Protests against prorogation of Parliament

[cibaman]

So if they didnt prorogation how many days would they have in parliament?

Depends on whether they would have sat during the conference season

 

[cibaman]

I fundamentally disagree with prorogation. But I must admit I’m struggling to understand some of the arguments about the government “lying” to the Queen and whether the Courts should interfere on the basis that the advice given to the Queen didn’t fully reflect the government’ motivation.

If the reasons that Johnson gave to the for prorogation (need for a new Queen’ s speech, longest ever parliament, blah, blah blah, etc) are legal reasons for prorogation, does it really matter that those don’t fully reflect the government’s motivation for prorogation? Surely it just matters that Johnson has a legal justification for prorogation?

Most weeks the PM meets the sovereign and discusses what the government is doing in her name. I expect the PM explains the reasoning for any legislation that they’re introducing in terms of how it will benefit the country. I doubt that they explain the political reasons for doing it, “Ma’am it will stuff Labour”. Is that lying to the Queen?

In fact every Queen’s Speech is an exercise in being economical with the truth. But nobody asks to see the SPADs mobile phones to find out what the real purpose of the legislation is.

 

[blueinsa]

I fundamentally disagree with prorogation. But I must admit I’m struggling to understand some of the arguments about the government “lying” to the Queen and whether the Courts should interfere on the basis that the advice given to the Queen didn’t fully reflect the government’ motivation.

If the reasons that Johnson gave to the for prorogation (need for a new Queen’ s speech, longest ever parliament, blah, blah blah, etc) are legal reasons for prorogation, does it really matter that those don’t fully reflect the government’s motivation for prorogation? Surely it just matters that Johnson has a legal justification for prorogation?

Most weeks the PM meets the sovereign and discusses what the government is doing in her name. I expect the PM explains the reasoning for any legislation that they’re introducing in terms of how it will benefit the country. I doubt that they explain the political reasons for doing it, “Ma’am it will stuff Labour”. Is that lying to the Queen?

In fact every Queen’s Speech is an exercise in being economical with the truth. But nobody asks to see the SPADs mobile phones to find out what the real purpose of the legislation is.

Balanced and honest.

 

[Rascal]

I fundamentally disagree with prorogation. But I must admit I’m struggling to understand some of the arguments about the government “lying” to the Queen and whether the Courts should interfere on the basis that the advice given to the Queen didn’t fully reflect the government’ motivation.

If the reasons that Johnson gave to the for prorogation (need for a new Queen’ s speech, longest ever parliament, blah, blah blah, etc) are legal reasons for prorogation, does it really matter that those don’t fully reflect the government’s motivation for prorogation? Surely it just matters that Johnson has a legal justification for prorogation?

Most weeks the PM meets the sovereign and discusses what the government is doing in her name. I expect the PM explains the reasoning for any legislation that they’re introducing in terms of how it will benefit the country. I doubt that they explain the political reasons for doing it, “Ma’am it will stuff Labour”. Is that lying to the Queen?

In fact every Queen’s Speech is an exercise in being economical with the truth. But nobody asks to see the SPADs mobile phones to find out what the real purpose of the legislation is.

I see it as a struggle to establish where power ultimately rests. The Fixed Term Parliament Act threw a huge spanner into the works and like every piece of poorly drafted legislation it has proven to have had unforeseen consequences. It denied the PM what was once the PMs right to call an election at the time of the PMs choosing. That meant there had to be a way found around the legislation which was prorogation. As this is untested and there is no precedent then it has to go to court for precedent to be established. A consequence of not having a written constitution rather than the constantly evolving "living" constitution that we have. If the PM over rides the law then he has to face the consequences of doing so as he is not above the law. The separation of powers has to establish the checks and balances against a PM acting without recourse. What he has done may be legally justified but it may not and it up to the Judges to interpret the law. I have no idea at all if there is a lawful basis for prorogation but I am certain the amount of money the Government throw at the best lawyers available will find some obscure precedent for it to be lawful. I think the stuff that surrounds it such as lying to the Queen is possibly just real politik in action and gamesmanship which to be fair is to be expected when something so controversial happens.

