Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Have the wheels come off the Boris bus?

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post

    Irrelevant. HM has to take the advice and the PM doesn't have to explain or justify it. All he (or his Privy Council proxies) have to say is 'we advise you to suspend Parliament Maam' and she has to say 'agreed'. The real question is what was Bojo Bozo's motive for doing so?
    Really? HM might be in good faith, still, but the monarch has clearly been co-opted by the executive branch of government to stop the legislative from subjecting it to scrutiny.

    But considering the apparent general UK lack of outrage over anything going in Westminster now, and at least some poll results indicating a considerable preference for a "strong man" in politics, maybe it all really doesn't matter?

    It might form a basis for a decent argument for republicanism. Or at the very least a written constitution.

    Comment


    • #62
      AFP_1K50VD.jpg
      Boris didn't look or sound very Statesmanlike in Dublin a few days ago...
      Attached Files
      "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


      • #63
        Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
        Never mind all that...

        Any comment on the interpretation now being offered on the decisions of the Scottish court that Prime Minister BoJo did in fact lie to Her Majesty in order to ensure the successful prorogation of parliament?

        Of course, the majesty should have been aware that Johnson habitually lies to everyone, so why should an exception be made for her?
        Of note the English Court is supporting Boris in that the Prorogue was legal.
        The English court’s reasoning is based on separation of powers principles. They have ruled that Boris’s decision was a political matter and Parliament has available to it political remedies, specifically a VONC and that the courts should not interfere in political matters.
        whereas the Scottish court has taken a political stance itself.
        the matter will now go to the UK Supreme Court. One if the principles of the SC were s the separation of powers so theoretically they should find for Boris but whether they will or not is anybody’s guess.
        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

        Comment


        • #64
          The EU supporters have sort to mangle the constitution, particularly the separation of powers principles.

          Firstly using the compliant Speaker they have ended the separation of the executive from the legislature be enabling Parliament to initiate legislation rather than just to approve and refine it.
          Secondly they are now moving to end the split between the judiciary and the legislature by making the judges political.
          "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Surrey View Post
            The EU supporters have sort to mangle the constitution, particularly the separation of powers principles.

            Firstly using the compliant Speaker they have ended the separation of the executive from the legislature be enabling Parliament to initiate legislation rather than just to approve and refine it.
            Secondly they are now moving to end the split between the judiciary and the legislature by making the judges political.
            I suppose the argument that if the PM can suspend Parliament whenever he wants, for however long he wants, then Parliament is in effect subordinate to the PM and no longer sovereign.
            "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


            • #66
              The Scottish Government's copy of the Operation Yellowhammer Briefing Document was marked as a "Base Scenario" and no a worst care scenario, as asserted by Michael Gove.

              It seems that it's not just BoJo that's telling lies but that's hardly news.
              "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


              • #67

                Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

                I suppose the argument that if the PM can suspend Parliament whenever he wants, for however long he wants, then Parliament is in effect subordinate to the PM and no longer sovereign.
                He Ian not suspending Parliament whenever he wants. It is only four days extra than normal for this time of year and that is due to a Queen’s speech. Hence the English Court’s decision.

                the problem is that the Opposition are not using the constitutional means of showing their dissatisfaction. They could have tabled a VONC last week. Instead they chose to go through the courts.

                there are checks and balances in the British system. However rather than use them the EU side are seeking to break them.
                "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by the ace View Post
                  On a side note, the findings of the Court of Session raise an interesting dilemma;

                  If Scotland is indeed the, "Valued and equal partner within this union," then the government will be compelled to act on this verdict.

                  If the verdict is ignored, then it can be seen by all and sundry that this, "Precious Union," is a sham, and Scotland is no more than a troublesome region.

                  Either way, the independence movement wins.
                  I think the honorable gentleman from Scotland is expressing his wishes rather then the legal reality.

