This is getting silly - they’d find him in contempt yet continue to have confidence in him..?
Parliament has never expressed confidence in him.
They have by virtue of not No Confidencing him.
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
What you talking about? Boris lost his supposed “vote of confidence” remember?
No he lost a vote he treated as a confidence vote, he didn't lose a confidence vote. Technical difference.
He lost the vote he said he was treating as a confidence vote. In practice he lied, because if he had treated it as a confidence vote, he would have resigned.
A Yodel delivery driver brought a package to my address, correctly. The instructions were to post through the letterbox, but the package was clearly too big, so he rang the doorbell.
This is an alarming degree of competence and common sense based on past experience with Yodel (who previously delivered large amounts of dog food to a little old lady at the end of the street). Was he an imposter?
Is this Bizarro-World?
And why does my browser want me to write 'impostor' rather than 'imposter'?
I wonder if it's like the time I was staggered to discover that 'miniscule' is a minor variant of 'minuscule'.
In these, the dying days of Boris's premiership, what do you think his legacy will be? I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
It's tempting to talk about the Supreme Court, optimistically that it will prompt the improvement of our constitution, pessimistically that it will lead to the politicisation of the judiciary, but I think the most lasting legacy of the Johnson ministry will be his trashing of austerity.
The next government, whoever leads it, is likely to spend a lot of money trying to buy votes. We will enter the next recession with a large and growing budget deficit, and a debt as a percentage of GDP already at high levels.
It could be that the only thing that brings the Brexit mess to an end is an almighty debt crisis. We may even be nostalgic about the times when we argued about the minutiae of Brexit.
If you get suspended from the Commons for more than ten sitting days then it triggers a recall petition.
Are we going to be set for the mother of all by elections?
Can you imagine the lolz.
Remainers claiming the very future of the nation is at stake and every day must count in parliament...meanwhile continuing to play stupid games and enrage the public even more.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
It is interesting how many are against the elite making decisions, but how few support sortition. One suspects that they are quite happy for the elite to make decisions that they happen to agree with, and get annoyed when they make decisions they disagree with.
This is getting silly - they’d find him in contempt yet continue to have confidence in him..?
Parliament has never expressed confidence in him.
They have by virtue of not No Confidencing him.
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
What you talking about? Boris lost his supposed “vote of confidence” remember?
No he lost a vote he treated as a confidence vote, he didn't lose a confidence vote. Technical difference.
Your entire argument was about technical differences.
Quite critical technical differences.
If the Commons formally withdraws confidence from Boris then he has 14 days to regain it [or another government gains it] or we have an election to elect a new government that the Commons has confidence in.
In the absence of the Commons doing that then Boris formally has the confidence of the House with all that entails.
This is getting silly - they’d find him in contempt yet continue to have confidence in him..?
Parliament has never expressed confidence in him.
They have by virtue of not No Confidencing him.
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
What you talking about? Boris lost his supposed “vote of confidence” remember?
No he lost a vote he treated as a confidence vote, he didn't lose a confidence vote. Technical difference.
Your entire argument was about technical differences.
Quite critical technical differences.
If the Commons formally withdraws confidence from Boris then he has 14 days to regain it [or another government gains it] or we have an election to elect a new government that the Commons has confidence in.
In the absence of the Commons doing that then Boris formally has the confidence of the House with all that entails.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
I thought it was Marxists who asked “who appoints the judiciary”.
Leavers need to ask, what is the value and longevity of what they win at the end of the day compared to everything they trash getting there. Seriously.
I honestly cannot see another move for Johnson unless the EU for some reason decide to cave in, and by his own logic it wont because parliament has taken no deal off the table.
He cannot stop the Commons doing whatever it wants anymore, he cannot take action other than resignation. But that's such a nuclear option.
Seriously, what can he try next? He and the Tories will be petrified of that BXP rating, even attacking the judges is not getting the share down, what more can he do?
He needs to harden his position to try and consolidate the Leave vote that is once again fracturing by addressing the reasons for the recent revival of support for the Brexit Party at the expense of the Conservatives. He has only been weakened by his antics in seeking a deal in the face of continued intransigence by the EU bolstered by successful attempts at home to undermine the UK's negotiating position. In response to the erosion of his negotiating position he now appears willing to settle for something close to a rehashed version of May's surrender agreement. In this he is in danger of falling into the same trap that did for Theresa May.
That means, I think: 1. Calling off negotiations until after a GE, publically accusing the EU of bad faith and failing to offer anything, and doubling down on his accusation that the Remain parties in parliament have undermined his negotiating position by removing the prospect of the outcome that the EU feared. 2. Talking up the prospect of reaching an agreement if that parliamentary block could be removed. 3. When the move to force a GE by the 2/3rds route fails, go into opposition, stating that he will move immediate VONCs to try and scupper any attempt to form a Remainer government and allow the people to cast a verdict on this rotten parliament. 4. Take a hard line against any Conservative MP who has lost the whip and who fails to support his VONCs, stating that failure to do so will rule out any prospect of them being allowed to stand as a Conservative in the GE.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
I find all those 70s comedies very funny. Never saw Dick Emery, but most of the rest. Frankly, Mrs Slocombe’s pussy is a joke I will never tire of.
