|
Things getting even more complicated re: whether or not the Scottish court actually made an order which is now in force which nullified the prorogation: https://twitter.com/alistair_sloan/status/1171777394799259648 Borrovan posted:Not quite. For one, judges are strictly forbidden from inventing new common law offences - so what they tend to do is instead "discover" pre-existing offences (Shaw v DPP is a famous & particularly egregious example). But, more generally, judges aren't supposed to strictly "change" the law at all: when it appears that that's what they're doing, they'll usually claim to be overturning something on the basis that it's not consistent with something else and therefore was never good law to begin with, clarifying an inconsistency, restating what the courts were actually doing the whole time even if they said they were doing something different, or "discovering" something that was actually always the law even if nobody noticed it before e: 181 years ago this month (September 1838), the Anti-Corn Law League was established by Richard Cobden. Eight years later in his resignation speech (having split his Tory party in his successful attempt to repeal the Corn Laws), Tory PM Sir Robert Peel credited Cobden more than any other in the achievement of repealing the Corn Laws. El Grillo fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Sep 11, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
I don't think the judges have ruled that the Queen acted illegally though. She is the one that shut down parliament.biglads posted:I'd really like to think this is true but I suspect it'll just end up in a couple more handwringing op-eds in the Grauniad and little else. The problem for Liz is that she didn't have to follow his advice if she considered it wrong. The convention is that a PM does not lie to the Monarch and that she does not ignore advice. If he is ruled to have lied, then that is saying she is nothing more than a rubber stamp, which is true, but its the conventions that are in place that uphold an unwritten constitution. You break convention at the peril of casting shade on the whole thing. Collateral fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Ah, my home town. Famous for carpets, chocolates, John Noakes and head-tumbling death.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:It was Blackstone who made the 'Declaratory Theory' that judges don't make laws but merely 'discover' the law, in the 18th century. In the USA I believe his ideas on this are considered seriously out of date and almost irrelevant, but it seems like the academic debate on judge-made law vs. declaratory theory is still alive here in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
During all of the nonsense being suggested by Tories about how Johnson could both ask for an extension, and not ask for an extension, I joked to colleagues about Lord Pannick arguing whether 'take-backsies' was a foundation of British Law. And apparently it now is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Collateral posted:I don't think the judges have ruled that the Queen acted illegally though. She is the one that shut down parliament. e: oh boy. Now Miller's legal team has waded in, in support of both the idea that the Order in Council made by the Queen to prorogue parliament is null & void, and also the proposition that the Scottish court's ruling has the effect of quashing the PM's unlawful advice to Queen (& therefore the Queen's prorogation) because no application for a stay was made by the Government and because there is a Supreme Court case (Ahmed) which states that it's enough for a court to declare that something is unlawful for it to be quashed, no separate quashing order is required: https://twitter.com/thatginamiller/status/1171793471889444864 El Grillo fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:If you get a second, what's the authority on this? Your post way back in the thread mentioned Case of Proclamations and you acknowledged that was directed at the Crown not the courts. Would be interested to see an authority stating courts in E&W are prohibited from creating new legal principles, and in particular prohibited from creating new offences. Could it have been in/around the Judicature Acts (1873 & 75)? Don't have any of my public law books close to hand to find a secondary source unfortunately
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Meanwhile No 10 has rejected the idea of an electoral pact with Farage, which is nice of them. Pretty much guarantees they'll be eaten from both sides when the election comes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:20
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:No but they did rule that as a consequence of the unlawfulness of the PM's advice to Queen, the prorogation itself was also null & void. So what is the Queen in all this, a lever? They are ruling that the Queen is utterly bound to do what a PM says? The point of it being advice is that she doesn't have to take it. I'm not entirely sure people realise just how serious this is. In all likelihood the supreme court will protect the constitution and the body of the monarch. That Boris has put her and them in this position?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
Collateral posted:So what is the Queen in all this, a lever? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
They'll make it the fault of someone at the Palace who isn't the Queen if they want to find a scapegoat surely
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:Meanwhile No 10 has rejected the idea of an electoral pact with Farage, which is nice of them. Pretty much guarantees they'll be eaten from both sides when the election comes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:this is too obvious to not happen. You say this after the last week?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
It's tough to imagine the tories putting their egos aside for the good of brexit and doing a pact. Imagine the proud and ancient tory party, standing aside for Nigel Farage. It would be humiliating.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
marktheando posted:It's tough to imagine the tories putting their egos aside for the good of brexit and doing a pact. Imagine the proud and ancient tory party, standing aside for Nigel Farage. It would be humiliating. Also a "senior Tory" called Farage a poo poo bastard or words to similar effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
So, why don’t y’all have a Constitution? It makes us all miserable, why not you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:The Sun reckons so 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
I'm going to laugh if the Queen ends up saying she was just following orders, as she's cuffed and bundled into a police car
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
Slammy posted:So, why don’t y’all have a Constitution? we do have one
