Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[spongebob59]

One of the key arguments against the PM is that Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament for five weeks, for a presumed political purpose of evading scrutiny of his Brexit strategy, is illegal because it's breaches Parliamentary sovereignty.
Lawyers for those challenging the government say that prorogation has to be for a sound and lawful reason - namely in this case the end of a session of Parliament before a Queen's Speech which sets out the government's new agenda.
But Lord Keen, for the prime minister, says there are examples from history of Parliament being prorogued. One from 1948 saw Parliament prorogued for just one day for "naked political reasons", he says.
Without wishing to go into the weeds of that saga, the prorogation came amid a row between the Commons and Lords. One of the Justices, Lady Hale, knows this and says to Lord Keen that closing Parliament on that occasion enforced the will of the democratically-elected MPs.
Lord Keen, for the PM, argues that what the Supreme Court is being asked to do is "go down the road of deciding what is an illegitimate political consideration" to close Parliament. In summary: that's not a legal situation that judges can interfere in.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

One of the key arguments against the PM is that Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament for five weeks, for a presumed political purpose of evading scrutiny of his Brexit strategy, is illegal because it's breaches Parliamentary sovereignty.
Lawyers for those challenging the government say that prorogation has to be for a sound and lawful reason - namely in this case the end of a session of Parliament before a Queen's Speech which sets out the government's new agenda.
But Lord Keen, for the prime minister, says there are examples from history of Parliament being prorogued. One from 1948 saw Parliament prorogued for just one day for "naked political reasons", he says.
Without wishing to go into the weeds of that saga, the prorogation came amid a row between the Commons and Lords. One of the Justices, Lady Hale, knows this and says to Lord Keen that closing Parliament on that occasion enforced the will of the democratically-elected MPs.
Lord Keen, for the PM, argues that what the Supreme Court is being asked to do is "go down the road of deciding what is an illegitimate political consideration" to close Parliament. In summary: that's not a legal situation that judges can interfere in.

Which may well be true under English Law - and I assume as that would be the case the UK Supreme Court must operate under English Law - just saying it doesn't mean that the Scots Session Court judges were wrong. They just adjudged that they knew why Johnson did it - even although he might not have broken any Legal Statute - and under Scots Law they could find his actions unlawful - though not illegal.

 

[robinthehood]

Did I read it wrong, or did the Government not enter a defence for the second Scottish Challenge as the first had already been dismissed?

UK Judges have been heavily pro Europe in the past so the next event will be amusing!

Meanwhile, quiz question: Australia has "No Deal" with the EU. How much trade did it do with the EU last year?

about 10% of what the UK does?

 

[Hobbit]

I think it important to understand that Scottish Law is very different in many ways from English Law. The place of Common Law/Precedent and hence 'Spirit of law' has a much greater importance in Scots Law and judgements than it has in English Law - and hence - as I understand it - why the Scots Session Court were able to reach the decision that they did. There was nothing weird or out of order i their decision.

This difference is probably most obviously manifest in the Scots criminal court judgement of 'Not Proven'. In other words - 'we know you did it though the evidence isn't there to prove your guilt. But don't be under any misapprehension - we know you did it and we are watching you'.

In some ways that is perhaps what the Scots court found about Johnson. We know what you did and why you did it. That we cannot prove illegality on your part in breach of any legal statute - that does not stop us coming to that conclusion.

Interesting point Hugh. And I agree that Boris hasn't acted in the spirit of 'the game.' But here's a question; if the evidence isn't there and the court, as you say, is saying we think you're guilty, why can't the accused flip it around and say "that's slander/defamation of character. You prove it."

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The Supreme Court trumps all does it not? Above English and Welsh law, Scottish law. If the Supreme Court says it is okay then the ruling of the Scottish judges becomes irrelevant, as does the English / Welsh judges if the decision goes against the govt.

This largely seems to be down to interpretation rather a clear cut break the law, has not broken the law. Never that satisfactory when that is the case but there you go.

 

[Foxholer]

Interesting point Hugh. And I agree that Boris hasn't acted in the spirit of 'the game.' But here's a question; if the evidence isn't there and the court, as you say, is saying we think you're guilty, why can't the accused flip it around and say "that's slander/defamation of character. You prove it."

I believe that, appeals aside, the fact that a trial has been held and a verdict obtained, a consequential slander/defamation claim based purely on the trial result being 'not proven' would be 'booted out of court'. The appeal process is meant to provide sufficient recourse for parties who believe an injustice has been done.

