Parliament has been prorogued.
I happened to be in Westminster last night. There were a lot of unhappy members about.
For me the timing is useful. Teaching commitments mean that time for blogging might be tight over the next few days. Please do understand if, at the very least, moderation is sporadic.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Understood.
It’s a long read, but worth the effort, you can find the full transcript of today’s speech by Jeremy Corbyn to the TUC Conference here.
https://labourlist.org/2019/09/were-ready-to-unleash-the-biggest-people-powered-campaign-weve-ever-seen-corbyns-tuc-speech/
But he doesn’t explain how a leave the EU – whatever version- is better than our current deal remaining IN the EU. as a result the election message will be a muddled referendum – sadly. Brexit is bound to be the major focus of he next election- a clear message will e needed.
I live in a village where there are a lot of older comfortably off people who voted Leave and I cannot find one of them who has changed their mind- and most of them are not even prepared to read anything that might challenge their views.
From what you’ve clearly stated in your second paragraph it appears unlikely that the people you refer to would be receptive to Corbyn’s message whatever he did or didn’t say.
Agreed.
All the opposition parties need to work together to form a government against the out and out No Deal Tories.
It is the only way to stop No Deal now. An election will just kick the national government idea can down the road. I’m afraid if Parliament behaves like this, then it only as itself to blame for its diminution and one can feel no pity for them.
The national government idea through coalition is so obviously the answer that you must wonder how too many politician’s brains work and why they need a proper job description.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“The national government idea through coalition is so obviously the answer ….”
Well I blame MMT. 😮
If Theresa May had not been able to conjure £squillions to buy the DUP she wouldn’t have had a working majority after her ill-advised snap election in 2017 and would have had to do what the election told her she should do and form a cross-party alliance at least to deal with the Brexit question, if not actually to form a government.
Joking aside, May stupidly tried to use the Leave vote to boost her chances at an election – and the rest is history already. She is a sad, ineffective figure who literally brought about her own downfall by being the first politician to conflate BREXIT and the GE process and it is no wonder people are so confused and pissed off.
As for a certain Elizabeth Windsor – I’m not letting her off anything. The Queen has made it self evident that the monarchy’s role in our democracy is about as useful as a pulled pork at a bar mitzvah (my apologies to any Jewish readers).
Queenie gave a very illegitimate move credibility when she should have refused to become involved. But then if like her, you are spared whatever vile Government policies are perpetrated against the British people perhaps you’d agree to anything too to keep you ‘hize and trizers’!
She’s done, its’ done, they’re done. Bye Bye – and thanks for nothing. Somebody please pension her off.
It seems the Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled, in the words of the BBC, that “Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful” See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855
In brief, Johnson’s advice to the Queen was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament” and so the advice (and the prorogation which followed it) are “unlawful” and thus “null and of no effect”.
To quote Lord Brodie: “This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. … It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.”
This will go to the Supreme Court next week, but, gosh!, this has the makings of a constitutional crisis, if it is not one already. The courts and the legislature against the government. However Brexit turns out, students are going to study this for decades.
Agreed
From a Scottish perspective, the U.K. Government’s decision to prorogued parliament has had an interesting consequence. The absurdity of the action allowed many MPs to bring its alleged illegality to the Court of Session, the appeals (inner court) has now ruled, unanimously, that the PMs action is illegal – in Scottish Law – and that the Queen was mis-advised. It has been noted that the queen was in Balmoral at the time (that is in Scotland btw).
Will this change the prorogation? Maybe not, it has to go through the Supreme Court. The High Court (English law) has not found the action illegal I believe. The Court Of Session Appeals Court noted the lack of witness statements from the government.
The most interesting thing is that this is the first time a constitutional question, that is, one relating to how Scottish and English constitutions differ, has been judged in the courts – as I said, from a Scottish perspective, this is significant, and can give us an idea on how other constitutional questions could go when put before the courts. Where it goes from there, who knows, but the prorogation may have caused a very big constitutional crisis. The queen is off the hook, and all those involved in making the decision on prorogation may be at risk of being prosecuted, in Scotland at least,,,
Like the Outer House, the High Court found the advice to grant prorogation was inherently and exclusively a political matter, not justiciable, mainly because there are no judicial or legal standards to measure it against.