Not sure what that makes me, but I can’t be arsed getting righteous over what a previous generation found entertaining - indeed, I found Little Britain cruel and demeaning, and don’t get me started on the sadism of Big Brother et al.
Little Britain was a vile show. One of the most unfunny comedies I can recall. It was more cringe-TV than comedy.
The Day Today was good - often quite witty and pithy as were the earlier versions of Spitting Image. Both were satire rather than comedy, but even so.
Not the 9 o'clock News was often very good as were Blackadder 2 and 3
Yes the Tories likely will have a manifesto commitment for US Supreme Court style hearings for new SC justices in the UK now
You can never have enough democracy so a manifesto commitment for a clean sweep of the justices followed by confirmation hearings for new life-time appointees would be very welcome.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
What on earth does a ‘remainer background’ mean? Lady Hale was born in Leeds and brought up in North Yorkshire and was the first person from her school to go to Cambridge.
She should be heralded of the exact kind of meritocratic success story the Tories are supposed to support.
Yes the Tories likely will have a manifesto commitment for US Supreme Court style hearings for new SC justices in the UK now
You can never have enough democracy so a manifesto commitment for a clean sweep of the justices followed by confirmation hearings for new life-time appointees would be very welcome.
Do some research. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
This is getting silly - they’d find him in contempt yet continue to have confidence in him..?
Parliament has never expressed confidence in him.
They have by virtue of not No Confidencing him.
In the absence of removing confidence, they have confidence.
What you talking about? Boris lost his supposed “vote of confidence” remember?
No he lost a vote he treated as a confidence vote, he didn't lose a confidence vote. Technical difference.
Your entire argument was about technical differences.
Quite critical technical differences.
If the Commons formally withdraws confidence from Boris then he has 14 days to regain it [or another government gains it] or we have an election to elect a new government that the Commons has confidence in.
In the absence of the Commons doing that then Boris formally has the confidence of the House with all that entails.
And what does that entail?
The right to enact law changes via the Commons, the right to lead the executive of this country, and the right to advise the exercise of the royal prerogative. If the Commons has removed confidence then the PM is not supposed to enact changes, but since the Commons has not done that then he can. Critical point under our constitution.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Yes the Tories likely will have a manifesto commitment for US Supreme Court style hearings for new SC justices in the UK now
If Boris had a majority in Parliament, the UK Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to stop him doing anything.
Do you even understand our political system? Clearly not.
How about the reintroduction of capital punishment for police and child murderers. I'm not in favour of that but ... ?
If it was made legal by statute and Britain’s link to the ECHR and other international organisations removed, I don’t see what the Supreme Court could do about it. It wouldn’t be illegal.
A Yodel delivery driver brought a package to my address, correctly. The instructions were to post through the letterbox, but the package was clearly too big, so he rang the doorbell.
This is an alarming degree of competence and common sense based on past experience with Yodel (who previously delivered large amounts of dog food to a little old lady at the end of the street). Was he an imposter?
Is this Bizarro-World?
And why does my browser want me to write 'impostor' rather than 'imposter'?
I wonder if it's like the time I was staggered to discover that 'miniscule' is a minor variant of 'minuscule'.
Was it your copy of ‘for the record’ ordered by a well meaning relative?
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Crikey!
How did he nobble the other ten? /s
Well, here's one of the other ten. In fact the deputy president of the supreme court.
"Lord Reed Chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee since 2005, was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment, an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe and serves as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights"
Riddled with Europeanism and reeking of Remainerism? That will be the perception.
This could all have been avoided if the SC had not interfered with high politics. Now I have to side with the pessimists. We are headed to an elected and politicised Supreme Court, and the direction of travel cannot be changed. It's a damned shame.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
Lady Hale is not an issue because the judgment stands on its own, its reasoning clear for all to see. Personally, I am quite sure she does her job impartially and as free from bias as is possible for anyone.
Besides, what about the other 10 Justices? Is someone going to suggest that all were offered some sort of anti-Brexit inducement?
Ad hominem attacks like this are just stupid. What they really reveal are the fears of the person making them.
Boris resigns. Betty Windsor asks him who he recommends to take his place.
"The Leader of the Opposition Your Majesty."
What would happen next? Would Betty take it on trust that Corbs would have the confidence of the house and let him take the car to No 10 for his speech? Even if within a day or two he's VONCed (after sending the letter obvs).
Or would she say, "Bozza you're having me on. There's no chance Keto Watson and those two Scots lasses will go along with that and frankly I'm not having it either. Think about who else you want to recommend instead while I finish this Kitkat". What would he say?
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Crikey!
How did he nobble the other ten? /s
Well, here's one of the other ten. In fact the deputy president of the supreme court.
"Lord Reed Chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee since 2005, was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment, an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe and serves as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights"
Riddled with Europeanism and reeking of Remainerism? That will be the perception.
This could all have been avoided if the SC had not interfered with high politics. Now I have to side with the pessimists. We are headed to an elected and politicised Supreme Court, and the direction of travel cannot be changed. It's a damned shame.
A lot of people said when Labour set up the Supreme Court that it would eventually have to be elected or appointed in the same way the US supreme court is.
And the same with the HoL when they got rid of the heriditary peers. A lot of people said the inevitable end point would have to be an (at least partly) elected second chamber.
And with devoltution a lot of people said the only realistic end point would be a fully federal UK.
