Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
While I do not wish to see any part of the UK diverge, as it is a part of my identity, it will probably be for the best.
I think we're now getting to the stage where Cummings' position is untenable. Not only has his strategy failed at every turn, he's also blowing the Tory Party to pieces, and running Johnson and the Government into serious legal trouble. His statements are also increasingly intemperate and out of control suggesting a dark downward spiral of some kind.
Johnson must at least be considering sacrificing him and pressing the reset button.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
It very much depends on how we Brexit.
Ulstermen and women might favour the UK Union or Irish Reunification - it's hard to tell on these incredibly close polls. But what they fear is more important: and they fear a return to the Troubles, and they don't want to do anything to bring that about.
If we get a Hard Brexit and a hard Irish border then Irish unity could come amazingly quickly. In a few years or less.
If we stay in the EU, or if the frictionless border is preserved, then very few will want to upset that applecart and the union could endure for generations - as far as the foreseeable. To preserve the peace.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
Presumably those who do turn up take control of the agenda and do what they like. There isn't a quorum for Parliament - if you don't turn up, you don't turn up.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
How do you think the younger NI generation will persuade the Republic to take them?
Can someone please point to where No 10 accused the Scottish courts of bias? The quoted statement that "the legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason" is perfectly justifiable given that we have been told (not least here, ad nauseum) that different legal considerations apply in Scotland to those used by the High Court to reach their judgement.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
Presumably those who do turn up take control of the agenda and do what they like. There isn't a quorum for Parliament - if you don't turn up, you don't turn up.
They can't take control of the executive without a vote of confidence, if I've understood it correctly, and that would set in motion the 14 day process which leads to an election. They could then turn up to vote down a Corbyn-led government, leading to an election, which is what they want anyway.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
While I do not wish to see any part of the UK diverge, as it is a part of my identity, it will probably be for the best.
Well, I am tempted to agree, partic as I have part Irish heritage. However I think overall it is unfortunate, and will be heavily influenced by the unnecessary process of Brexit, and probably increases the likelihood of Scottish succession.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
Yes, the republic has changed - much for the better - and so too will the North, the UK and the EU. But none of us can predict how.
Can someone please point to where No 10 accused the Scottish courts of bias? The quoted statement that "the legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason" is perfectly justifiable given that we have been told (not least here, ad nauseum) that different legal considerations apply in Scotland to those used by the High Court to reach their judgement.
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
Presumably those who do turn up take control of the agenda and do what they like. There isn't a quorum for Parliament - if you don't turn up, you don't turn up.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
How do you think the younger NI generation will persuade the Republic to take them?
They can already have Irish citizenship, so in that sense they already have them. I guess the natural way forward will be when more people in NI have Irish passports than British. Brexit will likely accelerate that, though many will opt for duel, enabling them to do what young people here have been denied.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I think that this is proceeding on a misconception. The Claim of Right in Scotland is our equivalent to the Bill of Rights in England and almost identical. Lord Doherty did not identify any particular Scottish angle and the brief summary of the Inner House decision does not seem to be doing so either. Incidentally the next President of the Supreme Court is a Scots lawyer.
Cummings: total chaos, everything's fine and going to plan.
Because we do not know the plan, I find this hard to judge. We know the end state the plan wants a Boris deal that is a clear win over the EU (which is why he will not get it) or no deal on 31st Oct.
..... or otherwise a GE that will secure a parliamentary majority to deliver a deal, should parliament frustrate Johnson by postponing Brexit yet again.
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
Presumably those who do turn up take control of the agenda and do what they like. There isn't a quorum for Parliament - if you don't turn up, you don't turn up.
There is, but it's 40.
Ah, thanks. Well, the opposition won't have a problem mustering that.
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If I understand correctly, parliament can't be recalled after a prorogation. But the next session could start earlier than previously planned.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
After next Tuesday I thought all the parties wanted Parliament shut anyway for conference season.
Bit like the charts that historically have said “farewell Tories”
Scoop! People can change their minds as they age....
Yes, but on this issue it is unlikely. Many people in the North, whichever "side" they are from no longer fear the republic as they did in the past. The republic used to be seen as backward. Now it is seen as more modern than the North. I'd give continued partition 20 years max.
How do you think the younger NI generation will persuade the Republic to take them?
