Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Undefined discussion subject.

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 2019 in General
«13456789

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Excellent again.
  • Great article. I have often said to my kids that it is not our "democracy" that we should be proud of, but our rule of law. It is what positively distinguishes us from China or Putin's Russia.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    I need a summary.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    I need a summary.

    As with the actual SC verdict - its worth reading it in its entirety.

    One of the stupidest things the cabinet have done in the past two days is attack our court system - it's independence and sanity is one reason why the UK is so highly regarded around the world.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,328
    I don't agree with the SC decision for the reasons set out in the previous thread and which I won't bore you all by repeating. Despite those reservations I agree with much of @Cyclefree's piece.

    The description given of this Parliament by the AG today was bombastic but accurate. This is the worst Parliament I can recall in my lifetime (58 on Friday). It has been dishonest and utterly destructive of trust.

    I believe strongly that the Brexit referendum should not just be "respected" but implemented. It is very important to our democracy that this is so, even the SC acknowledged that in their decision. But the damage done by those who are not willing to accept a democratic decision and indeed by some on the winning side who have behaved like buffoons will reverberate for a long time. There is a lot of repair work to be done.
  • Ms CycleFree is excellent as ever, but as a matter of political tactics, I think that the opposition parties and MPs wanting the best for the country shouldn't continue to harass the government on this, tempting though it must be to do so.

    The reason I say that is that in many ways this is a distraction from the pressing issues of what is actually going to be done about the looming October 31st deadline, about how we get the country out of the mess it has got into, and - most importantly - how we begin to reverse the dangerous polarisation which is poisoning our politics and civil life. Those bringing the court case have won a famous victory, which stands on its own merits; they shouldn't rub it in: "In Victory: Magnanimity."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    “A curiosity in the Government’s case was that it failed to provide any evidence at all explaining the rationale for its decision. ”

    Had the government not been embarrassed to say out loud that it was proroguing in order to give Parliament as little time as it thought it might get away with before October 31st, the eventual judgment might have been a great deal narrower.

    This was a key point in forcing the court to rule as it did, since the government was claiming in plain terms that it could prorogue for as long as it liked without any reason, forcing this response from the court:
    ..In our view, it is no answer to these points to say, as counsel for the Prime Minister argued, that the court should decline to consider extreme hypothetical examples. The court has to address the argument of counsel for the Prime Minister that there are no circumstances whatsoever in which it would be entitled to review a decision that Parliament should be prorogued (or ministerial advice to that effect). In addressing that argument, it is perfectly appropriate, and necessary, to consider its implications....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.
  • ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    edited September 2019

    Ms CycleFree is excellent as ever, but as a matter of political tactics, I think that the opposition parties and MPs wanting the best for the country shouldn't continue to harass the government on this, tempting though it must be to do so.

    The reason I say that is that in many ways this is a distraction from the pressing issues of what is actually going to be done about the looming October 31st deadline, about how we get the country out of the mess it has got into, and - most importantly - how we begin to reverse the dangerous polarisation which is poisoning our politics and civil life. Those bringing the court case have won a famous victory, which stands on its own merits; they shouldn't rub it in: "In Victory: Magnanimity."

    what was your word "naif" :smiley:

    Im afraid politcs is in stamping on your opponents face territory atm. Even the little this Parlt has to do most likely wont get done as the brawl takes precedence.
  • Ms CycleFree is excellent as ever, but as a matter of political tactics, I think that the opposition parties and MPs wanting the best for the country shouldn't continue to harass the government on this, tempting though it must be to do so.

    The reason I say that is that in many ways this is a distraction from the pressing issues of what is actually going to be done about the looming October 31st deadline, about how we get the country out of the mess it has got into, and - most importantly - how we begin to reverse the dangerous polarisation which is poisoning our politics and civil life. Those bringing the court case have won a famous victory, which stands on its own merits; they shouldn't rub it in: "In Victory: Magnanimity."

    what was your word "naif" :smiley:

    Im afraid politcs is in stamping on your opponents face territory atm. Even the little this Parlt has to do most likely wont get done as the brawl takes precedence.
    Oh, quite. My post was about what should happen, not what will.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    If the SC decides something that a Government doesn't like that Government can rewrite the law to resolve the issue.