All of this was debated a lot at the time so it's not really a surprise that this is where we're going.
Do some research. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why would you not want more voter engagement with the selection of the judiciary?
I don’t see much merit in upending a system that produces by some distance the best judiciary in the world simply to assuage an extended tantrum from unhinged Leavers furious that democracy is not being suspended at their behest.
Do some research. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why would you not want more voter engagement with the selection of the judiciary?
Because its absurd.
Powers should be separated. Let the Judges interpret the law as it stands and if a majority of the Commons isn't happy with the law as it stands then they can change the law.
In America the Supreme Court can override the executive, the Representatives and the Senate. Short of constitutional change which is nigh-on-impossible for controversial and split decisions it is the ultimate body.
Via the Parliament Act a simple majority of the Commons can override both the Supreme Court and the Lords in the UK.
Electing MPs is all we need in this country. If the government lacks a majority we don't need to change our judges, we need an election and to choose a new majority government. Problem solved.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
In the parallel universe where appeals go High Court - Supreme Court - Byronics learned and considered view perhaps the world is a better place. Or perhaps not.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Yes the Tories likely will have a manifesto commitment for US Supreme Court style hearings for new SC justices in the UK now
If Boris had a majority in Parliament, the UK Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to stop him doing anything.
Do you even understand our political system? Clearly not.
How about the reintroduction of capital punishment for police and child murderers. I'm not in favour of that but ... ?
If it was made legal by statute and Britain’s link to the ECHR and other international organisations removed, I don’t see what the Supreme Court could do about it. It wouldn’t be illegal.
Thanks, I think your consistency of argument is going to be in the minority (From the remain side) if the Tories are re-elected regarding parliamentary sovereignty though.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
It will be perceived as such, of course. But that does not make it true. Have you read the judgment? It is superbly written and very tightly argued. It provides a very strong level of protection against any over-weening executive of whatever political colour.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
You do realise the opposition have defeated Boris like 5 or 6 times, they defeated May several times.
If we take your statement as true though there is no way it could be happening without either 120 odd Tory rebellions (more when May was in charge), or maybe the Lib Dems and SNP going through the voting lobby multiple times with fake moustaches and comedy glasses.
The other possibility is that it is actually Labour MPs who have been doing the bulk of the work in opposing and defeating the government. I think Corbyn, actually some votes ago, overtook Thatcher as the LOTO with the most government defeats. Although I'm not 100% sure how far back that went, WW2 maybe.
You can not like Labour, that is fair enough. I don't see the point in claiming easily disprovable nonsense though. I don't like the Conservatives but I don't claim their 4th in the polling. As much as I'd like them to be 4th in the polling someone would just come along and prove me wrong because it is clearly not true.
Until, and unless Labour actually start trying to bring the Conservative government down, I stand by my statement.
Labour are unfit to be in opposition. They are certainly unfit to be in government. They'd be better off sending their MPs home, for all the good of them at the moment. What is there plan? They don't seem to have one. I even heard Hilary Benn last night just saying they had to take 'No Deal' off the table, but without any concret proposals as to how to achieve that at all.
They are allowing the Conservatives, who are deep in minority territory, to drift towards a no deal Brexit. Lay down a VoNC, TODAY, as they should've done back in February, March, April, May, June, July and September. Stop playing games with the Benn bill, or other 'scrutiny'. VoNC the government. They won't. They're useless.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
We don't need to in this country because the Commons can override the Court. That's not the case in America.
If the government doesn't like the law as it stands, it can change the law. That's not the case in America.
In these, the dying days of Boris's premiership, what do you think his legacy will be? I still don't think he'll be viewed as the worst PM. Perhaps the one with the worst intentions, but stopped by our Great British constitution. May will still be the clusterfuck of ages.
LOL "dying days" that's funny.
Boris is more likely to be still PM in five years, than gone within 5 days.
Not quite. To be accurate, there is still a fair prospect that he will go down as having had the shortest single tenure of any PM in history, yet still end up as one of the longer lasting PMs in terms of the cumulative years in the job.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Crikey!
How did he nobble the other ten? /s
Well, here's one of the other ten. In fact the deputy president of the supreme court.
"Lord Reed Chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee since 2005, was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment, an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe and serves as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights"
Riddled with Europeanism and reeking of Remainerism? That will be the perception.
This could all have been avoided if the SC had not interfered with high politics. Now I have to side with the pessimists. We are headed to an elected and politicised Supreme Court, and the direction of travel cannot be changed. It's a damned shame.
Great! Nine more, keep going!
On the other hand, they're all quite old, aren't they? So most probably leavers? Or maybe just judges trying to uphold the law and be impartial - doing their jobs?
I don’t see much merit in upending a system that produces by some distance the best judiciary in the world simply to assuage an extended tantrum from unhinged Leavers furious that democracy is not being suspended at their behest.
So you would prefer to keep the establishment elites unsullied by the views of the millions of voters they impose laws upon.
You're entitled to support the entitled as much as the next person I suppose and, to be fair, it is in keeping with remainers desire for the status-quo to be maintained regardless of the wishes of the 'lower orders'.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
Lady Hale is not an issue because the judgment stands on its own, its reasoning clear for all to see. Personally, I am quite sure she does her job impartially and as free from bias as is possible for anyone.
