Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
Easily resolved by parliament legislating the grounds under which prorogation is allowed.
The damage to the reputation of impartiality of the SC will be less easily fixed. I fear the selection of future Justices is going to go down the American route which would be a hugely retrograde step.
I still don't follow. They would have retained a reputation of impartiality if they'd ruled the other way? When the other side would have called it an establishment stitch up? (we had comments on here to that effect when the appeal was announced). I think you're kidding yourself if you think the outcome one way or another would have made a difference to the losing side crying about partiality.
I am however quite sure that the Tories at least will go down the american route now, and Labour would have if it had gone the other way.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
Easily resolved by parliament legislating the grounds under which prorogation is allowed.
The damage to the reputation of impartiality of the SC will be less easily fixed. I fear the selection of future Justices is going to go down the American route which would be a hugely retrograde step.
They said that such a prorogation, for whatever reason, was unjustified because it would and sought to inhibit the proper working of parliament.
“The findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU.“
The country is still divided between three options. It's always been the case that if you add two of those options together you have more support than the third option alone.
It looks like there was only two options. Leave on the 31st, or don't.
In fairness those do appear to be our options, If we haven't left by then, I am convinced we never will. And given their increasing confidence, I think the remainers in parliament agree.
Certainly. It's now very unlikely that the UK will leave the EU.
A gaffe by Democrats, when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton it only ended up increasing his popularity and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate much as this effort would
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
You are writing as if every future prorogation will now be challenged in court. That obviously isn’t true, since the vast majority are routine. And even those that aren’t the test is basically that the Govt give a reason. Which they failed to do here.
They gave a reason for the prorogation, but not a reason for the unusual length of the prorogation.
That’s what I meant (although technically I believe they gave no reason to the court at all - probably didn’t want to risk perjury)
Wasn’t Cameron’s greatest sin his resignation the day after the vote, having gone through the whole charade insisting he would stay on as PM and trigger article 50 immediately? Not only that, if he had said he would resign immediately if he lost the referendum, he might actually have won it?
Yes, his lying to the house and the British people repeatedly over that was pretty bad.
Can someone just explain to me this “mislead the Queen” thing? Like the rest of us, she knew it was a political wheeze to enable Brexit and I’m sure they discussed that point. The (flawed) advice was that she had unlimited power to prorogue to the reasoning was just a political line for Boris. No one sensible believes he actually lied to her do they?
“Highest respect for our independent judiciary” is about to become another Boris-bite like “friends and partners in Europe”.
Both conveying a deep annoyance usually reserved for stuff you stepped in on the pavement.
Indeed. It doesn't fool anyone to talk of highest respect while putting out words and actions which show anything but, so the truth of his position is clear even when he says the right thing.
A bit like saying prorogation was for one thing, when everything his own people were saying about it made it clear it was about something else. And confirmed by the reaction.
Or “lying”, in the shorthand so conveniently provided by the English language
It is not saying what you think it is saying. I am amongst the 61% who think the referendum result should be respected. May's deal would have done me fine. No deal not so much.
Not to worry Comres managed another push poll question where 60% say MPs have had enough time to debate Brexit and they should get on with it. I’m a Remainer but yes they can get on with it as long as it happens with a deal . That however wasn’t asked !
“the findings suggest that despite all the parliamentary wrangling, almost half the UK thinks we should leave with or without a deal by October 31, 2019 (47 per cent) compared to 37 per cent who believe Britain should stay in the EU”
Won’t make a blind bit of difference to opposition MPS. They know that have to get past 31 October and get an extension . It could backfire but it’s the only chance to keep the pro Brexit vote split .
But it will fail so long as Boris does not ask for the extension. If he resigns rather than complies he will keep the pro Brexit side together against a split anti Brexit side. In those circumstances the extension is immaterial as he can take us out as and when he likes if he secures a majority.
The public are impossible to satisfy - they'll say they don't care about how Brexit happens just get on with it, but that is not borne out by the reaction to support for the various parties, as BXP surge if the Tories try to leave in the wrong way, Labour suffer if they are even slightly ambiguous about their position, and people are against any actual compromise.
