Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

6. If Parliament is resumed it could act to ensure that prorogation with the intent to 'stymie' Parliament becomes illegal.

It was so good to see experts putting the case that I am happy to wait for the 'expert' conclusion. It makes such a nice change from the very flawed and untutored court of public opinion.

So there are degrees of proragation? Attempting to alter the result of a GE is ok! Attempting to deliver the result of a referendum is not! Lets hope the court makes this crystal clear for any future reference!

Prorogation was never intended to be used to silence the senior sovereign representative.

It has traditionally only occurred for a few days before the next Parliamentary session.

A full stop if you like. Not a massive use of Tipp-ex to wipe out the voters voice.

John Major was not trying to effect a major constitutional change which, by the government's own analysis, will cause serious damage to the country, without the scrutiny of Parliament. There was a tremendous stink about it at the time as I recall.

It's very worrying that people are willing to tolerate behaviour which could overthrow our constitution by giving unlimited power to the Executive.

It's not the job of the court to decide on any delivery of Brexit. The case is about the legality of prorogation.

"So there are degrees of proragation?"

Not actually sure what you are asking here Jabberwok. Did you watch the court proceedings as they seemed to answer many suppositions?

One was the clarity they gave to the fact that the court was not there to make any decisions about when and how the United Kingdom would leave the European Union but simply to decide a) if the proroguing of parliament was a matter of law, and b) if it is then was this particular prorogation legal or illegal and on what grounds in either case.

I hope that helps.

It's very worrying that people are willing to tolerate behaviour which could overthrow our constitution by giving unlimited power to the Executive.

I think that was what I was trying to put over yesterday "Maizie". I knew that we are a representative parliamentary democracy and I knew that it was parliament overall that mattered.

I had never thought of it as senior/junior as there has never been a time, in my lifetime at least, when the "junior" executive attempted to usurp the power of parliament. I presume because we have only recently had the fixed-term parliaments act and a government could have thrown in the towel a lot easier in the past?

I think perhaps it was the difference between knowledge and understanding, brought home by what they said in the court.

I think a few people have tried to get that message across on this thread.

The 'government', which comprises the 'ministers of the Crown' rules on behalf of the monarch. If Parliament, the whole body of MPs and, to a lesser extent, the Lords, doesn't like what the 'government' is doing they can oppose and defeat it through the voting process and it is Parliament's will that is paramount.

Obviously, if the party supplying the government's ministers has an over all majority it is unlikely that their bills will be voted down. But if the majority is tiny, or non existent then defeat is more likely. This is as it should be as in those circumstances our representatives, the MPs will be reflecting to a great extent the wishes of the wider electorate.

This is a very simplistic overview because things like the whipping system also come into play and the precept that MPs have to consider the good of the whole country, not just those who elected them. But it does for a start.

But the essential point is that it is Parliament that has been sovereign ever since the the English civil war*, not the ministers of the Crown (the government, or, Executive)

(*and even that is a bit simplistic, I'm afraid)

This all brings back to me my study of politics - the theory of checks and balances in government. On which ours is based (in theory).
There are 3 parts - the legislative (Parliament) the executive (the PM and cabinet) and the judicial (the courts.)
Hopefully the Supreme court can find a balance among these 3. Since the first and second are currently at deadlock.

ps plus the authority of the Queen, mentioned above by Maizie.

pps But in which case, if they're all equal, why should the courts have the power to over-rule the other 2?
I think I'm losing my reasoning ability.

I'm with you chucky. The Liberal 'Democrats' have shot themselves in the foot. Will not win them enough votes to make a difference, infact they're more likely to lose some from their own party.

Fennel I think the structure is that -

Parliament (the elected representatives of the population) make the laws, which everyone must obey, while the courts ensure that the laws are obeyed, interpret them in the light of rulings and precedents, and deal with anyone who doesn't obey them. Ultimately, the electorate are responsible for electing MPs and forming the body of Parliament.

The cabinet is a subsection of Parliament, chaired and led by the Prime Minister. As such, it is still part of the elected body, subordinate to the decisions of the whole of Parliament, and not superior to them, although the members of the cabinet each havespecial responsibility for administering the various branches of the executive - the treasury, foreign policy etc.

These cabinet members are Ministers of the Crown, and the Prime Minister is the First Minister of the crown. He or she has been asked by the sovereign to hold that position because they appear to lead the Parliamentary group which commands enough of a majority in Parliament to expect to win votes on new laws and policies.

So the cabinet is still a part of the whole of Parliament, and subject to the decisions made by the whole of Parliament, even if they would prefer not to be. Once laws have been made by Parliament, Parliament is subject to those laws, (as is the whole population), so the Prime Minister is as subordinate to law as anyone else in the country. It is a basic tenet that no-one is above the law.

So, as I see it, the hierarchy is Courts of law, then Parliament, then the subsection of Parliament which is Cabinet Government.