Besides, what about the other 10 Justices? Is someone going to suggest that all were offered some sort of anti-Brexit inducement?
Ad hominem attacks like this are just stupid. What they really reveal are the fears of the person making them.
Well exactly. An impartial judiciary is really important, and silly ad-homs from people who disagree with a ruling (even a unanimous one from eleven judges!) should be met with a robust response.
I generally support the current government, but their tactics here got ruled foul so they need to deal with it and move on.
It would be good to see a constitutional convention at some point, the last couple of decades of tinkering has probably left us at the point where a lot of convention needs to be formalised.
As an aside, it’s amazing how many business dealings in other countries have written into the contract that they are justiciable under English law in London. This happens because people implicitly trust that the English legal system is robust and impartial.
No-one ever signs a contract under any US laws, unless one or more of the parties are American. Because they know the courts are too political.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Why was the High Court decision not political? The role of the Supreme Court is to review the decisions of lower courts. It frequently overturns those decisions. What, specifically, do you disagree with in the Supreme Court decision? What has it got wrong?
Boris resigns. Betty Windsor asks him who he recommends to take his place.
"The Leader of the Opposition Your Majesty."
What would happen next? Would Betty take it on trust that Corbs would have the confidence of the house and let him take the car to No 10 for his speech? Even if within a day or two he's VONCed (after sending the letter obvs).
Or would she say, "Bozza you're having me on. There's no chance Keto Watson and those two Scots lasses will go along with that and frankly I'm not having it either. Think about who else you want to recommend instead while I finish this Kitkat". What would he say?
Obviously the first of those, IMHO. The LOTO is in the standard path, the outgoing PM's recommendation is normally followed, Corbyn *might* be able to command a majority, and there's nobody else who indisputably could. So if the PM recommended him then he'd get a go. Obviously if the Commons votes him down she could try the other options later.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Crikey!
How did he nobble the other ten? /s
Well, here's one of the other ten. In fact the deputy president of the supreme court.
"Lord Reed Chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee since 2005, was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment, an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe and serves as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights"
Riddled with Europeanism and reeking of Remainerism? That will be the perception.
This could all have been avoided if the SC had not interfered with high politics. Now I have to side with the pessimists. We are headed to an elected and politicised Supreme Court, and the direction of travel cannot be changed. It's a damned shame.
This isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel. You have removed the bottom of the barrel, dug through the topsoil and are scraping some deep substratum of the Earth's crust.
Your man Johnson over-reached, and had his knuckles rapped by the highest court in the land, upholding the law of the land. The judgement was unanimous. If you want to undermine the judiciary in order to score cheap political points, feel free. But you're convincing nobody.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
I think this is the key part to deign justiciability.
That political controversy did not deter the courts from holding, in the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, that an attempt to alter the law of the land by the use of the Crown’s prerogative powerswas unlawful. The court concluded at p 76 that “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law and were determined by the courts.
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
It will be perceived as such, of course. But that does not make it true. Have you read the judgment? It is superbly written and very tightly argued. It provides a very strong level of protection against any over-weening executive of whatever political colour.
It was an idiotic judgement, no matter how well written, or how much you like it. From now on every action of the government could be challenged in the courts, with the sincere hope of overturning it, and lots of these challenges might make it to the UKSC, which now becomes a vital part of our ongoing political system, deciding what the government can and cannot do. What a fucking mess.
The only answer will be a highly political UKSC much like the SCOTUS. The doomsayers are right.
A cowardly Prime Minister lying to a monarch and unlawfully suspending parliamentary democracy.
A bullying POTUS facing impeachment.
Spain digging up the stinking corpse of Franco.
A Prime Minister who thinks he is above the law being investigated for not being able to keep his pants on, and using taxpayers’ cash to treat his girlfriend.
A vulnerable Swedish teenager having a very public mental breakdown, live on all global media.
The Dutch government losing its parliamentary majority.
The monarch’s pervie second son promoting himself as “Pitch@Palace” (boke).
That must have been the perfect day to bury bad news (come back Jo Moore, all is forgiven). What did I miss?
Bet Salmond wishes his trial was underway!
He has nothing to worry about , he has won round one and pocketed £500K, will the hapless crew do any better in a stitch up against him in round 2 compared to round 1.
It's Nicola who has something to worry about as the recent revelations about her use of emails reveal. It's not made many ripples outside Scottish political circles but it sure will when she is called to give evidence in the trial of her bestie.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Yes the Tories likely will have a manifesto commitment for US Supreme Court style hearings for new SC justices in the UK now
If Boris had a majority in Parliament, the UK Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to stop him doing anything.
Do you even understand our political system? Clearly not.
How about the reintroduction of capital punishment for police and child murderers. I'm not in favour of that but ... ?
That’s a good example of another hypothetical referendum where the population would vote “Leave”, with the ‘establishment’ solidly behind “Remain”.
It would be an Uber cultural conflict. I’d actually be on the Remain side of that one, but feel obliged to implement it and campaign for a reversal, perhaps after a 10-year moratorium to see how it worked.
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I doubt he'd have the numbers but even if he did, The House of Lords is also a thing.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
Lady Hale is not an issue because the judgment stands on its own, its reasoning clear for all to see. Personally, I am quite sure she does her job impartially and as free from bias as is possible for anyone.
