Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

None yet, he just acted outside of his authority. His whole lying to parliament thing that has caused some issues before will be the actual law he broke. I know brexit is all about destroying parliament and restoring sovereignty to a new Sovereign(Boris) but until then he does have to abide by some laws.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. .

The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

If you actually care I'm sure you can find the details of the decision online.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.

Exactly, if it doesn't fall to the Supreme Court to decide such matters then who would? Dominic Cummings? BoJo must be so unhappy he can't just stack the court with political hacks like his buddy Trump.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

United Kingdom Law.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

Read the decision(s). It is explained.

11 Supreme Court judges found the law had been broken. Your lot lost. Suck it up.

[ctamblyn]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html

[Captain_Swoop]

Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.

He should be the first to resign after Boris.

Perhaps this will be what his address is? Yes, he will have found his sense of decency and decided to resign. That's all it can be. Right?

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.

A number of commentators have said that the SC did the absolute minimum within their legal remit and then handed the issue back to Parliament. They wanted to keep the focus on the key issue being the supremacy of Parliament. IANAL.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.

Maybe he will say
"The Court had made it's decision. Let them enforce it".

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Lothian

United Kingdom Law.

What, the law is not what Dear Leader says it is?

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.

Yeah, of course. More likely he will be announcing the fate of the chosen scapegoat, probably the Attorney General based on earlier statements.

[ctamblyn]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?

The SC didn't overrule the queen, technically. They found that the advice given to HM to prorogue was void, and so that which followed from the advice was nullified:

Quote:

[The] advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.

[dudalb]

I guess Boris thought he was Oliver Cromwell dismissing the Long Parliament; did not work out that way.

If I were a Labor member, I would throw Cromwell's famous statement in the dismissal right in BoJo's face:

"You have been sitting here too long for any good you have been doing.In the name of God, go".

[dudalb]

So Parliament will meet tomorrow,no matter what?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by dudalb

So Parliament will meet tomorrow,no matter what?

Tomorrow's agenda is already published, it will meet tomorrow.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

He should be the first to resign after Boris.

I'm not fussed what order they do it in. Hell, I'd help them pack.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

Eh....no. Not in the Real World anyway.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision.

Yes. They've enumerated and detailed in the judgement.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Read the decision(s). It is explained.

11 Supreme Court judges found the law had been broken. Your lot lost. Suck it up.

Brexiteers never admit defeat. Obviously the facts are wrong.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.

Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Maybe he will say
"The Court had made it's decision. Let them enforce it".

Contempt of Court. Bench warrant. Arrest. Imprisonment.
Pretty simple.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

There was a diabetic guy on the news the other day who was asked whether he still supported Brexit, even though it meant that he might die due to lack of insulin. He said yes, because it was what people had voted for.

.

“It’s the people’s will! Up yours Delors!”

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Garrison

At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?

It's all just a useful tool to get their own agenda of a libertarian Paradise implemented in the UK.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Brexiteers never admit defeat. Obviously the facts are wrong.

Gee, exactly like Trump supporters. What a coincidence.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...

Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by ctamblyn

Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html

Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims.

What is their evidence for their claim?

It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.

Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law..

If you need a final decision, you can flip a coin. If you accept the premise that the ultimate authority gets it right, then their opinion may be no more correct than the experts that disagree with them. The question is how do you actually get the right answer.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.

It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.

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.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

are you a Monarchist?

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.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.


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.

The Queen is not supposed to have any real power. The courts are.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by dudalb

It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.

There's a growing list of countries that seem poised to run a test to see what happens after that.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The Queen is not supposed to have any real power. The courts are.

Wrong. The Parliament is supposed to. The Queen only acts on advice received but that is not codified anywhere.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Wrong. The Parliament is supposed to. The Queen only acts on advice received but that is not codified anywhere.

I didn't mention parliaments power.



You said

Quote:

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's

I also note the Queen is not even appointed based on merit, but purely on inheritance.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

II also note the Queen is not even appointed based on merit, but purely on inheritance.

You didn't read the post that you selectively quoted.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by psionl0

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.

England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction. The courts are perfectly entitled to make law as long as they don’t actually contradict Parliament.

The idea of judicial review of administrative actions is well established. And that’s what this was: the court was reviewing the actions of the executive, not Parliament. See, for example, the comments in the section headed “What conclusions did the court reach” here:

Quote:

The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and Johnson’s advice subject to the law. Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.”

They then ruled the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”.

[llwyd]

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.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Mojo

England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction.

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.