Boris

[Bill Bog]

It is very clear now what boris is trying to do and that's go the purely populist route like 'make America great again'. It knotted my stomach watching the attorney general make his rant yesterday, and the behaviour of Boris himself and the words he used I found deeply uncomfortable.

What is awful about it all is that it isn't who he really is or what he wants to do, as all through his career he was a generally fair minded person even though a compulsive fibber (mostly as a joke, but no longer funny). The government's advisors have presumably realided they have only one way to achive success and that's follow what Trump is doing and that was probably guided by a guy called Steve Banon (who people should look up if they don't know who he is).

How does this method work? Obviously it isn't by using argument or reason or even facts, in fact any of these would be counter productive and soon cause it it grind to a halt. but instead it's by appealing to something that lurks inside many people. And it's awful to watch - there was a tory on the radio this morning who was appealing for calm and to stop increasing the divisions in the country and parliament, and he mentioned that Britain was known across the world as a place of reason and decency, but I fear we have just exposed ourtselves to the rest of the world as quite simply being no different. We aren't worse, but we are now very clearly not any better. We are as suseptible to nationalist populist retoric as any other group in the world. It is humbling and humiliating to see this.These are very bad days. Laugh at Trump and the american people, cringe at what's happening in Turkey, be appalled at how gullible the Russians are, make yourself a cuppa and weep as the country that once stood above all others around the world for democracy and decency has exposed itself.

 

[Bill Bog]

No, nobody is above the law, including those who decide it.

The short answer is to your points is:

1. It isn't lawful for PM to take an action because it will affect something other than his stated intent and because he has not given any good reason why he couldn't have taken different actions that would not have had those side-effects
2. It is perfectly lawful for the SC to make a judgement even though that will affect something other than its stated intent because there are good reasons why the legal principle is more important than the side-effects of this specific case

The longer answer is:

Boris refused to give any justification for why he needed so long to prepare a Queen's speech, which normally takes 4-6 days. His argument was basically that the PM had directly inherited the Queen / King's old power to send Parliament home whenever he felt like it, for however long he wanted, without explaining himself to anyone.

This power is not explicitly defined in UK law. Of course, Boris could have asked Parliament to pass a law to define it. Or to pass a law to send themselves home for a bit. If he'd put that through Parliament, and the MPs had accepted it, then the supreme court would have had to dismiss the case immediately. The supreme court can overrule the government, but they cannot overrule Parliament.

If the law is clear, and does not conflict with other laws that Parliament has also passed, the courts do not have the power to disagree with it. Nor do they have power to make laws of their own. Indeed, in some contentious cases you'll often see a judgement along the lines that they really think it's unfair that they have to find the person guilty (or whatever) and urging Parliament to consider changing the law.

But Boris didn't ask Parliament for permission. And nor has anybody in the past. And so the court had to take a view on whether he had the power he claimed he did, and whether there were any limits to that.

This is, of course, the exact reason we have judges - particularly at the supreme court level. It's often the case that situations may or may not be legal depending on how you interpret the wording of a particular law. Or that they fit one law but appear to contravene another. Or that a particular situation is perhaps covered by "common law" - principles that were established long ago by courts or royalty, such as not murdering people, and that therefore nobody in modern times has ever bothered to write down.

When that happens, it's the job of judges to consider the case and decide what the law is. They look at what Parliament was trying to achieve when it wrote any particular legislation. They look at (and generally have to follow) the decisions of judges on similar cases throughout history. They consider whether any common law is still valid, or whether it has been changed by written laws that have been passed by Parliament. They examine all the facts that are presented to them. And they try to find the most logical application of the law (in all its forms) to each case.

In this case, the key point is the overarching principle of our entire system of government is that Parliament, not the Prime Minister, is in charge. The Prime Minister is not a President. We don't directly get to vote for the Government. We vote for our local member of Parliament, and they then appoint the PM. We've seen that in action very recently, when May resigned and the MPs appointed Boris. He then went on to appoint an almost-completely-new government, with a number of fairly radically different policy objectives to the ones that were in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. Nobody in the country got a say in that, bar the handful of Conservative party members who were consulted because the Conservative party chose, for itself, to give their members a say. In other historical cases, Parliament has just appointed a new PM without even going back to their party members.

The principle that Parliament is the government's boss is fairly well established in written-down law, and is the reason we get to call ourselves a democracy.

