UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

Still enjoying asking questions and assigning incorrect beliefs?

You're the one who says that we have to leave the EU because we can't have foreign courts having jurisdiction over the UK Parliament's decisions. This is an entirely UK-internal thing, over your decision to leave the EU (and don't pretend it's nothing to do with Brexit). How's it working out?

[Pannonian]

The ruling by the UK Supreme Court is a devastating indictment of the abuse of power by a prime minister — and of the holder of that office, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. The 11 judges unanimously concluded that Mr Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was an unlawful attempt to silence MPs, at the very moment the UK, through Brexit, faces the biggest shake-up in its constitutional status for decades. Mr Johnson’s claim that the suspension was a routine break before a new legislative session stands exposed. The judges found the prime minister in effect misled MPs, the British people, and the Queen. No future premier will be able to act this way again. The judges’ ruling marks a historic moment in the evolution of the UK constitution.

The court’s decision was a much-needed reminder that, even in the most testing political circumstances, Britain remains a representative democracy underpinned by the rule of law. MPs are elected to exercise their good judgment and take decisions on behalf of constituents. They hold to account a government formed from among their number. The executive is accountable to parliament, and parliament to the people. Removing parliament, even for a matter of weeks, breaks the chain of accountability. The UK system cannot allow a cabal around the prime minister to determine by itself the “will of the people” and attempt to implement it, while sidelining those whom the people elected to represent them. This is the road to tyranny.
...
The power to suspend parliament, the judges found, is limited if it conflicts with parliament’s sovereign power to make laws, and the government’s accountability to parliament. Prorogation is unlawful if its effect prevents parliament from fulfilling its functions — without a very good reason. In one of the most stinging passages of their ruling, the judges found the effect of Mr Johnson’s actions on British democracy was “extreme”, and that the government had put forward no proper justification.

NB. The Financial Times is probably the most respected newspaper in the UK.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Magna Carta established the principle that the executive does not have the right to set aside Parliament which is the representative of the kingdom. Every attempt to repeat John's assumption of executive supremacy has been recognised as being against the fibre of the English system. The constitutional monarchy came into being because the last monarch to presume absolute power was run out of town and a suitably obedient replacement invited. The executive only has power because they command the confidence of Parliament. If they do not, they do not have the right to set Parliament aside for the sake of their convenience.

That's the constitutional principle side of things. The other part of the court judgment is that the PM is a lying so and so.

No, Magna Carta established the principle that the monarch is not above the Law - i.e. the Law is not something the monarch can change at will. Instead, the Law is either decided by consensus (either by a conclave of the magnates or in a trial by jury) or by a learned Judge.

Today, the Supreme Court, a collections of our most learned Judges, decided that the monarch must act according to the advice of their ministers and that if said advice is faulty then the actions taken by the monarch are null and void.

Previously this was not a legal precedent but merely a convention.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Now, watch as Parliament goes back to squabbling for a week before voting for a recess so that everyone but Labour can hold their annual political conference.

Showed that Toff Boris though, right?

[Pannonian]

No, Magna Carta established the principle that the monarch is not above the Law - i.e. the Law is not something the monarch can change at will. Instead, the Law is either decided by consensus (either by a conclave of the magnates or in a trial by jury) or by a learned Judge.

Today, the Supreme Court, a collections of our most learned Judges, decided that the monarch must act according to the advice of their ministers and that if said advice is faulty then the actions taken by the monarch are null and void.

Previously this was not a legal precedent but merely a convention.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Now, watch as Parliament goes back to squabbling for a week before voting for a recess so that everyone but Labour can hold their annual political conference.

Showed that Toff Boris though, right?

Hang on. Can you show me where this is the case? On my previous browse of the ruling, the FT quote seemed an accurate enough summary to me, but then you raise this argument which I've not seen elsewhere. I've gone back to the source document, and I can't find anything of the sort, and certainly not in balance.

[Montmorency]

When I watch Yes Prime Minister from c. 50 years ago and see them playing the same games I am not sure why I should either have optimism or be appalled that things have continued in the same vein. 20 years ago I might have been appalled since it was new to me but now it no longer is. The entire design of the system is there to resist any changes and to return mainly the same collection of MPs to their safe seats.

If you think the distribution of power in society never changes (bar revolution), you forget your history or "how the world works." Yes Minister has the downside of presenting an (entertaining) fairy tale of government, a conservative one. At its best it is a good satire, but it should not be taken as a more complete or adroit depiction of modern government than Season 4 of Blackadder is of trench warfare.

An insufficient but arguably necessary condition for reform (whatever that means in context!) is when enough people make demands on the state - there is movement. Almost every service, every right and privilege, every vesting of vested interests has come about when merchants, peasants, workers, and so on have pressured the state into growing to adopt new responsibilities, underwritten by their loyalty, their conscription, their taxation. With contract law as with social welfare.