Besides, what about the other 10 Justices? Is someone going to suggest that all were offered some sort of anti-Brexit inducement?
Ad hominem attacks like this are just stupid. What they really reveal are the fears of the person making them.
Well exactly. An impartial judiciary is really important, and silly ad-homs from people who disagree with a ruling (even a unanimous one from eleven judges!) should be met with a robust response.
I generally support the current government, but their tactics here got ruled foul and they need to deal with it and move on.
As an aside, it’s amazing how many business dealings in other countries have written into the contract that they are justiciable under English law in London. This happens because people implicitly trust that the English legal system is robust and impartial.
No-one ever signs a contract under any US laws, unless one or more of the parties are American. Because they know the courts are too political.
Amusingly one of the other reasons is that only will our judiciary stand up to the government they will take a dim view of unwarranted asset seizures by the government.
Do some research. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Why would you not want more voter engagement with the selection of the judiciary?
Because its absurd.
Powers should be separated. Let the Judges interpret the law as it stands and if a majority of the Commons isn't happy with the law as it stands then they can change the law.
In America the Supreme Court can override the executive, the Representatives and the Senate. Short of constitutional change which is nigh-on-impossible for controversial and split decisions it is the ultimate body.
Via the Parliament Act a simple majority of the Commons can override both the Supreme Court and the Lords in the UK.
Electing MPs is all we need in this country. If the government lacks a majority we don't need to change our judges, we need an election and to choose a new majority government. Problem solved.
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I doubt he'd have the numbers but even if he did, The House of Lords is also a thing.
The House of Lords obstructing an election a majority of the Commons has voted for would be very extreme! Like the House of Lords blocking the No Deal bill which the government could have done but called off.
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I doubt he'd have the numbers but even if he did, The House of Lords is also a thing.
The Lords would stick by convention and not mess with it imo. Gotta be worth a go as making the opposition run away from the electorate is a vote winner ultimately
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Yes, I think you are broadly correct. It's not something to be welcomed, but is a route that the judges are choosing to push us down.
There is quite a lengthy exposition of the argument here:
"The Court may reassure itself that it has merely reinforced the most vital principle of our unwritten constitution, which is parliamentary sovereignty. And yet the great irony is that in so ruling, it has undermined parliamentary sovereignty. Because parliament used to police itself. Now the courts police parliament. That is not to tolerate misuse of prorogation, merely to remind us that the means and methods to sanction such misuse lie within parliament itself. In short, if parliament did not like what this government was doing, it had the option of moving to elect another. It did not do so."
"The executive has never been feebler. Yet still, instead of exploring its existing safeguards against over-mighty rulers, parliamentary sovereignty relies increasingly on the courts, with the inevitable effect of making politics legalistic, or the courts political. Neither is a happy outcome. It leads in one direction, to a place where convention is replaced by a codified constitution, where Supreme Court justices like Lady Hale are appointees of political convenience not legal merit; where the guiding spirit of our land is best determined not by the philosophy of a liberal mind like Locke, but by the forensic analysis of a legal scholar like Hamilton."
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I doubt he'd have the numbers but even if he did, The House of Lords is also a thing.
The Lords would stick by convention and not mess with it imo. Gotta be worth a go as making the opposition run away from the electorate is a vote winner ultimately
No way the Lords would block a GE.
Yeh Gads, that would be them signing their death warrant. No incoming administration (whenever the GE finally was allowed to take place) could leave them unreformed after that.
It would make the People's Budget dispute look like a vicar's tea party.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
Well there you go. QED. Now you're asking about the political beliefs of the High Court, and whether it was packed with Leavers, hence their different decision.
We never asked those questions before. Our courts have become political, and there's no turning back. Well done Gina and Jolyon, well done. And well done Boris and Dom, with their nonsensical prorogation, which achieved nothing.
Brexit is a revolution. Revolutionary principles will apply.
Morning troubadours. Rentoul musing on the one line notwithstanding, let's go polling bill. If Boris restores the whip to most of the rebels, hes not far short. Can he cobble together 6 or 7 of the indies, hoeys etc to get it over the line?? At very least it forces all opposition parties to run away from an election visibly by having to vote against rather than abstain
I doubt he'd have the numbers but even if he did, The House of Lords is also a thing.
The Lords would stick by convention and not mess with it imo. Gotta be worth a go as making the opposition run away from the electorate is a vote winner ultimately
Is there a convention that says you should be able to pass quickie bills to ignore the threshold created in a more carefully-considered bill?
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
It will be perceived as such, of course. But that does not make it true. Have you read the judgment? It is superbly written and very tightly argued. It provides a very strong level of protection against any over-weening executive of whatever political colour.
It was an idiotic judgement, no matter how well written, or how much you like it. From now on every action of the government could be challenged in the courts, with the sincere hope of overturning it, and lots of these challenges might make it to the UKSC, which now becomes a vital part of our ongoing political system, deciding what the government can and cannot do. What a fucking mess.
The only answer will be a highly political UKSC much like the SCOTUS. The doomsayers are right.
A surprise late addition to the People's Vote team. Welcome.
Absolutely.
A GE so voters can make their views known on the direction of travel for the country not just Brexit.
It is just a shame that Labour are going to be have to be dragged to the ballot box kicking and screaming.