I hope you're right Elegran..
Thanks for elucidating.

Better explanation than mine, Elegran. Thanks

I'm not too sure that the courts of law are at the top of the hierarchy, though. Parliament makes the law, they interpret it. That seems like a step down...

But once the law is made, Parliament has to abide by it (unless they debate changing it - and the MPs have been elected to Parliament by the electorate, so (in theory anyway) their votes will be broadly as the electorate would want them. If there is a difference of opinion over what is lawful and what is not, for Parliament as a whole and individyually, and for Cabinet members as a whole or individually, the judgment is the responsibility of the courts.

The courts are currently been considering what is legal/illegal for the Prime Minister to do. Cabinet business is the remit of the cabinet, but if the PM blocks Parliament in their responsibility to discuss, debate and pass laws relating to the proper conduct of that business, they are veering into illegality, which is the remit of the courts.

It is equality, but each has influence over the other in some way to curb any excess grasping for power..

"... their votes will be broadly as the electorate would want them".

I'm not at all sure I would agree with that Elegran. If you stood for parliament saying you would sort out the Care system I might vote for you but without having said so in your manifesto you could vote to bring back hanging and prop up the use of handbag economics.

In other words, you could be buying my vote with that promise while actually being extremely conservative both socially and economically, so unlikely to vote according to my views, which are neither of those, even though you are my representative.

You, as the MP, would be in the right. I, as the "electorate", should have remembered/known that while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the votes of MPs are governed by their determination of what is in the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

I think the meaning of "representation" is a huge issue and one few seem to understand. Probably not a topic for this thread but it would be a really good one to have Citizen's Assemblies on.

I did add the caveat "in theory". For the theory to be reality the MPs elected need to have exactly the same outlook on everything as those who voted for them. Then their reactions on any subject could be predicted. The voter just has to trust that the MP is going to vote as he hopes. As they are human beings with a variety of opinions of their own, this doesn't always happen.

The party label gives an indication of how the MP is likely to react, but it can also act as a straitjacket on the MPs own conscience. Party allegiance and Independence both have advantages and both have drawbacks.

Also the first-past-the-post system means that there are inevitably views which are not represented anywhere.

"their constituency, their party and the country as a whole" I think you have that rather the wrong way round. Should it not be "the country as a whole, their constituency, and their party" ?

My worry was the in theory Elegran. Hence my not at all sure I would agree..

I could see you might mean representation rather than delegation but I was balancing that against the large number who would choose to read it much more as a delegation and there MP being expected to do what they want. It would suit their unconscious bias.

Just think of a manifesto with no promises but a list of how the MP had voted in the past. You would have a much clearer view of whether you want to vote for them in a GE. I know it's not going to happen but it would make clear what representation does and doesn't mean.

Your para Sat 21-Sep-19 12:29:23 means you put a value on where something comes in the list. I didn't; no first, second, third, simply because it will be different for different MPs and at different times. Another thing we could learn more about in a Citizen's Assembly .

I agree that the more you know about candidates, the more likely you are to choose one who chimes with your own views, though you still can't predict every single move on his/her part. Someone who lives locally and is a known face around the place could be a better bet than one "shipped in" because his/her party would like to get them elected.

Yes, I put a higher value on service to the country as a whole than to constituency or party.

I was not aiming to focus on knowing more about your candidate but on the fact that they are there to represent you in the way they think best.

So many believe MPs are not doing their job if they do not do as they were told by a majority. This is not the position of an MP in our democracy. So, understanding what they might decide on the basis of what they believe is really important under our system.

You say ... I put a higher value on service to the country as a whole than to constituency or party. In our democracy MPs are constituency MPs. Whatever you or I may want, that is the system. There may indeed be times when they feel, based on their belief and principles, that those constituents must come ahead of what others believe to be the good of the country. This is not an opinion, it is the way representative, constituency democracy works.

This is why I suggest we need Citizen's Assemblies. It is not a question about your opinion or mine but about understanding the system we have all agreed which has grown up over centuries. It would be reasonable to work towards changing the system, openly and with explanation, but not to expect the system to be different just because you or I think it should be.

Everyone talks about an "unwritten" constitution, but in truth, the majority of it is written and accepted in law. It would require that to change, and for new laws to exist, if we are going to insist that an MP does not follow what they feel is in the best interest at the time but follow what any single person or a majority want. That would be a different form of democracy and to change to it we would all need to understand and agree.

The fact that nobody's 100% sure about the role of an MP is a strength and a weakness of our system. I don't agree that MPs should necessarily act according to the will of the majority of their constituents, if they genuinely feel something is bad for the country. Populism can be a dangerous path to follow.

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.

The problems with MPs (or government) acting in a deeply unpopular way is why it's important that people do have the right to present petitions or demonstrate, etc.

I'm not sure that it's actually written anywhere that MPs must act in accordance with the majority view of their constituents. If you know otherwise, I'd be interested in knowing.