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.
To prevent an election surely you need half of parliament not a third? If the Tories believed the remain alliance didnt have the parliamentary majority it could have resigned and forced the election before Oct 31. They didnt because they thought the opposition has the numbers to establish a govt if needed.
So if the remain alliance govt call for an election in March 2020, unless the Tories can establish their own parliamentary majority the govt could resign and an election would follow?
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.
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 .
It's embarrassing. One would have thought that the unanimous nature of the verdict would have meant calmer heads prevailing.
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.
Successful companies concentrate on process, not outcomes. Successful people concenrate on process, not outcomes. Successful countries are governed aroubd process, not outcomes.
The way to avoid this is to stop future speakers ripping up convention by codifying process, not by saying "well they did it, so we're going to do it more." (See gerrymandering in the US.)
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?
Ridiculous. Read this idiot's guide to the separation of powers. It might help you understand why we are lucky to live in a land of the rule of law rather than Brexit supporting Putin's Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
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.
Agreed, the judgement was quite sensible. It could have gone a lot further and restricted entirely the prerogative. As long as future governments aren't silly they can continue to enjoy that power to end sessions and bring about a speech from the throne.
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday
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.
They're not interested in reading the judgment. They're not even clear about what they're upset about.
Are they upset that this is a move against Brexit? Since the entire argument of the government was that this was not about Brexit, that seems distinctly odd.
Are they upset that Parliamentary sovereignty has been confirmed? Leavers for authoritarianism is a niche subgroup.
They can't be upset that an elected government has been thwarted, because the current Prime Minister is unelected, pursuing a programme formed part of no manifesto to a deadline that has never been put to the people.
They're just putting on the parts, far past the point where they can even remember what they're upset about.
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'.
Thank you. But mine sounds better and it is a different word. It has a dual meaning.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
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.
Nice idea but we have to break the two party system and party whips to achieve that.
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.
Its a centuries old institution, a few weeks here and there make little difference and it probably shouldnt be rushed in to in any case, Bercows dabbling with the rules just show how it all goes awry when its rushed.
steve_garner said - "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 forgot the remainer lizard people and Finchley Road mob
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.
The Parliament that was voted after the referendum, so (to some extent) overrides the decision of the referendum has not received a proposal that it's members can agree upon.
That is the fault of the past (and current) governments. As Alistair states below perhaps it is time for the others in this 5 year Parliament to investigate whether they could resolve this problem in a better way.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
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?
I'm happy with the SC decision but you really are not the person to instruct others on 'extended tantrums'!
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.
Its a centuries old institution, a few weeks here and there make little difference and it probably shouldnt be rushed in to in any case, Bercows dabbling with the rules just show how it all goes awry when its rushed.
A few weeks here or there makes a massive difference when we might be a few weeks from crashing out of the EU in chaos, against the clear will of parliament, and without anything like the legislative preparation needed to mitigate the disaster.
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
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'.
Thank you. But mine sounds better and it is a different word. It has a dual meaning.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
Ignorami - People who don't know how to do Origami.
Depends on the method of extending. If it involves appointing Speaker Bercow as High Poobahparliament's representative to deliver an extension letter (God he'd love that !) then I think it likely gets through on opposition votes with Gov't opposed. If it involves Johnson personally sending a letter then the opposition is absolubtely playing with No-Deal fire in an attempt to humiliate him for electoral advantage before the GE.
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'.
Thank you. But mine sounds better and it is a different word. It has a dual meaning.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
Ignorami - People who don't know how to do Origami.
I think you mean people who don't know how to do Origamuses.
steve_garner said - "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 forgot the remainer lizard people and Finchley Road mob
I believe the Queen is a lizard, according to "die hard" Leaver David Icke.
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.
Agreed, the judgement was quite sensible. It could have gone a lot further and restricted entirely the prerogative. As long as future governments aren't silly they can continue to enjoy that power to end sessions and bring about a speech from the throne.
They can even, probably, prorogue for a few weeks so long as they don’t take the piss: Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already explained, quite exceptional....
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.
ie they can't now hold a GE before the inevitable Extension takes place.
The opposition hold all the cards but I think the one tactical move the Govt might play is that if they make the Opposition go the VONC route it's then 7 weeks rather than 5 weeks which is then going to take the GE literally right up to Christmas which would be pretty absurd.
That's why Opposition may try to force extension before 19 Oct to get the ball rolling quicker.
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
If this had been a 7-4 decision, or something like that, then I would agree with you.
The reality is it was 11-0, including Judges who'd dissented on the Gina Miller case.
