Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful

[esmufc07]

Essentially yes, the verdict would be saying that prorogative power for the intention of suppressing parliament is a political only matter, and would have to wait for either a general election or for parliament to sit again to reassert itself, as the judiciary are powerless.

Isn't that how Nazi Germany started?

 

[sammsky1]

The most dangerous precedent they could set here is that the prime minister can prorogue to stymie executive scrutiny whenever he likes.

How does one amend the law here, to add specificity on parameters allowed for proroguing parliament?

 

[JPRouve]

The most dangerous precedent they could set here is that the prime minister can prorogue to stymie executive scrutiny whenever he likes.

I agree but that's subjective which is always an issue with the highest court, they try to avoid these type of calls.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

So unless a judgement is made against the government, then a PM can effectively suspend Parliament whenever he likes and for however long he wants?

Not exactly - the court could state that powers of prorogation are justiciable but that the current circumstance is not itself proven to be unconstitutional for lack of evidence. Even if they find it nonjusticiable there would still be recourse to stuff like the 1689 Bill of Rights which (while vague) states that parliaments must sit regularly and often. If some future PM tries to prorogue parliament to a year I would expect the courts to have to make a new judgement. Parliament could also theoretically legislate to make clear the limits within which prorogation could occur. As Pannick mentioned though, any such legislation would require the consent of the Queen (in consultation with the government) before it was brought before parliament.

 

[owlo]

How does one amend the law here, to add specificity on parameters allowed for proroguing parliament?

I wrote a little on the previous page about statutory construction, but essentially I believe the law is robust enough, and that this is why the judges will rule against the government.

I agree but that's subjective which is always an issue with the highest court, they try to avoid these type of calls.

Perhaps in France; over here they've been slowly inserting and asserting themselves constitutionally for the last 20 years, especially over the use of prerogative powers. I think people are underestimating the independence of our Supreme Court.

 

[owlo]

Not exactly - the court could state that powers of prorogation are justiciable but that the current circumstance is not itself proven to be unconstitutional for lack of evidence. Even if they find it nonjusticiable there would still be recourse to stuff like the 1689 Bill of Rights which (while vague) states that parliaments must sit regularly and often. If some future PM tries to prorogue parliament to a year I would expect the courts to have to make a new judgement. Parliament could also theoretically legislate to make clear the limits within which prorogation could occur. As Pannick mentioned though, any such legislation would require the consent of the Queen (in consultation with the government) before it was brought before parliament.

haha! Anything is possible...

And yes there would be recourse to try again, but this would be one damned huge precedent and constitutional construct.

 

[sammsky1]

I wrote a little on the previous page about statutory construction, but essentially I believe the law is robust enough, and that this is why the judges will rule against the government.

Just read it - many thanks.

If SHC finds in favour of Government, would you still think law is robust enough?

 

[JPRouve]

Perhaps in France; over here they've been slowly inserting and asserting themselves constitutionally for the last 20 years, especially over the use of prerogative powers. I think people are underestimating the independence of our Supreme Court.

It has little to do with independence but the fact that every subjective decision has a lasting effect and can open unforseen problems, that's why these courts are often conservative in their decisions.

 

[OohAahMartial]

Really key sequence just went there, think the Govt. just won potentially. The Scottish Court made factual mistakes about what can happen in recess, namely that it can't recall itself. Glaring mistake.

 

[Foxbatt]

There should be a written construction and the PM should not be able to suspend the parliament.
It is utterly ridiculous that if any other countries that the UK's government doesn't like do this they are called a dictatorship.
When the UK government becomes a dictatorship then it's called following the rule of law.
What a joke.

 

[owlo]

It has little to do with independence but the fact that every subjective decision has a lasting effect and can open unforseen problems, that's why these courts are often conservative in their decisions.

