The Globalist Swamp is in full effect ...P.S. What is it with fascist women an gaudy broaches ?
Posted on 09/24/2019 3:14:29 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
Let’s have a Brexit re-vote, on the grounds that we are actively sabotaging the results of the referendum. Boy, that’ll sure sell in Sussex.
Absolutely. Remainers will make sure they win. No way they let Brexit win again.
It’s how the left views democracy. Keep voting until you get result you want.
The fixed term parliaments act was due to the alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. As a promise that they wouldn’t split up before 5 years, David Cameron implemented this act
Whatever the reasons and context, this is self-immolation. Stupid. We just had two elections in less than six months in Israel. It was rough, and the results of the second election are not exactly palatable, but we won’t have a third election because we don’t want a third election. There’s no need to pass any act over that. We can have a new election every day before breakfast, if it pleases us, and it doesn’t, so we don’t.
This act was passed in 2011 - 8 years ago. No one saw the consequences then.
The conventional view is that the monarch is bound to follow the advice of her Prime Minister unless she is advised that to do so would be unconstitutional. That’s what she’s now been told.
For me, the most striking thing about this, apart from the judgement itself, is the unanimity - all 11 judges concurred. That seems to me to scotch any temptation to view the judgement as politically motivated. If there was a split, majority verdict, you would expect allegations of a vote split on political lines. But all 11?
The British judiciary is traditionally small-c conservative by temperament and unpolitical. If all 11 Supreme Court judges are born-again remainers or ‘globalists’ (whatever that means), then I’m a banana.
BOJO BLOW Supreme Court – What happens next? Brexit could be delayed and Boris Johnson may face confidence vote after sensational ruling
Natasha Clark
24 Sep 2019, 12:49Updated: 24 Sep 2019, 16:11
the sun (uk)
They can re-vote on Brexit but you and I know that unless they win, they will want yet another Brexit vote.
I could have told them.
LOL. So so sovereign, they're working their damndest to prorogue an election!
A parliament is only so sovereign as it has willing subjects.
But anyway, Johnson can use the strictures of this dumb law to torment the remainders until they yield. I’m sure he can find 1001 ways to do that. It’ll be like being stuck on a small lifeboat together with a practical joker who has a suitcase full of tricks, and stubbornly refusing to row towards shore. Sooner or later, they’ll have to either pick up that oar or jump over the side.
during my first skimming, one paragraph jumps out at me
“For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate
caution. “
And within that paragraph in particular the phrase “without reasonable justification” stands out.
The problem, at least as I see it, is what is the definition of “reasonable”?
The judiciary has elected to step in and define this term on behalf of parliament.
OK, parliament is sovereign. but what does that mean? It means that parliament makes its own law to govern the nation and to govern itself. How does it govern itself? It uses a PM who is entrusted with certain responsibilities, including the responsibility to determine when to prorogue parliament. So the court was asked to step in on parliament’s self-regulation. That seems in error to me.
Beyond the use of the term “reasonable” is the use of term “extreme” in the next paragraph. Extreme by whose definition? This all seems subjective to me and is why i consider the supreme court’s decision politically motivated. The only political motivation that occurs to me at this moment is that the court— yes, every one of them (who needed extra convincing)— is controlled by globalists.
Looking to the future, how will future UK PMs ever prorogue parliament in cases just like this, in which parliament is actively interfering with international diplomacy being carried out by the PM?
I think the supreme court is wrong and rather than congratulating themselves on how they saved the UK they should have focused on how the could avoid dooming the UK to future rounds of similar legislative-cum-diplomatic crises in the near future.
The entire UK parliamentary system seems creaky and in need of an overhaul, otherwise there it is an open invitation to more judiciary meddling in UK politics.
(And now unfortunately for the EU, it has to deal with this newly enlarged mess. UK and EU businesses must be reeling even more than before from the uncertainty in the markets...)
Tablet instant and perhaps pc spell check
The Globalist Swamp is in full effect ...P.S. What is it with fascist women an gaudy broaches ?
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The Prime Minister is indeed entrusted with those responsibilities, but he is entrusted in the expectation that the precedents and conventions in the exercise of those responsibilities will be respected. In the case of prorogation, those conventions are that prorogation is a formality applied by consent after discussion with all parties, and lasts for only a few days prior to a new session. If, as in this case, there was no discussion, no consent and the prorogation was of unprecedented length, then it's reasonable to question whether the trust placed in the Prime Minister has been abused.
Really? All eleven of them?
The probability of that being the case. already extremely low for a variety of reasons, disappears to near zero with the unanimity.
The British judiciary is traditionally apolitical and temperamentally conservative. Of course it's impossible to prove one way or another that individual judges, when trying Judicial Reviews of government actions (a well-established procedure, by the way, though until now mostly on relatively minor issues, such as the pension rights of Gurkha soldiers, compensation for land compulsorily purchased for the HS2 high-speed rail line etc) might be swayed in part by their own political views.
But that eleven of the country's most senior judges, representing all three UK jurisdictions, should all be so swayed in the same direction at the same time over an issue on which all sections of society are deeply divided, strains credibility beyond breaking point.
That was the advantage of a parliamentary government. Unfortunately, the coalition government, in its infinite wisdome, decided to pass the fixed term parliament act, which scrapped the royal prerogative power to dissolve parliament and call an election, and now our remainer parliament finds keeping our government in deadlock and unable to govern or implement the referendum result. That Act needs to be scrapped by a future government.
And the Brexiters have got to make life a living hell for the remainders, so long as they’re stuck on the same boat together. They can entertain the populace in three dimensions, sort of like a Trump tweet made flesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.