It logically follows that it would be ludicrous if the Government had an unlimited power to send Parliament - its boss - home and do whatever it fancies behind closed doors. Just because the King could do that in the past if he wanted a wee break from democracy, doesn't mean Boris can do it now. The supreme court therefore found that - as with many of the old Royal powers - it could only be used where there was a good justification. And Boris didn't bother to try to provide one.

This is vastly more important than Brexit. The arguments in court about "What if the PM prorogued for a year, then, would that be OK?" weren't just legal exaggeration. The government asked the court to decide that the PM's power was unlimited and not something the courts could interfere with. If the judges had gone down that road, it would have effectively have created a law that any subsequent case - no matter how long the prorogation was for - would have had to follow.

In general, when countries have gone from democracy to something darker, it has been made possible by gradual moves to increase the power of the government and reduce the power of elected representatives. I am not saying Boris, or any of our current MPs, wants to become a dictator. But it's a simple fact that the freedoms we take for granted in this country depend on the rule of law and the constitutional principle that the King/Queen/Prime Minister don't have unlimited powers, but have instead to get Parliament - as the elected representatives of the people - to agree to their plans. And that if you start to weaken that, you start to lay very dangerous ground that others could abuse in future.

That is why the judges could not have ruled anything other than they did, even though it has the side effect of complicating Boris' plans.

Blimey that's good!

 

[Bill Bog]

To the people on this thread who support Boris and who I guess also want Brexit, can I ask if you are uncomfortable about how he's trying to do this? Did you enjoy the spectacle in parliament yesterday or did it make you feel uncomfortable?

 

[Deleted member 11267]

The principle that Parliament is the government's boss is fairly well established in written-down law, and is the reason we get to call ourselves a democracy.

We can call ourselves a Democracy all we want, but that is delusion, and anyone who thinks we have a true Democracy is truly deluded.
For us to have a Democracy, we have to get rid of and abolish the unelected monarchy, we have also got to get rid of and abolish the unelected house of lords.
We can then have an elected second house, and an elected head of state, or the prime minister is head of state too. The head judges should also be elected, rather than the old pals act out of the lords

There is no need for these outdated Medievial institutions in the twenty first century, denying true Democracy, and at the same time leeching off the country.

 

[Deleted member 11267]

To the people on this thread who support Boris and who I guess also want Brexit, can I ask if you are uncomfortable about how he's trying to do this? Did you enjoy the spectacle in parliament yesterday or did it make you feel uncomfortable?

What makes me uncomfortable is the treasonous action of the majority of mp's to overthrow a Democratic vote.

They promised in their manifesto's after the referendum to honour the decision of the referendum. The majority are going against there constituents who voted leave, which was in both Labour and conservative costituencies. This just goes to show that they actually lied to get voted in and are not trustworthy people and should not be running this country.

It is time we had an Election, got rid of the liars working against the people, and voted in mp's to get us out of europe once and for all.

 

[Bill Bog]

I see.

 

[Muzungu]

make yourself a cuppa and weep as the country that once stood above all others around the world for democracy and decency has exposed itself.

This is the one thing that does annoy me. I have always voted Conservative (with reservations sometimes) but would not vote for this lot, the blatant lies told by the majority of the cabinet over the last few days concerning the prorogation have tipped the balance. The thought of Corbyn in power is anathema to me so it looks like the Lib Dems, at least they come across as decent people.

 

[Heat]

This is the one thing that does annoy me. I have always voted Conservative (with reservations sometimes) but would not vote for this lot, the blatant lies told by the majority of the cabinet over the last few days concerning the prorogation have tipped the balance. The thought of Corbyn in power is anathema to me so it looks like the Lib Dems, at least they come across as decent people.

Problem with the Lib Dems is they are generally a weak lot who just sit on the saintly fence.
Extremely easy to walk the middle road in opposition.
With Lib Dems all we will get is Remain in EU without any regard to other views.
I am very suspicious of Liberals and view them as weak left wing in disguise.
Their leader is a joke.

 

[Muzungu]

Problem with the Lib Dems is they are generally a weak lot who just sit on the saintly fence.
Extremely easy to walk the middle road in opposition.
With Lib Dems all we will get is Remain in EU without any regard to other views.
I am very suspicious of Liberals and view them as weak left wing in disguise.
Their leader is a joke.