 

[Foxholer]

The Supreme Court trumps all does it not? Above English and Welsh law, Scottish law. If the Supreme Court says it is okay then the ruling of the Scottish judges becomes irrelevant, as does the English / Welsh judges if the decision goes against the govt.

This largely seems to be down to interpretation rather than a clear cut broke the law, has not broken the law. Never that satisfactory when that is the case but there you go.

Given my amendments in bold, I agree.

Though I wonder if, ironically, a further appeal to the ECJ might be available! I don't think it would (and am pretty sure the Supreme Court's ruling would be upheld anyway, even if it could be heard in time), but an 'interesting 'what-if'!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Bad use of English , well corrected Foxholer .

If this went to the ECJ I think it would make many erupt with good reason. The ECJ judging a UK Brexit issue ? Ouch

 

[IanM]

Good summary Bob, but missing the doctrine of the EU

about 10% of what the UK does?

a) Guess again!

b) How do they do any on "NO Deal?" Everything stops and the Sky falls in surely!

 

[Foxholer]

Bad use of English , well corrected Foxholer .

If this went to the ECJ I think it would make many erupt with good reason. The ECJ judging a UK Brexit issue ? Ouch

Interesting thought though eh! Had to smile at the possibility!

 

[clubchamp98]

Did I read it wrong, or did the Government not enter a defence for the second Scottish Challenge as the first had already been dismissed?

UK Judges have been heavily pro Europe in the past so the next event will be amusing!

Meanwhile, quiz question: Australia has "No Deal" with the EU. How much trade did it do with the EU last year?

Yes it will
A lot would be my guess!

 

[clubchamp98]

I believe that, appeals aside, the fact that a trial has been held and a verdict obtained, a consequential slander/defamation claim based purely on the trial result being 'not proven' would be 'booted out of court'. The appeal process is meant to provide sufficient recourse for parties who believe an injustice has been done.

It certainly would be an injustice if you were innocent.

Not saying Boris is though.

 

[Hobbit]

Meanwhile, quiz question: Australia has "No Deal" with the EU. How much trade did it do with the EU last year?

Very little, about £12bn in exports. To give you an idea of how it compares to the UK, the UK exported over £280bn to the EU.

 

[IanM]

Eh, no , that's no where near the figure. Auz trade with the European Union (EU) was valued at $69.3 billion in 2016

But, even if you are correct.... the issue is the constant "crash out" cobblers, about everything stopping in the absence of a Deal. Inestingly, talks are in progress to limit the current level of tariffs.

But of course, the EU isn't desperate to keep Auz paying its annual subs is it!

Go and search who owes who how much within the EU in terms of bailouts. Wait till you see what the repayment when it goes pop will do to your tax!

 

[clubchamp98]

Eh, no , that's no where near the figure. Auz trade with the European Union (EU) was valued at $69.3 billion in 2016

But, even if you are correct.... the issue is the constant "crash out" cobblers, about everything stopping in the absence of a Deal.

That’s interesting what Do Australia make that Europe can’t make themselves bar Kangaroo steak.

 

[Foxholer]

It certainly would be an injustice if you were innocent.
...

That's a completely different issue!

...
Not saying Boris is though.

I certainly believe it was 'managed'! But we'll see how the Supreme Court rules!

 

[Hobbit]

Eh, no , that's no where near the figure.

But, even if you are correct.... the issue is the constant "crash out" cobblers, about everything stopping in the absence of a Deal.

That's the figure on the Aus govt's own website. Total trade is over Aus$60bn, with there being a deficit - more imported than exported.

Just as an aside, note that the figure quoted on the Aus Govt's website is in Aus$, which are about 55p to the pound.

Trade won't stop for all sorts of reasons. For example, buyers may struggle to find new suppliers at short notice. And some sellers may look to take a hit on price to retain their customer base. The argument will come when the standards/CE marking is questioned.

 

[Hobbit]

That’s interesting what Do Australia make that Europe can’t make themselves bar Kangaroo steak.

It isn't just what they make. A lot of exports out of Aus is raw material and ores, e.g. gold. A third of Aus exports to the EU is gold to the UK.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

A third of Aus exports to the EU is gold to the UK.

Ah, that's who Gordon flogged all our gold to then on the cheap! They're now selling it back bless em! 😉😀

 

[Foxholer]

That’s interesting what Do Australia make that Europe can’t make themselves bar Kangaroo steak.

Beef and Sheep in the 'off-season' for EU. Rice and Sugar. And, of course, minerals - BHP was at one time (and maybe still is) the world's largest mining company! Silver, Lead, Gold particularly.

Oh and Barramundi - competes (with Halibut) for 'favourite fish'!