    There really issue at the moment is that everyone is riding the constitutional horse and trying to use it to their advantage. Because of that we are rapidly discovering all the shortcomings within the constitution not least of which is that an unwritten constitution is great when everyone plays by the rules and rather awkward when a side is trying to ignore / work around it
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Indeed , it is well not to trample over people in getting to the top as you are going to meet those same people on the way down...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    Ms CycleFree is excellent as ever, but as a matter of political tactics, I think that the opposition parties and MPs wanting the best for the country shouldn't continue to harass the government on this, tempting though it must be to do so.

    The reason I say that is that in many ways this is a distraction from the pressing issues of what is actually going to be done about the looming October 31st deadline, about how we get the country out of the mess it has got into, and - most importantly - how we begin to reverse the dangerous polarisation which is poisoning our politics and civil life. Those bringing the court case have won a famous victory, which stands on its own merits; they shouldn't rub it in: "In Victory: Magnanimity."

    I agree with that.
    Philip had some interesting things to say about a simple amendment to the FTPA which might prevent such lengthy deadlock in the future, which despite my massive differences with him on Brexit, I endorse.

    If the grandstanding in the Commons this afternoon was all that the legal victory enabled, then it was a hollow one - though the ruling itself was, I think, excellent.
  • Ms CycleFree is excellent as ever, but as a matter of political tactics, I think that the opposition parties and MPs wanting the best for the country shouldn't continue to harass the government on this, tempting though it must be to do so.

    The reason I say that is that in many ways this is a distraction from the pressing issues of what is actually going to be done about the looming October 31st deadline, about how we get the country out of the mess it has got into, and - most importantly - how we begin to reverse the dangerous polarisation which is poisoning our politics and civil life. Those bringing the court case have won a famous victory, which stands on its own merits; they shouldn't rub it in: "In Victory: Magnanimity."

    Sadly Leavers have shown that they are in the main too thuggish and churlish to apply said maxim, but yes agree with the general thrust of your point.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551
    Has Boris started addressing the House yet?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154
    edited September 2019
    There seem to be two threads for the same article ......

    Like legal opinions.

    :)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,227
    edited September 2019
    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    The best law flows from logic and ethics. For example -

    One's logic (if it is evolved) and one's ethics (if one has any) would tell one that it ought to be illegal for a government to shut down parliament for an improper purpose such as preventing scrutiny of a controversial policy, whilst mendaciously claiming that the reason for the shutdown is something else entirely.

    And lo and behold it is!
  • GIN1138 said:

    Has Boris started addressing the House yet?

    Nope. Still on endless questions to Govey which he endlessly refuses to answer
  • ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.
  • well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    There is some truth in what you say, but the main challenge is that executives must not overreach their powers. If they do, it is quite proper for individuals to approach the courts. Remember these "enemies of the people" did not bring the case themselves, and had the government not attempted to play fast and loose with the constitution it would not have been necessary. The separation of powers is a powerful check and balance system. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
  • The judgment can be summed up in four words: "don't take the piss". The government has evidently yet to have read that précis.
  • ByronicByronic Posts: 3,578
    ‘If it is a ten-minute speech it takes me all of two weeks to prepare it; if it is a half-hour speech it takes me a week; if I can talk as long as I want to it requires no preparation at all. I am ready now.“

    - Woodrow Wilson
  • ..
    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    At a guess - because that's not what the article is about?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    eek said:

    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    If the SC decides something that a Government doesn't like that Government can rewrite the law to resolve the issue.

    There really issue at the moment is that everyone is riding the constitutional horse and trying to use it to their advantage. Because of that we are rapidly discovering all the shortcomings within the constitution not least of which is that an unwritten constitution is great when everyone plays by the rules and rather awkward when a side is trying to ignore / work around it
    your first sentence alone shows how theyll invite themselves in.