The public are, however, absolutely right there has been plenty of time on this. More time is not needed, and is only allowing avoidance of the issues.
What I don't get is why so many people are convinced a written constitution would eliminate awkward constitutional questions, when the most prominent example in the world is a constant demonstration that such questions arise all the time even when you have one.
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
Next Time Daily Telegraph ask them if they believe leaving with no deal really is the end of the matter, and we can smoke out just how many are super duper thicko’s.
You and I as diehard (or was it die hard) remainers respect the result and want to get on with it. But not at any cost. Much as it would serve the fuckwits right.
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
Ha! Well done. You got us. For a minute I thought you were serious.
It does sadden me that I’ve had to travel from the day after the referendum, when I thought some form of EEA compromise made sense, to wanting to see your lot in tears. And make no mistake, the impending victory for Remain will be temporary.
No, it will be permanent. No sane political leader, having seen what the attempt to Brexit has done to the Tory Party and the country, will propose to repeat the experience. Johnson is the fifth consecutive Tory PM who has been broken by it.
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
If he was called a cad at dispatch box would it be unparliamentary term?
Bercow: I say - order - the use of the term cad to refer to the prime minister is unparliamentary and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that remark. For the avoidance of doubt, it would also be unparliamentary to refer to him as a liar, a bounder, a dipstick, a f*ckstain or a bloviating homunculus.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
Yes. It also requires the bench to decide what the effect of prorogation will be, which may be some days in the future, and whether it is sufficiently serious to justify intervention. That's two subjective political tests and a political prediction.
Parliament's only answer may be to legislate to say that any prorogation of not more than X days and not feet than Y days after the last one is automatically lawful, or that the SC has no jurisdiction. Perhaps one to put in the FTPA Abolition Bill.
Bear responsibility is an interesting phrase. I'm surprised more remainers don't think remainer MPs bear responsibility for the deadlock but are very happy about them being so!
There was recently some discussion about employment changes in individual US states and someone (Foxy ??) wondered what the corresponding UK situation would be.
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
It was me, but I was more interested in shorter term changes, perhaps quarterly, as a leading indicator of recession and where it is hitting. Inspired by this:
The problem is that the ONS regional data is a bit erratic and I suspect that the USA will have similar problems.
For what its worth the change in employment rate from the last quarter is:
West Mids +0.7% Norn Ire +0.7% South West +0.6% East Mids +0.5% North East +0.4% South East +0.4% Yorkshire +0.2% East -0.0% North West -0.3% London -0.6% Wales -0.8% Scotland -1.0%
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
Corbyn is not going to be PM, the LDs and rebel Tories would vote him down and even if he did and extends that kills Labour in Leave seats
Can someone just explain to me this “mislead the Queen” thing? Like the rest of us, she knew it was a political wheeze to enable Brexit and I’m sure they discussed that point. The (flawed) advice was that she had unlimited power to prorogue to the reasoning was just a political line for Boris. No one sensible believes he actually lied to her do they?
I’ve been listening to the build up to the Pelosi announcement on NPR during a thrilling day long drive to and across Iowa.
Meanwhile Anthony Seldon interviewed for the BBC World Service and NPR says it is quite likely the Conservative Party won’t survive this current crisis.
He also thinks today marks a key step toward a written constitution.
Boris Johnson 'declared war on the judiciary'. This is the argument of his supporters. But he totally respects the independent judiciary and will follow the law.
Unfair to say HM the Queen had been misled. Absolutely clear from para. 15 of the judgement the SC is making no such finding. Everyone should (but won't) calm down.
It's a very decent judgement and a useful weapon against arbitrary government; IMHO it is wrong in applying its powers to this circumstance - Boris was an idiot but not so egregious an idiot as to deserve nullifying his stupid prorogation.
Government case had no chance once it has lost on the principle, because it took the line that it was not interested in giving a rational account of why the prorogation was so long, so SC just jumped to a conclusion.
Not true. The SC upheld the Scottish decision, and that includes that Boris and JRM misled the Queen.
