Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have the wheels come off the Boris bus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
    Well the wheels are off now; a Scottish Judge has ruled that BoJo's prorogation of parliament is illegal. The full Judgement will be issued on Friday. Scottish MP's have already called for the prorogation to be lifted and Parliament to recalled.
    Not for nuttin' but does a Scottish judge even have jurisdiction in such a case? I's thing that the only competent court for this one is the Law Lords.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

      Not for nuttin' but does a Scottish judge even have jurisdiction in such a case? I's thing that the only competent court for this one is the Law Lords.
      Wouldn't that forcefully bring home to the Scots exactly the extent to which they are the captives of Westminster though?

      The Scottish parliament has been prorogued since 1707. If the one in London is now also not sitting, perhaps they could just reconvene? The old place is still there even:

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

        Not for nuttin' but does a Scottish judge even have jurisdiction in such a case? I's thing that the only competent court for this one is the Law Lords.
        No, the Scottish or English High Court can refer the matter to the UK Supreme Court. It was established in 2009 under legislation brought in by Tony Blair to separate the judiciary from the upper house of Parliament. Essentially it took over the judicial function of the House of Lords. (I think Tony was a bit of a Republican). The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all civil matters in the UK and all criminal matters in the UK except Scotland.
        "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
        validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
        "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
          Wouldn't that forcefully bring home to the Scots exactly the extent to which they are the captives of Westminster though?
          I think most of them know that already. Some cow-down and tig their forelock, others hold their head high, want to be free people and vote SNP.
          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            Not for nuttin' but does a Scottish judge even have jurisdiction in such a case? I's thing that the only competent court for this one is the Law Lords.
            It's hard to imagine how the Executive power can prevent the Legislative from meeting, in theory IF they conflict, it would be up to the Judiciary power to settle the dispute.

            But in the UK where everything depends on "conventions" and "gentleman-agreements" it's hard to tell….


            It was quite surreal to watch to a minority walk out and disband parliament, while the majority was shouting "shame on you" but went home for 5 weeks anyway…

            Meanwhile the PM is discussing foreign policy with toddlers, fishermen and farmers

            https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
            Last edited by Snowygerry; 11 Sep 19, 08:34.
            High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

              It's hard to imagine how the Executive power can prevent the Legislative from meeting, in theory IF they conflict, it would be up to the Judiciary power to settle the dispute.

              But in the UK where everything depends on "conventions" and "gentleman-agreements" it's hard to tell….
              If the decision of the court is not upheld them the Prime Minister of the day can suspend Parliament whenever he or she wants for however long they want. In effect they can rule by diktat.
              "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
              validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
              "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                No, the Scottish or English High Court can refer the matter to the UK Supreme Court. It was established in 2009 under legislation brought in by Tony Blair to separate the judiciary from the upper house of Parliament. Essentially it took over the judicial function of the House of Lords. (I think Tony was a bit of a Republican). The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for all civil matters in the UK and all criminal matters in the UK except Scotland.
                Yeah, I know -- but I still like calling 'em Law Lords: sounds so quaint. Anyways, while a lower Scottish or English court may refer such a case to the Supremes, I somehow doubt that any lower court has the jurisdiction or standing to hear a case of sitting MPs v their sitting PM. To my mind that sounds as Supreme as it gets.

                And perhaps Blair was a republican, but he's definitely a tosser -- and that's a discussion for another day.

                Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                It's hard to imagine how the Executive power can prevent the Legislative from meeting, in theory IF they conflict, it would be up to the Judiciary power to settle the dispute. . . . .
                This is where I get confused: does the Prime Minister and his cabinet constitute an executive branch, or are they merely an organic part of the legislative branch? Since the British "constitution" does not stipulate separation of powers a la the US', I don't know that such an argument can be advanced in this case of PM Boris Johnson proroguing the Parliament.
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                  It's hard to imagine how the Executive power can prevent the Legislative from meeting, in theory IF they conflict, it would be up to the Judiciary power to settle the dispute.

                  But in the UK where everything depends on "conventions" and "gentleman-agreements" it's hard to tell….


                  It was quite surreal to watch to a minority walk out and disband parliament, while the majority was shouting "shame on you" but went home for 5 weeks anyway…

                  Meanwhile the PM is discussing foreign policy with toddlers, fishermen and farmers

                  https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbL3NfWJUQs
                  precedent:

                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                    This is where I get confused: does the Prime Minister and his cabinet constitute an executive branch, or are they merely an organic part of the legislative branch? Since the British "constitution" does not stipulate separation of powers a la the US', I don't know that such an argument can be advanced in this case of PM Boris Johnson proroguing the Parliament.
                    That's why they are calling it a constitutional crisis.
                    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by slick_miester View Post