They can already have Irish citizenship, so in that sense they already have them. I guess the natural way forward will be when more people in NI have Irish passports than British. Brexit will likely accelerate that, though many will opt for duel, enabling them to do what young people here have been denied.
Just spotted my amusing typo there. Meant dual, not duel, which might have unfortunate meaning in NI
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If I understand correctly, parliament can't be recalled after a prorogation. But the next session could start earlier than previously planned.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
I would have thought, as it stands now, Parliament is in session as the prorogation itself is "null and void". The verdict does not change until: 1. it is appealed 2. it is overturned
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
I think the executive has to act lawfully, otherwise democracy and the rule of law collapse. So the queen just acts in line with what the court says.
She must be wishing though that this crisis had come when she was in her 40s or 50s, not her 90s.
Privately also she must be fuming at Johnson and Cummings for putting her in an awkward position.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
I think the executive has to act lawfully, otherwise democracy and the rule of law collapse. So the queen just acts in line with what the court says.
She must be wishing though that this crisis had come when she was in her 40s or 50s, not her 90s.
Privately also she must be fuming at Johnson and Cummings for putting her in an awkward position.
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
I think the executive has to act lawfully, otherwise democracy and the rule of law collapse. So the queen just acts in line with what the court says.
She must be wishing though that this crisis had come when she was in her 40s or 50s, not her 90s.
Privately also she must be fuming at Johnson and Cummings for putting her in an awkward position.
It's incredibly difficult for her if her courts say one thing and her Government another. Either way would provoke the ire of one side at the monarchy. I actually suspect she'd feel obliged to act on her PM's advice, but the pressure from the Palace on the Government to fall into line would be immense.
No 10's reply is an absolubte howitzer at the Unionist cause. It's a visceral naked attack on the Act of Union itself.
I thought nothing would surprise me, but that actually has.
The fringe of SCotitsh Indy has been doing it's absolute nut in that Sturgeon/SNP hasn't already declare unilateral succession/had another indy ref. They see the SNP now as an anti-Brexi party with no drive towards independence.
What they don't get is that it is always (and has always been) an incremental process not an event. By "acting in Scotland's interest" by opposing Brexit doing so will generate moment after moment like this until even DavidL is begging for Scotland to be independent in the face of, I don't know, Scots Law being abolished by Westminster.
The Sturgeon/SNP are currently playing a blinder IMO.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
I think it's because parliament is sovereign over government and government is not sovereign over parliament. Doubtful if Speaker rulings can be appealed to anyone at all?
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If I understand correctly, parliament can't be recalled after a prorogation. But the next session could start earlier than previously planned.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
I would have thought, as it stands now, Parliament is in session as the prorogation itself is "null and void". The verdict does not change until: 1. it is appealed 2. it is overturned
No, my reading of the judgment is that the Court will make an order nullifying the prorogation (but they haven't done so yet and are waiting for the Supreme Court to be heard before acting).
Thus the prorogation is still in effect, which is why people are talking about ways in which people might pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court and bring Parliament back now.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
I think it's because parliament is sovereign over government and government is not sovereign over parliament. Doubtful if Speaker rulings can be appealed to anyone at all?
I would have thought that he could be prosecuted or challenged if he was acting ultra vires. No one is meant to be above the law
Poor old Tom Watson. From being the saviour of the Labour party he now cuts a rather isolated, Carl beech fantasy supporting figure.
It was quite funny this morning when he made his big attention seeking statement, and then 30 minutes later the judgement came down from the Court of Session.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
Because, simply, the Speaker had the votes of a majority of the House behind him, and the government didn't.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
The Speaker seems to be able to do pretty well whatever he wants in Parliament without review- see his blatantly wrong decision on Queen's consent for the latest Withdrawal Act.I am afraid the constitution of this country is on the point of collapse.
No. I can’t see how it falls within the competencies of either the ECJ or the ECHR
Cyclefree downthread said it could go there under A11, freedom of assembly. She was dismissive of the merits (and I agree on this point) but remember that the CJEU has a long history of extending the ambit of treaty application where doing so would further the powers of the Commission (or indeed it's own jurisdiction).
Not easy to get it to Strasbourg, though. An individual can't file there, though they can complain to the Commission about the UK's failure to fulfil a treaty obligation. I don't think there's time for that process, though.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
I expect Kuennsberg and Brillo likely vote Tory, whilst Maitliss and Pienaar are Labour voters. Overall its output is neutral enough though, as evidenced by the fact it is attacked from both sides.
