Westminstenders: Supreme Democracy

[RedToothBrush]

Tuesday is the big day about prorogation.

The Supreme Court hears the case of Cherry and Miller against the government.

This could test the constitution and the union. The Supreme Court sits as both as a Scottish Court and and English Court and applies Scottish / English law accordingly. And there are differences. It is possible that prorogation might only be illegal under one or the other but would have effect on parliament. Or its possible that the Supreme Court might decide to uphold the government position.

What is encouraging is the constitutional expert blogs which suggest that they lean to the court intervening. It's important that for the A50 case the Supreme Court referenced the arguments in these blogs.

But let's not get too carried away.

As it is Joe Moor, former director of legislative affairs at 10 Downing Street wrote in today's Telegraph that Johnson could merely prorogue again from Oct 14 "until at least Nov 6" thus preventing parliamentary scrutiny of no deal which would help enable in effect illegally. The Times also reported Cummings as having said this to advisors.

This has been dismissed by legal experts, but the point remains there is a willingness to both frustrate parliament and be as obstructive as possible in the days leading up to 31st.

There is also the 'Nobile Officium' Court action designed to stop illegal no deal by allowing the courts to write a letter to the EU to request an extension of Johnson refuses to.

It remains to be seen if it has even a chance of success.

The British press has been full of comments of optimism for a deal this weekend. This is after there was positive noises in a similar vein from Brussels. These has since been largely dismissed as mere political will with no practical progress. The British optimism has also been dismissed as mere posturing. And Priti Patel "misspoke" when she appeared to suggest that no deal was no policy this morning.

Other rumours include the French willing to grant a 2year extension but not a 3month one out of fear this will happen repeatedly. The French are now pushing for a deal and relaxing their approach as such (but Germany won't compromise the single market and Ireland the GFA so its all talk).

And do not forget, for all the talk of a deal there are certain time restrains.

Apparently Nikki da Costa has a timetable to get a deal through parliament in 'just ten days' on a spreadsheet. So that gives you an idea that the 19th October is possibly the last day to get a deal in front of parliament if you completely accept that we are leaving without any extension. This neglects the issue that a new deal isn't on the table from the EU and the backstop isn't going anywhere.

A last minute deal or no deal situation is highly risky with the ERG on one side and hard core Remainers who think Johnson won't defy the Benn Amendment and thus will try and block a deal to the last

It seems that we will have a game of cat and mouse until the bitter end.

I think we know that, Cordelia.
We also know that he went the route of doing no public press conference, with potentially damaging questions & equally damaging Boris-style answers.
He then gave an intimate, safe-environment 'interview' (read Press Release there) with Laura Kuenssberg.
Who complied. Despite knowing how this jeaopardises 'news', 'journalism' and 'reporting'.

But

We are not the target audience.

So, you may have to forgive us for laughing.

God knows, some of it may land and unsettle some people.

@Penscombe I've heard from friends in Luxembourg that there's military talk that Johnson was wearing a flak jacket under his shirt.

Interesting victim narrative, again. Maybe he's just paranoid.

Why would anyone laugh at some one who is doing this to human beings?

What is the moral compass of the british nowadays?

have they got one?

Moving on, I think the Supreme Court will rule that prorogation is legal, because it is political.

We are fkn toast now, as BJ can prorogue as he wishes.

I hope I am wrong, but we shall see.

Watching the "Rise of the Nazis" TV programme is sobering
purported coups by the establishment, lies, taking back control, making up stories to whip up the press .... its all been done

Read Jo Maugham's thread on this. outsomnia and that of David Allen Green.

We are in the rather wonderful position of having a court which may rule in up to a week that the government has acted illegally, that the legislature has power to over rule their illegality, but they are unable to do so because the executive has vitiated their ability to do so.

There is obviously a word for this sort of regime, but one's not allowed to say what it is on mumsnet, because one gets banned.

@cordeliajackson - I think it's gallows humour.
I don't really recognise your name from these threads - but if you had followed them for as long as I (which is not from the beginning by any means) you would know that most people - if not all regular posters, are desperately worried about the effects of food and medicine shortages on vulnerable people....on the worry of civil disobedience- the loss of rights.....
There is just so much to worry about and most of the time I am desperate at the thought....... sometimes we need To break that - for our own mental health to laugh and mock one of the key architects of this shit show.......

The thing is leavers can't (well they can but you know) say we all love him - because the same thing happens here in UK every time he ventures outside. He is possibly the world's least respected leader - certainly giving Trump a run for his money.

So if we are all meant to love him, EU countries all want their own version of Brexit and BoZo is bringing the country together, how come certain media sources show otherwise (with actual footage!) I wonder how many leavers are truly buying this? As soon as the trick -which is getting more overt every week - is sensed I think some might become suspicious enough to turn...will there be time though?

Here’s some Cohen BCF but whisky and chocolate works better than slitting wrists...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=KZe5BuN1fPY

Don't particularly appreciate being told I have no skin in the game if I need gallows humour to get me through. My dh could well die if his drugs aren't available to him as a kidney transplant patient. And that's just one member of my family. And I'm just part of one family on this group. So prefer not to have a patronising lecture.