    Your second shows you look at it as a lawyer. People quite like what we had its only the idiots inside the system who couldnt get their way who fked it up. So if you want a proper constitution its going to have to be put to the people for legitimacy, put by the same people who say the peopleare too thick to know what theyre voting for in a binary vote.Still good work for lawyers.
  • ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    What would you have the judges do? Ignore the law and refuse to adjudicate because politicians or journos try to intimidate them? These were points of law. It was not politics per se, but it has an effect on politics, because it reinforces the principle that a PM is not above the law.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    I seriously doubt it.
    The prerogative power has not been used in this way for seventy years, so it’s hardly ‘giving themselves an area to preside over’.

    It will deter future governments from playing silly buggers with prorogation in the future, so we likely won’t see another case for decades.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
  • kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    You should start listening to the people on the street and not the voices in your head. Two polls have shown clear support for the decision.
  • kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    Yes I'm afraid the perception is that remainer Judges, a remainer Speaker and a remainer Parliament are conspiring with some individuals of significant wealth to overrule the votes of the little people.
  • kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    And I hear that problem - its the same problem as the people who insist that the deal to leave the EU wouldn't be leaving the EU, or that an advisory referendum of the previous parliament overrules the general election result of 2017.

    I can dismiss some of the people holding these views as unremittingly stupid because they are. Many though are otherwise sane people who have been gaslighted by the print media.

    In my own locality, many many Facebook posters are very angry with our Labour MP for not having delivered Brexit. When you ask if he should have voted for the deal they are even angrier - NO they shout, that isn't Brexit.

    You can't reason with stupid.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    If members of the public are too thick to understand the importance of not giving unrestricted powers to a PM then they should do us all a favour and save us from the idiocy of their vote in future.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.
  • Watching the two sides in Parliament tear each other to shreds this afternoon, it seems impossible to imagine them ever, ever, agreeing anything again.

    The noisiest voices on both sides seem, at the moment, more interested in using every twist and turn to confirm their own views than hunting for a basis for resolving things together.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-49807552

    It is a really bad look to the country.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
  • kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    You should start listening to the people on the street and not the voices in your head. Two polls have shown clear support for the decision.
    In Mr MarqueeMark's version of Utopia, the rule of law should be determined not by legislation and precedent, but by a few angry old people on the street who don't like the idea that the PM is not above the law.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,227

    The judgment can be summed up in four words: "don't take the piss". The government has evidently yet to have read that précis.

    Exactly. Standards in public life. On the whole it's better to have some.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited September 2019

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    And I hear that problem - its the same problem as the people who insist that the deal to leave the EU wouldn't be leaving the EU, or that an advisory referendum of the previous parliament overrules the general election result of 2017.

    I can dismiss some of the people holding these views as unremittingly stupid because they are. Many though are otherwise sane people who have been gaslighted by the print media.

    In my own locality, many many Facebook posters are very angry with our Labour MP for not having delivered Brexit. When you ask if he should have voted for the deal they are even angrier - NO they shout, that isn't Brexit.

    You can't reason with stupid.
    It's why we need a second referendum with 2 options - a deal to leave or remain (nothing else is ever going to silence the Brexit Monster).

    And we emphasis that this second referendum is the final decision - vote now or keep quiet.

    When you look at the current and past 2 PMs it's really hard to work out which one is the worst - I think the lack of a second referendum just nudges it to Cameron.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
  • ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    Parliament can still fix it, if it wants to. There's nothing to prevent parliament passing legislation which lays out exactly what the rules are on proroguing parliament, and thereby making this ruling obsolete. But the court was dealing with the legal position as it is today.
  • eek said:

    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    If the SC decides something that a Government doesn't like that Government can rewrite the law to resolve the issue.

    There really issue at the moment is that everyone is riding the constitutional horse and trying to use it to their advantage. Because of that we are rapidly discovering all the shortcomings within the constitution not least of which is that an unwritten constitution is great when everyone plays by the rules and rather awkward when a side is trying to ignore / work around it
    your first sentence alone shows how theyll invite themselves in.

