Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

Varian As someone has said elsewhere "He has lied to all the other women in his life, why should he make an exception for the Queen?" - who, incidentally, is NOT Her Royal Highness, as some ?American? people have called her (that is for mere princesses), but Her Majesty.

Some Leave posters sem to think that those who would rather remain are biased by that in their condemnation of this devious proguing. I'd like to refute that.

I would much prefer to remain, and if we are destined to leave, then I would rather it is in a lifeboat with provisions, oars and a compass than in a leaky coracle paddled by bare hands.
Hhowever, I believe that the Prime Minister's attitude and actions in regard to the relative positions of Parliament, Cabinet, himself and the Head of State (not to mention his evident contempt for the intelligence of the general population) presents an even more serious threat to the stability of the country than the Brexit issue. The whole subject of the honourable conduct of our leading citizens is in question, and precedents are being set which will lower the reputation of government.

Ug posts "legally it’s all about whether Brenda was lied to"

Is that HM Brenda or Lady Brenda Hale or Brenda from Bristol?

It Is quite possible that they've all been lied to.

Very po faced WWmk2

It was just my opinion. I still think Remainers are suddenly über focussed on lying!

Who knows if HM deep down (she too isn’t daft plus she has advisors) knew the subtext here and maybe she’s a Leaver (it could be - she’s more fixated on the Commonwealth than the EU anyway) and a nod being as good as a wink, was quite happy to prorogue her Parliament because she could quite well see the bigger picture ie MO’s thwarting the result of the referendum at every turn.

Stranger things have happened ...
?

I think that whatever your political persuasion, you should take anything that threatens our democracy and constitution very seriously.

UG may just happen to feel that Remainers are the majority on here but not in the wider sense, out in the U.K.

Opinion polls have consistently shown a majority for Remain out in the UK for more than two years.

Due to work, I did not have the opportunity to view any of the supreme court proceedings. However, from what i have read the most salient point raised was that if the executive in our parliamentary procedure has the power to prorogue parliament whenever it wishes, what is to stop a minority government from permanently proroguing Parliament to remain in power?

The above i believe is a matter that only the courts can rule on, as parliament itself cannot debate the issue if it has been prorogued by the executive. Therefore the matter becomes a constitutional issue to which there are only the courts to look to for adjudication.

Sorry to disagree with you, Ug, but most of us ARE concerned that our Prime Minister finds it acceptable to tell lies to our Head of State. That is the culmination of his career so far, which has included being sacked for lying in his job and in various other situations, and videod agreeing to turn a blind eye to an act of violence.

If he gets away with such behaviour, it justifies lying and cheating as a method of controlling the affairs of the country (as well as his own affairs, personal and, for all we know, perhaps his business affairs too. Someone who cheats happily in one sphere is unlikely to be too particular about the truth in others )

Do you really want to have such an attitude officially sanctioned ?

Underneath it all, as far as most people are concerned it is absolutely all about Brexit. That’s why most of us are interested.

Yes, legally it’s all about whether Brenda was lied to.

I don’t think most of us are bothered about that!

We all know Brexit (subliminally) is at stake here. Recalling Parliament gives Remainer MP’s the opportunity to throw some more spanners in the works. They say they want No Deal off the table but in reality (like Jo Swinson) they actually want No Brexit.

It really is crunch time.

I hope Boris can continue to out manoeuvre the Remainers and deliver the result of the referendum.

It suits Remainers to say ‘things have changed’. 3 years have passed etc. Whose fault is that? I wish we’d have had Boris from the off. Not Theresa May, Eeyore Hammond who wouldn’t release finances for No Deal preparation. We’d have been out by now.

Sorry I know on GN that the majority of you on the political threads don’t like my opinion because you are Remainers. I just happen to feel that you are the majority on here but not in the wider sense, out in the U.K.

Lady Hale kept the discussion to what was relevant - was it lawful or unlawful for the Prime Minister to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament for a very unusual length of time, ostensibly to accommodate a Queen's Speech.

Meanwhile, he disguised his other objective of guillotining any further discussion on the terms under which he was planning to make a major change in the country's relations with the outside world.

That was his main objective, and certainly the main result of the proroguing, along with the loss of everything else that should have been discussed in those five weeks.

Definitions of democracy and vigorous defence of how it should be used and respected are quite separate from opinions on a specific issue (like Brexit) It is only AFTER investigating the actual workings of representation, law-making and law judgments and enforcement in this country that it is relevant to apply those to the Brexit debates.

Many of those who shout loudly about democracy being stifled over Brexit decisions and implementation do so without taking account of way British democracy works, and the various balances and safeguards that exist to ensure that no-one exploits it.

I am not sure they are even aware of the structures that support the freedom from political exploitation that we benefit from, although they are soberly described often enough on GN and elsewhere. They prefer emotive rants.

Tuesday night (or thereabouts) will be interesting. At least there were 11 judges listening in Court and not 5 or 9. A fair shout.