I just posted this elsewhere.

It's from the 2nd reading on the referendum bill back in June 2015.

Mark Durkan said this:

I do believe that the Government would be well advised to change the question. We have seen this week that the Prime Minister is able to have a second take on some issues. Even when he feels that he is restating a position, it seems to be somewhat different. It might be a case of “EU turn if you want to,” with this Conservative leader. The Government should accede to the advice of the Electoral Commission.

When the referendum takes place, we need to recognise that there are many different issues for many different people. I represent a border constituency in Northern Ireland and the implications of the UK leaving the EU would be pretty fundamental, not just for my constituency but for the political institutions in Northern Ireland. The common experience of EU membership provided the very context in which there were changed British and Irish relations, which in turn provided the context for the peace process.

It should be remembered that the institutions of the Good Friday agreement do not take as givens just the human rights provisions of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, but the common EU membership of the UK and Ireland. Even some of the cross-border institutions that were set up as a result of the Good Friday agreement directly address and reflect our common membership of the EU. Fundamental damage and change may be done when serious questions are raised about our commitment to human rights and to our membership of the EU. If we are facing a referendum, we will have to address those issues and carry forward the arguments responsibly.

We must recognise that people have more questions about the sovereignty of this Parliament than just where it stands vis-à-vis the European institutions. We heard that yesterday in the debate on the Scotland Bill. There are clear tensions and ambiguities around what the notion of parliamentary sovereignty means for this Parliament, and around the implications for devolved institutions and the rightful authority that they should have. Similarly, in terms of what comes out of any EU renegotiation, there will be tensions between this Parliament’s notion of its parliamentary sovereignty and what emerges in the new arrangements and treaty terms.

That is why, in my view, it would have been better to have had something like a constitutional convention before the referendum not only to address the longer-term democratic relations within the UK and create a new democratic charter between this Parliament and the other elected institutions in different parts of the UK, but to create a new democratic charter that clearly creates a delineation between this Parliament and the various EU institutions.

There is a danger that we will end up with a referendum campaign in which the yes side includes people who want to be both half in and half out, and a no side that is also confused because it includes some people who want to be totally out, as well as people who say that if we reject it, we can be half out and renegotiate in the way that Ireland did. The danger is that we will end up with a referendum that does not settle the question at all in the terms in which Members believe it will.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2015-06-09/debates/15060939000001/EuropeanUnionReferendumBill

He had it spot on. And no one realised. Or cared. Or said hang on...

cordeliajackson

Indeed. We are silenced now,

Tomorrow will tell all. Thank you.

Don't particularly appreciate being told I have no skin in the game
Wasn't quoting or alluding to you.

Yes I noticed that. You didn't quote any of us.

I wasn't quoting or alluding to you, either. But you recognised I meant you didn't you?

Tomorrow will tell all.

Why tomorrow?

Mark Durkan is an amazing person.

The sad thing is that most of UK doesn't know he exists, and could possibly not care less either. That is the issue here. And it applies to NI in totality. The DUP is toast too now but it may take a while, but it is necessary. They have not got anything like Durkan's brain. Sadly.

fedup21,

Surely you know that tomorrow, the Supreme Court rules on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Proguation of Parliament by BJ?

If you do, fine, if you don't I can't help you out.

Surely you know that tomorrow, the Supreme Court rules on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Proguation of Parliament by BJ?

I doesn't

Again:

Read Jo Maugham's thread on this and that of David Allen Green, with links to even better legal analyses.

We are in the rather wonderful position of having a court which may rule in up to a week that the government has acted illegally, that the legislature has power to over rule their illegality, but they are unable to do so because the executive has vitiated their ability to do so.

This is complicated.

I've posted here a few times but my name seemed too upbeat...so have changed it.
On the subject of reproroguing Parliament, if SCOTUK finds the current suspension to be legal, could the Government go ahead and extend it even without a lie reason? Currently we are being told the suspension is for the Queen's Speech. What pretend reason could they give? Would they delay the Queen's Speech to justify it?

He then gave an intimate, safe-environment 'interview' (read Press Release there) with Laura Kuenssberg.
Who complied. Despite knowing how this jeaopardises 'news', 'journalism' and 'reporting'.

Complicity.

Surely you know that tomorrow, the Supreme Court rules on the legitimacy or otherwise of the Proguation of Parliament by BJ?

I thought someone on here said earlier that the verdict wouldn’t actually be heard tomorrow though?

I think an attempted reprorogation would put HMQ in a horrible position. It might start to challenge the concept of a Constitutional Monarchy. I think there would start to bea strong behind the scenes Establishment pushback.

cordelia,

That sounds mad. But I bow to your knowledge,

Have you links to Maugham and David AG. Thanks. I know that sounds lazy of me, but what the heck now.

Sunny Uplands.

We are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on:

a reasons being true for prorogation
b prorogation being legal.

SC may find that it can't rule on these things because they are beyond their remit.
And or, they may come to a decision on either or both.

But with a government which has suspended its parliament, who could have acted on these results, the outcome, which may take up to a week may well be academic.

could the Government go ahead and extend it even without a lie reason

As things stand politically/ media wise/ 'intellectually' haha in britain

Yes.