The interesting thing will be what happens after the Supreme Court judgement, if it rules in favour of Johnsons actions then we move on,prorogation is lawful and it stands, if it rules against then we have a real crisis of where power lies as the Judiciary will be seen as challenging the power of the executive and fuck knows where that egotistical **** Johnson will go next.

 

[cibaman]

I see it as a struggle to establish where power ultimately rests. The Fixed Term Parliament Act threw a huge spanner into the works and like every piece of poorly drafted legislation it has proven to have had unforeseen consequences. It denied the PM what was once the PMs right to call an election at the time of the PMs choosing. That meant there had to be a way found around the legislation which was prorogation. As this is untested and there is no precedent then it has to go to court for precedent to be established. A consequence of not having a written constitution rather than the constantly evolving "living" constitution that we have. If the PM over rides the law then he has to face the consequences of doing so as he is not above the law. The separation of powers has to establish the checks and balances against a PM acting without recourse. What he has done may be legally justified but it may not and it up to the Judges to interpret the law. I have no idea at all if there is a lawful basis for prorogation but I am certain the amount of money the Government throw at the best lawyers available will find some obscure precedent for it to be lawful. I think the stuff that surrounds it such as lying to the Queen is possibly just real politik in action and gamesmanship which to be fair is to be expected when something so controversial happens.

The interesting thing will be what happens after the Supreme Court judgement, if it rules in favour of Johnsons actions then we move on,prorogation is lawful and it stands, if it rules against then we have a real crisis of where power lies as the Judiciary will be seen as challenging the power of the executive and fuck knows where that egotistical **** Johnson will go next.

I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. I just don’t understand why Johnson’s motivations are so important to the legal issue. The Scottish judgement seem to imply that if Johnson had been clear with HM as to his real reasons for prorogation she would or could have refused his request. I’m just curious as to why that would be the case.

Presumably the Scottish judges set out in their detailed judgment why the governments motivations are central to the issue. I was hoping to find out what their reasoning is without reading a lengthy legal paper that I probably wouldn’t understand!

 

[Len Rum]

I fundamentally disagree with prorogation. But I must admit I’m struggling to understand some of the arguments about the government “lying” to the Queen and whether the Courts should interfere on the basis that the advice given to the Queen didn’t fully reflect the government’ motivation.

If the reasons that Johnson gave to the for prorogation (need for a new Queen’ s speech, longest ever parliament, blah, blah blah, etc) are legal reasons for prorogation, does it really matter that those don’t fully reflect the government’s motivation for prorogation? Surely it just matters that Johnson has a legal justification for prorogation?

Most weeks the PM meets the sovereign and discusses what the government is doing in her name. I expect the PM explains the reasoning for any legislation that they’re introducing in terms of how it will benefit the country. I doubt that they explain the political reasons for doing it, “Ma’am it will stuff Labour”. Is that lying to the Queen?

In fact every Queen’s Speech is an exercise in being economical with the truth. But nobody asks to see the SPADs mobile phones to find out what the real purpose of the legislation is.

Our unwritten constitution relies on the Government not abusing their position and the Head of State acting as a backstop to prevent them from doing so.
In the case of this prorogation the system failed which brings into question whether it is fit for purpose and whether we now need a written constitution.

 

[Rascal]

I wouldn’t disagree with any of that. I just don’t understand why Johnson’s motivations are so important to the legal issue. The Scottish judgement seem to imply that if Johnson had been clear with HM as to his real reasons for prorogation she would or could have refused his request. I’m just curious as to why that would be the case.

Presumably the Scottish judges set out in their detailed judgment why the governments motivations are central to the issue. I was hoping to find out what their reasoning is without reading a lengthy legal paper that I probably wouldn’t understand!

Like Len says, ultimately power rests with the Crown, if that is undermined, then the whole system is in danger of being undermined hence his comment about written constitution. I suppose if his motivations challenge or question the authority of the crown therein lies the issue, but as i am not sure nor am i a constituional expert that is pure speculation and supposition.

It just saddens me that the Judiciary have become embroiled in the whole shebang, but i get why they have no option to do otherwise. It does put the judiciary in a dreadful position.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I fundamentally disagree with prorogation. But I must admit I’m struggling to understand some of the arguments about the government “lying” to the Queen and whether the Courts should interfere on the basis that the advice given to the Queen didn’t fully reflect the government’ motivation.