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.
I'll tell you straight what is cant.
Can't is exempting direct democracy from the necessity to proceed in the tenor of the manifesto / prospectus that applies to representative democracy.
There is no reason whatsoever why it should.
Yes, manifesto pledges have dropped spectacularly, but no government in recent times, not a single one has governed in direct contradiction of the overall tenor of their manifesto.
Blair didn't think, fuck it, the third way is too hard in 1999 and give democratic communism a go.
If he had you would have totally lost your fucking shit and quite rightly so.
Yet, that is exactly what Boris is doing is no deal. So, I will not fucking have it that losing my fucking shit over it is fucking cant, it fucking isn't and Boris had better well fucking honour the tenor of the fucking Leave campaign as he goes about his fucking business.
Or do you, Mr Bridge, want to slaughter another fucking first born son of democracy in your pursuit of the one and only true mandate.
Your opinion on this particular subject is, to put it simply, an evil and malevolent one.
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.
I hope the PM reminds the HOC that the legal attacks on him have included the ludicrous attempt at a private prosecution for misconduct in public office. We are as sure as eggs headed down the American route of politics by legal action. That misconduct charge was one of the worst and ill conceived stunts that I have ever come across in a lifetime in the law.
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.
Its a centuries old institution, a few weeks here and there make little difference and it probably shouldnt be rushed in to in any case, Bercows dabbling with the rules just show how it all goes awry when its rushed.
A few weeks here or there makes a massive difference when we might be a few weeks from crashing out of the EU in chaos, against the clear will of parliament, and without anything like the legislative preparation needed to mitigate the disaster.
Or any clear mandate to take such an extreme and damaging action
I can't remember having this debate after the Outer Session or QBD judgments.
At the time, the findings of non-justiciability were entirely expected and uncontroversial. Nobody lost their mind, called for SCOTUS style confirmation hearings, or (which is just as bad) wrote gushing pieces saying what awesome judges they must be for finding for their side.
That's how constitutional law should be. When it's not, maybe the courts have arrogated rather more power than they should.
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.
Its a centuries old institution, a few weeks here and there make little difference and it probably shouldnt be rushed in to in any case, Bercows dabbling with the rules just show how it all goes awry when its rushed.
A few weeks here or there makes a massive difference when we might be a few weeks from crashing out of the EU in chaos, against the clear will of parliament, and without anything like the legislative preparation needed to mitigate the disaster.
and theres the rub.Its a political decision, But nonetheless as has been pointed out numerous times if Parlt doesnt want to crash out it has the means at its disposal to stop that. This is simply poker playing for political advantage. The courts would have done us a favour by telling them to sort out a mess of their own making themselves.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
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.....
Surely the simple solution is that legislation is passed that means you need parliament's consent to prorogue, and even then it can only be for a limited period. (This to avoid a situation where a government expects to lose its majority through a by-election, and therefore prorogues in advance.)
Any future Corbyn government will be limited by the implications of this ruling.
I agree , really good header from Cyclefree. I think you should have said , any future government , of any persuasion.
It is a great article, sadly so many are so entrenched in their views that they will not even bother reading it in full but just switch off as soon as they think it doesnt agree with their tribe. I do not know how we get past that. Mandatory education on our legal and political systems at school could be part of the solution, as would making this article mandatory induction reading for our next batch of MPs.
ie they can't now hold a GE before the inevitable Extension takes place.
The opposition hold all the cards but I think the one tactical move the Govt might play is that if they make the Opposition go the VONC route it's then 7 weeks rather than 5 weeks which is then going to take the GE literally right up to Christmas which would be pretty absurd.
That's why Opposition may try to force extension before 19 Oct to get the ball rolling quicker.
Thinking about the timings, the Benn Act mandates by default an extension to the 31st January. However, there is no point getting such an extension if Boris stays as PM and no progress is again made on a Deal; we'd simply find ourselves in the same situation again in January.
Logically, therefore, if the 31st January date stands, then we must have an election (presumably in November). Alternatively, we need a longer extension in the hope that something else turns up, although that's not exactly an inspiring prospect.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
They don’t seem to care who or what they break to force their narrow view of Brexit. How does this end?
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
It is almost impossible to believe just how bonkers they have become.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
They knew it was coming and had the chance to do so. Instead they let prorogation go its merry way. Hence all the pretence of BoJo pretending he didnt want an election.
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.
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
They don’t seem to care who or what they break to force their narrow view of Brexit. How does this end?