                  It strikes me as absurd that a Scottish court can even hear a case of a UK Parliament against a UK Prime Minister. It would be akin to the New York State Court of Appeals hearing a case between the US Congress and the US President. A single state is a mere constituent of the Union, and therefore has not the standing to hear cases involving conflict between the Federal branches. Likewise, while Scotland is most certainly a valued partner in the United Kingdom, she is not more equal than the UK's other partners -- England, Northern Ireland, and Wales -- and she is definitely not more equal than the UK government. The only court in the UK that has standing to hear this kind of case is the UK Supreme Court, and in order to preserve its constitutional integrity, the UK Supreme Court has to strike down any other lower court's ruling -- Scottish or English -- on the grounds that no court originating from the United Kingdom's constituent elements has not the standing to hear a case involving the United Kingdom's government. Besides, the UK Supreme Court, and Westminster as a whole, constitutionally represents and serves all Britons, be they Scottish or English or Welsh or Irish, so it's frankly a canard to question either Westminster's or the UKSC's commitment to the UK's constituent countries if they don't accept that Scottish court's ruling as unsurpassable legal precedent. That's nothing but nationalist conceit.
                  I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                    I think the honorable gentleman from Scotland is expressing his wishes rather then the legal reality.

                    It strikes me as absurd that a Scottish court can even hear a case of a UK Parliament against a UK Prime Minister. It would be akin to the New York State Court of Appeals hearing a case between the US Congress and the US President. A single state is a mere constituent of the Union, and therefore has not the standing to hear cases involving conflict between the Federal branches. Likewise, while Scotland is most certainly a valued partner in the United Kingdom, she is not more equal than the UK's other partners -- England, Northern Ireland, and Wales -- and she is definitely not more equal than the UK government. The only court in the UK that has standing to hear this kind of case is the UK Supreme Court, and in order to preserve its constitutional integrity, the UK Supreme Court has to strike down any other lower court's ruling -- Scottish or English -- on the grounds that no court originating from the United Kingdom's constituent elements has not the standing to hear a case involving the United Kingdom's government. Besides, the UK Supreme Court, and Westminster as a whole, constitutionally represents and serves all Britons, be they Scottish or English or Welsh or Irish, so it's frankly a canard to question either Westminster's or the UKSC's commitment to the UK's constituent countries if they don't accept that Scottish court's ruling as unsurpassable legal precedent. That's nothing but nationalist conceit.
                    What you say might be true if we had a separate English parliament and a Federal UK law making body above both English and Scots parliaments- but we don't
                    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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by MarkV View Post

                      What you say might be true if we had a separate English parliament and a Federal UK law making body above both English and Scots parliaments- but we don't
                      Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland all have their own councils. (For some reason England does not.) The UK Parliament in Westminster seats representatives from all districts of the United Kingdom: Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, as well as England. While the UK is not a "federal union" in the sense that the US is, devolution has brought about some aspects of federal union to the UK -- thus rendering Wales, Scotland, and N Ireland inferior to the United Kingdom. For example, Holyrood's taxation powers are rather limited compared to Westminster's, not just geographically, but also materially, as well. Holyrood cannot enter into foreign treaties, raise armies, or wage war: powers reserved to Westminster alone. Therefore, from a legalistic point of view, Scotland is not equal to the United Kingdom -- and a Scottish court has no standing to hear a case between Westminster's parties.

                      On another count, since Parliament seats Scotland's representatives, the proper venue for a case between Parliament's figures is not a Scottish court, but the UK's Supreme Court. I'm ion no way expressing support or approval of Boris Johnson's proroguing of Parliament, but were I an attorney-at-law -- what you blokes call barristers or solicitors ("solicitor" sounds like something else altogether, something that's illegal in both our countries, but I digress) I'd call it just that way, that no other court but the Supreme Court has standing to hear this case.
                      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The case goes to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
                        "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                          The case goes to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
                          What odds are London's bookies giving?
                          I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                            Northern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland all have their own councils. (For some reason England does not.) The UK Parliament in Westminster seats representatives from all districts of the United Kingdom: Wales, Scotland, N Ireland, as well as England. While the UK is not a "federal union" in the sense that the US is, devolution has brought about some aspects of federal union to the UK -- thus rendering Wales, Scotland, and N Ireland inferior to the United Kingdom. For example, Holyrood's taxation powers are rather limited compared to Westminster's, not just geographically, but also materially, as well. Holyrood cannot enter into foreign treaties, raise armies, or wage war: powers reserved to Westminster alone. Therefore, from a legalistic point of view, Scotland is not equal to the United Kingdom -- and a Scottish court has no standing to hear a case between Westminster's parties.