We are entering a time of great ferment and instability. Hearken or others will speak for you whom you might not wish to do the speaking.

She's doing pretty good speaking though.

The Supreme Court just struck down the Monarch's Power of Veto - a future government could now apply to the Supreme Court if the monarch were to withold consent from a tyrannical Bill, say, and use this judgement as precedent.

Taking your fear at face value, the substance appears to be that the court intervening between the Monarch and a tyrannical act by the executive is bad because it can set precedent for a hypothetical future Parliament to petition the courts against the Monarch over refusing to condone a tyrannical Act by Parliament. Do I have it right?

If that's the fear, it smells like the intensification of internal contradictions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hang on. Can you show me where this is the case? On my previous browse of the ruling, the FT quote seemed an accurate enough summary to me, but then you raise this argument which I've not seen elsewhere. I've gone back to the source document, and I can't find anything of the sort, and certainly not in balance.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

The Lady Justice was quite careful to try to obfusticate this point as much as possible but it remains. The precedent has been set that it is the advice the Prime Minister gives to the Monarch that gives the Monarch's actions legel effect. If the advice is "null and void" so is the Monarch's action.

Taking your fear at face value, the substance appears to be that the court intervening between the Monarch and a tyrannical act by the executive is bad because it can set precedent for a hypothetical future Parliament to petition the courts against the Monarch over refusing to condone a tyrannical Act by Parliament. Do I have it right?

If that's the fear, it smells like the intensification of internal contradictions.

Yes - although I would describe the Prorogation as really more "naughty" than Tyrannical. Parliament demonstrated it can pass a Bill in 48 hours if properly motivated. It follows that there was, in fact, enough time for Parliament to scrutinise any deal and agree or reject it before 31st October. There was certainly enough time to have a vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson.

Now the Nuclear Option is off the table for when we actually need it.

[Pannonian]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

The Lady Justice was quite careful to try to obfusticate this point as much as possible but it remains. The precedent has been set that it is the advice the Prime Minister gives to the Monarch that gives the Monarch's actions legel effect. If the advice is "null and void" so is the Monarch's action.



Yes - although I would describe the Prorogation as really more "naughty" than Tyrannical. Parliament demonstrated it can pass a Bill in 48 hours if properly motivated. It follows that there was, in fact, enough time for Parliament to scrutinise any deal and agree or reject it before 31st October. There was certainly enough time to have a vote of No Confidence in Boris Johnson.

Now the Nuclear Option is off the table for when we actually need it.

Typical Brexiter approach to completely absolve the actor in favour of Brexit from responsibility for their actions. AFAIK it wasn't Parliament who prompted Johnson to prorogue it for 5 weeks, which as the ruling noted, is completely at odds with the given reasoning of preparing a Queen's speech. If the PM is proroguing Parliament for this reason, the normal interval is 5-6 days, not weeks. The judges noted that there was plenty of evidence showing that the PM's given reasoning was not the truth, and zero evidence that it was.

You talk about a theoretical veto on a hypothetical future tyrannical Bill being lost to the Supreme Court. That's theoretical, hypothetical, future and a number of other adjectives meaning not real. You raise these not-real cases to defend this actual abuse of power to evade scrutiny from Parliament. What is it about Brexiters and their tendency to ignore the reality in front of everyone's eyes in favour of hypothetical future not-real arguments of principle? Do you support what Johnson did? If you do not, then what should have been done about it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's nothing to do with Brexit, my objection has nothing to do with Brexit, I did not support the Prorogation.

Prorogation having been invoked I do not support the decision of the Supreme Court.

The judges at no point said that Boris Johnson's reasons given were "not the truth", they merely deemed them inadequate under the circumstances.

As the Lady Justice noted, the courts have made judgements on the King's​ power since 1611. It would have been better for all of us if they had attacked the Queen directly for following Boris Johnson's advice instead of accepting she is hostage to it.

[Pannonian]

It's nothing to do with Brexit, my objection has nothing to do with Brexit, I did not support the Prorogation.

Prorogation having been invoked I do not support the decision of the Supreme Court.

The judges at no point said that Boris Johnson's reasons given were "not the truth", they merely deemed them inadequate under the circumstances.

As the Lady Justice noted, the courts have made judgements on the King's​ power since 1611. It would have been better for all of us if they had attacked the Queen directly for following Boris Johnson's advice instead of accepting she is hostage to it.