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:They'll make it the fault of someone at the Palace who isn't the Queen if they want to find a scapegoat surely CoolCab posted:no loving chance. they’re being demure, this is too obvious to not happen. Farage's offer was "Tories should no-deal Brexit and withdraw from 80 seats where Brexit Party could win". The Tories who want the first part wouldn't agree to the second, and vice-versa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:I'm going to laugh if the Queen ends up saying she was just following orders, as she's cuffed and bundled into a police car
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
I hope the next time BoJo visits the Queen she unleases her new breed of mutant corgies and rips the blonde hog to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
The Queen can legally kill whoever she wants right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Flayer posted:The Queen can legally kill whoever she wants right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Imagine the proud and ancient tory party
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
marktheando posted:It's tough to imagine the tories putting their egos aside for the good of brexit and doing a pact. Imagine the proud and ancient tory party, standing aside for Nigel Farage. It would be humiliating. Basically this. The Tories who vote Tory because "what I've always done!" Would go freaking bananas
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
marktheando posted:we do have one Link plz want to read
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I'm really trying, but all I'm getting is a mental image of a bunch of chinless people in white tie standing in a circle playing some kind of game involving wanking on a pig. Right, that’s one of their proud and ancient traditions
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:Meanwhile No 10 has rejected the idea of an electoral pact with Farage, which is nice of them. Pretty much guarantees they'll be eaten from both sides when the election comes. Ah yes just like when No 10 said they were not going to prorogue Parliament and when they said they were not going to call and election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Link plz want to read  It's very interpretive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:Pretty much guarantees they'll be eaten from both sides ... Sounds kinda hot tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Collateral posted:So what is the Queen in all this, a lever? They are ruling that the Queen is utterly bound to do what a PM says? The point of it being advice is that she doesn't have to take it. I believe the Scottish chain looks more like this: PM gives the monarch advice, AND The monarch is entitled to exercise powers based on that advice, assuming that said advice is valid and legal in the first place BUT If the advice is not valid and legal, it doesn't matter what the monarch then does; any action taken which is based on the faulty advice is null and void. I don't believe anyone has yet raised the question of what would have happened if she'd said "no, piss off", and whether she's still allowed to do that; it doesn't seem relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I believe the Scottish chain looks more like this: I mean, under English Law, she's allowed to. (I'm actually not sure about Scots law here, but let's assume it's fine), it's just that if she actually did it she'd find herself at the forefront of a republican movement moving with purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I don't believe anyone has yet raised the question of what would have happened if she'd said "no, piss off", and whether she's still allowed to do that; it doesn't seem relevant. Prior to the fixed term parliament act, actually just way back in the 60s-70s there are a bunch of rumours of times when she took soundings of the privy council because the government wanted to do x, but it was a privy council matter. There've also apparently been times when govt. wanted X but other privy Councillors disagreed and so they got to go away and think about it and do a better job. In fact, as the majority of PC meetings involve either graves or pensions, quite often there's no one from the government even there. Whether it would have been any different is irrelevant, because Johnson told the press at roughly the same time he told the Palace he wanted to prorogue, so any idea of it being a privy council matter was out the window. Obviously this was a no no and broke with precedence, because of course it did. So, legally, the Queen could have said 'no' (or more likely 'why are you asking me this, what are you doing, do you really think this is a good idea' (because apparently she likes to ask questions more than disagree) and if as custom says, that's a private discussion under privy council secrecy, the govt shouldn't then be leaking it, but because it was public, her saying no would then become a constitutional crisis. God job we don't have one of those now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Slammy posted:So, why don’t y’all have a Constitution? We do but it's unwritten and based on a collective body of legislation, precedent, and unofficial gentlemen's agreements. We decided we couldn't be assed writing it all down in one place (and resolving all the bits that contradict each other) and formally enshrining it in law though because we're all sensible people and we're getting on fine and of course there won't be any future situation in which this system might entirely break down leaving us twisting in the wind. Lol ThomasPaine fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Also a "senior Tory" called Farage a poo poo bastard or words to similar effect. nice garden path there
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Slammy posted:So, why don’t y’all have a Constitution? As marktheando says, we do have a constitution, it’s simply uncodified and held in separate (and sometimes contradictory) documents that have to be interpreted by judges, which makes it different to a codified constitution in that you have to get more books out of the law library
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Hi I just read the last 250 pages of the UKMT ama
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:We do but it's unwritten and based on a collective body of legislation, precedent, and unofficial gentlemen's agreements. We decided we couldn't be assed writing it all down in one place and formally enshrining it in law though because we're all sensible people and we're getting on fine and of course there won't be any future situation in which this system might entirely break down leaving us twisting in the wind. On the other, I don't trust any government we've had in the past 40 years to write one. Brown's might have been semi-okay, he liked things like that (see The Supreme Court), as long as he was prevented from banning water and mandating that every Sunday be spend glaring at a sock. Rarity posted:Hi I just read the last 250 pages of the UKMT ama
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:36 |
|
|
Rarity posted:Hi I just read the last 250 pages of the UKMT ama How long can I store chilled rice in the fridge before it gives me squits/kills me
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2019 17:21
|
|
