Is Brexit actually going to happen?
- Thread starter Kaka Tim
- Start date
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
Don’t understand this comment? The point of the judgment is that parliament is sovereign, and that bozo’s actions undermined that fundamental principle.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I haven't read the judgement, but I imagine it was that the prorogation was done for political reasons/was dishonest/otherwise invalid. It didn't strike against the principle that the government can prorogue or for that matter the ability of governments to shape the parliamentary timetable, agenda etc.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
The decision was made by unelected judges is the point of the comment. It’s somewhat ironic to therefore to celebrate today’s judgment as a victory for democracy/the sovereignty of parliament.
The overlooking of the sleights of hand in the judgment, most notably the attempt to present this as an entirely normal exercise of the judicial role, is dangerous.
Whatever your views on Brexit, it’s important to note that it’s not just Johnson who is diving into uncharted waters
Last edited:
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
I think (but am not certain) there needs to be six weeks between an election being called and the election so the boat has been missed on this one.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
The Govt lawyers did not produce any evidence (apart from one memo) to suggest that the prorogation for 5 weeks was to prepare for a new Queens speech.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
It stops the Executive from becoming unaccountable to Parliament. As the UK is a parliamentary democracy then yes it is a victory for democracy.
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I don’t think I can add anything to what I’ve just written. Either you see a massive problem with unelected judges deciding that this is within their ambit or you don’t.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
so you are angry that the opposition party in goverment avoiding a trap meaning
that the encombient could postpone goverment debate and voting untill after we leave the eu with a hard brexit
and you believe in democracy
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
No. I believe the opposition should have demanded an election because I believe that change comes from political struggle and not from judicial reviews or parliamentary charades.
If we want to discuss ‘democracy’ in the terms that you mean, we could start with the result of the referendum. But my post was specifically about the role, remit and results of the SC ruling
King Biscuit Time
Well-Known Member
What are you on about? The judges did the absolute bare minimum - all they did was wrestle power way from the PM, and hand all the power directly back to Parliament.
It's totally up to Parliament to decide what to do next.
Bozza could prorogue Parliament into the middle of next century if Parliament passed a rule saying it was cool with them.
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
Has a grouplet sent out a pamphlet about "unelected judges" tonight or what?
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
I really don’t think my point could have been clearer. And it wasn’t about the rights and wrongs of prorogation
Smokeandsteam
Working Class First
so is it EU judges or British judges scrutiny that you want to escape from
Given I’ve just replied to you saying that I believe political change comes from working class struggle -and not from appeals to Judges or Parliamentary manoeuvre - that the answer is ‘all of them’ should be obvious.
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
The whole of the House of Lords is unelected. All bills of parliament have to pass through the HoLs so unless you have a problem with an unelected 2nd chamber (which I have) then why the Supreme Court?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
most countries have a written constitution that sets limits on what the executive does and thats interpreted by the courts.
The UK doesn't - its convention and tradition. Johnson has tried to exploit that so the judges are involved to effectively define the unwritten constitution in law. In effect its the same as the US supreme court putting trump back in his box on shit like his "muslim travel ban".
I suspect after the brexit dust has settled the UK is going to end up with a major constitutional overhaul that puts all this stuff down on paper.
Whats happened today is a clumsy and messy route to a written constitution - i find that far less troubling the exploitation of the powers of royal prerogative by a cunt like johnson
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
There are two bits of the judgement that are key, and butchersapron and I were both - wrongly - relying on the wrong section, tho we can blame the Guardian for implying it was the key one.
That section - "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." - refers solely to what remedy is available, and means that judges can actually comment upon the case, because it isn't a 'parliamentary' decision.
The key bit, is:
"55.Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons -and indeed to the House of Lords -for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.56.The answer is that of course it did..."
Thus, while the government can indeed prorogue, and can do so to their advantage, they can't do so to simply stop parliament doing it's job. It has to be reasonable.
Whilst there are obviously significant (lets be generous) issues with parliamentary democracy as being the genuine will of the people, it is more democratic than a semi-elected dictatorship. So you can welcome this judgement whilst maintaining a staunch criticism of it, and the judiciary and their role in the process.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
Referendum: "Here is an unhelpful Yes/No answer to a poorly-defined question that is sort-of politically but not constitutionally binding"
Sort-of elected public "representatives" acting mostly along party lines: "We cannot decide how to implement this in the best interests of the most influential forces currently abroad in the body politic"
Barely-elected buffoon and his headbanging mate: "We can sort this out by telling the sort-of elected public 'representatives' to fuck off out of it and then doing what we want in the cause of our particular alliance of interests"
Unelected judicial body: "We disagree with you and think the sort-of elected public 'representatives' should go back to shouting at each other."
Media/Public 1: Cool well done to the judiciary, which has said what we wanted it to say so we're not going to inquire too closely as to what actual power they might have to say it.
Media/Public 2: TRAITORS! Barely-elected buffoon has done nothing wrong and the judiciary shouldn't have a say!
Sort-of elected public "representatives" acting mostly along party lines: "We cannot decide how to implement this in the best interests of the most influential forces currently abroad in the body politic"
Barely-elected buffoon and his headbanging mate: "We can sort this out by telling the sort-of elected public 'representatives' to fuck off out of it and then doing what we want in the cause of our particular alliance of interests"
Unelected judicial body: "We disagree with you and think the sort-of elected public 'representatives' should go back to shouting at each other."
Media/Public 1: Cool well done to the judiciary, which has said what we wanted it to say so we're not going to inquire too closely as to what actual power they might have to say it.
Media/Public 2: TRAITORS! Barely-elected buffoon has done nothing wrong and the judiciary shouldn't have a say!
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
Or we could look at other countries that use referenda as part of there political set-up and take their example of what to do when voters were poorly informed.
Court overturns referendum as voters were poorly informed ... in Switzerland
Swiss court orders historic vote re-run
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
If you think Smokeandsteam does not have a problem with the HoL (or the HoC for that matter) you really have not understood his point.
Leave politics to the experts
My bewilderment at all this is a bit like this thread:
You'd think that after God knows how many years of British democracy everybody would know what can and can't be done.
Or that after 3 years, 1143 pages and 34287 posts there'd be an answer to the frigging question 'Is Brexit actually going to happen?'
You'd think that after God knows how many years of British democracy everybody would know what can and can't be done.
Or that after 3 years, 1143 pages and 34287 posts there'd be an answer to the frigging question 'Is Brexit actually going to happen?'
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
Have you read the judgment?
MrSki
Who am I to say you're wrong
What like leaving rulings on the law to 11 Supreme Court judges? Whose combined legal experience runs into hundreds of years.
Still nice of you to add your opinion.
Similar threads
