Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[belboid]

Eh? There is a comma indicating it’s those named and PV loons

stick to copy n pasting, son, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I wonder if all the champions of parliamentary sovereignty have any problems with the underlying logic of the judgement that parliament is not sovereign?

Thats not it though is it? Surely the judgement is that Parliament is exactly that, and that the PM can't simply plough through what he wants?

 

[Plumdaff]

I wonder if all the champions of parliamentary sovereignty have any problems with the underlying logic of the judgement that parliament is not sovereign?

When did Parliament decide to prorogue itself? This judgement limits the executive power, no?

In my understanding the real problem is the FTPA allows for the continuation of an executive which doesn't command a majority in Parliament, currently being exploited by all sides in this abject mess.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf

 

[gosub]

That's my understanding.

And mine. I do not see how there cannot be a vote of no confidence after that ruling. Whether an alternative government can get its act together in the two weeks after remains to be seen.

 

[butchersapron]

The judgement says that a prorogation of parliament (not just this time - but when done properly) is inherently an imposition on parliament:

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

 

[cupid_stunt]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf

This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued.

This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. 4 It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. It follows that the Advocate General’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

 

[gosub]

And mine. I do not see how there cannot be a vote of no confidence after that ruling. Whether an alternative government can get its act together in the two weeks after remains to be seen.

I also do not think, Mr Johnson should consider his position as Conservative leader, he inherited a very sticky wicket. It will be interesting to see how the Tory Confertence goes, after all it is his party's decision.

 

[belboid]

This is specifically dealing with the limits of the royal prerogative, as used by the PM. Unless you understand something I don't, that's more or less the opposite.

No, the PM is still the decider, he just had to follow (unwritten) rules in making that decision.

 

[MickiQ]

Please let him appeal this decision to the ECJ

 

[Rivendelboy]

Hey Boris...

 

[chilango]

Let's be absolutely clear - this not a victory for us.

It is however a defeat for some of them.

I do wonder what has pushed them to turn on each other so openly though.

 

[Plumdaff]

No, the PM is still the decider, her just had to follow (unwritten) rules in making that decision.

Without wishing to sound too fucking Lib Dem-y, these rules might need to get written down at some point.

 

[Cid]

I'm not convinced large numbers of people would risk a Tory election win and no deal to vote for the Lib Dems but who knows.

Yeah the picture is really uncertain. Though I’d definitely agree they’re fucked if they abandon the brexit marginals.

I think Labour think this customs union/single market thing is easy enough to agree. Would be interesting to know detail of discussions they'd had with EU leaders.

Yeah, but then they need to present that and other potential options convincingly. Which I think is what’s confused me about their approach more than anything else. They have to hedge, but hedge with some clear options.

Anyway, on to the Supreme Court discussion.

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Please let him appeal this decision to the ECJ

It's not a matter in scope for ECJ

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm not celebrating the specifics cos it's not something to celebrate but I am enjoying the continuing shitshow and the potential long term effect this will have on public mood. Bring on the water cannons.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I predict Remainders sudden fondness for the courts will mean this is glossed over.

'No evidence' of Brexit campaign crimes

Interesting that it comes on the same day.

 

[gosub]

Without wishing to sound too fucking Lib Dem-y, these rules might need to get written down at some point.

Surely that would be a breach of the Constitution?

 

[belboid]

I predict Remainders sudden fondness for the courts will mean this is glossed over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49807401l

Interesting that it comes on the same day.

404 not founds come most days!

 

[SpackleFrog]

404 not founds come most days!

Sorry, fixed it.

 

[gentlegreen]

I predict Remainders sudden fondness for the courts will mean this is glossed over.

'No evidence' of Brexit campaign crimes

Interesting that it comes on the same day.

No law against a sizeable chunk of the electorate being racist morons either.

 

[SpackleFrog]

No law against a sizeable chunk of the electorate being racist morons either.

Booooooooooooring.

 

[Plumdaff]

Surely that would be a breach of the Constitution?

If Parliament voted for it, no.

 

[Pickman's model]

No law against a sizeable chunk of the electorate being racist morons either.

philosophical seems to have nicked your login

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[gentlegreen]

philosophical seems to have nicked your login

I include my own parents in that.

 

[TopCat]

I include my own parents in that.

You know your parents but are making hasty assumptions about the rest IMHO.

 

[butchersapron]

I include my own parents in that.

No, you're including others in your parents.

 

[gosub]

If Parliament voted for it, no.

What deliberately binding successors : You'd have to included a mechanism by which said written rules could be overturned

 

[Plumdaff]

What deliberately binding successors : You'd have to included a mechanism by which said written rules could be overturned

We already bind successors, and we already have a means of overriding it.