You do realize that if if they agree an election and parliament is then prorogued for that election there is no oversight to force Johnson to comply with the extension bill? So why would anybody give him such freedom. If you think he wouldn’t break the law.....
One thing that is irking me regarding the SC judgement is the lack of a single dissent, particularly as 4 out of 7 original justices (3 England, 1 Scotland) ruled in favour of the Government.
It suggests a need to show a common front rather trumps each justice reaching an independent conclusion (Caused by the perception that the Johnson ministry was attempting to ride roughshod over parliament in a way the May ministry never did ?)
This was argued by various legal eagles here (And in other places) as a 'weaker case' than Miller where there was an 8:3 split. Certainly a case where noone was truly certain of the outcome.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
It will be perceived as such, of course. But that does not make it true. Have you read the judgment? It is superbly written and very tightly argued. It provides a very strong level of protection against any over-weening executive of whatever political colour.
It was an idiotic judgement, no matter how well written, or how much you like it. From now on every action of the government could be challenged in the courts, with the sincere hope of overturning it, and lots of these challenges might make it to the UKSC, which now becomes a vital part of our ongoing political system, deciding what the government can and cannot do. What a fucking mess.
The only answer will be a highly political UKSC much like the SCOTUS. The doomsayers are right.
So you haven’t read it.
I have read it. I have no idea why you're wetting yourself about its prose. It is pleasantly clear, no more, but frankly it wouldn't matter if it was the jurisprudential equivalent of Ulysses. This foolish decision sets a damaging precedent, and will have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. One foreseeable consequence is the Americanisation of our supreme court.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itseA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
Well there you go. QED. Now you're asking about the political beliefs of the High Court, and whether it was packed with Leavers, hence their different decision.
We never asked those questions before. Our courts have become political, and there's no turning back. Well done Gina and Jolyon, well done. And well done Boris and Dom, with their nonsensical prorogation, which achieved nothing.
Brexit is a revolution. Revolutionary principles will apply.
Sorry, Byron, I was addressing Alastair who is a lawyer.
Don't mind others interjecting, but I thought I'd made it clear the 'benchful of leavers' thing was a joke.
You do realize that if if they agree an election and parliament is then prorogued for that election there is no oversight to force Johnson to comply with the extension bill? So why would anybody give him such freedom. If you think he wouldn’t break the law.....
The discussion this morning has been based around Johnson not complying with the extension request because he won't be PM.
It will be for Corbyn (or Beckett?) to ask for the extension prior to a GE.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
People really need to leave judges alone, we really don’t want to go down the US route of politicising them. Trying to find tenuous links like this doesn’t help move things forward, I’m sure if there was a genuine conflict of interest or involvement with those in the case, Lady Hale would have recused herself.
The Supreme Court politicised themselves. The eminent judges on the High Court originally decided that the prorogation was quintessentially political, and they should not interfere. On reflection, and seeing how attitudes are polarising, I think the High Court was right.
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itseA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
Male model and authoritative legal commentator? Your talents are diverse.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
Well there you go. QED. Now you're asking about the political beliefs of the High Court, and whether it was packed with Leavers, hence their different decision.
We never asked those questions before. Our courts have become political, and there's no turning back. Well done Gina and Jolyon, well done. And well done Boris and Dom, with their nonsensical prorogation, which achieved nothing.
Brexit is a revolution. Revolutionary principles will apply.
Sorry, Byron, I was addressing Alastair who is a lawyer.
Don't mind others interjecting, but I thought I'd made it clear the 'benchful of leavers' thing was a joke.
Sounds as if the Tories, whether Leave or Remain, are starting to see Rees-Mogg as a profound embarrassment. His bizarre posture in the HoC is one thing; his tantrum over the prorogation judgement is jeopardizing their reputation as the party of law and order.
I don't doubt that Ms Hale is eminent and clever, and studiously impartial.
But of necessity this judgement has been made by a Remainer elite, because they ARE the elite. It won't go down well.
Would you prefer a Supreme Court consisting of taxi drivers from Epping?
A pisspoor post, from you.
Whatever. The fact is these judges are probably all from a Remainer background. Because 80% of lawyers are Remainers, at a rough guess, and probably 95% of elite lawyers, who have done well out of the status quo, would likely prefer the Remainery status quo.
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
It will be perceived as such, of course. But that does not make it true. Have you read the judgment? It is superbly written and very tightly argued. It provides a very strong level of protection against any over-weening executive of whatever political colour.
It was an idiotic judgement, no matter how well written, or how much you like it. From now on every action of the government could be challenged in the courts, with the sincere hope of overturning it, and lots of these challenges might make it to the UKSC, which now becomes a vital part of our ongoing political system, deciding what the government can and cannot do. What a fucking mess.
The only answer will be a highly political UKSC much like the SCOTUS. The doomsayers are right.
So you haven’t read it.
I have read it. I have no idea why you're wetting yourself about its prose. It is pleasantly clear, no more, but frankly it wouldn't matter if it was the jurisprudential equivalent of Ulysses. This foolish decision sets a damaging precedent, and will have all sorts of unforeseen consequences. One foreseeable consequence is the Americanisation of our supreme court.
You have read it, but you cannot point out what within the judgment you disagree with. Instead, it is the premise that you have a problem with. In other words, you think that government decisions need not be lawful. We’ll just have to disagree on that.