Laura K is the frontwoman. Agree that Emily is probably Labour but as she's buried on Newsnight at 10.30pm it hardly counts for much.
The United Kingdom must not be allowed to “pursue a cheap food policy” after it leaves the European Union, Irish Farmers’ Association president Joe Healy has declared.
“It was very important and is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn’t be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries,” he told RTÉ’s Radio 1 News at One.
The value of the UK food market, which is worth nearly €250 billion annually must be maintained, and not undermined by the UK government’s “ability or desire” to see food prices slashed.
Perhaps Leo would like to put it a tad more diplomatically....
Gusto Bebb suggesting documents deliberately being withheld from courts. Thinks Boris should resign.
If the government did not give full disclosure.Surely they will be in contempt ?
They would yes, and would rightly get mullered for it. Guto better have good sources cos he doesn't have the protection of p privilege here. Serious accusation.
He was implying sources inside No.10.
Number 10 saying it has withheld documents?!
Someone within No. 10. Who the heck else would know for sure?
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
After next Tuesday I thought all the parties wanted Parliament shut anyway for conference season.
Poor old Tom Watson. From being the saviour of the Labour party he now cuts a rather isolated, Carl beech fantasy supporting figure.
It was quite funny this morning when he made his big attention seeking statement, and then 30 minutes later the judgement came down from the Court of Session.
Not even a footnote in history.
He's actually steered the leadership quite a long way on this issue, and may yet steer them further.
I am not sure his latest statement is directed at the wider public so much as the Labour Party ahead of conference.
Not a great Watson fan in many ways (due to the Beech affair in particular). But he's been resilient and pretty effective as Deputy Leader.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
I agree. BBC R4 News has been uncomfortably pro-Brexit.
Anyone know of another 'highbrow' radio station on FM?
Sky TV coverage of the EU elections was excellent and they actually covered the results in other EU countries which is the point about the EU, it's 28 countries cooperating and working together. BBC R4 at times was a party political broadcast for the Bxt Party.
It feels like a quiet revolution is taking place behind the scenes in British politics. Every day, the system just seems to be changing, collapsing, renewing, shifting.
I do worry what precedents this is all setting because nothing now, it seems, is written in stone. All the old certainties are being removed.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
The Speaker seems to be able to do pretty well whatever he wants in Parliament without review- see his blatantly wrong decision on Queen's consent for the latest Withdrawal Act.I am afraid the constitution of this country is on the point of collapse.
By contrast I am thankful. It is entirely outdated, opaque and unfit for purpose.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News like the rest of Sky is now owned by Comcast.
I am not going to do another article on this but worth noting the following points:-
1. Before people start getting over-excited about arresting Boris, remember the Supreme Court may overrule this decision.
2. If so, it is possible that the losing party might appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) citing Article 11. No idea whether such an appeal has legs or would even be entertained but imagine the reaction if that were to happen.
3. The missing witness statement and those communications now become really quite important if the Courts consider that the Crown was - or may have been - misled by the government.
4. Which Ministers in Cabinet were involved in that decision also becomes potentially important. Why take the rap for a decision over which you had no ownership?
5. “Boris lies to the Queen” is the sort of thing that can cut through to the public.
6. This statement by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC ... is welcome (it’s the bare minimum, frankly) but does not go far enough. He should unequivocally condemn the statement by No 10 attacking the Scottish courts for doing their job. He needs to protect them from his own government not just express his own confidence in them. If he cannot or won’t, he should in all honour resign.
TBF, No.10 'sources' have now rowed back, and No.10 has made no such 'statement' officially, I think ?
Frankly, I didn't expect this decision, so the evidence before the court of the government's motives must have been fairly blatant.
Much hangs on next week's decision.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that nobody believes the reason the Government gave for proroguation. Everyone knows it was done to stymie the House.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
So the Government isn't allowed to bend the rules to stymie the House, but the Speaker is allowed to connive with (parts of) the House to bend the rules to stymie the Government? Why, exactly?
If the government actually had a case that he acted ultra vires they could take him to court. Funnily enough they haven't as he has not done so
The Speaker seems to be able to do pretty well whatever he wants in Parliament without review- see his blatantly wrong decision on Queen's consent for the latest Withdrawal Act.I am afraid the constitution of this country is on the point of collapse.
