This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Has the Supreme Court inflicted a blow on the monarchy?(18 Posts)
I really don’t know if I am following a logical thought process, but it has occurred to me that, in light of the judgement today, the position of the monarchy might have been damaged.
If the monarch’s Royal Prerogative (to prorogue parliament) can be overturned by the judiciary, it’s role is superfluous and anachronistic. Would we be better served with a head of state who has a legal ability to push back against unlawful actions?
The Supreme Court has inflicted a blow on itself. Regardless of who is next in power they will curtail the powers of the court to regulate government.
In a system where parliament is supreme it is the role of the judiciary to allow parliament to be supreme - we do not have a directly elected government- we have a directly elected legislature.
The whole point of a judicial review is enforcing the will of the legislature (as in laws made by parliament) against the actions of the government...
I agree with you OP. Before all this, I was as Royalist as they come. Since the poroguation I’ve felt that the Monarch was obsolete. Now that the Prine Minister has lied to the government, the Monarch should sack him. But she won’t. She won’t want to risk the political fall out and the danger to the Crown. But I think the damage has been done and by putting The Crown first, she is showing that she is as self-interested as the rest of the BJ/JRM/DC mafia and she is not putting the country first.
Time for the Royal Family to go.
Regardless of who is next in power they will curtail the powers of the court to regulate government.
You do realise that that is exactly the action of a dictatorship? The government must never be above the law and above legal questioning. And it never has been. Judicial review and similar has been going on for a very long time - including of government policies and decisions.
This may have been a "landmark" case and a headline maker. But actually the role of the judiciary in a democratic state is to do exactly this, and always has been. I seriously hope that you don't want to live in a country where the "government" - however that is described - has no checks and balances and no accountability in law. If you do though, there's more than a few for you to move to - Brazil, the Phillipines, and Iran for starters.
Lied to the Monarch, I mean. But actually he’s lied to everyone so the government is included!
We are never going to leave the EU.
It is a natural step to remove the monarchy of the constituent countries.
Having seen what has just occurred it will also be the job of the next government to remove or curb the powers of the Supreme Court.
Rhubarb I feel exactly the same as you. Never thought I'd say an elected Head of State was preferable but I feel that now.
What @randomsabreuse said.
The judiciary (Supreme Court) have facilitated the supremacy of the legislature (parliament, elected...) against the unlawful actions of the executive (government, not directly elected) in their representation of the people of the United Kingdom. In parliamentary democracy the legislature is supreme. They more directly represent ‘the people’ than government do, as they cover a range of views and try to ensure that the actions of the government are counterbalanced/challenged where necessary. Anything else is not a parliamentary democracy. How anyone can see this as anything else is beyond me, regardless of the impact on Brexit or not.
Johnson/Cummings and co.’s actions were clearly unlawful, unprecedented and with intentions which were not truthfully represented.
If the government can act unchallenged, especially in the case of holding only a minority in parliament, I hate to break it to you, but we aren’t living in a democracy any more...
Sorry, sent too soon. The monarchy’s role has been superfluous for some time as far as I’m concerned, and it’s right that the balance of powers is such that in a case like this, their actions can be overturned. Regardless of their existence or not (and I’m not hugely fussed either way..) I’d rather live somewhere where monarchy, government, or indeed any one leader, is not absolute.
The judiciary has been able to keep a check on the royal prerogative since the Case of Proclamations. I think that was 1611.
I agree with many of the points raised. Fundamentally, having a head of state who has no real executive power, is an inherited incumbent for life and also a titular head of a religious organisation, is wrong. We need a head of state who has the background and mandate to hold the position and has to be elected every 4 years.
Peter Morgan’s head must be exploding
The Supreme Court has inflicted a blow on itself. Regardless of who is next in power they will curtail the powers of the court to regulate government
No, definitely not. The queen acts on the advice of her ministers. The onus is on them not to break the law. If it was on her, then she'd need a second team of advisors and lawyers, to check what the first team, the government, was doing. That's not how it works.
But the court is also hers remember,
Why is it rubbish?
It doesn’t seem impossible that the next government with an overall majority will attempt to widen the category of executive decisions which are not amenable to judicial review. They may succeed or they may fail but either way the process will be incredibly horrible and destabilising for the whole country.
It is a can of toxic worms and every fucker who played a part in opening it has a special place in hell waiting for them.
While the government must obey the law, the judges must not legislate.
In removing the prorogation they have set themselves above the government. No law was broken. The judges have sold our democracy to those rich enough to go to court.
Please login first.