IMO In the short term the end game is a general election in early December when sovereignty is handed to the electorate.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
They knew it was coming and had the chance to do so. Instead they let prorogation go its merry way. Hence all the pretence of BoJo pretending he didnt want an election.
There is some merit to this argument and I wouldnt have been surprised (or disappointed) if the verdict had been it was justiciable, but this one was legal because parliament had time to act before (possibly after relevant as well) and didnt do so.
The implication being a fututre prorogation that didnt give opportunity for parliament to block it AND was unusually long would be illegal.
ie they can't now hold a GE before the inevitable Extension takes place.
The opposition hold all the cards but I think the one tactical move the Govt might play is that if they make the Opposition go the VONC route it's then 7 weeks rather than 5 weeks which is then going to take the GE literally right up to Christmas which would be pretty absurd.
That's why Opposition may try to force extension before 19 Oct to get the ball rolling quicker.
Thinking about the timings, the Benn Act mandates by default an extension to the 31st January. However, there is no point getting such an extension if Boris stays as PM and no progress is again made on a Deal; we'd simply find ourselves in the same situation again in January.
Logically, therefore, if the 31st January date stands, then we must have an election (presumably in November). Alternatively, we need a longer extension in the hope that something else turns up, although that's not exactly an inspiring prospect.
Extension to 31st January 2020 for a general election on 7th November sounds reasonable.
Boris will frame it that the Rotten Parliament forced his hand and that only way Leavers can get Brexit done once and for all is to vote for him to give him a mjaority to get it done otherwise the Rotten Parliament will just keep delaying and delaying.
Suspect the election will be very winnable for Con.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
They knew it was coming and had the chance to do so. Instead they let prorogation go its merry way. Hence all the pretence of BoJo pretending he didnt want an election.
There is some merit to this argument and I wouldnt have been surprised (or disappointed) if the verdict had been it was justiciable, but this one was legal because parliament had time to act before (possibly after relevant as well) and didnt do so.
The implication being a fututre prorogation that didnt give opportunity for parliament to block it AND was unusually long would be illegal.
the statement on duration of prorogation was one of the few positives to come out of this.
But mixing courts and politics ? You just know the politicians wont leave it there.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
Leaving the EU is a Bennite agenda. There’s nothing conservative about it.
The other point to note is that those arguing that the ruling was a disgraceful case of political interference are proving it was correct; after all, what is the damage done to the government's programme or to Brexit by the ruling? If the answer is none - because parliament already had enough time to carry out its functions, as the government and others have argued - then at worst this is a minor interference by the judiciary in an administrative timetabling dispute. Alternatively, if the effect is substantive, which must be the case if it was such a disgrace, then that proves that the government was trying to evade parliament carrying out its role.
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.
Agreed, the judgement was quite sensible. It could have gone a lot further and restricted entirely the prerogative. As long as future governments aren't silly they can continue to enjoy that power to end sessions and bring about a speech from the throne.
For once, I entirely agree with you. I think some Brexiteers , for whatever reason, have lost their cool. Do they really want a future Labour government unfettered powers of prorogation ? If justices say that governments are subject to the rule of law that does not make them politicians. They are still judges.
The other point to note is that those arguing that the ruling was a disgraceful case of political interference are proving it was correct; after all, what is the damage done to the government's programme or to Brexit by the ruling? If the answer is none - because parliament already had enough time to carry out its functions, as the government and others have argued - then at worst this is a minor interference by the judiciary in an administrative timetabling dispute. Alternatively, if the effect is substantive, which must be the case if it was such a disgrace, then that proves that the government was trying to evade parliament carrying out its role.
The funny thing about this is that the likes of HYUFD said prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit now they are saying cancelling prorogation means stopping Brexit, so which is it, make up your minds.
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
Even Trump has had a few Supreme Court rulings go this way
So has the Conservative Government.
Well exactly. I could not quite believe my eyes when HYUFD yesterday essentially pretended the government has never one a case at the court. He has quite openly stated that because they voted against the goverment that means they cannot be conservative, an absolutely stunning position.
What's hilarious is he is pushing that we definitely will be getting confirmation hearings for justices based on what Cox said, yet when I considered that the logical outcome of his comments earlier another poster protested it was just being generally mooted as an example of potential reforms.
But HYUFD is openly and proudly a supporter of a party, a brand, not an ideology or institution, so its an unsurprising attitude. But to see no connection at all between support and ideology is much rarer - most people still at least pretend their party support or based on more than rosette colour.