He does what he does largely under advice. Why don't you just admit it, you don't like him?
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
ITV News is also far better. Peston provides genuine insights which Kuenessberg (however you spell her name) is incapable of and also I cannot detect an agenda in reporting by the likes of Libby Wiener.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
Sky News isn't owned by Murdoch any more. It was acquired by Comcast late last year.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
The United Kingdom must not be allowed to “pursue a cheap food policy” after it leaves the European Union, Irish Farmers’ Association president Joe Healy has declared.
“It was very important and is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn’t be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries,” he told RTÉ’s Radio 1 News at One.
The value of the UK food market, which is worth nearly €250 billion annually must be maintained, and not undermined by the UK government’s “ability or desire” to see food prices slashed.
Perhaps Leo would like to put it a tad more diplomatically....
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If I understand correctly, parliament can't be recalled after a prorogation. But the next session could start earlier than previously planned.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
I would have thought, as it stands now, Parliament is in session as the prorogation itself is "null and void". The verdict does not change until: 1. it is appealed 2. it is overturned
No, my reading of the judgment is that the Court will make an order nullifying the prorogation (but they haven't done so yet and are waiting for the Supreme Court to be heard before acting).
Thus the prorogation is still in effect, which is why people are talking about ways in which people might pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court and bring Parliament back now.
Are you really sure that "the Court will accordingly make an Order" means "at some undefined time in the future," rather than "now"?
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
Dunno about that. Sky News is owned by Rupert Murdoch and it's far more neutral than the BBC, which is boringly pro-government. It's also far better news coverage.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
ITV News is also far better. Peston provides genuine insights which Kuenessberg (however you spell her name) is incapable of and also I cannot detect an agenda in reporting by the likes of Libby Wiener.
ITV News political coverage is indeed pretty good, and far superior to the Beeb. You just have make sure you turn off for the 'real life stories' tabloid crap they often feature.
The United Kingdom must not be allowed to “pursue a cheap food policy” after it leaves the European Union, Irish Farmers’ Association president Joe Healy has declared.
“It was very important and is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn’t be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries,” he told RTÉ’s Radio 1 News at One.
The value of the UK food market, which is worth nearly €250 billion annually must be maintained, and not undermined by the UK government’s “ability or desire” to see food prices slashed.
Perhaps Leo would like to put it a tad more diplomatically....
Let's guess what the SNP will say if the Supreme Court rules against the Scottish court. Probably something to do with saying it's time for Scottish independence, (to state the obvious).
There will be consternation at the Palace just now as this is dragging the Queen into an incredibly difficult place if caught between her judiciary and her executive.
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If I understand correctly, parliament can't be recalled after a prorogation. But the next session could start earlier than previously planned.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
I would have thought, as it stands now, Parliament is in session as the prorogation itself is "null and void". The verdict does not change until: 1. it is appealed 2. it is overturned
No, my reading of the judgment is that the Court will make an order nullifying the prorogation (but they haven't done so yet and are waiting for the Supreme Court to be heard before acting).
Thus the prorogation is still in effect, which is why people are talking about ways in which people might pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court and bring Parliament back now.
Are you really sure that "the Court will accordingly make an Order" means "at some undefined time in the future," rather than "now"?
If parliament is recalled, what happens if the government decides not to turn up?
Presumably those who do turn up take control of the agenda and do what they like. There isn't a quorum for Parliament - if you don't turn up, you don't turn up.
There is, but it's 40.
So the Parliament could be open to just the Scottish MPs and Lords, making a Quorum in the HoC, and Ian Blackford would be PM
Mr. Anabobazina, you didn't specify General Elections. And if you had, I could've just as easily cited the independent I voted for a few elections ago.
I'm mildly amused you're trying to lecture me on my own voting record.
Maybe the problem here isn't the way I vote, but the fiction you're basing your opinions on.
BBC News is unwatchable. Laura K is unbearably on-side. I gave up on it long ago.
The BBC is accused of being anti-Labour and anti-Tory by their respective supporters. Maybe that means it's fairly neutral.
I expect Kuennsberg and Brillo likely vote Tory, whilst Maitliss and Pienaar are Labour voters. Overall its output is neutral enough though, as evidenced by the fact it is attacked from both sides.
