13 Responses to Is Parliament the winner?

  1. Mark Shephard says:

    Society is a winner as tension release can resume in Parliament (hopefully reducing tensions in the streets). The public may not like tension release (e.g. PMQ Punch and Judy politics) but it does help oil the system.

    • Denial_a_river_in_Islington says:

      “Tension release can resume in Parliament “? What? What? Are you for real? Where the hell do you think the tension is coming from in the first place? Labour’s had it now. Boris will win in the end because, in the end, the people who elect our politicians will NOT stand for this.

    • Ian Williams says:

      I’m not sure this action does substantially release tension. It may do in a limited sense for those who wish to see Parliament frustrate implementation of the referendum result, not the least through the novel judgements of the Speaker and the Opposition’s refusal to take the matter to the country. The constitutional and democratic tensions these actions create are, however, a serious matter, and the Court’s intervention has added to them. Confirmation hearings, anyone?

      • Roger Hird says:

        I’m a leave voter who has observed, with quiet patience, the parliamentary mismanagement of the task of implementing Brexit. I’ve listened without complaint to the insults of the remainers. In the last week or two parliamentary conventions have been torn up and the “supreme court” has invented competences for itself it was never granted and delivered a highly questionable rebuke to the Prime minister. Remember, the High Court judgement that was appealed to the “supreme court” was unanimous in declaring that Ms miller’s claim was not justicable under British law. I – and I suspect many of my quiet sensible friends who with me have as I say above, waited patiently for the result of the referendum to be honoured – have had enough patience, enough insults and enough of remainers’ mind blowing sense of entitlement. Lady Hale’s, to me rather sneery, delivery of the court ruling far from cooling things down is likely to trigger real protest.

  2. AlexanderTheHog says:

    It is indeed worrying to see the parliamentary system itself brought into question on the streets. I have not been shy about my own thoughts on yesterday’s judgment, and I will revisit it. Your more balanced overview contains valuable lessons for the debate.

  3. rosie says:

    Parliament has been diminished by the Supreme Court as Parliament used to be its own court and now no longer is The Monarchy has been severely damaged in the long term and grossly insulted and inconvenienced in the short term. The Executive has been dealt a huge blow in now being subject to capricious and malicious judicial review at the drop of a hat. The Supreme Court has dealt itself a blow as now we can all see what an utter shower they are. We had no idea before. They have overturned the Queen’s prerogative without even warning her, fouled up the Queen’s Speech, the new session, the Conservative Party conference, and the PM’s part in the summit. And for what? To cause chaos at Westminster and downgrade the Queen, handing yet more power to a bent Speaker and a Parliamentary Junta no-one appointed.

  4. Alfie Noakes says:

    Unfortunately the SC did not address the fact that the current HoC is dysfunctional, in a way that our democracy has never experienced before. The speaker has been allowed to assume a partisan role, in the last bill he decreed that the bill did not required Queens Assent, when it did, and was not a money order, when it was. The Commons and Lords rushed through said bill without scrutiny, a significant minority of MPs are either wilfully voting against the manifesto upon which they were elected or changing parties (without being courteous enough to give their constituents the opportunity to have their say in this), and finally, the courts have been brought in to rule on a political problem caused by the HoC refusing to take the required political action which is to vote down the government and to precipitate a general election. In the light of that, the SC judgement can only be construed as politically motivated. If the HoC was functioning normally, there would have been no need whatsoever for any sort of prorogation.

  5. Dougie says:

    I’ll have to disagree with Lord Norton. While the SC judgement can be seen to protect Parliament from an over-reaching Executive, it is hard to argue that the effect of the prorogation was, in Lady Hale’s words, “extreme”. Given the customary conference recess and Parliament’s demonstrated ability to discuss Brexit and pass legislation, the effect has actually been very limited.
    The ruling finds that a 5 week prorogation is too long and strongly implies that any prorogation other than one of a few days prior to a Queen’s Speech would be unlawful. It would appear that the SC has, at a stroke, effectively abolished the concept of the prerogative.
    Rather than jumping with both feet into uncharted constitutional waters, the SC could have taken a more thoughtful approach and rapped the Government’s knuckles without upturning our constitution. The SC took that approach in its fairly recent ruling on assisted dying, when it declined to intervene but warned that it would if Parliament failed to take appropriate action. In this case, the SC could have warned that the prorogation tested the limits of lawfulness without taking the regrettable step of overturning the prerogative.

  6. Dodgy Geezer says:

    “…The Court distinguished parliamentary sovereignty from parliamentary accountability, concluding that the effect of an extended prorogation was to prevent Parliament fulfilling its duty as the body responsible for ‘the supervision of the executive’. The exercise was thus one, as Jeremy Waldron has noted, not of a judicial review of legislation, but judicial review of the lawfulness of executive action. …”

    I was going to say that this article is naive in the extreme – but it’s really an example of the selective arguments so beloved of the Remainer parties…

    The SC frankly lied about its competence – adjudging a clear Parliamentary procedure which had been used to close down discussion many times before in just such a manner. Then its judgement did not ‘enable the supervision of the executive’ – it allowed Parliament to hamstring the executive, which was clearly trying to enact the wishes of the British people, expressed in a Referendum.

    Its intrusion into government has not ‘allowed Parliamentary business to proceed’ – rather it has provided a last-ditch attempt by the unrepresentative elite establishment to enforce their opinions on the British People. It is preventing a new session starting, and is even preventing an election taking place. A more anti-democratic action is hard to imagine.

    This obviously partisan action can have one of only two endings. Either the Supreme Court will be abolished as not fit for purpose, or it will be maintained in the American Model – with strict political balance obtained by elected nominees. Either way around, the SC has signed its death warrant..

  7. rosie says:

    The Supreme Court was not supposed to rule on this matter and when they did, Brenda Hale betrayed her ignorance of how Parliament works. As well as asserting Mark Harper is the Chief Whip – he was, but under David Cameron – she evidently doesn’t understand what Parliamentary Government is and how it works. The Government governs through Parliament: it cannot pass legislation in any other way, or get its money. Ministers are all members of Parliament. It was preposterous to suggest a parliamentary government could shut down Parliament for a long time, and to build this up as a bogie to justify making up the law on the hoof. She also didn’t appear to understand what the recess is and what does and doesn’t happen in it.

    It was difficult to know whether this was ignorance or dishonesty, but it certainly disqualifies her from holding the position she does and abusing it in the way she has.

    The really sinister thing about this ruling was that there wasn’t one honourable dissenter. How did she pull this off? As Sir Desmond Swayne said in the House, “It was a coup, wasn’t it?”

  8. Dougie says:

    It’s disingenuous in the extreme to suggest the ruling protects Parliament. Rather, it establishes a precedent for the courts to decide when, or indeed whether, Parliament should be sitting.
    Stand by for the courts to be asked to rule that Parliament be recalled from recess because some crisis or other requires its scrutiny of the Executive. The court may find, initially at least, that such applications be refused but the die has been cast.

  9. I think it sad that so many fear the loss of EU membership more than the destruction of democracy.

    For MPs to suggest that ‘Representative Democracy’ (ie, their personal opinion) should overrule ‘democracy’ (the will of the majority of citizens) shows why Parliament is now held in such low regard.

    For members of the Supreme Court to fail to recuse themselves when they have such strong personal feelings in a case is also most regrettable.

  10. maude elwes says:

    Reading this thread is the equivalent of manna from heaven. At last the voice of the British people.

Leave a Reply to maude elwes Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s