How shockingly ignorant Remain supporters are.

[ScreamingLadySutch]

Sorry, guys, but you are.

In the past week I have been told we must Remain because BJ is a dictator by one, and by another because it is easier to travel .

There seems to be no knowledge of our history and institutions, legal, political, sovereign and economic considerations, the history etc of Europe and what is really going on.

Labour and the trade unions were wholly against entry, and the Conservatives pushed it through by stealth and deceit. That crusty old socialist Tony Benn was prophetic on his remarks about what it meant. Now, today, that is reversed. Fascinating, really.

For a good grounding on the roots of the issue (Maastricht was going to result in Brexit it was completely inevitable), this documentary is quite useful:

People forget about 2. In this, the losers ARE NOT CONSENTING which is profoundly undemocratic

You acknowledged that Johnson himself voted AGAINST the withdrawal agreement.

So wasn't that being undemocratic?

We will be leaving the EU. Who gets to decide on what that leaving looks like?

Should it be a Government elected on a minority of votes - or Parliament, the people's representatives?

What is the role of Parliament here? If it is to implement Brexit, what type of Brexit is is to implement?

Quaffy I think the total opposite (and yes I’m a lawyer). The government’s case was predicated on an argument that the PM could prorogue parliament for as long as he wanted for any reason he wanted, and it wouldn’t be justiciable. I cannot see how such a position would be consistent with the separation of powers.

The opinion of most constitutional lawyers appears to be that the SC acted beyond the scope of its existing powers and by doing so extended them. Whether this is a one off or a permanent change to our constitution remains to be seen. Miller/Cherry is generally regarded as a strongly purposive decision made by a pro-EU court (hence the unanimity) and worrying from a classical separation of powers perspective, when that is seen as an overriding principle. e.g. one of Monetesquieu's tenets is that decisions should be made by those that the public can remove from office...

The SC decision focussed on the scope of prerogative powers and parliamentary sovereignty. But Miller No 1 established that the PM cannot prorogue parliament for as long as they please. However in the SC ruling, it appears to be the purpose of the prorogation which was objectionable, rather than the length. And that is what makes it a political rather than a legal decision. It gives the SC the power to decide in future what purposes are and are not suitable for prorogation without laying down restrictions and limitations on its power to do so.

It does seem to be a bit of a Lochner type judgment, but it actually goes further, because it increases the powers of the SC by giving it the scope to make further rulings on not only the interpretation of the Constitution but on adding additional principles to it.

57Varieties Most lawyers thought the Surpeme Court would go the other way than it did

Not according to the ones I follow. A unanimous decision of 11 justices would tend to suggest it wasn’t really balanced on a knife edge.

It actually indicates that it was a purposive decision - one which was arrived at in advance and then the reasoning worked out afterwards. i.e. they went into it with an outcome already in place.

The Constitution has actually been changed in order to make the ruling that the SC did. And it has been changed by an unelected body of judges which cannot be removed by the people.

OP by making generalised judgements on a group of people as a single entity you are claiming the title of ignorance for yourself. You appear to have the lack of information that all people in a single group of opinion have the same knowledge. You cannot really believe this?

Education is the not the same as intelligence so frankly your degree does not automatically ensure you are more intelligent than others. (Before you dismiss my comments I am educated to a similar level)

Both sides of the argument have outliers who are ignorant, both have well informed people who disagree. I have also found some who chose not to vote to have a well thought argument as to why.

It is completely incorrect to label all remainers as ignorant, some have the same or more information as you they simply see it in a different context.

You presumably have attempted to use hyperbole and missed the definition of it?

Constituency after constituency voted leave -and have remain MPs. Who are obstructing the government who are trying to implement the referendum.

Constituency after constituency voted leave and then, a year later, elected a remain MP. Presumably because they decided in June 2017 that that particular candidate best represented their views. Because it would take a special kind of stupid to elect a candidate who didn't represent your views on the biggest issue of the day. Leave voters are in the majority so they presumably also had the biggest influence on which candidates were elected in 2017 - they have exactly the Parliament they voted for.

It is not the purpose of the prorogation per se. Surely, it’s because the prorogation has the effect of preventing other elements of the state from performing their legitimate constitutional function with no explanation from the Government why that interference was warranted.

It actually indicates that it was a purposive decision - one which was arrived at in advance and then the reasoning worked out afterwards. i.e. they went into it with an outcome already in place.

Utter, utter rubbish. The Government's defence was atrocious. The supreme judges could not have ruled any other way.

QualCheckBot - I thought the Supreme Court argued that it was the Government's failure to give any reason for its exceptionally long prorogation was the problem, not its reason. There is a difference. In what separation of the powers universe is it acceptable to prorogue Parliament for a significant period for no reason?

I do not think all leavers are ignorant. But this thread won't change anyone's minds if they think that.

It was not a purposive decision. The Government offered no reasons why Parliament should be blocked from performing its constitutional function. There appeared to be an attempt to blur the distinction between prorogation and recess. The defence was half baked and woeful.