Comments
A Yodel delivery driver brought a package to my address, correctly. The instructions were to post through the letterbox, but the package was clearly too big, so he rang the doorbell.
This is an alarming degree of competence and common sense based on past experience with Yodel (who previously delivered large amounts of dog food to a little old lady at the end of the street). Was he an imposter?
Is this Bizarro-World?
And why does my browser want me to write 'impostor' rather than 'imposter'?
I wonder if it's like the time I was staggered to discover that 'miniscule' is a minor variant of 'minuscule'.
The next government, whoever leads it, is likely to spend a lot of money trying to buy votes. We will enter the next recession with a large and growing budget deficit, and a debt as a percentage of GDP already at high levels.
It could be that the only thing that brings the Brexit mess to an end is an almighty debt crisis. We may even be nostalgic about the times when we argued about the minutiae of Brexit.
A pisspoor post, from you.
Betfair offers me all the betting opportunities I need on the markets you mention at more favourable prices.
Remainers claiming the very future of the nation is at stake and every day must count in parliament...meanwhile continuing to play stupid games and enrage the public even more.
Where can I support a recall petition?
Do you even understand our political system? Clearly not.
If the Commons formally withdraws confidence from Boris then he has 14 days to regain it [or another government gains it] or we have an election to elect a new government that the Commons has confidence in.
In the absence of the Commons doing that then Boris formally has the confidence of the House with all that entails.
How did he nobble the other ten? /s
This will be perceived by many as an Establishment stitch-up, however judicious and well-mannered. And hoi polloi will have a point.
Leavers need to ask, what is the value and longevity of what they win at the end of the day compared to everything they trash getting there. Seriously.
That means, I think:
1. Calling off negotiations until after a GE, publically accusing the EU of bad faith and failing to offer anything, and doubling down on his accusation that the Remain parties in parliament have undermined his negotiating position by removing the prospect of the outcome that the EU feared.
2. Talking up the prospect of reaching an agreement if that parliamentary block could be removed.
3. When the move to force a GE by the 2/3rds route fails, go into opposition, stating that he will move immediate VONCs to try and scupper any attempt to form a Remainer government and allow the people to cast a verdict on this rotten parliament.
4. Take a hard line against any Conservative MP who has lost the whip and who fails to support his VONCs, stating that failure to do so will rule out any prospect of them being allowed to stand as a Conservative in the GE.
The Day Today was good - often quite witty and pithy as were the earlier versions of Spitting Image. Both were satire rather than comedy, but even so.
Not the 9 o'clock News was often very good as were Blackadder 2 and 3
She should be heralded of the exact kind of meritocratic success story the Tories are supposed to support.
Sound strategy - allows the others to look like hypocrites and blockers.
"Lord Reed Chairman of the Franco-British Judicial Co-operation Committee since 2005, was President of the EU Forum of Judges for the Environment, an expert advisor to the EU/Council of Europe and serves as one of the UK's ad hoc judges at the European Court of Human Rights"
Riddled with Europeanism and reeking of Remainerism? That will be the perception.
This could all have been avoided if the SC had not interfered with high politics. Now I have to side with the pessimists. We are headed to an elected and politicised Supreme Court, and the direction of travel cannot be changed. It's a damned shame.
Besides, what about the other 10 Justices? Is someone going to suggest that all were offered some sort of anti-Brexit inducement?
Ad hominem attacks like this are just stupid. What they really reveal are the fears of the person making them.
'good for Yes'
"The Leader of the Opposition Your Majesty."
What would happen next? Would Betty take it on trust that Corbs would have the confidence of the house and let him take the car to No 10 for his speech? Even if within a day or two he's VONCed (after sending the letter obvs).
Or would she say, "Bozza you're having me on. There's no chance Keto Watson and those two Scots lasses will go along with that and frankly I'm not having it either. Think about who else you want to recommend instead while I finish this Kitkat". What would he say?
The Supreme Court decided, foolishly, to disagree with the High Courts, and involve itself in politics, and as a result people are analysing the political backgrounds and beliefs of the judges. That's what happens in politics. So we will have battles over who gets into the UKSC, as they do in the USA. How can we not?
It's a dramatic evolution in our constitution, and probably not a good one.
And the same with the HoL when they got rid of the heriditary peers. A lot of people said the inevitable end point would have to be an (at least partly) elected second chamber.
And with devoltution a lot of people said the only realistic end point would be a fully federal UK.
All of this was debated a lot at the time so it's not really a surprise that this is where we're going.
Powers should be separated. Let the Judges interpret the law as it stands and if a majority of the Commons isn't happy with the law as it stands then they can change the law.
In America the Supreme Court can override the executive, the Representatives and the Senate. Short of constitutional change which is nigh-on-impossible for controversial and split decisions it is the ultimate body.
Via the Parliament Act a simple majority of the Commons can override both the Supreme Court and the Lords in the UK.
Electing MPs is all we need in this country. If the government lacks a majority we don't need to change our judges, we need an election and to choose a new majority government. Problem solved.
It is the law but as yet not enacted which is due on 19/10 so given how trustworthy the PM is then clearly no election even agreed till after that.
Can I suggest that, rather than hyperventilating, you read the judgment? It is clearly written, short and firmly argued.
Labour are unfit to be in opposition. They are certainly unfit to be in government.