He also thinks today marks a key step toward a written constitution.
How in the name of all that is holy could our politicians, who right now and likely for some considerable time are at their most feverishly partisan, possibly sit down and pull together the complexities of our constitutional arrangements into a centralised key document (s)? Jacob Rees-Mogg, and his partisan and inventive interpretation of the constitution, as Tribonian to Boris' Justinian?
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
Yes. It also requires the bench to decide what the effect of prorogation will be, which may be some days in the future, and whether it is sufficiently serious to justify intervention. That's two subjective political tests and a political prediction.
Parliament's only answer may be to legislate to say that any prorogation of not more than X days and not feet than Y days after the last one is automatically lawful, or that the SC has no jurisdiction. Perhaps one to put in the FTPA Abolition Bill.
The Commons will never legislate against repetitive prorogations because it is their emergency course of action to circumvent the Parliament Act.
Can someone just explain to me this “mislead the Queen” thing? Like the rest of us, she knew it was a political wheeze to enable Brexit and I’m sure they discussed that point. The (flawed) advice was that she had unlimited power to prorogue to the reasoning was just a political line for Boris. No one sensible believes he actually lied to her do they?
The line being pushed was its the longest parliament since the last ice age, the country desperately needs a queen speech, nothing more than that. The most hysterical bit now though is the SC has said ‘excuse me mr emperor you are stark naked’ the outrage is SC siding with those trying to prevent our government bullying EU into a deal with its no deal threat. It fell apart so surprising easy because brexiteers couldn't stick to the original line. You can be good at lying or crap at lying, this suggests the flaws of cockiness and arrogance undermines the ability to lie convincingly.
Can someone just explain to me this “mislead the Queen” thing? Like the rest of us, she knew it was a political wheeze to enable Brexit and I’m sure they discussed that point. The (flawed) advice was that she had unlimited power to prorogue to the reasoning was just a political line for Boris. No one sensible believes he actually lied to her do they?
The line being pushed was its the longest parliament since the last ice age, the country desperately needs a queen speech, nothing more than that. The most hysterical bit now though is the SC has said ‘excuse me mr emperor you are stark naked’ the outrage is SC siding with those trying to prevent our government bullying EU into a deal with its no deal threat. It fell apart so surprising easy because brexiteers couldn't stick to the original line. You can be good at lying or crap at lying, this suggests the flaws of cockiness and arrogance undermines the ability to lie convincingly.
Yes but nobody actually thinks he lied to the Queen they? It’s just a silly line.
Quite. Ok, the forces of remain are out to get Boris, we'll take that as fact. How is he planning to get past them? So far he has been outmaneuvered each time, so what confidence should BXP voters have in him?
The FTPA. Jeez. Everything David Cameron did was utterly, utterly shit. “Ruining the country, I think I’d be quite good at that”.
Theory: David “snitch on the Queen” Cameron was the most catastrophic leader of a major western nation since the Second World War. I am struggling to think of anyone else with a legacy as grim and chaotic.
BORIS!!!!
Boris inherited a horrible hand, and has tried to play it as best he can. His only major unforced error was the prorogation, and it’s not that important.
I genuinely cannot think of a leader, of a major western nation post-WW2, who has left a worse legacy than Cameron.
The closest I can come is Berlusconi in Italy, but even he wasn’t such a constitutional wrecking ball.
Trump may prove to be worse, but his career isn’t done yet, so we can’t tell. Blair was pretty bad with Iraq, but he didn’t destabilize the entire country.
BoZo has not made a correct move since gaining office. He has the negative Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit.
You were never going to vote for him. We in his 30-40% approve and hope he wins a majority, and then sets about about demolishing everything remainers hold dear. (He won’t but his successor might - it’s time for revolution).
Just for clarification - what are some examples of these things which “remainers hold dear”?
Corporatism. The religion of GDP growth. The focus on London.
I'm a remainer, and I hold none of those things to be dear.
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
He goes to minus 50% approval rating?
Last YouGov favourability ratings had Corbyn at (a dire) 21%, while Boris was at (a mediocre but not terminal) 38%.
