ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brexit

Reply
Old 24th September 2019, 09:31 PM   #201
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,945
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
This case goes against the cabinet and PM and for parliament - and only one of these bodies is directly elected by the people.
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 09:47 PM   #202
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
Oh heavens no.

In fine British Tradition™ the court ruled that she was given poor advice by her ministers. They are correcting a mistake that she was lead into making by either incompetence or disloyalty (or some mixture thereof) on the part of those in whom she entrusted the common weal and which would threaten to disrupt the Queen's Peace.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 24th September 2019 at 09:49 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 09:50 PM   #203
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,089
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You didn't read the post that you selectively quoted.

Let's just get that point out of the way first. The power of the Queen is irrelevant.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:08 PM   #204
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:14 PM   #205
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:41 PM   #206
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,945
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
No they explicitly havent. They have said Bojos advice was unlawful and therefore any later actions are null and void. The Queen can still prorogue Parliament but not based on unlawful advice
Legalistic trickery.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:46 PM   #207
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,089
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Legalistic trickery.
The decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks, you mean? Legalistic skullduggery at it's finest.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:55 PM   #208
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,476
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law"

As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:
Quote:
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.

You are conflating the legislature with the building it sits in.

Quote:
Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

No, they have effectively overruled Boris.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:29 PM   #209
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,945
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:41 PM   #210
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,089
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

They effectively ruled that Parliament cannot be prorgued arbitrarily by the PM. That would be a good thing, as rule breakers like Boris could just prorogue parliament indefinitely. There is nothing that says he can't.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:41 PM   #211
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
See the post above yours
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
Actually this decision continues the centuries long tradition of stressing the supremacy of the parliament. As there is no such clear and formal separation of powers as in the US, this might confuse the American commentators. The PM and the cabinet have not been elected by the people - their position is founded on the command of majority in the parliament. This case goes against the cabinet and PM and for parliament - and only one of these bodies is directly elected by the people.
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
As I said, the courts cannot overrule Parliament. But that is not what happened here. See the court’s summary of the judgment:



You are conflating the legislature with the building it sits in.




No, they have effectively overruled Boris.
Exactly
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:42 PM   #212
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,245
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.
Even if that were true, it's an improvement on the stage being left set so that an unelected PM can suspend Parliament to deliberately prevent it performing its oversight role.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:45 PM   #213
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.
and the decision gives Parliament the chance to do exactly that.
It can't fulfill its function when prorogued.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:51 PM   #214
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,720
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.



The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.
In the UK all our governments are there to govern, and they of course have to act within the law. It is the courts' responsibility to make a judgement on whether a government has acted lawfully. The various parliaments' responsibility is to pass legislation. When a situation arises in which a constitutional point is to be decided (that is not already part of our constitution) it is the courts' role to decide on that.

If the Westminster Parliament is unhappy with how a court has judged on a constitutional point it can enact new legislation that renders that judgement null and void.

Now I originally thought the court would have decided that if parliament had wanted to limit the ability of the monarch to prorogue parliament it would have done so.

However the judges being canny about the law avoided all that by a crafty side step.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:56 PM   #215
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,476
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

How you think things should be is a red herring. As things stand the courts have the power to review administrative actions. If Parliament wants to prevent the courts deciding such matters, and remove the powers of the courts to subject the executive to scrutiny, it can do so through appropriate legislation.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:16 AM   #216
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,651
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
There is no specific piece of legislation that forbids the specific actions Johnson took. Instead, he acted outside what he is legally entitled to do.

This is why his actions were ruled "unlawful", rather than "illegal".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:21 AM   #217
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,651
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.
That doesn't even remotely sum up my reply to you. Instead that reads like you had already made up your mind and are trying desperately to twist everything in order to allow yourself to convince yourself that you're right.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:23 AM   #218
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,651
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ.
How do you expect them to do that while prorogued?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:25 AM   #219
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,651
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.
You clearly have no idea how English law works.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:44 AM   #220
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 12,004
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.
Well if that ever happens let us know. In this case the SC very explicitly ruled that power lay with Parliament and that nothing should interfere with Parliament's ability to perform its role. It's astonishingly clear for a legal document.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:47 AM   #221
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring. If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.
The proroguing of parliament is an act that is part of the UK's constitutional law. Therefore, the courts have a say, as it is up to the courts to enforce and apply that law.

UK law is governed by precedent. There is nothing in constitutional law that proroguing can be used to stifle debate and the SC has ruled that is what Johnson tried to do.

The SC can already "meddle with the timing of elections". Electoral Law sets the length of time a parliament can sit and how long between elections. If a government was to break one of those laws, the SC can step in.

Parliament creates the laws, the courts enforce them.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:55 AM   #222
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.
Constitutional law determines what the PM and Queen can and cannot do. For example, the circumstances under which Parliament can be prorogued.

Quote:
No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.
No, in this case in was the PM who overstepped what he is lawfully allowed to do under Constitutional Law and quite rightly, when there is rule of law, the SC stepped in, ruled the PM had broken the law and stopped the proroguing.

