“This parliament is a dead parliament,” [Geoffrey Cox] said. “It should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches.”
Expel the Johnson (Mussolini) Dictatorship.
September 26, 2019
September 25, 2019
Legal and Not Political
Legal and Not Politics
From Scotsman 25/09/2019.
Cormack suggests that the demand for a Written Constitution should be rejected.
The Case Law is now clear
Worth noting:
“to place a limit on the discretion of the Prime Minister in a way that protects, rather than undermines, the separation of powers in our constitution among Parliament, government and the courts.”
The Supreme Court decision
September 24, 2019
A Significant Victory for Democracy in the UK
I view this as a great victory of Parliament over the Executive.
‘Bring Back Control’ to Parliament, not to a cabal of Tory misfits.
Simon Jenkins in this afternoon’s Guardian
He is somewhat sanguine in his final paragraph:
‘Whether that is sustainable in an era in which parliament and MPs are held in such low regard, in which the political parties are so fragmented and partisan, and in which the electoral system that creates the sovereign parliament is so slewed in its effects, has to be in doubt. The supreme court did not just sound the trumpet over a failed prime minister. It did the same over a failed constitutional order.’
I agree. Whether the UK will now embark on a written Constitution is still a matter of conjecture.
A trouble point remains; we still have the right wing media supported by capitalists on the make.
But I came to the Bill of Rights of 1688, late. I had misaligned it with the Glorious Revolution of 1689.
In the end the Bill of Rights was crucial to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
As an aside it was before the Act of Union of 1707.
September 19, 2019
Newton and Prorogation of the UK Parliament
Isaac Newton in 1675: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”.
Equally this applies to Law as it does to Mechanics.
So much is Case Law.
But with the Prorogation of Parliament by Johnson, there is too few Cases to build on other than the Bill of Rights 1688.
I note in his closing submissions, Keen said the judges should decline to become involved. “Whether it is dissolution or prorogation [of parliament], this is forbidden territory … It is a matter between the executive and parliament.
But this is a not possible as, as Parliament is not in session, the matter cannot be resolved ‘between the executive and parliament’
He continues “The applicants and petitioners are inviting the court into forbidden territory and an ill-defined minefield that the courts are not properly equipped to deal with.”
Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights 1688 provides for:
Dispensing and Suspending Power.
By Assumeing and Exerciseing a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament
And can we expect Johnson now to tamper with:
Violating Elections.
By Violating the Freedome of Election of Members to serve in Parlyament
The real question remains, is the Executive above or subservient to the Parliament. Is the Executive ‘The Queen in Parliament’ and, even if so, the Bill of Rights states that ‘Exercising a Power of Dispensing with and Suspending of Lawes and the Execution of Lawes without Consent of Parlyament’.
We can only wait a see what the conclusions of Supreme Court comes up with. What ever verdict is arrived at we may hope that we can be able to, as Newton says, Stand on the shoulders of Giants for the future.
BTW Bill Jameson in today’s Scotsman suggests that if the Supreme Court cannot come to an agreed verdict it could appeal to the European Court of Justice.
Mike Vickers' Blog 