For comparison, Boris was at 27% in the last favourability ratings before he became PM.
Transfer the ~10% bonus Boris gets simply by occupying the office of PM (despite making such a hash of it) over to new PM Corbyn, and Corbyn overtakes him.
LOL! Old Ma Beckett is going to become Prime Minister of some sort of national disunity government and throw the votes of 17.4 m people on the scrap heap?
Boris's Queens Speech may not ever happen now but if it does the temptation to have bill number 1, a bill to reform the law on prorogation , must be great.
I don’t think the Supreme Court’s tests particularly complicated at all. David criticises paragraph 50, but doesn’t consider how much it is then circumscribed by the following paragraph:
The Prime Minister’s wish to end one session of Parliament and to begin another will normally be enough in itself to justify the short period of prorogation which has been normal in modern practice. It could only be in unusual circumstances that any further justification might be necessary. Even in such a case, when considering the justification put forward, the court would have to bear in mind that the decision whether to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament falls within the area of responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that it may in some circumstances involve a range of considerations, including matters of political judgment. The court would therefore have to consider any justification that might be advanced with sensitivity to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister, and with a corresponding degree of caution. Nevertheless, it is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the Prime Minster has remained within the legal limits of the power. If not, the final question will be whether the consequences are sufficiently serious to call for the court’s intervention.
Let us remember that in modern times prorogations are almost always brief ones, so no one is going to challenge them in court on this basis - Attlee’s prorogation tactic of 1948, for instance, would likely pass this test if sufficiently brief. And even a relatively lengthy one like Major’s, objectionable though it was, and of obvious political motivation, would be unlikely to be challenged in court, let alone challenged successfully, since its actual effect was minimal.
The fact is that Johnson and the government offered no justification at all to the court, despite being given every opportunity to do so. At the very least, this test requires a government to be open about the reasons for an unusually lengthy prorogation if they want to get away with it.
Yes but nobody actually thinks he lied to the Queen they?
Nobody thinks he was honest with her.
Don’t be an idiot. Literally nobody believed this was about anything other than Brexit. She’s not stupid you know. To the extent the official reason was given to her (I doubt it was) it will have been with a nod and a wink.
Only a complete moron would think he rang her up and said “Your Majesty I need a five week prorogation to allow us to bring in a Queen’s Speech”.
There was recently some discussion about employment changes in individual US states and someone (Foxy ??) wondered what the corresponding UK situation would be.
Well after looking at more than enough ONS data these are the changes in employment and unemployment rates in the three years since the Referendum:
With the overall UK employment rate increasing by 1.6% and unemployment rate decreasing by 1.1%.
Which means that the West Midlands, South West and Northern Ireland have done better than average on both employment and unemployment rates while East Midlands, East, South East, Wales and Scotland have done worse than average on both measures.
This doesn't give any indication as to variations within each region.
It was me, but I was more interested in shorter term changes, perhaps quarterly, as a leading indicator of recession and where it is hitting. Inspired by this:
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
He goes to minus 50% approval rating?
Last YouGov favourability ratings had Corbyn at (a dire) 21%, while Boris was at (a mediocre but not terminal) 38%.
For comparison, Boris was at 27% in the last favourability ratings before he became PM.
Transfer the ~10% bonus Boris gets simply by occupying the office of PM (despite making such a hash of it) over to new PM Corbyn, and Corbyn overtakes him.
It ain't going to be PM Corbyn, as Newsnight makes clear tonight it will be PM Beckett so Labour gets all the shit from Leavers for extending and all the shit from Remainers for refusing to commit to Remain without even benefiting from Corbyn in No 10.
Unwise decision by the SC. They've made themselves political.
I'm a little bit puzzled too how unlawful advice implies that the Queen's decision on such advice is unlawful. If it's advice then there is no logical connection.
It feels to me that they're therefore both wrong and unwise, but they're far better positioned to sort out the right/wrong bit than I am.
All 11 of them are wrong? Really?
You don't think your own bias my be swaying your view a tad?