Please can you give an example of the supreme court being particularly conservative in a decision? From what I know they've been pretty aggressive all things considered for the last few decades.

ps. Reducing the case to a 'subjective decision' is a bit of a misnomer. They follow the evidence to come to a decision. It's why I mentioned independence; they will do it come hell or high water. They aren't going to say "well this precedent is more long lasting than this one, so lets make the less impactful decision." - I feel that saying they may do that is doubting their integrity, though I'm sure you meant no such inference.

 

[sammsky1]

There should be a written construction and the PM should not be able to suspend the parliament.
It is utterly ridiculous that if any other countries that the UK's government doesn't like do this they are called a dictatorship.
When the UK government becomes a dictatorship then it's called following the rule of law.
What a joke.

In an era where UK politicians are amongst the most hated and untrusted of any profession, and where it seems so many right wing populist Governments around the world (Trump, Modi etc) are breaking their laws with impunity, this case takes on much more significance than simply the proroguing of parliament.

In this instance, the SHC are in a bind, because I suspect the vast majority will view the outcome purely based on their personal view of Brexit and echo chamber they inhabit. You have to remember that Leave media and voters would view a Government defeat purely as a conspiracy against leaving the EU, and remain media and voters would view a Government defeat as endorsement for another referendum or cancellation of article 50.

Whatever the judges decide, it's going to be impossible to convince the entire population that an impartial judgement was reached.

The outcome of this ruling will have so many consequences, intended or otherwise.

 

[OohAahMartial]

So unless a judgement is made against the government, then a PM can effectively suspend Parliament whenever he likes and for however long he wants?

Lord Keen's point was that no he can't because Parliament itself can prevent that, had the means and opportunity to do so, and didn't. And that the Courts can't assume that power which Parliament has.

Was strange that Labour decided to pass a law preventing Brexit, rather than to prevent Prorogation, when it could have.

 

[T00lsh3d]

We have a principle-based system in the uk, and politicians without any principles

 

[JPRouve]

Please can you give an example of the supreme court being particularly conservative in a decision? From what I know they've been pretty aggressive all things considered for the last few decades.

ps. Reducing the case to a 'subjective decision' is a bit of a misnomer. They follow the evidence to come to a decision. It's why I mentioned independence; they will do it come hell or high water. They aren't going to say "well this precedent is more long lasting than this one, so lets make the less impactful decision." - I feel that saying they may do that is doubting their integrity, though I'm sure you meant no such inference.

1. Lord Pannick accepts that in normal circumstances, the exercise of the prerogative does not undermine Parliamentary Sovereignty and there would have to be a manifest abuse of the prerogative power for that to occur. He accepts the Prime Minister has a broad discretion in deciding when to advise the Queen that Parliament should be prorogued. He submits, however, that on the extraordinary facts of this case, there has been such a manifest abuse:
   
   
   
   
   (1) because of the exceptional length of the prorogation, during a critical period, when time is of the essence;
   
   
   (2) because the Prime Minister provides no reasonable justification on the facts for requiring a prorogation of such exceptional length; and
   
   
   (3) because the evidence demonstrates that the decision of the Prime Minister is infected by 'rank bad reasons' for the prorogation, namely that Parliament does nothing of value in September and the risk that Parliament will impede the achievement of his policies, both of which demonstrate a fundamental failure on the Prime Minister's part to understand the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

This part is why I said what I said. Every points will be judged subjectively because they are subjective. What is an exceptional length, a reasonable justification, rank bad reasons? It's not an easy case with easily repeatable answers. The circumstances of the case are complicated.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Really key sequence just went there, think the Govt. just won potentially. The Scottish Court made factual mistakes about what can happen in recess, namely that it can't recall itself. Glaring mistake.

Is it an error? I thought the Speaker could recall parliament from recess.

 

[OohAahMartial]

Is it an error? I thought the Speaker could recall parliament from recess.

Apparently not, unless the PM asks him to, which the Speaker would accept only in matters of the National interest, like a War. This makes the whole 5 weeks argument dead, and the inference on motivation that uses that as a preposition, also doesn't follow. It's 7 sitting days.

