UK Politics Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The equivalent of Marbury vs Madison for the UK. Only took you guys 220 years to catch up.

I said it was clearly undemocratic and you guys said it wasnt. I said Parliament thinks it was undemocratic and you guys said it was the opposite. Now the court unanimously says it was undemocratic and you are saying the entire court must be wrong.

You just want things to happen your way, like a screaming toddler.

I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the judgement - regardless of what you thought of the prorogation.

The UK Constitution functions on the basis of a complex interaction of contradictory legal fictions. It's like a house of cards and today's Supreme Court Judgment has brought it that much closer to collapse. Brexit is now probably the most dangerous political crisis since Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson.

[Pannonian]

I don't think you fully appreciate the implications of the judgement - regardless of what you thought of the prorogation.

The UK Constitution functions on the basis of a complex interaction of contradictory legal fictions. It's like a house of cards and today's Supreme Court Judgment has brought it that much closer to collapse. Brexit is now probably the most dangerous political crisis since Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

[Pannonian]

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

Still of the opinion that exiting the EU will solve all this?

[Montmorency]

Nice Twitter



"Brekekekekexit" is an especially delightful pun because Brexit is kek, if you didn't catch that.

If the end of this acute mess is reform of the chronic mess we've currently got then that is a good thing. I very much doubt that there will be the root and branch reform required - more a rearranging of the seats so all the vested interests continue. The fiction of Democracy where most votes are meaningless and the Queen has absolute power as long as she exercises none of it.

This PM is a liar. So was the last one. And the one before that. And so on.

Just a general note that this is a naive and powerless sort of dismissal. I also note that it's inconsistent with the belief (which you seem to adopt) that a socialist can plausibly amass enough power to enact fundamental changes to British society. Doesn't it become a mere excuse for self-satisfaction when things continue not to go well? It is more decent and productive to be appalled.

[rory_20_uk]

Still of the opinion that exiting the EU will solve all this?

Still enjoying asking questions and assigning incorrect beliefs?

Just a general note that this is a naive and powerless sort of dismissal. I also note that it's inconsistent with the belief (which you seem to adopt) that a socialist can plausibly amass enough power to enact fundamental changes to British society. Doesn't it become a mere excuse for self-satisfaction when things continue not to go well? It is more decent and productive to be appalled.

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.

[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.