More to the point if a decision this way 'made themselves political' I fail to see how a decision the other way would not also have done so.
The court's new test for lawfulness of prorogation is whether the constitutional activities of Parliament are curtailed *without reasonable justification* (my emphasis, see Lady Hale at para 50 for the full wording). It means the court has to make a decision about reasonableness every time a prorogation is challenged. That decision will always be, at least in part, political. So it's the court getting/having to make the call, not parliament. If they'd decided non-justiciability, then it would have remained a matter for Parliament to resolve.
The intrusion into the political sphere that the SC made today will, I fear, be discussed in constitutional law lectures for all the wrong reasons in future.
There are several aspects of the paragraph 50 test (does the number show baroness Hale has a sense of humour, I wonder) that are highly subjective and which a court will have no proper basis for assessing in anything remotely like law. We are going to have to live with crazy levels of uncertainty until an electorate of 11 decides what is “democratic “. It’s a bloody awful decision not justified by the determination of the government to piss them off.
Well Johnson can fix it after the election then. And given his wheeze to bypass parliament failed anyway, perhaps he shouldn't have bothered going down this route in the first place!
I think that will be necessary. We now need a statue to regulate the use of the prerogative. That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. Boris failed the implied term of reasonableness in the use of his powers. Our PMs should be better than that.
I suppose a statue might supply the necessary objectivity..
A gaffe by Democrats, when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton it only ended up increasing his popularity and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate much as this effort would
I don't know how this will work out but it's much more like the Nixon case than the Clinton case. I don't think it makes sense to extrapolate that the voters will dislike the Dems for impeaching over flagrant abuse of office, just because they didn't like the GOP impeaching for lying about a sex scandal.
A gaffe by Democrats, when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton it only ended up increasing his popularity and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate much as this effort would
How did it go for Nixon?
They tried to impeach Clinton for a property deal where he lost money and had to settle for a blow job instead.
Trump has done lots of actual crimes. There are differences here.
As predicted the initial polling after the SC decision in no way justifies Remainer excitement, indeed I suspect polling will indicate quite the opposite over the next few days.
It’s crucial now for remainers in parliament to find the patsy who will make the extension request. Hopefully Corbyn will be the choice.
If I was a Labour supporter I’d be terrified at what is coming down the tracks...they are going to be annihilated.
Can someone just explain to me this “mislead the Queen” thing? Like the rest of us, she knew it was a political wheeze to enable Brexit and I’m sure they discussed that point. The (flawed) advice was that she had unlimited power to prorogue to the reasoning was just a political line for Boris. No one sensible believes he actually lied to her do they?
The line being pushed was its the longest parliament since the last ice age, the country desperately needs a queen speech, nothing more than that. The most hysterical bit now though is the SC has said ‘excuse me mr emperor you are stark naked’ the outrage is SC siding with those trying to prevent our government bullying EU into a deal with its no deal threat. It fell apart so surprising easy because brexiteers couldn't stick to the original line. You can be good at lying or crap at lying, this suggests the flaws of cockiness and arrogance undermines the ability to lie convincingly.
Yes but nobody actually thinks he lied to the Queen they? It’s just a silly line.
It’s an emotive line. It’s one media have been using for weeks to ramp it. But yeah you are right, in the Byzantine labyrinth of the British constitution and the psychedelic mists of governments often losing in court it’s no big deal, does the technical element of lying to the queen mean anything at all? Do beefeaters now descend on Downing Street is that the point of having them?
my reference to the fact he has been walking around naked for weeks but no one is allowed to say he is the nub of it. Because remember, when the case unique case in a court less than ten years old began last week this wasn’t expected to be the outcome. It’s a bit like death of salesman, when the honest questions get asked of it.
A gaffe by Democrats, when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton it only ended up increasing his popularity and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate much as this effort would
How did it go for Nixon?
They tried to impeach Clinton for a property deal where he lost money and had to settle for a blow job instead.
Trump has done lots of actual crimes. There are differences here.