    Your second shows you look at it as a lawyer. People quite like what we had its only the idiots inside the system who couldnt get their way who fked it up. So if you want a proper constitution its going to have to be put to the people for legitimacy, put by the same people who say the peopleare too thick to know what theyre voting for in a binary vote.Still good work for lawyers.
    The law generally has to be determined by lawyers, unless you live in China or Putin's Russia. Personally I quite like to have doctors look after medicine and lawyers look after the law. I haven't had enough of experts, but I have had enough of lying journalists
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited September 2019

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    "People on the street"

    LOL

    Name them. I mean was this in the chippy, at a Spoons, or outside White's?
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    I have to disagree with that disagreement - the courts are and have to be the final arbitrator of the law. Governments can of course use Parliament to change the law if the courts return an answer the Government doesn't like.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
    Do you think that Leave would have won on a prospectus of no deal?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695
    edited September 2019
    Meanwhile good header - put it in the file of sad that this needs saying articles.

    Another point - amongst those receiving plaudits should be Edward Garnier who, in his positively Guiness/Smiley way, eviscerated the government's actions and arguments.
  • Eh, it's only the next day and already nobody gives a damn about the court case. We march forward!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,227
    edited September 2019
    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646

    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    There is some truth in what you say, but the main challenge is that executives must not overreach their powers. If they do, it is quite proper for individuals to approach the courts. Remember these "enemies of the people" did not bring the case themselves, and had the government not attempted to play fast and loose with the constitution it would not have been necessary. The separation of powers is a powerful check and balance system. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
    We are where we are because there has been poor management of the House at a time of razor thin \ no majorities. The internal discipline of a government falling if it cant command a majority has gone. The people mamaging their parties and the referees have all forgotten what they should be doing. Let the house fall is the best discipline, leave the courts alone.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    Yes I'm afraid the perception is that remainer Judges, a remainer Speaker and a remainer Parliament are conspiring with some individuals of significant wealth to overrule the votes of the little people.
    You know how the judges voted do you? Remarkable.
  • nico67 said:

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    If members of the public are too thick to understand the importance of not giving unrestricted powers to a PM then they should do us all a favour and save us from the idiocy of their vote in future.

    "Too thick to understand"? That is your attitude in a nutshell.I rest my case.
    Entitled, sanctimonious and above all immensely foolish.

    If there are "wreckers" then it's clear who they are.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
    The people obstructed it in 2017 when they decided not to give TMay a majority on a manifesto that was pretty hard Brexit, so the mandate that many of you Brexit obsessives is far from clear. In my view my 2017 GE non-mandate trumps your 2016 dodgy referendum! 🤣 🤣 🤣
  • Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    Yes I'm afraid the perception is that remainer Judges, a remainer Speaker and a remainer Parliament are conspiring with some individuals of significant wealth to overrule the votes of the little people.
    You know how the judges voted do you? Remarkable.
    How about you re-read what I said.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,227

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.

    It is strong and independent precisely BECAUSE the ignorami are angered by it.
  • kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
    I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited September 2019
    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    I seriously doubt it.
    The prerogative power has not been used in this way for seventy years, so it’s hardly ‘giving themselves an area to preside over’.

    It will deter future governments from playing silly buggers with prorogation in the future, so we likely won’t see another case for decades.
    you cite one principle and ignore the other. If you can get your way by taking HMG to court why bother with Parliament ? Currently the rules are there are no rules.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    You should start listening to the people on the street and not the voices in your head. Two polls have shown clear support for the decision.
    What’s that got to do with people on the street?
  • eek said:

    I need a summary.

    As with the actual SC verdict - its worth reading it in its entirety.

    One of the stupidest things the cabinet have done in the past two days is attack our court system - it's independence and sanity is one reason why the UK is so highly regarded around the world.
    :+1: x 1000

    The idea that a conservative government should be attacking the law/judges would have seemed utterly ridiculous a few short years ago.

    Micheal Oakshott will be turning in his grave.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864

    Great article. I have often said to my kids that it is not our "democracy" that we should be proud of, but our rule of law. It is what positively distinguishes us from China or Putin's Russia.

    Good grief.