Walkaround QualCheckBot - I thought the Supreme Court argued that it was the Government's failure to give any reason for its exceptionally long prorogation was the problem, not its reason. There is a difference. In what separation of the powers universe is it acceptable to prorogue Parliament for a significant period for no reason?

In the absence of specific constitutional principles that we can point to, we have to discuss general reasons. And of course the reason was the implementation of the democratic wishes of the people.

Constitutional decisions in a true democracy with a healthy separation of powers should not be taken by a group of judges that the people cannot remove from power. Its one of the most basic and essential principles of the separation of powers.

And the supreme court judgement made it clear that proroguing, which stopped all Government business including sub committees and House of Lords, was very different from a recess. A fact that many defending the attempted prorogation did not understand. I heard so much talk along the lines of - well the MPs were all at their party conferences anyway, so parliament would not have sat anyway.

Leave voters are in the majority so they presumably also had the biggest influence on which candidates were elected in 2017 - they have exactly the Parliament they voted for.

Correct

@qualcheckbot "the implementation of the democratic wishes of the people."
And yet the Government argued in court that the attempted prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit. So did they lie?

QualCheckBot - at what point have the People said it is their democratic will to shut down Parliament?!

And shutting down our parliamentary democracy to get a political action to happen, is the exact opposite of democracy.

And of course the reason was the implementation of the democratic wishes of the people

Assuming you mean Brexit? But BoJo has clearly said that wasn’t the reason for the prorogation (that now never was). He said it was so they could put together a Queen’s speech. Was he lying?

Constitutional decisions in a true democracy with a healthy separation of powers should not be taken by a group of judges that the people cannot remove from power. Its one of the most basic and essential principles of the separation of powers

They shouldn’t also be taken by the executive unilaterally without being subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.

jennymanara It actually indicates that it was a purposive decision - one which was arrived at in advance and then the reasoning worked out afterwards. i.e. they went into it with an outcome already in place.

Utter, utter rubbish. The Government's defence was atrocious. The supreme judges could not have ruled any other way.

Thanks for your polite and reasoned response!

Another constitutional lawyer has analysed the decision-making record of the SC judges involved. They all showed a heavily pro-EU bias, particularly Lady Hale.

It clearly was a purposive decision. One of the most purposive features of the decision was that the SC focussed on whether Parliament could carry out its constitutional functions in relation to Brexit during the 5 week prorogation instead of notwithstanding the 5 week prorogation.

Yes - more constituencies did vote to Leave.

Labour stood on a platform of respecting the vote AND getting the right deal for the country - so they got a lot of votes and won a lot of constituencies.

The Conservatives stood on a platform of an orderly Brexit and won a lot of constituencies.

Theresa May then decided to do it her way and not work cross party to see what was achievable.

Parliament is full of MPs who are trying to get the best deal for the country. These are the MPs voted for - by people who did vote to Leave,

If people wanted to leave with No Deal, they should have voted UKIP

But Miller No 1 established that the PM cannot prorogue parliament for as long as they please

Did it? I’d have to re-read it but wasn’t it about the foreign affairs prerogative?

The Supreme Court decided in Miller 2 that the power to prorogue was not unlimited. The government argued it was never a matter for the courts.

However in the SC ruling, it appears to be the purpose of the prorogation which was objectionable, rather than the length

Crucially, it was the lack of purpose:

we are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it

He put forward no reason at all (and I think we all know why). The court said he has to reasonably justify why he did so but no reason was put forward at all. If it had been, the govt would have had a large degree of latitude.

I have to say that the lawyers I know and whose work I have read following the judgment don’t accord with your perception of how the judgment has been received.

The allegation that it was a conclusion led judgment is surprising and I don’t know what you’ve based it on. I think the general consensus is that justices such as Lord Reed are very hesitant to intervene in political matters but he didn’t dissent.

And I'm out of here - this is going to degenerate into a bunfight. I'm used to debating with people with more of a background in constitutional law and theory so its difficult to explain when the background isn't there.

I'm not keen on being a part of a debate where its considered unacceptable for a poster to say that she has a First but it is considered acceptable to use fairly abusive language.

Constitutional decisions in a true democracy with a healthy separation of powers should not be taken by a group of judges that the people cannot remove from power

It is absolutely fundamental to the separation of powers that the judiciary can step in where the government exceeds its lawful powers.

what I will say (as a Remainer) is that embarrassingly a lot of the very nasty and aggressive comments I've seen and heard have been Remainers striking out at Leavers. I think Brexit has shown up the very limited tolerance and empathy that a lot of left wing Remainers would like to pretend they have
I can see why you wouldn't want to admit you voted Leave, but it's pretty obvious that you did.

@qualcheckbot I have been very polite in this thread. But anyone who understands the law who was following the case could see that the Government's response was terrible in court.
I knew lawyers who thought the Government would win the case, until the actual court case was presented. How one Supreme Court judge has ruled in past cases is irrelevant. It was a unanimous decision of all 9 judges and the summing up explained very clearly why they ruled the way they did.

qual

I don’t feel I have been remotely abusive in any way and I can assure you I have plenty of education/experience in constitutional law.