Laura K is the frontwoman. Agree that Emily is probably Labour but as she's buried on Newsnight at 10.30pm it hardly counts for much.
There’s also Emma Barnett, who while identifiably a ‘progressive’, is also an excellent journalist and interviewer.
Comments
Johnson must at least be considering sacrificing him and pressing the reset button.
Ulstermen and women might favour the UK Union or Irish Reunification - it's hard to tell on these incredibly close polls. But what they fear is more important: and they fear a return to the Troubles, and they don't want to do anything to bring that about.
If we get a Hard Brexit and a hard Irish border then Irish unity could come amazingly quickly. In a few years or less.
If we stay in the EU, or if the frictionless border is preserved, then very few will want to upset that applecart and the union could endure for generations - as far as the foreseeable. To preserve the peace.
The legal question is crystal clear. Does the Government have the legal right to do this? As a barack room lawyer I am only too glad to leave that one to the Supreme Court.
Cummings is toast imo
This is not normal
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171718312176304128
I'd guess there's a lot of pressure on the Government to advise her to recall (perhaps dependent on the Supreme Court ruling, perhaps not). Either recalling without the advice to do so from the PM, or not recalling despite a court ruling, would be an awful position for the Queen and be seen to politicise the monarchy.
If the Supreme Court were to confirm that prorogation is "null and of no effect," I suppose logically there would be no need to recall parliament, as legally it would never have been prorogued ...
1. it is appealed
2. it is overturned
She must be wishing though that this crisis had come when she was in her 40s or 50s, not her 90s.
Privately also she must be fuming at Johnson and Cummings for putting her in an awkward position.
What they don't get is that it is always (and has always been) an incremental process not an event. By "acting in Scotland's interest" by opposing Brexit doing so will generate moment after moment like this until even DavidL is begging for Scotland to be independent in the face of, I don't know, Scots Law being abolished by Westminster.
The Sturgeon/SNP are currently playing a blinder IMO.
The main problem with Laura K, however, is that she is just a very mediocre journalist – a conduit for agreed lines, rather than a breaker of stories.
The SC is unlikely to rule till the 23rd . If they uphold the decision on grounds that Bozo misled the Queen then I think he’s toast .
And then you’d need time to recall Parliament , I think even some Leavers would take a dim view of the PM basically lying to the Queen .
Thus the prorogation is still in effect, which is why people are talking about ways in which people might pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court and bring Parliament back now.
Not even a footnote in history.
Not easy to get it to Strasbourg, though. An individual can't file there, though they can complain to the Commission about the UK's failure to fulfil a treaty obligation. I don't think there's time for that process, though.
The United Kingdom must not be allowed to “pursue a cheap food policy” after it leaves the European Union, Irish Farmers’ Association president Joe Healy has declared.
“It was very important and is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn’t be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries,” he told RTÉ’s Radio 1 News at One.
The value of the UK food market, which is worth nearly €250 billion annually must be maintained, and not undermined by the UK government’s “ability or desire” to see food prices slashed.
Perhaps Leo would like to put it a tad more diplomatically....
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/agribusiness-and-food/uk-must-not-be-allowed-pursue-cheap-food-policy-after-brexit-1.3802972?mode=amp
I am not sure his latest statement is directed at the wider public so much as the Labour Party ahead of conference.
Not a great Watson fan in many ways (due to the Beech affair in particular). But he's been resilient and pretty effective as Deputy Leader.
Anyone know of another 'highbrow' radio station on FM?
Sky TV coverage of the EU elections was excellent and they actually covered the results in other EU countries which is the point about the EU, it's 28 countries cooperating and working together. BBC R4 at times was a party political broadcast for the Bxt Party.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/cricket/jason-roy-dropped-with-ben-stokes-to-play-as-batsman-only-in-ashes-finale-at-the-oval-a4234311.html
I do worry what precedents this is all setting because nothing now, it seems, is written in stone. All the old certainties are being removed.
It was a pretty good, balanced service before that though to be fair.
The EU is the OPEC of food.
Michael Gove?
https://twitter.com/brianspanner1/status/1171770215790764033?s=21
Mr. Anabobazina, you didn't specify General Elections. And if you had, I could've just as easily cited the independent I voted for a few elections ago.
I'm mildly amused you're trying to lecture me on my own voting record.
Maybe the problem here isn't the way I vote, but the fiction you're basing your opinions on.