They'd be better off sending their MPs home, for all the good of them at the moment.
What is there plan? They don't seem to have one. I even heard Hilary Benn last night just saying they had to take 'No Deal' off the table, but without any concret proposals as to how to achieve that at all.
They are allowing the Conservatives, who are deep in minority territory, to drift towards a no deal Brexit. Lay down a VoNC, TODAY, as they should've done back in February, March, April, May, June, July and September.
Stop playing games with the Benn bill, or other 'scrutiny'. VoNC the government.
They won't. They're useless.
If the government doesn't like the law as it stands, it can change the law. That's not the case in America.
We are not America!
On the other hand, they're all quite old, aren't they? So most probably leavers? Or maybe just judges trying to uphold the law and be impartial - doing their jobs?
You're entitled to support the entitled as much as the next person I suppose and, to be fair, it is in keeping with remainers desire for the status-quo to be maintained regardless of the wishes of the 'lower orders'.
I generally support the current government, but their tactics here got ruled foul so they need to deal with it and move on.
It would be good to see a constitutional convention at some point, the last couple of decades of tinkering has probably left us at the point where a lot of convention needs to be formalised.
As an aside, it’s amazing how many business dealings in other countries have written into the contract that they are justiciable under English law in London. This happens because people implicitly trust that the English legal system is robust and impartial.
No-one ever signs a contract under any US laws, unless one or more of the parties are American. Because they know the courts are too political.
Your man Johnson over-reached, and had his knuckles rapped by the highest court in the land, upholding the law of the land. The judgement was unanimous. If you want to undermine the judiciary in order to score cheap political points, feel free. But you're convincing nobody.
That political controversy did not deter the courts from holding, in the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74, that an attempt to alter the law of the land by the use of the Crown’s prerogative powerswas unlawful. The court concluded at p 76 that “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law and were determined by the courts.
Case law from 1611 !
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
The only answer will be a highly political UKSC much like the SCOTUS. The doomsayers are right.
It would be an Uber cultural conflict. I’d actually be on the Remain side of that one, but feel obliged to implement it and campaign for a reversal, perhaps after a 10-year moratorium to see how it worked.
A GE so voters can make their views known on the direction of travel for the country not just Brexit.
It is just a shame that Labour are going to be have to be dragged to the ballot box kicking and screaming.
Note that well Mr Corbyn.
Gotta be worth a go as making the opposition run away from the electorate is a vote winner ultimately
There is quite a lengthy exposition of the argument here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/24/slippery-slope-us-supreme-court-system-now-judges-have-taken/
Behind the paywall, so here are some excerpts:
"The Court may reassure itself that it has merely reinforced the most vital principle of our unwritten constitution, which is parliamentary sovereignty. And yet the great irony is that in so ruling, it has undermined parliamentary sovereignty. Because parliament used to police itself. Now the courts police parliament. That is not to tolerate misuse of prorogation, merely to remind us that the means and methods to sanction such misuse lie within parliament itself. In short, if parliament did not like what this government was doing, it had the option of moving to elect another. It did not do so."
"The executive has never been feebler. Yet still, instead of exploring its existing safeguards against over-mighty rulers, parliamentary sovereignty relies increasingly on the courts, with the inevitable effect of making politics legalistic, or the courts political. Neither is a happy outcome. It leads in one direction, to a place where convention is replaced by a codified constitution, where Supreme Court justices like Lady Hale are appointees of political convenience not legal merit; where the guiding spirit of our land is best determined not by the philosophy of a liberal mind like Locke, but by the forensic analysis of a legal scholar like Hamilton."
Yeh Gads, that would be them signing their death warrant. No incoming administration (whenever the GE finally was allowed to take place) could leave them unreformed after that.
It would make the People's Budget dispute look like a vicar's tea party.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
There would be a hastily written amendment to the Tory manifesto committing to reforming the HoL which would be hugely popular.
Remainers blocking Brexit has created a bonfire of centuries of democratic processes...burn down the UK to save the EU.
We never asked those questions before. Our courts have become political, and there's no turning back. Well done Gina and Jolyon, well done. And well done Boris and Dom, with their nonsensical prorogation, which achieved nothing.
Brexit is a revolution. Revolutionary principles will apply.
Last month I had something like 40% No Deal, 40% Deal Brexit, and 20% Remain.
I’d now say, cutting through all the complexity of GONUs and elections, that we’re now at something like:
10% No Deal, 55% Deal Brexit, 35% Remain.
The path to Remain is through another referendum which now looks very likely.
The chance of exiting by October 31 I have down as 15%.
No, I will not show my working.
It suggests a need to show a common front rather trumps each justice reaching an independent conclusion (Caused by the perception that the Johnson ministry was attempting to ride roughshod over parliament in a way the May ministry never did ?)
This was argued by various legal eagles here (And in other places) as a 'weaker case' than Miller where there was an 8:3 split. Certainly a case where noone was truly certain of the outcome.
Don't mind others interjecting, but I thought I'd made it clear the 'benchful of leavers' thing was a joke.
It will be for Corbyn (or Beckett?) to ask for the extension prior to a GE.
NEW THREAD
That was a great line from the comedy drama Micro Men, about Sir Clive Sinclair and the advent of personal computers in the 1980s. Worth a watch.