 

[WensleyMU]

This part is why I said what I said. Every points will be judged subjectively because they are subjective. What is an exceptional length, a reasonable justification, rank bad reasons? It's not an easy case with easily repeatable answers. The circumstances of the case are complicated.

Indeed it is complicated.

 

[WensleyMU]

Apparently not, unless the PM asks him to, which the Speaker would accept only in matters of the National interest, like a War. This makes the whole 5 weeks argument dead, and the inference on motivation that uses that as a preposition, also doesn't follow. It's 7 sitting days.

Another point I made a while back only for people to try and ridicule me for stating this.

It was never 5 weeks, though I think I stated it was 4-6 sitting days. Sitting days being important here as they reflect the true time of the closure, not 5 weeks.

 

[Buster15]

Indeed it is complicated.

Things can be made as complex or simple as required. In the case of the law, there is a vested interest in the former.
Anyway. Is anyone really surprised at the outcome. Judges, politicians, they are all part of the ruling classes.
The law is an ass and the politicians are ass holes.

 

[Sassy Colin]

What I don't understand is, if their point is that Parliament would have been closed for the majority of that time anyway, why not close Parliament as usual, without adding on any extra days? If they have to have a symbolic prorogation in order to have a Queen's Speech, then make it an evening session, or something. It is clear they are trying to limit time for debate.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Apparently not, unless the PM asks him to, which the Speaker would accept only in matters of the National interest, like a War. This makes the whole 5 weeks argument dead, and the inference on motivation that uses that as a preposition, also doesn't follow. It's 7 sitting days.

Did not know that, interesting. That is a bit damaging then, not sure it fatally undermines the case though. Parliament has to vote for its own recess (I think) - something it had not done and which there was much chatter about it not doing - it's not something that can simply be assumed. In proroguing the government took parliaments decision to recess out of its hands. It's also true that prorogation could have occurred after the assumed recess had ended and still have met the 14th October date for a new Queens speech.

Definitely a point in the governments favour though.

 

[WensleyMU]

What I don't understand is, if their point is that Parliament would have been closed for the majority of that time anyway, why not close Parliament as usual, without adding on any extra days? If they have to have a symbolic prorogation in order to have a Queen's Speech, then make it an evening session, or something. It is clear they are trying to limit time for debate.

I think the parties will be having their annual conferences at the same time.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I think the parties will be having their annual conferences at the same time.

That's exactly my point, though.

 

[Jippy]

Am I allowed to answer ?

They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.

Unlike Cameron, Greive, Blair, Soros, Lineker, Major, Mandelson and half of the £ million house owning Labour Shadow Cabinet.

I've never seen that phrase actually used outside of a DM headline or its comment section.

 

[Flying high]

Essentially yes, the verdict would be saying that prorogative power for the intention of suppressing parliament is a political only matter, and would have to wait for either a general election or for parliament to sit again to reassert itself, as the judiciary are powerless.

That would be a reasonable position to hold, but for the pressing matter of a looming cliff edge. When parliament is intentionally being restricted to push through a matter on which it is, at best, divided. It surely must allow the judiciary to intervene?

 

[Wibble]

If the Scottish courts decision isn't upheld the wording of the could still have a huge influence on events. I'm think of something like the court saying (or even suggesting) that Boris lied to the Queen but that for whatever reason this doesn't mean the Scottish court's decision was correct or enforcable. The pressure would then build for him to resign. Or something.

 

[Wibble]

Am I allowed to answer ?

They're certainly not EU sympathisers, Champaigne Socialists, nor wealthy media luvvies.

So you have said what you don't think they are. That wasn't the question.

I think we are talking in the area of the irony of extremely rich, priveledged, entitled, right wing, middle aged white blokes being held up as representatives of the everyman (and woman - shut up Reg).