Also Republicans ended winning the WH and Congress in 2000 anyway. All be it whilst losing the popular vote.
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
Do you remember what Boris's personal ratings were as recently as June, before he got the perks of being PM? He was right down in the basement with Corbyn.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
He goes to minus 50% approval rating?
Last YouGov favourability ratings had Corbyn at (a dire) 21%, while Boris was at (a mediocre but not terminal) 38%.
For comparison, Boris was at 27% in the last favourability ratings before he became PM.
Transfer the ~10% bonus Boris gets simply by occupying the office of PM (despite making such a hash of it) over to new PM Corbyn, and Corbyn overtakes him.
It ain't going to be PM Corbyn, as Newsnight makes clear tonight it will be PM Beckett so Labour gets all the shit from Leavers for extending and all the shit from Remainers for refusing to commit to Remain without even benefiting from Corbyn in No 10.
I'd be inclined to agree, I don't think Corbyn will become PM without an election (and, despite some people's wishful thinking, I don't think Corbyn would block a caretaker PM if that was the only way of stopping No Deal).
I was just responding to CaptainBuzzkill's suggestion that the Tories would want Corbyn to become PM before an election. Given how Boris's uplift in ratings has shown that even a very poor performance doesn't prevent any new PM enjoying a honeymoon, I can't see why on earth the Tories would want this.
They are considered a joke of a polling organisation now. They had the Republicans ahead in the House vote going into the midterms when the Dems have a 9% lead for example.
Very different to the respected organisation they used to be back in 2012.
An alternative interpretation to the polling. There is a group of people who think we must leave the EU at any cost. There is an equally implacable group who will not countenance leaving. But there is a large group in the middle who just want it over and wish they’d never heard of Brexit.
At the moment a large, even majority, of this latter group are telling pollsters that we should leave as ASAP as they see that as the path most likely to deliver what they want - an end to the current deadlock. But if, there were more extensions, and particularly if somehow, revoke looked possible or did come about then many in this group might switch. Because revoke would remove the dagger over our head and there would be a chance of moving on. Parties would be free to try and reopen the debate again, but they may find it not as politically profitable as they think.
If this is the case, then the Libdem policy of looking to go straight to revoke is several times better than offering referendums etc, which will just prolong the agony.
Except that 60% may say in a poll they want to get on with Brexit, and yet might take action to frustrate it if it is not the right Brexit. Boris is doing his best to court them, but still a stubbon percentage say they will vote BXP even though that might cost the Tories seats to a remainer party. Enough to see them fall? Unclear, but if he goes into an election pushing a deal of some kind, expect that percentage to remain stubbornly opposed, and it won't matter if it is 60% total who want Brexit depending how tactical voting works out.
A gaffe by Democrats, when the Republicans tried to impeach President Clinton it only ended up increasing his popularity and while it passed in the House it failed in the Senate much as this effort would
How did it go for Nixon?
They tried to impeach Clinton for a property deal where he lost money and had to settle for a blow job instead.
Trump has done lots of actual crimes. There are differences here.
Nope. I’m with HY here. Which actual crime you convicting him on? When he releases the transcript and he has committed no crime.
You go into court where you have the evidence to secure a conviction. I’m calling this as democrats sabre rattling with the threat, they don’t have the evidence.
He was on R5 this afternoon with an interesting story that involved him being leaked information from inside the government camp. According to his mole statements were prepared for 2 staff members whose emails were produced to the court but they refused to sign them. I can think of several reasons why they might do so but apparently this caught the government legal team very much unawares and left them without evidence of what the reasons were.
In fairness if I had been advising the civil servants involved I would have told them to absolutely nowhere near any such statement.
Me. The Egg. He has been saying all day it’s a very very innocent call, the most innocent of calls, unbelievably innocent, ya know, like when the saints go marching in this call will be amongst them. Very very innocent call. and he is releasing full unredacted transcript tomorrow.
An alternative interpretation to the polling. There is a group of people who think we must leave the EU at any cost. There is an equally implacable group who will not countenance leaving. But there is a large group in the middle who just want it over and wish they’d never heard of Brexit.