Whatever will be, will be.

Everyone who brought the case was an ardent Remainer. The judges aren’t daft. They know there’s an ulterior motive here (to stop Brexit). Boris even offered an election (not the action of a dictator!).

This is why their decision so interesting! Lady Hale kept the proceedings tight. She wasn’t impressed by some of the grandstanding.

grand

This isnt about Brexit. It is about HMG misleading the queen and flouting the convention.

Brexit is a purely political issue.

Democracy means a democratic vote where the winners carry the day. It's not perfect, but it's the best system out there. In the biggest voter turnout in electoral history, the majority voted leave. If we don't abide by the result then we no longer live in a democracy. Be careful what you wish for: Bercow has brought the position of Speaker (which should be neutral) into disrepute. Remainer MP's, by seizing control of the order paper with the Speaker's connivance, and outlawing WTO Deal, has removed the Governments bargaining power. The EU has treated the UK with complete contempt in the hope that the Remainers will succeed in violating the result of a democratic vote. The 1689 Bill of Rights, arguably the closest thing we have to a written constitution, explicitly affirms that "proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament". It is outrageous the lengths that some of our MP's, institutions, civil service have gone to, with the consent and in some cases encouragement of Remain Voters, to condemn Brexiteers, their fellow citizens, as ignorant racists who did not know what they were doing.

Looks like a GE is almost certain if it proves to be the case.

If Johnson is proved to have lied to the Queen, surely his position is untenable?

Not counting chickens but the legal experts are saying that the Supreme Court will rule against Johnson.

Next week should be interesting!!

Grandelinquent. Our democracy is a legal entity not just what you want it to be. It certainly isn't perfect but you, as an individual, cannot decide to change it just because you don't like its outcomes. Your post is opinion after opinion with very few facts. What do you actually know about how representative democracy works?

At some levels (municipalities, cantons, and federal state) Switzerland is a Direct Democracy. If you want change work for it but do not complain when our Representative Democracy does not work like a Direct Democracy. That would be because it isn't one.

Are they still talking about it?!!!

So did they chuck it out? (I've been away)

We are not Switzerland. We are a Parliamentary Democracy.

When you vote in your constituency you vote for a named candidate. Their party affiliation is secondary, although I do agree many voters will always vote for the same party.

Once elected it is the duty of the MP to exercise his or her best judgement as to what measures might be in the best interests of all of their constituents and the whole country, not just in the interests of their party.

It is the primary duty of any parliamentarian NOT do support any measure which, in their best judgement would harm their constituents or the country at large.

MPs are not robots programmed by their constituents to obey their instructions, however daft or potentially harmful.

Furthermore, as MPs they tend to have a better understanding of the impact of their decisions than the ordinary voter has and that professional knowledge and expertise should be respected.

I would ask a qualified architect to design my new house. I would hope to have a properly qualified and experienced surgeon to do my life-saving operation and I think we should also trust our professional politicians to understabnd more about politics than most of us do - even if our current bunch are pretty unimpressive.

MP's are our servants, not our masters. They don't get to pick and choose the democratic vote whose results they honour. We tend to vote for MP's in this country by the party the represent, and the electoral mandate of that party. MP's are expected to be loyal to their party and their electorate. If they can't cope with that they should not stand. We voted in the Conservatives in part because they promised an EU referendum. They gave us the referendum, we voted, Remain lost. How would an MP feel if, after winning his seat by a (smallish) margin, he was told that it wasn't good enough and he would not be elected. Outraged, like the 17.4 million of our fellow citizens who voted in the biggest electoral turnout in our parliamentary history. Switzerland, the most successful country in Europe, is not in the EU, and not only makes many major decisions by referendum, but the Swiss voters can demand a referendum.

Of course, MPs who don't act as the majority of constituents want do run the risk of losing the next election, but I would rather they acted in good faith rather than doing something just so they keep their jobs.

Totally right growstuff but it doesn't stop us actually being a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Only if we were a direct democracy and voted on each and every little thing would you be able to ask an MP to act as a delegate.

There are stable and unstable representative democracies (RD). Most stable RDs are in societies that are built from the bottom up. Most unstable ones are liable to deteriorate into oligarchies or particracies. Another criticism is that elected officials are not required to fulfil promises made before their election and are able to promote their own self-interests once elected, providing an incohesive system of governance **

I think we can see how some of our issues with our government, particularly as the population has become more educated, have arisen.

** Sørensen, Eva (2015). "Enhancing policy innovation by redesigning representative democracy".

It would be better to vote for someone with principles and humanity who was of a different party to one's usual political direction than for a loyal party member who never applied his/her own conscience to an ambiguous measure (or who had been shown not to possess such a hindrance to personal advancement)

I've been doing a FutureLearn course called "Peterloo to the Pankhursts: Radicalism and reform in the 19th century", which has thrown up some interesting questions about the nature of representation.