Not surprised to see Boris get a mini bounce. I do wonder when the failure to succeed will hurt him, but he is still saying all the right things for his supporters.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
@HYUFD your posts today are so idiotic I don’t even know where to begin.
Are you honestly calling all 11 Supreme Court judges left-wing liberals hell bent on opposing a Conservative government?
What difference would Parliamentary confirmations have made? The court would have been stuffed full of Conservatives in the mould of Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond who you don’t even call Tories anymore.
Do you not understand that the Supreme Court in this country cannot bind a simple majority in Parliament unlike in America where it CAN bind a simple majority in Congress.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
@HYUFD your posts today are so idiotic I don’t even know where to begin.
Are you honestly calling all 11 Supreme Court judges left-wing liberals hell bent on opposing a Conservative government?
What difference would Parliamentary confirmations have made? The court would have been stuffed full of Conservatives in the mould of Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond who you don’t even call Tories anymore.
Do you not understand that the Supreme Court in this country cannot bind a simple majority in Parliament unlike in America where it CAN bind a simple majority in Congress.
Seriously. Stop your knee-jerk. It’s insane.
Just a reminder the left liberal anti conservative Supreme Court upheld the benefit cap.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
They knew it was coming and had the chance to do so. Instead they let prorogation go its merry way. Hence all the pretence of BoJo pretending he didnt want an election.
Look, I believe there should be an election. I also believe that the opposition parties are playing silly buggers around not voting for an election.
But there has to be some limit on governments proroguing Parliament. It cannot be an unfettered executive power.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
Since I've resigned I've seen nothing to make me regret my decision, without wanting to speak for David Herdson, Richard Nabavi, and Scrapheap I'd expect them to say the same.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
The other point to note is that those arguing that the ruling was a disgraceful case of political interference are proving it was correct; after all, what is the damage done to the government's programme or to Brexit by the ruling? If the answer is none - because parliament already had enough time to carry out its functions, as the government and others have argued - then at worst this is a minor interference by the judiciary in an administrative timetabling dispute. Alternatively, if the effect is substantive, which must be the case if it was such a disgrace, then that proves that the government was trying to evade parliament carrying out its role.
The funny thing about this is that the likes of HYUFD said prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit now they are saying cancelling prorogation means stopping Brexit, so which is it, make up your minds.
Having cake and eating it is the founding fundamental principle of Brexiteerism, we must respect their religious beliefs and allow things to be true and false at the same time!
Who would provide the " advice and consent " in SCOTUS style confirmation hearings ? In the US it's the Senate. We've nothing like it. It's weighted toward smaller states, elects in thirds on a longish six year term and is seperated from the executive. The " advice and consent " function is given the chamber most insulated from popular pressure. Is giviing that function to the House of Commons really the same ?
On the last thread some people have wondered why "Greta isn't suing the US and China, which combine for 50% of climate damaging emissions".
The rather simple reason for that is this:
A group of 16 children from 15 different countries (Greta Thunberg being one of them) are bringing forward a legal challenge under a legal provision from a protocol to the United Nation's convention from 1989 on the protection of children's rights. This legal challenge is directed against five different countries. Besides France, these are Germany, Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. They argue that industrial policies of these countries are responsible for changing the earth's climate in a way that is ill suited to sustain human life on the time scale of their expected life spans, and thus impinges on their rights to live their lives in decent conditions, as the convention is intended to secure.
The reason why these legal challenges cannot be directed towards China or the USA is the fact that China and the USA have refused to recognize these children's rights - in a legal form - in the first place, and refused to sign that UN convention, so therefor cannot be sued.
Of course it is a symbolic act and stands little chance to force a change of things immediately, it is obviously part of a political process on which people will have very different views.
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?
There would be some judges approved by Cummings and Rees Mogg too rather than all 11 voting against a Conservative Government as yesterday.
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
Even Trump has had a few Supreme Court rulings go this way
So has the Conservative Government.
Well exactly. I could not quite believe my eyes when HYUFD yesterday essentially pretended the government has never one a case at the court. He has quite openly stated that because they voted against the goverment that means they cannot be conservative, an absolutely stunning position.
What's hilarious is he is pushing that we definitely will be getting confirmation hearings for justices based on what Cox said, yet when I considered that the logical outcome of his comments earlier another poster protested it was just being generally mooted as an example of potential reforms.
But HYUFD is openly and proudly a supporter of a party, a brand, not an ideology or institution, so its an unsurprising attitude. But to see no connection at all between support and ideology is much rarer - most people still at least pretend their party support or based on more than rosette colour.
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.