Conservatives - Liars and mountebanks
Labour - unreconstructed adolescent Marxists
Brexit party - swivel eyed loons
Green party - all sandals and home knitted lasagne

Who is left?

I have some sympathy with your description of the Lib Dems but I disagree with you about Jo Swinson; I quite like the cut of her jib.

(just trying to lighten the tone)

 

[andyscotland]

We can call ourselves a Democracy all we want, but that is delusion, and anyone who thinks we have a true Democracy is truly deluded.
For us to have a Democracy, we have to get rid of and abolish the unelected monarchy, we have also got to get rid of and abolish the unelected house of lords.
We can then have an elected second house, and an elected head of state, or the prime minister is head of state too. The head judges should also be elected, rather than the old pals act out of the lords

There is no need for these outdated Medievial institutions in the twenty first century, denying true Democracy, and at the same time leeching off the country.

No disagreement that our system falls short of a perfect democracy.

My point was that if, all else being equal, the courts had found that a not-elected-as-pm could ask an unelected head of state to shut the people's elected representatives out of decision making just because it suited him we would be even further up the creek. You're right that what we actually need is a written constitution and a wholesale review of how things are structured.

Agree with you re the Lords and the Monarchy. Although, I think it'd be interesting to have an upper house elected as individuals, not as party blocks - and potentially with quite long terms, certainly overlapping ones (so they don't all get replaced every election). And potentially then to still have a constitutional / ceremonial head of state similar to the Queen's current role, but to appoint that person by some sort of lucky dip / people's jury rather than as a straightforward presidential election.

I think the lesson from other countries is that if all these roles are part of the same party-political election processes, that causes problems. You can end up with a lame-duck president who can't do anything at all because the parliament has gone the other way and is determined just to block him. Or, you have one party controlling all the branches of government for a while until eventually it flip-flops to the other side who proceed to undo everything for a few years until it changes again. Neither of those really provide good governance. None of them really provide any safeguards against an executive / majority over-reaching and abusing their powers. If you're just going to elect everyone all at once from the same parties you might as well do away with a parliament altogether and just have a winner-takes-all presidency and let them pick their team for a few years. If nobody is going to actually challenge them then they're just expensive bums on seats.

Judges shouldn't be elected, or political appointees. The current UK supreme court appointment process is actually fairly good - the "old pals act out of the lords" went away a while ago. People apply through an open process, their applications are considered by a panel made up of judges, lawyers and members of the public including representatives from all the UK nations. And they are then selected on merit based on their proven skills as a judge, including looking at past judgements for evidence of bias. Perhaps there could be more of a citizen's jury element, but that's as far as I'd go. Political appointment leads to game-playing to "stack" the court with people explicitly biased one way or the other (as happens with our current Lords) and means judgements then often split along party lines - again meaning it's not actually that independent of the political process. Electing judges poses similar risks, plus that in complex or controversial cases it's very difficult to get judges to focus only on what the law says because they have one eye on what voters might think they should do.

The crucial point is that in our system, judges can only enforce the laws agreed by Parliament. And Parliament can make any law it wants. It can even make laws that have retrospective effect. So, if the supreme court makes a decision Parliament doesn't like, Parliament can make a new law to reverse it. Therefore there is a democratic oversight of the court's decisions (unlike in America, where the court is the final decider). In the current case, for example, there is nothing to stop Boris running for a general election on a platform of "I should have been allowed to prorogue parliament" and then if enough people vote for his MPs they can go back to Westminster, pass a law, and overturn the supreme court ruling. That's obviously not going to happen here, but it does quite often happen that the supreme court rules in one direction based on the law at the time and that then prompts elected MPs to review the legislation and make changes. Generally speaking cases aren't individually important enough to need a retrospective law, so they just pass one that makes a particular thing legal (or illegal) in future. But that doesn't mean they couldn't start rewinding the past if they felt it mattered - there's obviously a political hurdle there, but not a constitutional one.

In America, electors / politicians have to take a punt on whether a particular judge will be biased in all the ways they'd want them to be for quite a long period into the future. So for example you might elect a judge who you thought was biased towards abortion rights, but they might then change their mind over time, or you might realise later that you didn't actually like their position on private ownership of property. If they're a US supreme court judge you're then stuck with them till they die. In the UK, judges are appointed for fixed terms based on their ability to logically and fairly interpret the laws that have been written down. Electors and politicians then get to decide what the law should be in each specific area, and the judges just follow that. I think that's a much better system, and actually gives much better democratic control.