 

[Wibble]

Isn't that how Nazi Germany started?

I think Mockney did that by sitting on a sofa outside a church and calling god names.

 

[Full bodied red]

So you have said what you don't think they are. That wasn't the question.

I think we are talking in the area of the irony of extremely rich, priveledged, entitled, right wing, middle aged white blokes being held up as representatives of the everyman (and woman - shut up Reg).

Never said that - or at least, show me the quote and I'll retract immediately.

But are you suggesting that the only representation of everyman must include poverty, socialist sympathies, be under 40 years of age and be women of colour ?

Or is that just irony on my part ?

I think we can agree that ' everyman ' can be defined as whatever suits our needs of the moment as we've both just proved.

Have you contributed yet to Miller's crowd funding appeal ? It says in the UK press this morning that she's already received £ 100k, and I'm wondering how much of that has been contributed by any of you guys on here and the other thread ? And No - I'm not being deliberately provocotive, but curious to know whether you're all as fiercely pro EU and want the UK to remain within the EU as I am anti-EU and want France out of the EU. Contributing to helping keep the UK in the EU would give a good signal that you're serious about the EU and what it stands for rather than just pillocking Brexit on a Football Forum. Until someone starts crowdfunding to get France out of the EU, I show my sincerity by coming on here to be insulted everyday. It's a bit like being a Jehova's Witness most of the time, getting told to feck off almost daily....

The difference between you guys and me is that you have ' normalised ' Political Parties and Politicians who want out of the EU. Down here, we have only a Racist Party and a Communist Party who'd do that and we'd have to elect those first. Which is never going to happen, we all hope.

So for me, I'm not pro-Brexit for the sake of Brexit, but the UK finally leaving ( with or without a WA ) might finally make the blockheads in Brussels see sense that continuing along the EU's current directions of fiscal intergration ; increasingly reduced national self-determination and government ; ever expanding membership ; EU Defence Force ; Parliaments and Presidents ; Flags and National Anthems ; none of them are necessary to maintain a Free Trade Association, which is what 99% of people in Europe want and an increasingly 00s of millions of us want without the other bollocks.

Anyway....Back to the court case....

 

[Kentonio]

So for me, I'm not pro-Brexit for the sake of Brexit, but the UK finally leaving ( with or without a WA ) might finally make the blockheads in Brussels see sense that continuing along the EU's current directions of fiscal intergration ; increasingly reduced national self-determination and government ; ever expanding membership ; EU Defence Force ; Parliaments and Presidents ; Flags and National Anthems ; none of them are necessary to maintain a Free Trade Association, which is what 99% of people in Europe want and an increasingly 00s of millions of us want without the other bollocks.

Well that's a bit of a questionable objective, given that the UK leaving is far more likely to lead to those things actually happening/increasing. The UK was a slowing influence on further integration.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Edie is putting forward a pretty solid argument.

 

[Full bodied red]

Well that's a bit of a questionable objective, given that the UK leaving is far more likely to lead to those things actually happening/increasing. The UK was a slowing influence on further integration.

My experience and understanding is that the UK's influence in the EU should have depended entirely on which party was in Government.

But Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May were and still are all hard core Europhiles who did absolutely nothing to stop the EEC becoming the EU which is what the Brexit Referendum was about. Maastricht, Nice, Lisbon all signed without a public consultation. At least, here we had the charade of a Referendum but the vote wa ignored by the Governement ( and which first caused me to doubt the democracy of anytrhing to do with the EU ) and now we have Farage, Wilders, Le Pen and there'll be others I'm sure

Brown even had the nerve to fly into Lisbon at about 20.30 in the evening, sign on behalf of the UK, and then fly out at 22.00 to avoid being phtographed with the gloating EU officials.