    You mean when the little Foremains cluster round Old Father Foremain, asking for a story or a bit of attention or tales of what he did in the Great Brexit War, what they get is pompous bullshit.
  • HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
  • Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    That's a brilliant observation. With the support of as few as 215 MPs (?), Boris can block an election all the way to 2022 unless the Opposition goes the whole hog and somehow abolishes the FTPA!

    "I'll show you shortest-serving Prime Minister ever, you cavernous twats!", as Boris would no doubt cry in such a scenario...
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
    And a majority of Labour MPs, by the way...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    And I hear that problem - its the same problem as the people who insist that the deal to leave the EU wouldn't be leaving the EU, or that an advisory referendum of the previous parliament overrules the general election result of 2017.

    I can dismiss some of the people holding these views as unremittingly stupid because they are. Many though are otherwise sane people who have been gaslighted by the print media.

    In my own locality, many many Facebook posters are very angry with our Labour MP for not having delivered Brexit. When you ask if he should have voted for the deal they are even angrier - NO they shout, that isn't Brexit.

    You can't reason with stupid.
    It's why we need a second referendum with 2 options - a deal to leave or remain (nothing else is ever going to silence the Brexit Monster).

    And we emphasis that this second referendum is the final decision - vote now or keep quiet.

    When you look at the current and past 2 PMs it's really hard to work out which one is the worst - I think the lack of a second referendum just nudges it to Cameron.
    And we emphasis that this second referendum is the final decision - vote now or keep quiet.

    having been told that on Ref1 why on earth would anyone believe that ?
  • HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    Just how long is this extended tantrum from the feral toddlers in this enervated government going to continue?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,646

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    Parliament can still fix it, if it wants to. There's nothing to prevent parliament passing legislation which lays out exactly what the rules are on proroguing parliament, and thereby making this ruling obsolete. But the court was dealing with the legal position as it is today.
    your making my point for me. Parliament can fix these things itself, the court should have told it to.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    Just how long is this extended tantrum from the feral toddlers in this enervated government going to continue?
    Well yours has lasted well over three years - so that's the benchmark....
  • HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
    Would yesterday's result have been any different if they had been?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    Total crap.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    edited September 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.

    It is strong and independent precisely BECAUSE the ignorami are angered by it.
    Ignoramus isn't a latin noun; it's the first person plural of the verb ignorare (ie it means "we have no knowledge of"). So the plural of the English noun is 'ignoramuses'.
  • kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
    I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
    As a remainer are you unwilling to see a General Election in the near future?

    If so, why...?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    Dear me ! The hysterical over reaction to the SC decision is really showing some Leavers up.

    I would have accepted their decision even if they supported Bozo because they’re the most qualified judges in the UK. But Leavers just rubbish anything that doesn’t decide the way they want .

  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    Thanks for the header, cyclefree. Excellent as usual.
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
    The people obstructed it in 2017 when they decided not to give TMay a majority on a manifesto that was pretty hard Brexit, so the mandate that many of you Brexit obsessives is far from clear. In my view my 2017 GE non-mandate trumps your 2016 dodgy referendum! 🤣 🤣 🤣
    i voted remain.
  • blueblue said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    That's a brilliant observation. With the support of as few as 215 MPs (?), Boris can block an election all the way to 2022 unless the Opposition goes the whole hog and somehow abolishes the FTPA!

    "I'll show you shortest-serving Prime Minister ever, you cavernous twats!", as Boris would no doubt cry in such a scenario...
    He would need about 318 MPs, not 215, to be sure of preventing an election via the VONC route.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    kinabalu said:

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.

    It is strong and independent precisely BECAUSE the ignorami are angered by it.
    Ignoramus isn't a latin noun; it's the first person plural of the verb ignorare (ie it means "we have no knowledge of"). So the plural of the English noun is 'ignoramuses'.
    BOOM
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    What a terrible idea, the last thing we need is politics in the judiciary.
  • isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    10/10.

    There is nothing in public life more important than a strong and independent judiciary. This case has shown that we have one and at the same time has reinforced its importance.

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.
    You should start listening to the people on the street and not the voices in your head. Two polls have shown clear support for the decision.
    What’s that got to do with people on the street?
    It depends if you trust polling more than random anecdata and assumptions.