                      This is where I get confused: does the Prime Minister and his cabinet constitute an executive branch, or are they merely an organic part of the legislative branch? Since the British "constitution" does not stipulate separation of powers a la the US', I don't know that such an argument can be advanced in this case of PM Boris Johnson proroguing the Parliament.
                      At one time there was no requirement for a minister to be an elected member of the Commons - go back far enough and parliament and the monarch's ministers were entirely separate. However it increasing became part of parliament's duties to scrutinise the actions of ministers and call them to account. Having the majority of ministers members of the commons makes this much easier in normal times. The proposition is that if Johnson advised the proroguing with the intent of preventing it from scrutinising and calling to account himself and the rest of the government then that is illegal. If it was just part of the normal administration then it was legal
                      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                        At one time there was no requirement for a minister to be an elected member of the Commons - go back far enough and parliament and the monarch's ministers were entirely separate. However it increasing became part of parliament's duties to scrutinise the actions of ministers and call them to account. Having the majority of ministers members of the commons makes this much easier in normal times. The proposition is that if Johnson advised the proroguing with the intent of preventing it from scrutinising and calling to account himself and the rest of the government then that is illegal. If it was just part of the normal administration then it was legal
                        So what you're saying is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet wear two hats in effect: they're Members of Parliament, -- but they're also executive officers of Her Majesty's Government. In practice, a PM and his ministers -- as leading members of Parliament -- are in charge of overseeing themselves.

                        Talk about your muddy waters . . . .
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                          So what you're saying is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet wear two hats in effect: they're Members of Parliament, -- but they're also executive officers of Her Majesty's Government. In practice, a PM and his ministers -- as leading members of Parliament -- are in charge of overseeing themselves.

                          Talk about your muddy waters . . . .
                          Not at all The Committee chairmen cover a lot of the scrutiny and the back trenchers do most of the rest through parliamentary questions etc
                          Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                          Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                            Not at all The Committee chairmen cover a lot of the scrutiny and the back trenchers do most of the rest through parliamentary questions etc
                            Two problems with that: 1) how can an MP become a committee chairman without at least the PM's tacit approval; 2) backbenchers who don't want to incur the frontbenchers' ire aren't likely to ask embarrassing questions, either during PMQs or in committee.

                            Any legislature -- UK, US, NY, Texas, et al -- is all about building relationships. One who pi$$es off those who can hurt one tend to suffer the consequences -- like a chairman killing your bill that is meant to help your district/constituency in committee, or a speaker just not allowing your bill to reach the floor for an up-and-down vote, or the rules committee chairman assigning you the crappiest office in the building. Oh, there are all kinds of ways that the leaders of a given chamber can hurt a non-cooperative member, and if he's smart, he learns how to cooperate right quick. So no, I can't see how having government executives also serving as legislators isn't what accountants call a "control violation."
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                              Two problems with that: 1) how can an MP become a committee chairman without at least the PM's tacit approval; 2) backbenchers who don't want to incur the frontbenchers' ire aren't likely to ask embarrassing questions, either during PMQs or in committee.

                              ."
                              Plenty of committee chairmen that the PM would gladly see the back off but he doesn't have that power (since 2010 they have been elected and not appointed) and similarly plenty of backbenchers all too willing to ask awkward questions - there is such a thing as the opposition for a start The Table Office in the Commons helps with the formatting of questions but only so far as to avoiding duplicate questions, avoiding non parliamentary language etc etc. I once sat in on a Table Office session and saw it done. The real killers are the supplementary questions of which the government gets no warning.
                              Last edited by MarkV; 11 Sep 19, 11:29.
                              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                                Plenty of committee chairmen that the PM would gladly see the back off but he doesn't have that power (since 2010 they have been elected and not appointed) and similarly plenty of backbenchers all too willing to ask awkward questions - there is such a thing as the opposition for a start The Table Office in the Commons helps with the formatting of questions but only so far as to avoiding duplicate questions, avoiding non parliamentary language etc etc. I once sat in on a Table Office session and saw it done. The real killers are the supplementary questions of which the government gets no warning.
                                Back when Cameron was PM, I saw a PMQ session that was almost totally canned: Tory MPs asked "question #3," "question #7," et al, making it embarrassingly obvious that the MPs' questions were arranged with Cameron in advance. I raised that very point with our late friend Allsirgarnet aka Gary Steadman, and he said that it was not at all uncommon for the MPs' questions to be vetted with the PM in advance, or even distributed by the PM to willing MPs in advance, thus rendering PMQs something of a joke in the eyes of many Britons, at least those with a cynical streak -- among whom Mr Steadman decidedly did not number. He was very much a believer in the efficacy of the UK's political traditions, as well as the UK government's capacity to bring about positive change.

                                I know that opposition MPs can ask 'most anything they want during PMQs, but doesn't it stand to reason that -- and haven't there been examples in fact when -- members of the PM's party have been castigated for asking unwelcome questions?

                                And if committee chairmen are elected by the members -- the same members who elect one of their own to be party leader/PM -- then why would they elect chairmen who might meet with the PM's disapproval?
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X