For the first time for, what, decades, there is a now Eurosceptic Government in the UK and look what's happening. Chaos in the UK, brown trouser time in Brussels.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

I might be misunderstanding the nature of its argument but to me it seems Edie's submission that prorogation and dissolution are indistinguishable is fundamentally false. One is an example of a power possessed by and voted on by the Commons as a whole, or else legislated by the fixed term parliament act - the other is a power wielded exclusively by the executive.

 

[Wibble]

Never said that - or at least, show me the quote and I'll retract immediately.

I didn't say you did. You said what you thought they weren't. I was suggesting hat they are.

But are you suggesting that the only representation of everyman must include poverty, socialist sympathies, be under 40 years of age and be women of colour ?

No. But people like BoJo and Rees Mogg who have never even given a hint of giving a shit about anyone barring their rich, privileged, anglo buddies at the top end of town certainly aren't. Rather the opposite.

I think we can agree that ' everyman ' can be defined as whatever suits our needs of the moment as we've both just proved.

No we can't agree on any such thing. Everyman means an ordinary/normal human being. Not BoJo for sure.

Have you contributed yet to Miller's crowd funding appeal ? It says in the UK press this morning that she's already received £ 100k, and I'm wondering how much of that has been contributed by any of you guys on here and the other thread ? And No - I'm not being deliberately provocotive, but curious to know whether you're all as fiercely pro EU and want the UK to remain within the EU as I am anti-EU and want France out of the EU. Contributing to helping keep the UK in the EU would give a good signal that you're serious about the EU and what it stands for rather than just pillocking Brexit on a Football Forum. Until someone starts crowdfunding to get France out of the EU, I show my sincerity by coming on here to be insulted everyday. It's a bit like being a Jehova's Witness most of the time, getting told to feck off almost daily....

What are you on about. And why pick on France?

I'm against leaving the EU because the things that need improving are minuscule in comparison to the huge economic and social damage leaving will cause. It is already causing huge damage and we haven't even left yet (and hopefully never will).

The difference between you guys and me is that you have ' normalised ' Political Parties and Politicians who want out of the EU. Down here, we have only a Racist Party and a Communist Party who'd do that and we'd have to elect those first. Which is never going to happen, we all hope.

Huh?

So for me, I'm not pro-Brexit for the sake of Brexit, but the UK finally leaving ( with or without a WA ) might finally make the blockheads in Brussels see sense that continuing along the EU's current directions of fiscal intergration ; increasingly reduced national self-determination and government ; ever expanding membership ; EU Defence Force ; Parliaments and Presidents ; Flags and National Anthems ; none of them are necessary to maintain a Free Trade Association, which is what 99% of people in Europe want and an increasingly 00s of millions of us want without the other bollocks.

Anyway....Back to the court case....

You do realise that that is the equivalent chopping all your limbs off because you don't like it that your finger and toe nails need cutting don't you?

And as an aside I'd be all for the EU ruling the UK as they would be far fairer and more competent that the shower of shit we keep electing, despite all the evidence showing them to hate us all and have only their own best interests at heart.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Interesting back and forth regarding whether or not Lizzie had the discretion to refuse the prime minister and was poorly advised that she hadn't.

 

[SteveJ]

The Telegraph's political editor:

Downing St v confident they will win the Supreme Ct case but at the moment it seems finely balanced. It seems certain that at least some of the judges will decide courts CAN intervene in prorogation in extremis. Whether Boris has done anything extreme is the heart of the case.

 

[buchansleftleg]

I can't wait for John Major's submissions tomorrow....I'm expecting it to be dynamite!

 

[Full bodied red]

What are you on about. And why pick on France?

Because it's where I've lived since 1977. Hint....Look to the left of this line of words..

You were in Australia last time I looked. You back in the UK now ??

As for the rest of your rant...

Until someone starts crowdfunding to get France out of the EU, I show my sincerity by coming on here to be insulted everyday. It's a bit like being a Jehova's Witness most of the time, getting told to feck off almost daily....

 

[SteveJ]

The government seems to have forgotten that the ostensible reason for prorogation was the Queen's Speech.