At the moment a large, even majority, of this latter group are telling pollsters that we should leave as ASAP as they see that as the path most likely to deliver what they want - an end to the current deadlock. But if, there were more extensions, and particularly if somehow, revoke looked possible or did come about then many in this group might switch. Because revoke would remove the dagger over our head and there would be a chance of moving on. Parties would be free to try and reopen the debate again, but they may find it not as politically profitable as they think.
If this is the case, then the Libdem policy of looking to go straight to revoke is several times better than offering referendums etc, which will just prolong the agony.
And of course, many of the people who are now saying "Just get on with it" will be among the first to complain if we get on with it and it goes badly wrong.
Ideal, Corbyn does not get to become PM but a Labour PM gets the blame in Labour Leave seats for extending
Conservative MPs who have lost the whip would face a dilemma if they are looking for a route back. Were Corbyn to be PM their decision would be easy. However, they can hardly VONC Beckett on the grounds that she is a Marxist threat to national security. But if they have not given up hope of standing again as a Conservative candidate, they would need to find an excuse to VONC a government headed by a non-Corbyn Labour PM, or they would surely find themselves out of the party for good.
The main issue with Laura is not her bias. It’s that she’s just a bit shit. Probably the most ordinary, mediocre journalist ever to get that job. Just crap.
Comments
I am however quite sure that the Tories at least will go down the american route now, and Labour would have if it had gone the other way.
How do you get a lack of impartiality from that?
This is standard practice.
Resign, recommend Corbyn, let him extend, destroy Lab in subsequent GE.
And Labour would be destroyed with them getting hacked from all sides.
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1176608511461154816?s=20
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1176605993595224064?s=20
https://twitter.com/Andrew_ComRes/status/1176607256911200256?s=20
The public are, however, absolutely right there has been plenty of time on this. More time is not needed, and is only allowing avoidance of the issues.
What I don't get is why so many people are convinced a written constitution would eliminate awkward constitutional questions, when the most prominent example in the world is a constant demonstration that such questions arise all the time even when you have one.
Translate the ~10% "PM bonus" from Boris's current ratings over to Corbyn's personal ratings and guess what happens...
Loaded question city Arizona.
Next Time Daily Telegraph ask them if they believe leaving with no deal really is the end of the matter, and we can smoke out just how many are super duper thicko’s.
You and I as diehard (or was it die hard) remainers respect the result and want to get on with it. But not at any cost. Much as it would serve the fuckwits right.
Parliament's only answer may be to legislate to say that any prorogation of not more than X days and not feet than Y days after the last one is automatically lawful, or that the SC has no jurisdiction. Perhaps one to put in the FTPA Abolition Bill.
From 18' 30" toe-curlingly good.
The Mash Report, Series 3: Episode 3: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0008lj8 via @bbciplayer
For what its worth the change in employment rate from the last quarter is:
West Mids +0.7%
Norn Ire +0.7%
South West +0.6%
East Mids +0.5%
North East +0.4%
South East +0.4%
Yorkshire +0.2%
East -0.0%
North West -0.3%
London -0.6%
Wales -0.8%
Scotland -1.0%
Not much of a pattern I'm afraid.
Meanwhile Anthony Seldon interviewed for the BBC World Service and NPR says it is quite likely the Conservative Party won’t survive this current crisis.
He also thinks today marks a key step toward a written constitution.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176604222709751809?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176605037700759558?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176605750657003520?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176606660279898112?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1176569846684766208?s=20
The line being pushed was its the longest parliament since the last ice age, the country desperately needs a queen speech, nothing more than that. The most hysterical bit now though is the SC has said ‘excuse me mr emperor you are stark naked’ the outrage is SC siding with those trying to prevent our government bullying EU into a deal with its no deal threat. It fell apart so surprising easy because brexiteers couldn't stick to the original line. You can be good at lying or crap at lying, this suggests the flaws of cockiness and arrogance undermines the ability to lie convincingly.
Is he? What polls is he looking at?