 

[Heat]

Conservatives - Liars and mountebanks
Labour - unreconstructed adolescent Marxists
Brexit party - swivel eyed loons
Green party - all sandals and home knitted lasagne

Who is left?

I have some sympathy with your description of the Lib Dems but I disagree with you about Jo Swinson; I quite like the cut of her jib.

(just trying to lighten the tone)

I think your description of the Parties is very accurate. They are a weird lot.
We tend to vote for a party or MP not because we like and fully support that party or MP, but rather to try to keep another party or politician out of power.

 

[dinkydo]

To the people on this thread who support Boris and who I guess also want Brexit, can I ask if you are uncomfortable about how he's trying to do this? Did you enjoy the spectacle in parliament yesterday or did it make you feel uncomfortable?

Always remember who is to blame for this, the country decided over 3 years ago to leave. I will only feel uncomfortable if we are still tethered to the E U after October

 

[Harry Stottle]

To the people on this thread who support Boris and who I guess also want Brexit, can I ask if you are uncomfortable about how he's trying to do this? Did you enjoy the spectacle in parliament yesterday or did it make you feel uncomfortable?

The Wednesday PMQ is theatre, so it's no good getting all worked up over it.

 

[Harry Stottle]

I

No disagreement that our system falls short of a perfect democracy.

My point was that if, all else being equal, the courts had found that a not-elected-as-pm could ask an unelected head of state to shut the people's elected representatives out of decision making just because it suited him we would be even further up the creek. You're right that what we actually need is a written constitution and a wholesale review of how things are structured.

Agree with you re the Lords and the Monarchy. Although, I think it'd be interesting to have an upper house elected as individuals, not as party blocks - and potentially with quite long terms, certainly overlapping ones (so they don't all get replaced every election). And potentially then to still have a constitutional / ceremonial head of state similar to the Queen's current role, but to appoint that person by some sort of lucky dip / people's jury rather than as a straightforward presidential election.

I think the lesson from other countries is that if all these roles are part of the same party-political election processes, that causes problems. You can end up with a lame-duck president who can't do anything at all because the parliament has gone the other way and is determined just to block him. Or, you have one party controlling all the branches of government for a while until eventually it flip-flops to the other side who proceed to undo everything for a few years until it changes again. Neither of those really provide good governance. None of them really provide any safeguards against an executive / majority over-reaching and abusing their powers. If you're just going to elect everyone all at once from the same parties you might as well do away with a parliament altogether and just have a winner-takes-all presidency and let them pick their team for a few years. If nobody is going to actually challenge them then they're just expensive bums on seats.

Judges shouldn't be elected, or political appointees. The current UK supreme court appointment process is actually fairly good - the "old pals act out of the lords" went away a while ago. People apply through an open process, their applications are considered by a panel made up of judges, lawyers and members of the public including representatives from all the UK nations. And they are then selected on merit based on their proven skills as a judge, including looking at past judgements for evidence of bias. Perhaps there could be more of a citizen's jury element, but that's as far as I'd go. Political appointment leads to game-playing to "stack" the court with people explicitly biased one way or the other (as happens with our current Lords) and means judgements then often split along party lines - again meaning it's not actually that independent of the political process. Electing judges poses similar risks, plus that in complex or controversial cases it's very difficult to get judges to focus only on what the law says because they have one eye on what voters might think they should do.

The crucial point is that in our system, judges can only enforce the laws agreed by Parliament. And Parliament can make any law it wants. It can even make laws that have retrospective effect. So, if the supreme court makes a decision Parliament doesn't like, Parliament can make a new law to reverse it. Therefore there is a democratic oversight of the court's decisions (unlike in America, where the court is the final decider). In the current case, for example, there is nothing to stop Boris running for a general election on a platform of "I should have been allowed to prorogue parliament" and then if enough people vote for his MPs they can go back to Westminster, pass a law, and overturn the supreme court ruling. That's obviously not going to happen here, but it does quite often happen that the supreme court rules in one direction based on the law at the time and that then prompts elected MPs to review the legislation and make changes. Generally speaking cases aren't individually important enough to need a retrospective law, so they just pass one that makes a particular thing legal (or illegal) in future. But that doesn't mean they couldn't start rewinding the past if they felt it mattered - there's obviously a political hurdle there, but not a constitutional one.

