?
Between the parties, yes - is there evidence that he has not been?
Between the government and parliament? I don't think it's unreasonable to for speaker to favour parliament. What has been different in the past few years is that a majority in parliament has opposed the government on the main issue of the day. I can't think of a time when that has happened in my living memory. The result is that the speaker, upholding the interests of parliament, is often acting against the government's interests.
I would be much more unsettled by a speaker who appeared biased towards the government against parliament than the opposite case.
For the majority of Labour members & voters Brexit is a second order issue. They see public services, jobs, prosperity and (in the case of reverse watermellons) the environment as much more important issues.
So if you are a Labour Leaver. a Tory twat agreeing with you on Brexit is still a Tory twat.
This penny may be dropping with the Tories. It leaves their electoral strategy looking decidedly iffy.
Oh, and being Working Class is a state of mind.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1172524920531816448?s=20
------------------------------------
Replying to Noo
Parliament is a uniquely UK institution; devolution makes no difference to this, neither does the fact that Scotland, E and W, and NI have different legal systems. The SC is the only court with a UK wide remit and its judgements on UK matters will bind all courts. (Its judgements on English only matters don't bind Scotland and vice versa). As matter of practice therefore cases which touch on parliament in UK wide sense are likely to end in the SC (with a generous-hearted tax payer helping keep the wolf from the lawyers' door) but can in principle begin anywhere.
There are 36 marginal seats which the Tories would win off Labour with a swing of 4% or less. 15 are in the North (NE, NW, Y&H) and 3 in Wales. 9 are in the Midlands, 3 in the East, 2 in London and 4 in the rest of the South. The Tories should be very much focused on all of these, except maybe 3 heavily Remain seats. 29 out of 36 are in Leave constituencies. Of the Remain constituencies, 5 out of the 7 are in London and the South.
So there is plenty of low hanging fruit for the Tories in the traditional Labour heartlands of the North and no reason not to focus there as well as the Midlands. Clearly Johnson thinks the same judging from where he's spending his time.
Surely?
------------------------------------
Replying to Noo
Parliament is a uniquely UK institution; devolution makes no difference to this, neither does the fact that Scotland, E and W, and NI have different legal systems. The SC is the only court with a UK wide remit and its judgements on UK matters will bind all courts. (Its judgements on English only matters don't bind Scotland and vice versa). As matter of practice therefore cases which touch on parliament in UK wide sense are likely to end in the SC (with a generous-hearted tax payer helping keep the wolf from the lawyers' door) but can in principle begin anywhere.
Devolution doesn't come into it and wasn't mentioned.
The different legal jurisdiction do, I feel, matter. You can certainly have actions that are legal in one country and not in another, and cases relating to this can reach the supreme court. But a result from the supreme court does not always entail homogenisation between the different legal systems.
So that is why I ask about this case. As far as I know, it could uphold both the English and Scottish results, making the prorogation unlawful by virtue of Scots law.
Thought experiment: if the result is upheld, and Scotland later becomes independent, would an identical prorogation in future be justiciable? England & Wales and Northern Ireland have said no, and unless the supreme court decision flows back down into England & Wales and/or Northern Ireland, that would be the precedent, right?