Everyone knows it's to do with Brexit, but the court's ruling sidesteps it by looking purely at the government's given reasoning, which is to prepare a Queen's speech. It has never taken anywhere near 5 weeks in the past, and the evidence given by the government does not support taking this long. So using the government's own reasoning, the only explanation is that the government is stopping Parliament from its role of oversight. Which, unlike your hypothetical argument, is both real and current, and as great an abuse of power as it gets in our constitution. What the government has done is both unprecedented, and unsupported by law. To allow it is to tacitly support it. Thus the Supreme Court did not allow it. The government should follow convention, and if it breaks convention and lies about it, then its actions must be nullified, not allowed. Unless, of course, you take the view that the government is above law and not bound by it.

[Greyblades]

Oh great, just what we need 4 extra weeks of parliament doing nothing, loudly. I was enjoying the peace.

[Pannonian]

A female MP (and it's females who get the most of this) asks the PM to tone down his language as she and others have been receiving death threats, given that one of their number had been assassinated in 2016 due to feelings inflamed by the Brexit campaign. The PM replies that he's never heard such humbug in his life.

There has never been a greater scumbag in the office of PM than Boris Johnson.

[Furunculus]

“Have seen more hours of the Commons than I care to remember + that was one of most brutal + mad I have ever seen - no shred of remorse from the PM ruled to have broken law yesterday, paltry attempt at answering Corbyn's Qs, a few Labour MPs screaming, 'you should be in jail'”

hehe, the sausage machine doth grind exceedingly slow of late.

[Pannonian]

What do the Leavers think of this?

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...217845248?s=19

[CrossLOPER]

What do the Leavers think of this?

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...217845248?s=19

I liked it better when he was reciting Kipling in former colonies.

[Pannonian]

Humbug, says the PM about death threats to (predominantly female) MPs. Now Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat leader, has reported threats to her 5 year old daughter. The macho posturing of Brexiteers and the constant ramping up of language has normalised this kind of behaviour. Female MP after female MP pleaded with Johnson to tone it down, but his response was to dial it up even more. I asked the Leavers here what they think of it. I doubt they will condemn it, since he heads their team, and everything he does is justified in their eyes as long as he continues to head their team.

[CrossLOPER]

Humbug, says the PM about death threats to (predominantly female) MPs. Now Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat leader, has reported threats to her 5 year old daughter. The macho posturing of Brexiteers and the constant ramping up of language has normalised this kind of behaviour. Female MP after female MP pleaded with Johnson to tone it down, but his response was to dial it up even more. I asked the Leavers here what they think of it. I doubt they will condemn it, since he heads their team, and everything he does is justified in their eyes as long as he continues to head their team.

Winning.

[Montmorency]

Wrong thread. Crap, and I lost the original post. , I've been hanging on to this one anyway.

[Greyblades]

[Furunculus]

What do the Leavers think of this?

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...217845248?s=19

i agree with it to the limited degree that a relationship can be drawn between a woman who died in a political campaign and implementing the decision of that campaign.

i find the portrayal of martydom quite distasteful, not least because i find the manufactured outrage deeply unpleasant.

it's commentary LauraK's quoted above that is inflammatory and inaccurate. The PM didn't break any law. He acted unlawfully in the view of judges, who interpreted the common law in a new and novel way, that even the high court disagreed with.

Humbug, says the PM about death threats to (predominantly female) MPs. Now Jo Swinson, Liberal Democrat leader, has reported threats to her 5 year old daughter. The macho posturing of Brexiteers and the constant ramping up of language has normalised this kind of behaviour. Female MP after female MP pleaded with Johnson to tone it down, but his response was to dial it up even more. I asked the Leavers here what they think of it. I doubt they will condemn it, since he heads their team, and everything he does is justified in their eyes as long as he continues to head their team.

^ manufactured outrage ^

ranks alongside calls for bozza to be "decapitated", to let him "swing in the wind", and tory MP's to "be lynched". all part and parcel of an adversarial political system and of little operational import. MP's complaining about the use of the term "surrender act" are wasting valuable oxygen.

[Pannonian]

Sample letter.

It was rather prophetic that Boris Johnson should say 'I would rather be found dead in a ditch'. This is what will happen to those who do not deliver Brexit

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everyone knows it's to do with Brexit, but the court's ruling sidesteps it by looking purely at the government's given reasoning, which is to prepare a Queen's speech. It has never taken anywhere near 5 weeks in the past, and the evidence given by the government does not support taking this long. So using the government's own reasoning, the only explanation is that the government is stopping Parliament from its role of oversight. Which, unlike your hypothetical argument, is both real and current, and as great an abuse of power as it gets in our constitution. What the government has done is both unprecedented, and unsupported by law. To allow it is to tacitly support it. Thus the Supreme Court did not allow it. The government should follow convention, and if it breaks convention and lies about it, then its actions must be nullified, not allowed. Unless, of course, you take the view that the government is above law and not bound by it.

