Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19

[FlemishDuck]

But this case is less about "what courts can do on politics" than "what procedures politicians need to follow"? In the scotish case it was declared illegal over some sort of procedural error rather than the priciple of proroguing per se right?

AKA, goverment can prorogue about as long as it wants but if it wants to prorogue for an unusually long time then procedure says a written explenation must be provided to court as to why, and the Scotish courts made their case over the fact that goverment had not provided that explenation as required.

And the explenation was not given apparently because politicians wanted to dodge potential liabillety?

 

[Chris in London]

But this case is less about "what courts can do on politics" than "what procedures politicians need to follow"? In the scotish case it was declared illegal over some sort of procedural error rather than the priciple of proroguing per se right?

AKA, goverment can prorogue about as long as it wants but if it wants to prorogue for an unusually long time then procedure says a written explenation must be provided to court as to why, and the Scotish courts made their case over the fact that goverment had not provided that explenation as required.

And the explenation was not given apparently because politicians wanted to dodge potential liabillety?

No, it wasn't. It was based on the government's stated reasons for the prorogation not being the real reasons.

You can read the Court of Session's judgment yourself.

https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2019/2019_CSIH_49.html

 

[cibaman]

I think the ideal outcome would be for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the government so as to avoid being politicised. And for all of the parties to agree to include in their forthcoming manifestos that they will introduce legislation to restrict the right of the PM to prorogue parliament. Any chance?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I think the ideal outcome would be for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the government so as to avoid being politicised. And for all of the parties to agree to include in their forthcoming manifestos that they will introduce legislation to restrict the right of the PM to prorogue parliament. Any chance?

Catch 22.
If the Government win, why would they agree to legislation to outlaw what they've just got away with.

 

[cibaman]

Catch 22.
If the Government win, why would they agree to legislation to outlaw what they've just got away with.

True. And would Labour agree to it if they enter government and might also benefit from it.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I think the ideal outcome would be for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the government so as to avoid being politicised. And for all of the parties to agree to include in their forthcoming manifestos that they will introduce legislation to restrict the right of the PM to prorogue parliament. Any chance?

If the Court doesn't lay down some marker today than there is a huge flaw in our constitution. Basically MP's are there to do politics so the queen doesn't have to. Ruling with the government essential says the queen has to take a view on these matters and decide when to act as the courts will not get involved - if she chooses not to act then there is no end to the underhand tactics that can be employed.

I think it is much more likely that the Courts will get involved and make some clear statements about:

1. not lying to or potentially involving the queen in politics in order to seek political advantage.

and

2. not taking the piss with the timings involved in ceremonial process.

 

[FlemishDuck]

No, it wasn't. It was based on the government's stated reasons for the prorogation not being the real reasons.

You can read the Court of Session's judgment yourself.

https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2019/2019_CSIH_49.html

Thank for the link. Can't say that i'm that comfterable in all these legalese here but in light of our discussion i think the relevant text is the one i quote here below:


[123] In my opinion nothing in these documents can be said to provide any rational
explanation as to why Parliament must be prorogued as early as 9 September for a period of
five weeks. Nor has any other explanation been provided for the length of the prorogation,
beyond references to the need to begin a new session of Parliament to promote a new
legislative programme. That, of course, does not explain the length of the prorogation;
merely the fact that prorogation is required. In these circumstances I have come to the
conclusion that the only inference that can properly be drawn on an objective basis is that
the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, wished to restrict debate in
Parliament for as long as possible during the period leading up to the European Council
meeting on 17-18 October and the scheduled date of Britain’s departure from the European
Union.

Seems to me that a conclusion that "it must be for any other reason other than a legal one" and in this case the oppinion of the judge that it was with the intent to restrict debate in parliament is based on the matter that "no explenation is given (when it should be) for a "unprecedently long" prorogation?

 

[Chris in London]

Thank for the link. Can't say that i'm that comfterable in all these legalese here but in light of our discussion i think the relevant text is the one i quote here below:


[123] In my opinion nothing in these documents can be said to provide any rational
explanation as to why Parliament must be prorogued as early as 9 September for a period of
five weeks. Nor has any other explanation been provided for the length of the prorogation,
beyond references to the need to begin a new session of Parliament to promote a new
legislative programme. That, of course, does not explain the length of the prorogation;
merely the fact that prorogation is required. In these circumstances I have come to the
conclusion that the only inference that can properly be drawn on an objective basis is that
the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, wished to restrict debate in
Parliament for as long as possible during the period leading up to the European Council
meeting on 17-18 October and the scheduled date of Britain’s departure from the European
Union.