(Whereas the Inner House seems to have found that it is possible use usual principles of administrative law to judge whether prorogation was sought for a proper or an improper purpose – perhaps the taking account of irrelevant considerations, or the failure to give reasons.)
Unlike the Outer House, which was one judge of the Court of Session, the English decision was made by a very strong three-judge panel of the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division, comprising the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division.
I expect both cases will be heading off to the Supreme Court to be considered together.
(Thanks to Boris for distracting us all from the inexorable approach of Halloween.)
You must take account of the fact that Scottish law differs from English law
Perhaps someone can explain how administrative law differs between England and Scotland, because from what I have read, the single judge in the Outer House and the three judges in the Divisional Court seem to have reached the same conclusion for the same reasons (i.e. that it is an inherently political decision that is not justiciable).
The Supreme Court will have to judge whether those four judges were all right, or whether they should uphold the contrary decision reached by the three judges of the Inner House.
Read what those three judges had to say, and why, I suggest
Breaking news is that the Scottish Court of Session has concluded that the proroguing of the UK Parliament was unlawful as its intention was to stifle debate on Brexit and other issues. This is at odds with the earlier English Court ruling and we still await the hearing of a similar case in NI, but it raises some interesting constitutional issues.
The Prorogation is deemed to be illegal under Scots Law, which is supreme in Scotland, yet not illegal in England & Wales, but was ordered by the Queen on the advice of Johnson. Does this mean that Johnson is also guilty of misleading the monarch of Scotland and making her an accomplice in an illegal act carried out on Scottish soil? No doubt this will end up in the UK Supreme Court where it will probably be deemed to be within the law, but that in itself raises UK-wide issues about the devolution settlement, the status of Scots Law and the 1707 Act of Union.
Now, if only we could look up the Constitution and see what it says we could fix this in a jiffy and save a fortune in lawyers’ fees.
We are seeing 1701 collapsing….
This came in from an acquaintance in Canada from her Facebook feed:
From Tom Newton Dunn:
‘Sources in No10 now hitting back at Scottish judges, suggesting they are politically biased: “we note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason”.
Is No10 seriously suggesting that Scottish Judges and by extension the Scottish Legal System are allowing political bias to influence their legal decisions? For starters the higher reaches of the Scottish legal system are among the most c(C)onservative supporters of the Union up here and, if they were daft enough to allow their political allegiances to sway their legal decisions (which I can’t imagine ever happening — they are leading professionals), I’d be astonished if they would do so to try to derail a Conservative Government in London.
Just consider the facts: documentary evidence was presented to them, so that will have been taken into account by them (and indeed may also be the basis of the demand for publication of all memos, mails, texts etc relating to prorogation in the law passed this week in Westminster). The act took place on Scottish soil — in other words under Scotland’s jurisdiction — so a Scottish court has to be involved and has found it to be an unlawful act.
“The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason” sounds like the classic Mandy Rice Davis response: they would say that, wouldn’t they?
This fundamentally fails to recognise that Scottish law differs from English law
No wonder so many Scottish people have had enough
I didn’t catch the name, but a pompous Tory comment broadcast today (yesterday) contemptuously dismissed the significance of the Scottish Court of Session decision by saying it was not the highest court in England anyway. (Words to that effect.)
Unspoken, this translates in my mind to, the Scots will have to do what England’s Judges say. He presumably also thinks Scots have no business pontificating about the behaviour of an English Government, without really accepting that there is no such thing as an English government.
EVEL goes some way towards a nod to the idea of an English devolved Parliament, but not really far enough. The Union is fatally flawed and ‘Little Englanders’ need to come to terms with this and accept the logical extensions of devolution.
As the intentions of Boris Johnson lie at the heart of this case it would seem logical for the Supreme Court to call Boris to give evidence.
The thought of Boris giving evidence under oath before the most senior court in the land is a pleasing one.
Indeed…..
SteveH says:
“As the intentions of Boris Johnson lie …….”
It’s come to something when the words ‘Boris Johnson and lie’ fit so snugly together, and he is what passes for our Prime Minister…..