    Nowadays, that's not as easy a choice to make as it once was ... ;)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,985
    edited September 2019
    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Have you heard the people on the street about this? There is vast anger. Whether fair or not, the judiciary has lost a huge amount of respect by this judgment precisely because it is not seen as strong and independent.

    It is strong and independent precisely BECAUSE the ignorami are angered by it.
    Ignoramus isn't a latin noun; it's the first person plural of the verb ignorare (ie it means "we have no knowledge of"). So the plural of the English noun is 'ignoramuses'.
    BOOM
    I think this thread is now over? :)
  • ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    Parliament can still fix it, if it wants to. There's nothing to prevent parliament passing legislation which lays out exactly what the rules are on proroguing parliament, and thereby making this ruling obsolete. But the court was dealing with the legal position as it is today.
    your making my point for me. Parliament can fix these things itself, the court should have told it to.
    The little minor difficulty with that is that it's hard for parliament to fix it if it's been prorogued.
  • blueblue said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    That's a brilliant observation. With the support of as few as 215 MPs (?), Boris can block an election all the way to 2022 unless the Opposition goes the whole hog and somehow abolishes the FTPA!

    "I'll show you shortest-serving Prime Minister ever, you cavernous twats!", as Boris would no doubt cry in such a scenario...
    He would need about 318 MPs, not 215, to be sure of preventing an election via the VONC route.
    Godammit!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    Parliament can still fix it, if it wants to. There's nothing to prevent parliament passing legislation which lays out exactly what the rules are on proroguing parliament, and thereby making this ruling obsolete. But the court was dealing with the legal position as it is today.
    your making my point for me. Parliament can fix these things itself, the court should have told it to.
    The little minor difficulty with that is that it's hard for parliament to fix it if it's been prorogued.
    It had time to prevent it.....
  • kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
    I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
    As a remainer are you unwilling to see a General Election in the near future?

    If so, why...?
    I'm betting, not identifying personal preferences.

    But as it happens, my view (not as a Remainer) is that we have the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, that it is a healthy thing to have, that MPs should work to form a suitable majority consensus as to a way forward and then implement it. It's only just over two years since the last election. No need to pull the handle of the fruit machine because the current government has run out of road: a new government could and should be formed when the moment is right.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,695

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
    I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
    As a remainer are you unwilling to see a General Election in the near future?

    If so, why...?
    Once more you are misunderstanding the matrix of political affiliation today in Britain. Was it you the other day who wondered why the "Remain campaign" was unwilling to have an election? There is no remain party. There is Labour, the Conservatives, the LDs, the Brexit Party and others.

    This is where Brexiters fall down. They see things in terms of leave and remain only, ignoring the lesson taugt them by the past three years of actual real life and politics which is, it's more complicated than that.

    Still, not hugely surprising.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    What a terrible idea, the last thing we need is politics in the judiciary.
    But now we've got it..... Ho do I vote out these political judges?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    blueblue said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    That's a brilliant observation. With the support of as few as 215 MPs (?), Boris can block an election all the way to 2022 unless the Opposition goes the whole hog and somehow abolishes the FTPA!

    "I'll show you shortest-serving Prime Minister ever, you cavernous twats!", as Boris would no doubt cry in such a scenario...
    Not true though if a VNOC is passed. An election is then called automatically after 14 days if the House fails to pass an Affirmative Confidence Vote.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    What a terrible idea, the last thing we need is politics in the judiciary.
    But now we've got it..... Ho do I vote out these political judges?
    They’re not political. Don’t be silly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.

    This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
    I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
    As a remainer are you unwilling to see a General Election in the near future?

    If so, why...?
    Err no he's assessed the chance of the next GE being in 2021 as greater than 1.5%.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,228
    Very good header from @Cyclefree.

    Any future Corbyn government will be limited by the implications of this ruling.
  • HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    Just how long is this extended tantrum from the feral toddlers in this enervated government going to continue?
    And your response qualifies as grown-up and mature?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502

    ...

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, ....

