"Suspend Parliament" How Will the Supreme Court Rule ?

[flyer]

Not being funny pal, but the drug I take is only made in Belgium by one company as it is on patent. No other supplier of that drug is available.

I have no problem leaving, but this point is a gross oversimplification of the situation and many people in a similar position to me will have genuine fears over their medication. It is unfair to see these fears dismissed so readily, not by you btw, but in general.

Agreed Rascal, I have to take life saving drugs as well as you and rely on the NHS. But to insinuate that one thousand people, or whatever, are affected when it's only me and you, for their own political gain is just fucking wrong

 

[Saddleworth2]

Isn’t that just them doing their job? There are 11 of them so clearly they wouldn’t have known for sure how the vote will go. Even if each and everyone of them is planning to rule in favour of the government they would not know that, and would have to work on the basis that the vote might go against the government. So clearly they would need to have discussed remedy to cover that eventuality.

You may be proven right. I am merely posting some of the commentary I have read from those that have experience of high court cases.

 

[BobKowalski]

That's the problem with these legal fictions. It is the sovereign's will, but ,of course she exercises it only in accordance with the advice she receives.......from the executive.! The English civil war estabished that parliament was sovereign,so no oversight required! Now, is parliament sovereign or does PM really rule?
Not sure about elected head, more that these constitutional issues need sorting....see Gough Whitlam removal. Don't think my master plan for a federal republic of Britain will be adopted any time soon.

I think we will need a new codified constitution at the end of this so I would dust off your master plan and start working on it again just in case.

 

[Rascal]

Agreed Rascal, I have to take life saving drugs as well as you and rely on the NHS. But to insinuate that one thousand people, or whatever, are affected when it's only me and you, for their own political gain is just fucking wrong

There are well over a thousand people that take the drug I am on, I know that because I am on the monitoring database.

If and when the drug comes off patent it wont be a problem, but that may take 3 years. Like I said these fears are being dismissed rather than being addressed and that is grossly unfair, political gain or not. I don't want my health to be politicised because I have spent 3 fucking years in hospital already and I would rather not spend any more.

 

[cibaman]

You may be proven right. I am merely posting some of the commentary I have read from those that have experience of high court cases.

The bbc replayed an old interview with Baroness Hale on how the Supreme Court reaches their decisions. She said some of the judges are very vocal, try their best to convince the other judges of their point of view. Others are much less vocal. They read and listen to the submissions, make their mind up and summarise their reasons. But they don’t really try to convince the other judges and they’re not easily pursuaded to change their minded.

I haven’t listened to the hearing in great detail. But it did strike me that, with a court of 11 judges, unless they’re equally vocal it might be easy to get the wrong impression as to where the majority lies.

 

[Saddleworth2]

The bbc replayed an old interview with Baroness Hale on how the Supreme Court reaches their decisions. She said some of the judges are very vocal, try their best to convince the other judges of their point of view. Others are much less vocal. They read and listen to the submissions, make their mind up and summarise their reasons. But they don’t really try to convince the other judges and they’re not easily pursuaded to change their minded.

I haven’t listened to the hearing in great detail. But it did strike me that, with a court of 11 judges, unless they’re equally vocal it might be easy to get the wrong impression as to where the majority lies.

Yes, it certainly wasn’t every judge.

 

[Chris in London]

You may well be right, but if they rule that the Queen's prerogative is justiciable, we will have a full blown constitutional crisis. The court will then be saying that the sovereign's will is subject to the law, an oxymoron.

It's not an oxymoron because the sovereign isn't actually sovereign ;)

The Queen's prerogative powers are already justiciable, depending on what the exercise of the prerogative power in question is. Certain prerogative powers are (and were accepted to be) not justiciable - eg declaring war - but other prerogative powers are, for instance the power to enter into a treaty.

What was interesting is that it was common ground that a decision to dissolve parliament was not justiciable, but when the court pressed the advocates about what was the distinction that meant dissolving parliament was not justiciable, but proroguing parliament was, there wasn't really a satisfactory answer. The court was obviously thinking hard about allowing the appeal (in the English case) because that's why they were discussing remedies. But the lack of a substantive difference between dissolving parliament and merely proroguing it may be the rock on which the case founders.

 

[KS55]

It's not an oxymoron because the sovereign isn't actually sovereign ;)

The Queen's prerogative powers are already justiciable, depending on what the exercise of the prerogative power in question is. Certain prerogative powers are (and were accepted to be) not justiciable - eg declaring war - but other prerogative powers are, for instance the power to enter into a treaty.

What was interesting is that it was common ground that a decision to dissolve parliament was not justiciable, but when the court pressed the advocates about what was the distinction that meant dissolving parliament was not justiciable, but proroguing parliament was, there wasn't really a satisfactory answer. The court was obviously thinking hard about allowing the appeal (in the English case) because that's why they were discussing remedies. But the lack of a substantive difference between dissolving parliament and merely proroguing it may be the rock on which the case founders.

Ok, take your point that parliament is sovereign.
On the second issue, you seem to be right and I guess it will come down to whether proroguing is distinguishable from dissolving. This shows a weakness in our constitutional arrangements.....they shouldn't turn on such minutiae.
Thanks for your erudite post.
EDIT PS It just occurs to me that proroguing has the effect of merely suspending parliament, but dissolving means the members are no longer MPs and a gen. election should follow. A distinction?

 

[Chris in London]

Ok, take your point that parliament is sovereign.
On the second issue, you seem to be right and I guess it will come down to whether proroguing is distinguishable from dissolving. This shows a weakness in our constitutional arrangements.....they shouldn't turn on such minutiae.
Thanks for your erudite post.
EDIT PS It just occurs to me that proroguing has the effect of merely suspending parliament, but dissolving means the members are no longer MPs and a gen. election should follow. A distinction?

I don't think it's a question of turning on minutiae, I think it's a question of accepting where the known boundaries of the law are, and seeing how far they can be stretched. You rightly point to the practical differences

between dissolution and proroguation, but whether they add up to a difference in law, I couldn't say. They may in substance be distinctions without a difference. ​

The thought that occurred to me is that if Boris decided to dissolve parliament and rule without, like Charles I all those years ago, that WOULD be justiciable despite the concession that dissolution is not.

We live in interesting, if rather frightening, times.

 

[aguero93:20]

John Major , the PM that shut down parliament to avoid embarrassing leak.
Hypocrisy.
Saying that Boris lied to the Queen is a lie in itself.
Boris didn't advise the Queen , he didnt even attend the meeting. Her privy council did.
The law courts will rule in favour of the government or every new law made in future will be challenged in court.
It's a political matter not one for the law.

New laws can't be challenged in the courts as they're passed by a majority in parliament, which is sovereign. Decisions taken by the non-sovereign executive can be challenged in court if they're taken to be ultra-vires or impinging on parliamentary sovereignty.
This decision is more important than most on here understand.