Consensual continental style politics is the way forward
You mean like Italy? or Spain [yet another GE in Nov] or Belgium or Holland?
You need to get out more if you think all's well over here! (I'm in Spain)
Those places are paragons of stability compared to the mess Brexiteers have made here!
Er, the elected leaders of Catalonia are languishing in a Madrid jail, or they are in exile. Meanwhile the latest polls show a majority wanting Catalan independence, despite the crackdown. Whatever this is, it is not ‘stability’.
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.
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.
Parliament has the means a VONC, it jjust doesnt want to use the powers it has. Like the SNP and tax.
How can Parliament VoNC the government if it is prorogued?
They knew it was coming and had the chance to do so. Instead they let prorogation go its merry way. Hence all the pretence of BoJo pretending he didnt want an election.
Look, I believe there should be an election. I also believe that the opposition parties are playing silly buggers around not voting for an election.
But there has to be some limit on governments proroguing Parliament. It cannot be an unfettered executive power.
Focus on processes, not outcomes.
Parlt already has processes, it has chosen not to use them. The speaker has chosen to disregard the ones he doesnt like hence the outcome.
If the election is held before 31st October, then Johnson can tell Brexiteers that he will still take them out before that date and thereby squeeze BXP votes. Even if the Art.50 letter is sent, it can be rescinded. I am not sure how the opposition can "guarantee" that extension is indeed carried out unless election date is after 31.10.2019
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 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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
Since I've resigned I've seen nothing to make me regret my decision, without wanting to speak for David Herdson, Richard Nabavi, and Scrapheap I'd expect them to say the same.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
Whatever this government’s agenda is, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that it’s not conservative. You were right to leave.
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 .
It's embarrassing. One would have thought that the unanimous nature of the verdict would have meant calmer heads prevailing.
Obviously that was overly optimistic
It goes a long way towards explaining why we are where we are now.
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?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
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.....
Surely the simple solution is that legislation is passed that means you need parliament's consent to prorogue, and even then it can only be for a limited period. (This to avoid a situation where a government expects to lose its majority through a by-election, and therefore prorogues in advance.)
That could have been put in place at any time in the past few hundred years.
Comments
So if the remain alliance govt call for an election in March 2020, unless the Tories can establish their own parliamentary majority the govt could resign and an election would follow?
It did.
Why do you think Parliament is sitting today...
Take your time.
Obviously that was overly optimistic
Successful people concenrate on process, not outcomes.
Successful countries are governed aroubd process, not outcomes.
The way to avoid this is to stop future speakers ripping up convention by codifying process, not by saying "well they did it, so we're going to do it more." (See gerrymandering in the US.)
If you win a general election you get to appoint a Supreme Court judge in all likelihood, whether a Conservative or left liberal depending on who wins, much like the USA
Are they upset that this is a move against Brexit? Since the entire argument of the government was that this was not about Brexit, that seems distinctly odd.
Are they upset that Parliamentary sovereignty has been confirmed? Leavers for authoritarianism is a niche subgroup.
They can't be upset that an elected government has been thwarted, because the current Prime Minister is unelected, pursuing a programme formed part of no manifesto to a deadline that has never been put to the people.
They're just putting on the parts, far past the point where they can even remember what they're upset about.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
You forgot the remainer lizard people and Finchley Road mob
That is the fault of the past (and current) governments. As Alistair states below perhaps it is time for the others in this 5 year Parliament to investigate whether they could resolve this problem in a better way.
High Poobahparliament's representative to deliver an extension letter (God he'd love that !) then I think it likely gets through on opposition votes with Gov't opposed. If it involves Johnson personally sending a letter then the opposition is absolubtely playing with No-Deal fire in an attempt to humiliate him for electoral advantage before the GE.I think you should have said , any future government , of any persuasion.
Such an interruption in the process of responsible government might not matter in some circumstances. But the circumstances here were, as already explained, quite exceptional....
You need to get out more if you think all's well over here! (I'm in Spain)
ie they can't now hold a GE before the inevitable Extension takes place.
The opposition hold all the cards but I think the one tactical move the Govt might play is that if they make the Opposition go the VONC route it's then 7 weeks rather than 5 weeks which is then going to take the GE literally right up to Christmas which would be pretty absurd.
That's why Opposition may try to force extension before 19 Oct to get the ball rolling quicker.
The reality is it was 11-0, including Judges who'd dissented on the Gina Miller case.
Can't is exempting direct democracy from the necessity to proceed in the tenor of the manifesto / prospectus that applies to representative democracy.