If the reasons that Johnson gave to the for prorogation (need for a new Queen’ s speech, longest ever parliament, blah, blah blah, etc) are legal reasons for prorogation, does it really matter that those don’t fully reflect the government’s motivation for prorogation? Surely it just matters that Johnson has a legal justification for prorogation?

Most weeks the PM meets the sovereign and discusses what the government is doing in her name. I expect the PM explains the reasoning for any legislation that they’re introducing in terms of how it will benefit the country. I doubt that they explain the political reasons for doing it, “Ma’am it will stuff Labour”. Is that lying to the Queen?

In fact every Queen’s Speech is an exercise in being economical with the truth. But nobody asks to see the SPADs mobile phones to find out what the real purpose of the legislation is.

I think the key point is that the prorogartion was used to avoid scrutiny - the timing is the issue. It is not a question of if the reason was valid outright but did the reason and the timing match up? Imagine it was for 6 months - that would be a clear outrage - BoJo is trying to get away with it as it's a week here and a few days there. The fact he has tacked on these extra weeks/days is the same principle and as with many things in law it is the principle and precedent that is being sorted out.

The argument is that he has used prorogation for political advantage - that would be unlawful (and not the procedural purpose that he would have presented to the queen). The precedent needs to be set that you can not use prorogation as a political tool - the fact it is a week or 6 months is not relevant. As the slippery slope principle would apply - a week this time, a month the next - 6 months etc.

When the judgement comes, even if BoJo gets of the hook this time you can expect some remarks around how the law must be clarified on what is acceptable. The queen should not be left to decide on whether a rationale for suspending parliament is valid or not.

 

[cibaman]

I think the key point is that the prorogartion was used to avoid scrutiny - the timing is the issue. It is not a question of if the reason was valid outright but did the reason and the timing match up? Imagine it was for 6 months - that would be a clear outrage - BoJo is trying to get away with it as it's a week here and a few days there. The fact he has tacked on these extra weeks/days is the same principle and as with many things in law it is the principle and precedent that is being sorted out.

The argument is that he has used prorogation for political advantage - that would be unlawful (and not the procedural purpose that he would have presented to the queen). The precedent needs to be set that you can not use prorogation as a political tool - the fact it is a week or 6 months is not relevant. As the slippery slope principle would apply - a week this time, a month the next - 6 months etc.

When the judgement comes, even if BoJo gets of the hook this time you can expect some remarks around how the law must be clarified on what is acceptable. The queen should not be left to decide on whether a rationale for suspending parliament is valid or not.

Isn’t nearly everything that governments do at least partly for political reasons ? For example, when labour brought in the Hunting Act in 2004 I’m sure it was primarily for very good reasons. But I’m sure they also made political calculations as to whether it would be a vote winner or loser. I’m sure that if alistair campbell’s phone had been confiscated they would have found some fairly dubious comments about stuffing the tories. But that wouldn’t invalidate the act. Is prorogation fundamentally different?
I agree with your final comment that the Queen should not be left to decide on whether the rationale for suspending parliament is valid or not. But isn’t that what the Scottish judges are saying she should be doing?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Isn’t nearly everything that governments do at least partly for political reasons ? For example, when labour brought in the Hunting Act in 2004 I’m sure it was primarily for very good reasons. But I’m sure they also made political calculations as to whether it would be a vote winner or loser. I’m sure that if alistair campbell’s phone had been confiscated they would have found some fairly dubious comments about stuffing the tories. But that wouldn’t invalidate the act. Is prorogation fundamentally different?
I agree with your final comment that the Queen should not be left to decide on whether the rationale for suspending parliament is valid or not. But isn’t that what the Scottish judges are saying she should be doing?

There is a clear difference. Anything that goes through the HoC and is voted through while the MP's are sitting and all the checks and balances are in place is the way our politic's is done and in line with how the process should work. At the end of the day the HoC should rule on everything and if you can't get something through the HoC it shouldn't happen. A50 was only issued subject to meaningful votes on the proposed deal.

Blocking or side-stepping the normal process for a political reason is not how things should be done. And that is where the queen has been dragged in and asked to agree to something that is clearly politically motivated. If BoJo had any faith in his argument he could have put it to a vote in the HoC. But he would have been defeated - hence he went straight to the Queen and hop'd she would not object.