Brexit

No you’re right, Tribune is a bad example. Progress is a better one.

They’re just think tanks at the end of the day, the difference is that Momentum has the ear of the leadership. The comparison with Militant is a lazy one. Momentum has always been extra-parliamentary. Labour has always had different ruling factions as a broad coalition, this is just another one.

 

No I disagree, Momentum is openly seeking and gaining seats by election to Labours management body the NEC and to join and control parliamentary constituencies to elect MPs that are loyal to Momentum but under the Labour flag, A very dangerous organisation, It is not lazy it is EXACTLY the route militant tendency took until they were expelled from the party, Momentum are the remnants of that organisation reformed under a different banner,

 

I’m enjoying Dino’s posts on this thread lately. He obviously knows what he’s talking about, and not just regurgitating shite lifted from Facebook.

 

'Prorogation unlawful and of no effect'.
Up to the Speaker to decide what happens next.
Wow!

 

This is huge. Or, it should be in a normal political landscape. But it won’t be.

 

Just need an election now so that the people can drain the swamp and fill parliament with politicians that represent and reflect the views and wishes of at least 17.4 million of us...

 

Can’t wait to see how Labour manages to not capitalise on this

 

Maybe somebody more informed can tell me when the last time the court intervened in politics and what does this actually mean for the future of politics? If a party doesn't like x law and they feel they can build a case will it go to court etc?

 

That's what it looks like, may as well just elect 11 judges and scrap parliament, although wouldn't mind if the Lords were booted out...

 

Interested to read your thoughts @Dionysus

 

That's how it comes across to me but I don't know the ins and outs but it's scary what the future will hold. Anyone with money mounting court challenges?

 

The Supreme Court is the head of the judicial arm of government. They are ultimately a part of the government, and the arm keeping us from a military junta.

They’ve been forced into a position where they’ve had to effectively determine their own scope. It’s extremely common in the US, for instance, for the Supreme Court to intervene in political matters.

Our issue really is the lack of any written constitution to codify what is and isn’t lawful. Literally almost everything is based on precedent, which when you think about it is absolutely mental.

 

I'm sure Bercow will give his usual unbiased ruling.

 

Do you think it could trigger more cases in relation to domestic law? A case of people knowing it can be used to over turn ruling and think it might be a way forward?

 

But surely they have to set precedent too? Otherwise Governments will continue to suspend parliament to force through unpopular legislation.

 

He'll be like a dog with 2 dicks....

 

Johnson could go to the ECJ. Imagine.

 

I doubt it. Our constitution only really comes into play when a government is trying to over-exert its powers and act outside of its protocol.

If, for instance, a manifesto commitment had been made on an extremely divisive wedge issue, say abolishing Trident, then as long as the correct constitutional process was followed then I can’t see how the courts realistically could intervene.

 

Well yeah absolutely. That’s where the job of the court becomes tricky where there’s no precedent set.

This particular episode comes from the courts ruling that the government had misleadingly advised the queen. The court’s job on this one is to adjudicate whether he did or didn’t. It’s a given that our constitution stipulates that you can’t prorogue parliament with the sole intention to avoid parliament passing legislation.

 

The courts intervened recently to rule that Parliament must have a vote on any Brexit deal. It has done so many times. The courts are there to apply and also to interpret the laws laid down by Parliament whenever it isn't clear and/or there is dispute about meaning - this happens on a daily basis - it's called Case Law.
This is no different. We have an unwritten constitution so the precise terms of when prorogation can and cannot be lawfully used are not clear. That's why the court was asked to interpret the law to resolve the dispute.

Political Parties cannot just go to court to overturn law they don't like. The courts only intervene if there is lack of clarity or matters of interpretation. Where the law is clear then Courts cannot, and do not try to, overturn it. The first thing they ask in any dispute is 'what did Parliament intend?'. If that is clear then court rulings are bound to follow the will of parliament. The reason that this prorogation has been ruled unlawful is because it was seen to be a deliberate attempt to sideline parliament when a clear majority wanted to keep sitting.
If the Supreme Court had ruled that the PM can prorogue Parliament in any circumstances and there would be no recourse to legal challenge, that would have meant that any PM could prorogue Parliament to prevent an action s/he didn't want (eg a vote of No Confidence) and there would be nothing that could be done about it.
It is, of course, now open to Parliament to legislate about the precise terms of when prorogation can be legally used, should it wish to do so.