    They have, surely? That's the effect of the judgment.
    saying it wasnt justiciable was the way to do it. Now theyve given themselves another area to preside over, the politicans will be back, then theyll start to interfere to unlevel the playing field in their favour with appointments and so on. I hope Im wrong but with this bunch they always take you to a lower level.
    They had to rule that it was justiciable, otherwise some future PM could (for example) prorogue parliament to avoid or nullify a vote of no confidence.
    I disagree, that is a problem for Parliament to fix, not the courts. That we have a weak politcal leadership on both sides of the house made worse by a grandstanding speaker is just one of those things. Weve had bad Parliaments before but eventually the system makes its own corrections.
    Parliament can still fix it, if it wants to. There's nothing to prevent parliament passing legislation which lays out exactly what the rules are on proroguing parliament, and thereby making this ruling obsolete. But the court was dealing with the legal position as it is today.
    your making my point for me. Parliament can fix these things itself, the court should have told it to.
    The little minor difficulty with that is that it's hard for parliament to fix it if it's been prorogued.
    It had time to prevent it.....
    No it didn’t . They had to make a choice because of limited time and try and stop a no deal . And secondly any change to prorogation needs Queens Consent before they’re even allowed to debate that which Bozo could have asked her not to give .
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453

    well written article Ms C, but I sadly still cant shake the suspicion that since the court has opened its doors to politics, politicans will soon start walking in to the courts.

    Politicans have ridden coach and horses through convention these last two years to gain a temporary advantage only to find the other side have upgraded their coach too and now its pulled by dragons. None of them have the sense when to let it go and so I fear the SC.

    Personally I think they should have left the politicos to sort out their own mess, quarantine the madness so to speak. Now they run the risk of having it crawl all over them. Not good for anyone.

    The problem is that this is specifically about prorogation: i.e. Parliament is no longer sitting. There cannot be a situation where a government prorogues Parliament to avoid a VoNC.

    So, there has to be some way of reviewing this.

    That being said, it's clearly time for Parliament to pass a law specifically detailing the curcumstances around which proragation can happen.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Just how long is this extended tantrum from the feral toddlers in this enervated government going to continue?

    40 years is the current record...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,154

    RobD said:

    HYUFD said:

    We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.

    Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and selections commission exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President

    What a terrible idea, the last thing we need is politics in the judiciary.
    But now we've got it..... Ho do I vote out these political judges?
    We don't. Honestly, read the judgment. It's well worth anyone's time. Certainly if they're going to comment on it.
  • Every day that passes makes me happier I let my membership expire. The party is trying to do the same to itself...
  • This article is cant.

    Why is there no adverse comment of Bercow's discarding of decades of precedent nor of Parliament's lamentable failure to enact what it undertook to enact - departure from the EU.

    Dur, it tried to. The WA was blocked by the ERG and the DUP. Perhaps you don't follow events?
    The question (and answer) were clear. "Trying" is not enough. The decision of the people has been obstructed.

    Cant about no "instruction for no deal" are just that : self-serving cant.
    The people obstructed it in 2017 when they decided not to give TMay a majority on a manifesto that was pretty hard Brexit, so the mandate that many of you Brexit obsessives is far from clear. In my view my 2017 GE non-mandate trumps your 2016 dodgy referendum! 🤣 🤣 🤣
    i voted remain.
    I don't care how you voted, but that seems surprising considering your post ranting about Bercow. Cyclefree's article is excellent in explaining the legal situation, and yet you go off on some rant about Bercow and Brexit. It was unlawful behaviour of the executive that caused the judgement. The 11 judges were doing their job. The government should shut the fuck up about it and do theirs.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,028

    Watching the two sides in Parliament tear each other to shreds this afternoon, it seems impossible to imagine them ever, ever, agreeing anything again.

    The noisiest voices on both sides seem, at the moment, more interested in using every twist and turn to confirm their own views than hunting for a basis for resolving things together.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-49807552

    It is a really bad look to the country.

    That's adversarial two-party politics for you.

    Consensual continental style politics is the way forward

  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Amazing if prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit as we keep being told then why are Leavers so upset about the SC ruling .
This discussion has been closed.