Is there currently polling that has him ahead and on course for re election?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/08/15/small-minds-and-brexit-jeremy-corbyns-latest-gambit/
It takes a heart of stone...
For comparison, Boris was at 27% in the last favourability ratings before he became PM.
Transfer the ~10% bonus Boris gets simply by occupying the office of PM (despite making such a hash of it) over to new PM Corbyn, and Corbyn overtakes him.
Total madness!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_sep24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=uCGD9dT12C0
David criticises paragraph 50, but doesn’t consider how much it is then circumscribed by the following paragraph:
The Prime Minister’s wish to end one session of Parliament and to begin another will normally be enough in itself to justify the short period of prorogation which has been normal in modern practice. It could only be in unusual circumstances that any further justification might be necessary. Even in such a case, when considering the justification put forward, the court would have to bear in mind that the decision whether to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament falls within the area of responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that it may in some circumstances involve a range of considerations, including matters of political judgment. The court would therefore have to consider any justification that might be advanced with sensitivity to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister, and with a corresponding degree of caution. Nevertheless, it is the court’s responsibility to determine whether the Prime Minster has remained within the legal limits of the power. If not, the final question will be whether the consequences are sufficiently serious to call for the court’s intervention.
Let us remember that in modern times prorogations are almost always brief ones, so no one is going to challenge them in court on this basis - Attlee’s prorogation tactic of 1948, for instance, would likely pass this test if sufficiently brief.
And even a relatively lengthy one like Major’s, objectionable though it was, and of obvious political motivation, would be unlikely to be challenged in court, let alone challenged successfully, since its actual effect was minimal.
The fact is that Johnson and the government offered no justification at all to the court, despite being given every opportunity to do so. At the very least, this test requires a government to be open about the reasons for an unusually lengthy prorogation if they want to get away with it.
Only a complete moron would think he rang her up and said “Your Majesty I need a five week prorogation to allow us to bring in a Queen’s Speech”.
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/1176611115402498048?s=21
In 1988, he was fired from The Times over making up quotes by historian Colin Lucas
In 2004, he was fired from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over lying about his affair with Petronella Wyatt (the "pyramid of piffle").
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1176604459679539201?s=21
They tried to impeach Clinton for a property deal where he lost money and had to settle for a blow job instead.
Trump has done lots of actual crimes. There are differences here.
It’s crucial now for remainers in parliament to find the patsy who will make the extension request. Hopefully Corbyn will be the choice.
If I was a Labour supporter I’d be terrified at what is coming down the tracks...they are going to be annihilated.
my reference to the fact he has been walking around naked for weeks but no one is allowed to say he is the nub of it. Because remember, when the case unique case in a court less than ten years old began last week this wasn’t expected to be the outcome. It’s a bit like death of salesman, when the honest questions get asked of it.
I was just responding to CaptainBuzzkill's suggestion that the Tories would want Corbyn to become PM before an election. Given how Boris's uplift in ratings has shown that even a very poor performance doesn't prevent any new PM enjoying a honeymoon, I can't see why on earth the Tories would want this.
Very different to the respected organisation they used to be back in 2012.
At the moment a large, even majority, of this latter group are telling pollsters that we should leave as ASAP as they see that as the path most likely to deliver what they want - an end to the current deadlock. But if, there were more extensions, and particularly if somehow, revoke looked possible or did come about then many in this group might switch. Because revoke would remove the dagger over our head and there would be a chance of moving on. Parties would be free to try and reopen the debate again, but they may find it not as politically profitable as they think.
If this is the case, then the Libdem policy of looking to go straight to revoke is several times better than offering referendums etc, which will just prolong the agony.
You go into court where you have the evidence to secure a conviction. I’m calling this as democrats sabre rattling with the threat, they don’t have the evidence.
In fairness if I had been advising the civil servants involved I would have told them to absolutely nowhere near any such statement.
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1176210648189100032?s=19
Whose saying he isn’t?
Ummm once no deal is off the table why would they need a caretaker PM? #coup
It’s that she’s just a bit shit.
Probably the most ordinary, mediocre journalist ever to get that job.
Just crap.