O/T Democracy

[KerrAvon]

The supreme court is not part of our ancient constitution - it was recently introduced as one of the ill-thought out acts of constitutional vandalism he called "modernization" by Blair - the man who took us into a war on the strength of lies. It is not fit for purpose and never was. If it survives it will be because it is useful to politicians rather than because it is a safeguard to the electorate.

Good to see you back on the board, vaterland.

I don't agree with your view of the Supreme Court, it is, in essence a rebranded version of the old judicial committee of the House of Lords, which had a history dating back to 1399. There was one important change, which is that the Lord Chancellor - a member of the government - is no longer a member of it. I think that was essential if it was to be able to scrutinise government decisions fairly and without the appearance of bias.

[KerrAvon]

Animal, the separation of powers forbids the civil law to interfere with political law but parliament gave the law the chance to dip it's feet in to political law and therefore breaking the code of the separation of powers. In other words it asked the law to do it's dirty work.

Now once the supreme court were given permission to step in to this arena it made the prorogation a civil law matter and not a political matter.

Parliament makes the laws of the land and the courts uphold those laws. Now that the remoaners have got what they wanted there is no reason to let this continue and will pass a law that will forbid the courts to rule on political matters which the supreme court would have to obey unless they were invited in again.

The 3 judges who said it was a political matter were correct and it should have been left at that but the remoaners did not like that ruling so chose to ignore it and take it to another court.

I know Kerr will confirm this when he gets the chance.

I'm afraid that I won't biggie. The doctrine of the separation of powers requires that the Judiciary be separate from the Executive for the very reason that the former should be able to make judgements upon the actions of the latter without the suggestion of political bias or interference.

The legislator - Parliament - creates law and the Judiciary has to apply it (unless they declare it incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights). There is no statute law on prorogation and so the Supreme Court fell back on common law principles which provide that the exercise of prerogative power by the Executive (i.e government) must be exercised rationally and reasonably (for which you could substitute 'fairly').

I wouldn't like to speculate upon whether Parliament will legislate to curb the court's powers of judicial review. I think some clarity around the exercise of the power of prorogation would clearly be of value.

[vaterland_miller]

And its good to see you too KerrAvon. This thread is a bit tedious - I got sucked into it. I'm not sure how much more I can take.

Yes, the Supreme Court is as you say but it was a change to a system that wasn't broken and that had worked very well for 600 years. There was a strong cost argument for maintaining old judicial committee of the House of Lords. The old system was part of parliament and I feel very uneasy, to say the least, when bodies external to parliament start creating statutes "on the fly". The Spectator article deals with this far better than I could.

[KerrAvon]

The old me would have commented that threads of this type descend to the forensic level of street drinkers arguing over the last can of Special Brew, but I have turned over a new leaf and would now say that I find it interesting and refreshing to see diverse views being debated so enthusiastically.

I think that Parliament’s commitment to democracy and fairness will be tested this week. I wonder what tricks they will get up to whilst many Tory MPs are 150 miles away at their conference?

[the_idiotb_stardson]

Peter Hitchens column in the Daily Mail today raises some very interesting questions about the supreme court judges in which he quotes the late great Tony Benn:

"Proper Leftists should be careful what they wish for. What a pity that great English radical, Tony Benn, was not there to remind them of the questions we need to ask of anyone who has power: 'What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? And finally, how do we get rid of you?'

They are excellent questions and, as we shall see, the 'Supreme Court' cannot answer the final three which are most crucial. Who do they serve? We do not know. Who is above them? It remains to be seen. How do we remove them? There is no obvious way"

[WanChaiMiller]

Roly. Let me try to explain something to you that you seem to not know.

The house of commons can and will make a law that will never let the supreme court rule on a political matter again. They can do this because it is parliament that make the law. In doing so this proves that the courts ruling is not a matter for the law of the land and is not binding in political law. In other words civil law cannot over rule political law and is why what the supreme court ruled carries no weight at all and you and many more like you have bought in to the supreme courts ruling. It is pathetic and was used by the remoaners as a way of getting their own way without having to call for a GE.

I will lay you odds on that the next parliament after the next GE will make it illegal for the supreme court to ever have the chance to do it again.

This is why I was so angry at what happened and was why I was telling all that would listen that you did not know what had just happened.

Biglad* - It is well worth you reading the transcript of the Supreme Court ruling delivered by Lady Hales'. I will post it in full later. The are segments which are relevant to what you said about (and goes some way cover Idiots 3 questions)...


"On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law.

Mrs Miller’s appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General’s appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September."

" The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”. However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions."

Then, later in the transcript...

"The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court.

But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."

[WanChaiMiller]

They are excellent questions and, as we shall see, the 'Supreme Court' cannot answer the final three which are most crucial. Who do they serve? We do not know. Who is above them? It remains to be seen. How do we remove them? There is no obvious way"

Lady Hale answered it quite emhatically in her summing up saying the Supreme court has no jurisdiction over matters of Parliament.

[WanChaiMiller]

Transcript of Lady Hale summary to assist in understanding Supreme Court's decision. From the Irish Times.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...ment-1.4028716

[ragingpup]

Raging, my dear chap, you posted this in response to one of my posts, but I think you may have made a mistake and meant it in response to another.

You will recall that you argued that the divison in the country today was all down to Johnson and Gove and I responded:

If taking part in a Leave campaign created division then surely those MPs who took part in the Remain campaign did too?

And if arguing against the May deal created division created division then surely that puts Labour equally into the frame doesn't it? And what of your part? Didn't you argue against the May deal on here and tell us that you were in contact with your MP to urge him to vote against it?

Picking two people from the Leave side and heaping all the blame on them seems illogical and demonstrative of bias, but I am, as always, willing to hear your rationale for doing so.

I'm sure that you must have intended to respond to my post and I am always interested to hear your views and so am happy to re-post for you to give you the opportunity that you clearly indvertently missed. I would also like to ask an additional question if I may? You argue that the divison in the country is down to Gove and Johnson, but what about Corbyn and McDonnell who were trying to secure a referendum as long ago as 2011?

As for your question - how odd! It's hard to see why people who wished to remain in the EU would seek a referendum on the issue isn't it?

Dearest Kerry**** (is that how you do this endearment thing?)

Lovely diversions as always. But the only point I was responding to was your quote:

Johnson did not create the division that is apparent within the country. Ultimately whether the UK is in the EU or not is a binary choice. That polarised the country and Parliament has exacerbated that by failing to deliver on the direction indicated by the referendum.

I was, as you well know pointing out that his decision to stand in front of a bus with a huge fib on it, commissioning the Vote Leave campaign and spending 3 years criticising May's (honest but restricted) efforts to secure a deal was a hugely significant part of it.

That was the only point I was responding to thanks

[animallittle3]

Andrew Marr

" would you do a deal with the brexit party "

Johnson

" we are the oldest party in the world and a broad church we don't do deals with anyone "


I must have imagined the coalition government with the Liberal Democrats and the present one with the DUP then .