In America, electors / politicians have to take a punt on whether a particular judge will be biased in all the ways they'd want them to be for quite a long period into the future. So for example you might elect a judge who you thought was biased towards abortion rights, but they might then change their mind over time, or you might realise later that you didn't actually like their position on private ownership of property. If they're a US supreme court judge you're then stuck with them till they die. In the UK, judges are appointed for fixed terms based on their ability to logically and fairly interpret the laws that have been written down. Electors and politicians then get to decide what the law should be in each specific area, and the judges just follow that. I think that's a much better system, and actually gives much better democratic control.

What is needed is the House of Lords under a different name, made up of equal numbers of retired Doctors, Scientists, Union Leaders, Economists, Mathematicians, Engineers, Judges, Industrialists, Exporters, Diplomats, Financiers, Athletes, Explorers etcetera. That is people who can bring real life experience to scrutinise the bills and ensure that ordinary people are represented. Not as at present where hereditary peers, mates of failed PMs and other low calibre hangers on can influence the future of the UK.

 

[andyscotland]

I

What is needed is the House of Lords under a different name, made up of equal numbers of retired Doctors, Scientists, Union Leaders, Economists, Mathematicians, Engineers, Judges, Industrialists, Exporters, Diplomats, Financiers, Athletes, Explorers etcetera. That is people who can bring real life experience to scrutinise the bills and ensure that ordinary people are represented. Not as at present where hereditary peers, mates of failed PMs and other low calibre hangers on can influence the future of the UK.

That's kind of what I'd have in mind, rather than just another group of elected politicians or mates of elected politicians. Although I think it should include a good general spread of people, bus drivers and call centre workers and whatever, not just people with degree-level jobs. There's definitely an important role for expertise, but there's a lot of areas (moral questions, for example) where a representative range of opinions is equally important.

And definitely not just retired people, it should be a paid part-time job with a legal right to have time off from your employer to do it (like jury service, union rep roles etc).

 

[Joe the Plumber]

I like the sound of 'Lord Joe the Plumber'.

 

[longboat]

Quote: “We are not concerned with the prime minister’s motive in doing what he did,”

That must be from the dumbed down version of events again.
The full text states:

" We are not concerned with the Prime Minister's motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it".

Motive, reason?
Aren't they the same thing?

 

[Joe the Plumber]

I think you're right. Type 'motive' into Google and the first answer says 'a reason for doing something'.

Naturally, Lord Joe the Plumber wouldn't have got confused like that.

 

[longboat]

It is very clear now what boris is trying to do and that's go the purely populist route like 'make America great again'. It knotted my stomach watching the attorney general make his rant yesterday, and the behaviour of Boris himself and the words he used I found deeply uncomfortable.

What is awful about it all is that it isn't who he really is or what he wants to do, as all through his career he was a generally fair minded person even though a compulsive fibber (mostly as a joke, but no longer funny). The government's advisors have presumably realided they have only one way to achive success and that's follow what Trump is doing and that was probably guided by a guy called Steve Banon (who people should look up if they don't know who he is).

How does this method work? Obviously it isn't by using argument or reason or even facts, in fact any of these would be counter productive and soon cause it it grind to a halt. but instead it's by appealing to something that lurks inside many people. And it's awful to watch - there was a tory on the radio this morning who was appealing for calm and to stop increasing the divisions in the country and parliament, and he mentioned that Britain was known across the world as a place of reason and decency, but I fear we have just exposed ourtselves to the rest of the world as quite simply being no different. We aren't worse, but we are now very clearly not any better. We are as suseptible to nationalist populist retoric as any other group in the world. It is humbling and humiliating to see this.These are very bad days. Laugh at Trump and the american people, cringe at what's happening in Turkey, be appalled at how gullible the Russians are, make yourself a cuppa and weep as the country that once stood above all others around the world for democracy and decency has exposed itself.

Trump, Russians, humiliating, exposed, weep, fear.
All very emotive, i must say...
Welcome back, DA.

 

[Muzungu]

That must be from the dumbed down version of events again.
The full text states:

" We are not concerned with the Prime Minister's motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it".

Motive, reason?
Aren't they the same thing?

Not at all the same thing. The difference is often confused.