Seems to me that a conclusion that "it must be for any other reason other than a legal one" and in this case the oppinion of the judge that it was with the intent to restrict debate in parliament is based on the matter that "no explenation is given (when it should be) for a "unprecedently long" prorogation?

Quite. The inference the court drew from the absence of an explanation was that the real reason was not the stated reason, and the real reason was unlawful.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Quite. The inference the court drew from the absence of an explanation was that the real reason was not the stated reason, and the real reason was unlawful.

Yes, same what i thought, i confused you by using the term "procedural errors" to describe "the lack of explenation given for a prorogation with unprecedented lenght". I only used this term because the legal discussion seemed to veer towards "who has power over what" whereas iirc the crux of the matter regarded more "procedure under current law" as in "goverment should have provided A (any) explenation". Was the explenation that "need to begin a new session of Parliament" given then in some official procedural form then? Aka, goverment gave an explenation just not a good one?


Regardless then: does it not become the crux that justice can call a "exceptional" prorogation illegal as long as no reasonable explenation is given for it's exceptional lenght, meaning that
a) the supreme court just CAN make the prorogation illegal, atleast by the current explenation being deemed unreasonable?
b) the courts probably SHOULD call the prorogation illegal for that reason or otherwise it would undermine the legal requirement for a reasonable explenation?

 

[Chris in London]

Yes, same what i thought, i confused you by using the term "procedural errors" to describe "the lack of explenation given for a prorogation with unprecedented lenght". I only used this term because the legal discussion seemed to veer towards "who has power over what" whereas iirc the crux of the matter regarded more "procedure under current law" as in "goverment should have provided A (any) explenation". Was the explenation that "need to begin a new session of Parliament" given then in some official procedural form then? Aka, goverment gave an explenation just not a good one?


Regardless then: does it not become the crux that justice can call a "exceptional" prorogation illegal as long as no reasonable explenation is given for it's exceptional lenght, meaning that
a) the supreme court just CAN make the prorogation illegal, atleast by the current explenation being deemed unreasonable?
b) the courts probably SHOULD call the prorogation illegal for that reason or otherwise it would undermine the legal requirement for a reasonable explenation?

It depends on whether the Supreme Court think the Court of Session got it right.

 

[FlemishDuck]

It depends on whether the Supreme Court think the Court of Session got it right.

You don't say! Still thx for the link and input.

I think ill put my money on them deciding it's illegal. Afterall the political climate does not exactly call for ignoring Scotish court on the matter and otoh the scotish ruling does provide a good or otherwise "workable" reason/excuse for it.

 

[cibaman]

It depends on whether the Supreme Court think the Court of Session got it right.

Is that how they approach it? Do they review the ruling that is being appealed or start from scratch?

 

[Chris in London]

Is that how they approach it? Do they review the ruling that is being appealed or start from scratch?

The former, but that is what the Court of Session did in the first place, and they still overturned the original decision

 

[lancs blue]

Isn't the safeguard about proroguing that parliament will reassemble? The Order in Council states when Parliament will reassemble, so it can't be said that when the order was made it wasn't clear when parliament would be sitting again.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm playing devil's advocate in a case where the outcome seems to me to be on a knife-edge.

I think it needs clarifying by legislation if necessary - it seemed during the hearing that there was little to stop an unscrupulous government deciding that prorogation could last for a year or two and if this prerogative power is not justiciable what protection is there?

 

[Mike D]

I think the ideal outcome would be for the Supreme Court to rule in favour of the government so as to avoid being politicised. And for all of the parties to agree to include in their forthcoming manifestos that they will introduce legislation to restrict the right of the PM to prorogue parliament. Any chance?

Of course they are all going to do that aren't they of their own free will and all that?

 

[cibaman]

Of course they are all going to do that aren't they of their own free will and all that?

I did say it was an ideal

 

[Chris in London]

I think it needs clarifying by legislation if necessary - it seemed during the hearing that there was little to stop an unscrupulous government deciding that prorogation could last for a year or two and if this prerogative power is not justiciable what protection is there?

Tell you tomorrow

;)

 

[George Hannah]

One hour to go - it could genuinely be a turning point in our constitutional history

 

[Indaparkside]

The queen's in the tower talking to the hangman. Borris is fucked lying cvunt

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

One hour to go - it could genuinely be a turning point in our constitutional history

There is a lot at stake. Ruling with the government today basically gives them a green light to halt parliament at will unless the Queen gets involved.

The fact that it is wrong is not up for debate - it is basically a question of is it allowable under current law. Is there a massive loop hole? Under that scenario John Major could have ruled over us as a dictator for the last 20+ years as long as the Queen sat on her hands.

Massive drama either way.