If Johnson wants to prorogue Parliament to stop debate, he needs to get the law changed to allow him to do that. He has no chance of getting that law passed.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:59 AM   #223
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
If you caught speeding today, use these words.
‘I have the highest regard for the police force, but I think their decision is wrong. Though I will respect it, what’s important now is that I get to my destination as quickly as possible.’
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:01 AM   #224
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
Brexiters:
“Give back control to our UK institutions”

Also, Brexiters:
“Down with the Supreme Court, judges, Parliament, the civil service, the Good Friday Agreement, the union, British business, the CBI, the BMA, universities, the constitution, the law and the Queen!”
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:12 AM   #225
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,411
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Brexiters:
“Give back control to our UK institutions”

Also, Brexiters:
“Down with the Supreme Court, judges, Parliament, the civil service, the Good Friday Agreement, the union, British business, the CBI, the BMA, universities, the constitution, the law and the Queen!”
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:13 AM   #226
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,693
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The Bill of Rights is a red herring.
Wrong. The Bill of Rights is part of the British Constitution, and the ruling of the SC is that this particular prorogation was unconstitutional because it infringed on the ability of parliament to carry out its supervisory function and hence on the supremacy of parliament guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:19 AM   #227
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,693
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand
The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:20 AM   #228
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,980
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand
The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers"
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:23 AM   #229
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,945
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Constitutional law determines what the PM and Queen can and cannot do. For example, the circumstances under which Parliament can be prorogued.
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
No, in this case in was the PM who overstepped what he is lawfully allowed to do under Constitutional Law and quite rightly, when there is rule of law, the SC stepped in, ruled the PM had broken the law and stopped the proroguing.
No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:34 AM   #230
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,980
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?


No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.
Read para 39 and 40 (from recollection) it describes how UK law works there

Edited to add 'and para 41'

Last edited by Lothian; 25th September 2019 at 01:37 AM.
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:38 AM   #231
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,720
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?





No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.
Courts in the UK cannot create laws.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 01:47 AM   #232
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,980
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Courts in the UK cannot create laws.
They create case law which forms part of the legal system but not legislation. Arguably case law is just the codifying of common law or clarification of the legislature
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:00 AM   #233
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?
There is no constitution. There is Constitutional Law, made up of common laws and statutory laws (such as the various Electoral laws). Prorogation is common law. You can read about it here;

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi.../prorogation1/

The Queen's only role in prorogation is that she is the only person who can prorogue parliament. Just as she does with all statutory laws, she signs it off and thereby they formally begin. It is a ceremonial role.

The SC are not concerned with the Queen's small and ceremonial role in prorogation.

Quote:
No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.
No, the PM tried to create a new law by using prorogation to stifle debate in parliament and the SC stopped him. Prorogation is not a lawful means to stop parliament in any and all circumstances, it is limited to very specific circumstances, you can read about that here;

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...1/prorogation/
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:01 AM   #234
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 43,449
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The thread title will have me dusting off my lime green vinyl copy of Don't Point Your Finger....
Don't know what you mean...
P1096217.jpg by zooterkin, on Flickr

Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Well if that ever happens let us know. In this case the SC very explicitly ruled that power lay with Parliament and that nothing should interfere with Parliament's ability to perform its role.
Exactly; the SC did the minimum needed to establish that control should be back with Parliament, as opposed to the Government. That may be setting a precedent, but that's only because we have someone as PM who is gaming the system and pushing the limits of his authority (maybe he was influenced by House of Cards, as well as the joker in charge in the US).
Quote:
It's astonishingly clear for a legal document.
All the commentary I've heard and read has said this, I think I will go and read it myself.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:10 AM   #235
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
They create case law which forms part of the legal system but not legislation. Arguably case law is just the codifying of common law or clarification of the legislature
That is exactly what case law is. Parliament creates laws and the courts apply them and in that application, case laws are created.

It does not matter how detailed a law is, there will be circumstances where it is not clear exactly how the law should be applied. Case law sets precedents to clarify how those circumstances should be applied.

It is the courts job to apply the law, not Parliament. Parliament created prorogation. The courts apply it.

In this case the PM applied something to prorogation that is not what prorogation was intended for.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:12 AM   #236
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand
I have my limits.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:14 AM   #237
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Don't know what you mean...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...419c83fff8.jpgP1096217.jpg by zooterkin, on Flickr


Exactly; the SC did the minimum needed to establish that control should be back with Parliament, as opposed to the Government. That may be setting a precedent, but that's only because we have someone as PM who is gaming the system and pushing the limits of his authority (maybe he was influenced by House of Cards, as well as the joker in charge in the US).

All the commentary I've heard and read has said this, I think I will go and read it myself.
The ruling was to stop the PM from setting a precedent, one that would breach many other constitutional laws.

You could argue that ruling in itself set a precedent, but it would be better described as it prevented a new precedent from being set and it maintained the status quo as to what prorogation is for and its limits.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:15 AM   #238
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

Hate to see him losing.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:24 AM   #239
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
Jacob Rees-Mogg says that the Supreme Court judgment amounted to a ‘constitutional coup’.

He also described it as ‘the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution’.

A reminder:

NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL COUP:
Trying to silence Parliament
Lying to the Queen
Suspending democracy
Breaking the rule of law

CONSTITUTIONAL COUP:
Obeying the law
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:27 AM   #240
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,761
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

Hate to see him losing.
Judging by Johnson's performance yesterday, Gove dropped an 'h'.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.