There is no reason whatsoever why it should.
Yes, manifesto pledges have dropped spectacularly, but no government in recent times, not a single one has governed in direct contradiction of the overall tenor of their manifesto.
Blair didn't think, fuck it, the third way is too hard in 1999 and give democratic communism a go.
If he had you would have totally lost your fucking shit and quite rightly so.
Yet, that is exactly what Boris is doing is no deal. So, I will not fucking have it that losing my fucking shit over it is fucking cant, it fucking isn't and Boris had better well fucking honour the tenor of the fucking Leave campaign as he goes about his fucking business.
Or do you, Mr Bridge, want to slaughter another fucking first born son of democracy in your pursuit of the one and only true mandate.
Your opinion on this particular subject is, to put it simply, an evil and malevolent one.
At the time, the findings of non-justiciability were entirely expected and uncontroversial. Nobody lost their mind, called for SCOTUS style confirmation hearings, or (which is just as bad) wrote gushing pieces saying what awesome judges they must be for finding for their side.
That's how constitutional law should be. When it's not, maybe the courts have arrogated rather more power than they should.
He said today the automotive sector is ready for no deal when the SMMT only on Monday put out a statement saying it would be devastating.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
He won't. Or he may be but leavers will still vote for him in a general election as the final chance to deliver Brexit.
He gets the benefit of the doubt in a way May never could.
Logically, therefore, if the 31st January date stands, then we must have an election (presumably in November). Alternatively, we need a longer extension in the hope that something else turns up, although that's not exactly an inspiring prospect.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
The implication being a fututre prorogation that didnt give opportunity for parliament to block it AND was unusually long would be illegal.
Boris will frame it that the Rotten Parliament forced his hand and that only way Leavers can get Brexit done once and for all is to vote for him to give him a mjaority to get it done otherwise the Rotten Parliament will just keep delaying and delaying.
Suspect the election will be very winnable for Con.
But mixing courts and politics ? You just know the politicians wont leave it there.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176898789015203840?s=21
What's hilarious is he is pushing that we definitely will be getting confirmation hearings for justices based on what Cox said, yet when I considered that the logical outcome of his comments earlier another poster protested it was just being generally mooted as an example of potential reforms.
But HYUFD is openly and proudly a supporter of a party, a brand, not an ideology or institution, so its an unsurprising attitude. But to see no connection at all between support and ideology is much rarer - most people still at least pretend their party support or based on more than rosette colour.
Not surprised to see Boris get a mini bounce. I do wonder when the failure to succeed will hurt him, but he is still saying all the right things for his supporters.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Are you honestly calling all 11 Supreme Court judges left-wing liberals hell bent on opposing a Conservative government?
What difference would Parliamentary confirmations have made? The court would have been stuffed full of Conservatives in the mould of Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond who you don’t even call Tories anymore.
Do you not understand that the Supreme Court in this country cannot bind a simple majority in Parliament unlike in America where it CAN bind a simple majority in Congress.
Seriously. Stop your knee-jerk. It’s insane.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0061-judgment.pdf
But there has to be some limit on governments proroguing Parliament. It cannot be an unfettered executive power.
Focus on processes, not outcomes.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
The rather simple reason for that is this:
A group of 16 children from 15 different countries (Greta Thunberg being one of them) are bringing forward a legal challenge under a legal provision from a protocol to the United Nation's convention from 1989 on the protection of children's rights.
This legal challenge is directed against five different countries. Besides France, these are Germany, Turkey, Argentina and Brazil.
They argue that industrial policies of these countries are responsible for changing the earth's climate in a way that is ill suited to sustain human life on the time scale of their expected life spans, and thus impinges on their rights to live their lives in decent conditions, as the convention is intended to secure.
The reason why these legal challenges cannot be directed towards China or the USA is the fact that China and the USA have refused to recognize these children's rights - in a legal form - in the first place, and refused to sign that UN convention, so therefor cannot be sued.
Of course it is a symbolic act and stands little chance to force a change of things immediately, it is obviously part of a political process on which people will have very different views.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1176904258345676801?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1176904258345676801&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49807552
Very sad.
Or couple of months.
First we were promised a deal and orderly exit, then we’re now told the only true Brexit is a no deal crash out .
And now the judiciary is being trashed and Bozo is sowing more division with his disgraceful people v anyone that disagrees with him rhetoric .
"The last time we were in territory like this, it was settled by civil war."
"https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/
Is this an Attorney-General's idea of supporting the rule of law?
KABOOM
What a tosser