I'm afraid you've oversteppped here. Like the power to call elections at any time (prior to 2011) the power to Prorogue can, and has, been used for political ends.

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8589

https://researchbriefings.parliament.../LLN-2019-0111

Prior to 1931 it was not unusual for Parliament to be prorogued for more than two months - the last lengthy prorogation NOT before a generation election was 87 days.

[Pannonian]

I'm afraid you've oversteppped here. Like the power to call elections at any time (prior to 2011) the power to Prorogue can, and has, been used for political ends.

https://researchbriefings.parliament...mmary/CBP-8589

https://researchbriefings.parliament.../LLN-2019-0111

Prior to 1931 it was not unusual for Parliament to be prorogued for more than two months - the last lengthy prorogation NOT before a generation election was 87 days.

So why did they settle on 5 weeks?

BTW, what did you make of the PM's performance yesterday? Did you agree with his assessment of the MPs' fears as humbug? Do you agree with him that the best way of remembering Jo Cox is to get Brexit done?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

BTW, what did you make of the PM's performance yesterday? Did you agree with his assessment of the MPs' fears as humbug? Do you agree with him that the best way of remembering Jo Cox is to get Brexit done?

Not really, no.

[Greyblades]

There is a certain sadness in that they are rendering meaningless the vote that she was murdered while campaigning for one side.

[Pannonian]

There is a certain sadness in that they are rendering meaningless the vote that she was murdered while campaigning for one side.

Are you deliberately leaving out the fact that she was campaigning for Remaining when someone murdered her for campaigning to Remain, citing arguments spouted by the Leave campaign? That the MPs asking the PM to tone it down include her friends, and the MP who replaced her. That one of those MPs showed a recent death threat she received that directly cited the PM. That another MP revealed that her 5 year old daughter also received a death threat. The MPs receiving death threats are predominantly female, and those issuing death threats are predominantly in favour of Leave.

Do you think that the best way of solving these threats is to pass Brexit?

Edit: one of the above MPs had her office attacked today.

[Pannonian]

"the Prime Minister may be losing control of his behavior because he’s coming “under intense pressure from the people who have invested billions in shorting the £ & British economy for a no deal Brexit”

- Rachel Johnson

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you deliberately leaving out the fact that she was campaigning for Remaining when someone murdered her for campaigning to Remain, citing arguments spouted by the Leave campaign? That the MPs asking the PM to tone it down include her friends, and the MP who replaced her. That one of those MPs showed a recent death threat she received that directly cited the PM. That another MP revealed that her 5 year old daughter also received a death threat. The MPs receiving death threats are predominantly female, and those issuing death threats are predominantly in favour of Leave.

Do you think that the best way of solving these threats is to pass Brexit?

Edit: one of the above MPs had her office attacked today.

None of which we're condoning - because we're concerned with her actual death during the campaign - not point-scoring.

[Pannonian]

None of which we're condoning - because we're concerned with her actual death during the campaign - not point-scoring.

1. Her murderer accused her of things the Leave campaign accused Remainers of, during the assault.
2. People close to her have pointed out that the PM is ramping up the language again in a manner likely to incite. One of those had a death threat directly quoting the PM.
3. Since last night, one of those threatened MPs had her office attacked by someone calling her a traitor.

Is it point scoring when the above has happened? You're willing to overturn and break up the country for your hypothetical arguments, but you're dismissing things that have actually happened as point scoring. At what point will Leavers say that lines have been crossed by Leavers that shouldn't have?

[CrossLOPER]

"the Prime Minister may be losing control of his behavior because he’s coming “under intense pressure from the people who have invested billions in shorting the £ & British economy for a no deal Brexit”

- Rachel Johnson

How do you make money off of that? I really want to know. What kind of investments do you make? I know people make money from contracts when rebuilding a country like Iraq, but this isn't quite the same case. Maybe securing really crappy supply chain rights that they won't be able to fulfill?

The only other thing I can think of is security, for when Brexiters climb out and start wandering the shadows spouting out factoids about the racial composition of German-allied infantry in Africa and the Middle East during World War II or speaking Middle English to preserve their true heritage or something.

[Furunculus]

1. Her murderer accused her of things the Leave campaign accused Remainers of, during the assault.
2. People close to her have pointed out that the PM is ramping up the language again in a manner likely to incite. One of those had a death threat directly quoting the PM.
3. Since last night, one of those threatened MPs had her office attacked by someone calling her a traitor.

Is it point scoring when the above has happened? You're willing to overturn and break up the country for your hypothetical arguments, but you're dismissing things that have actually happened as point scoring. At what point will Leavers say that lines have been crossed by Leavers that shouldn't have?

https://order-order.com/2019/09/26/l...sive-language/

also: my previous point above. performative outrage.