                            On another count, since Parliament seats Scotland's representatives, the proper venue for a case between Parliament's figures is not a Scottish court, but the UK's Supreme Court. I'm ion no way expressing support or approval of Boris Johnson's proroguing of Parliament, but were I an attorney-at-law -- what you blokes call barristers or solicitors ("solicitor" sounds like something else altogether, something that's illegal in both our countries, but I digress) I'd call it just that way, that no other court but the Supreme Court has standing to hear this case.
                            Actually no. Even in US, SCOTUS state about case brought before it following a lower court judgement. It is the same here, a court has issued a decison and SCUK will define if yes or no, the constitution has been in breach.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Metryll View Post
                              Actually no. Even in US, SCOTUS state about case brought before it following a lower court judgement.
                              Forgive me, but I am unsure of your meaning there. If you are suggesting that as a body the US Congress can sue the US President in a state court (eg Maryland or Virginia) then you are incorrect. That can only happen in a Federal court. Likewise, a case arising from a conflict between the UK Parliament and the UK Prime Minister should not be heard in a Scottish court -- or an English court, for that matter -- but in a UK court, and since this particular case is of extreme constitutional gravitas, the only panel competent to hear it is the UK's Supreme Court.

                              Originally posted by Metryll View Post
                              It is the same here, a court has issued a decison and SCUK will define if yes or no, the constitution has been in breach.
                              France has no constituent elements, no form of union analogous with the UK or the US, or even the FRG. France is just France, her divisions merely administrative in nature, conferring no sovereignty, either legally or historically. Consequently, with the exception of the lowest level of municipal courts, there is no French analogue to Scottish jurisprudence vis a vis British jurisprudence, or New York jurisprudence vs Federal jurisprudence.

                              And the there's also the distinct possibility that I'm talking out of my a$$, 'cause as you know, while I play a lawyer on TV, I'm not really a lawyer.
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                                Forgive me, but I am unsure of your meaning there. If you are suggesting that as a body the US Congress can sue the US President in a state court (eg Maryland or Virginia) then you are incorrect. That can only happen in a Federal court. Likewise, a case arising from a conflict between the UK Parliament and the UK Prime Minister should not be heard in a Scottish court -- or an English court, for that matter -- but in a UK court, and since this particular case is of extreme constitutional gravitas, the only panel competent to hear it is the UK's Supreme Court.
                                It is not a matter to put President/PM before a court but to state if an action made is legal. BJ () does not face sentence after Scottish court decision, the court ruled that BJ action was illegal. That does not mean that he cannot be sentenced but if so it will be another, separate, ruling. SCUK, like SCOTUS act about rulings. There is no way in USA for SCOTUS to declare unconstitutional a Congress law per se. The only way is via a ruling based on the said law to be brougth before the court, no matter the juridiction which made the ruling. SCUK use the same procedure.

                                France has no constituent elements, no form of union analogous with the UK or the US, or even the FRG. France is just France, her divisions merely administrative in nature, conferring no sovereignty, either legally or historically. Consequently, with the exception of the lowest level of municipal courts, there is no French analogue to Scottish jurisprudence vis a vis British jurisprudence, or New York jurisprudence vs Federal jurisprudence.
                                This is not a Federal issue but a constitutional one and the US Constitution apply anywhere on US territory. The court ruled about British laws, which for this specific case is the same for all Britons so the geographic position of the court is irrelevant.

                                Note that for now 4 cases have been ruled. Twice before a Scottish court, once before an English court and once before North Ireland court.

                                BTW there is nothing like a 'municipal court' in France. Procedure is quite different but in the end only the Conseil Constitutionnel can rule any case about Constitution. Case can be ruled say by a TI (Tribunal d'Instance) leading to a QPC (Question Prioritaire de Constitutionnalité). In the end result is quite the same to current British situation.

                                What should be kept in mind is that courts don't rule about Brexit but about specific case. (Something some people forgot and see any decision as political when the ruling does not support their own political point of view. Not aimed at you ).

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X