UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[IceAgeComing]

Don't get your hopes up people, the verdict is not really objective by any means.

He obviously had the right to prorogue it (not that I agree with it), so this is totally uncalled for, and just adds fuel to the smelly fire British Politics has become.

Plus, this doesn't change a single thing Brexit-wise, as the no-deal Law was already passed.

The Court of Session is very conservative (small-c) which is why no one really expected this decision.  The judges in question aren't exactly mavericks doing things that they believe over anything else: they'd have not made it to the Court of Session if they did.

To my admittedly rather limited understanding and from what I've read: its a decision that makes sense when you consider the unique differences with Scots law and English law - especially when it comes to constitutional law.  The main thing that we've seen here is that the High Court in London ruled that it wasn't for the courts to determine whether or not a prorogation was justified: the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that it was for them to decide and that it wasn't.  This is broadly in line with the general differences between Scots and English law - the big example is that Parliamentary Supremecy is absolute in England and isn't in Scotland; which is believed gives the courts more of a say into constitutional matters - the traditional example is that its believed that Parliament can't amend the Act of Union 1707 to eliminate Scots Law or to fiddle with the rights of the Church of Scotland or whatever since in Scots Law parliament isn't entirely supreme over key elements of the constitution.  None of this has been tested in the courts and I guess that this is the first time that we'll see what happens.

Both cases are being examined on Tuesday - key thing to remember though is that although they deal with the same matter because one was filed in England and the other in Scotland they can't just be rolled together: and since a key element of the constitution is that Scots and English law are equal the Cherry case will be considered using Scots law which means that the Court may well find standing in that case and not in the other one.  I'm not entirely sure what happens if its found to be lawful in English law and unlawful in Scots law and I don't think anyone does - my hunch would be that its a case of if its unlawful anywhere then its unlawful across the UK so prorogation would end but we'll see.

Its more the things that the court said about the decision as well: they basically accused the government of lying to the Palace to get the Queen to do something and that puts the Palace in an awkward spot for obvious reasons: and that's the sort of thing that ordinarily would be a resignation offense but not with this government that doesn't care about thinking things like ethics.

That's about as clear as I can make it - its a fluid, confusing issue with very little precedent.

[IceAgeComing]

Lol So asking the queen to progue parliament is unconstitutional but asking the queen to topple a PM isnt


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/johnson-s-foes-plot-a-humble-attempt-to-oust-him-as-premier

Even if its unusual for the Humble Address process to be used in this way: if the Prime Minister both loses the vote on the Queens Speech (traditionally a matter of confidence although not officially one under the Fixed Term Parliament Act since its a terribly flawed piece of legislation) and Parliament passes a Humble Address basically saying "we want xxx to be Prime Minister" then the impact of that would be to basically say that Parliament has confidence in someone else.

Besides Parliament explicitly has the power to remove a Prime Minister: I imagine that this is all coupled with a FTPA-compliant Confidence Vote; and if one of those passes plus a Humble Address saying "we would like Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister" or whoever they choose then the Prime Minister constitutionally has no choice but to go to the Palace to tender his resignation.  The executive serves at the will of Parliament and if Parliament elects to request that someone else takes control then that is the power that they have.

[IceAgeComing]

The "Farage should become a Commissioner" thing shows inherently the ignorance that a lot of people have with how the Commission is appointed and runs.

We can assume I think that the proposed new College will be approved in some point by the time an extension would be agreed: and in the short term Julian King would likely hang around for a while until the next UK Commissioner is appointed.  King was inherently given a position (Security Union) that is inherently one that's a little fake with the plan always being to meld that back into the 27 other portfolios on Brexit: an initial bit of sensible early planning to make the process easier for the Union.  So there isn't this hurry for the UK to appoint someone else: King seems perfectly content on the Commission; its a job he never expected to have for this long and he seems to enjoy it so I doubt that he'd resign to force a change.

The second thing is that the European Parliament has to approve a new Commissioner separately that's appointed outwith the official cycle.  And there's basically no chance that Farage in particular would get through this: the first stage is a check for financial conflicts of interests and financial issues has been an issue for Farage in Brussels for a long time so I think he'd fall there: if not then whatever minor powerful portfolio he'd be given (we'll get back to this) would dictate which of the Parliamentary committees would have to question and approve him and he's spent the best part of 20 years pissing off everyone in the European Parliament so good luck with that one.  If he manages to get through THAT then its a vote of the collective parliament and, well, I think we know how that ends.  The Commissioner candidate also has to be approved by the Commission President and von den Leyen isn't going to be rushing to have the guy in her Commission.  So basically from that stand point by itself the idea is a non-starter.

Even if we ignore the inherent problems there are with appointing him: people seem to think that the Commission is something that he could come in and intentionally  around with to force Brexit or something.  The Commission sort of runs like a mixture of a government and the senior civil service: decisions are sometimes collectively made (with the President leading things naturally) but each Commissioner has a portfolio that they are responsible for: not just for major policy issues but also some very boring things like Directorates-General structure and things like this.  These portfolio's are given out by the Commission President, much in the same way that a Prime Minister will dole out Cabinet positions.  Its in the power of the Commission President to refuse to give a portfolio to a Commissioner effectively making them not overly powerful within the Commission; especially if the other Commissioners basically agree to sideline them.  So Farage being a Commissioner would be an awkward nuisance but would hardly be something that the EU would be overly worried about.

Same thing with the proposed messing with the EU Budget: the old Budget would roll over and they'd probably just deal with it post-Brexit: not a massive worry but a little annoying.

[IceAgeComing]

https://www.ft.com/content/2d8aee46-e42f-11e9-9743-db5a370481bc

The last time a British prime minister was dismissed was in 1834, when William IV dismissed Lord Melbourne.

Looks like I was right when I said Queen firing Boris is different from a VONC taking him down.

Here’s a fundamental issue: Parliament cannot outright kick out a Prime Minister.  It can pass a Vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister and if in two weeks it hasn’t passed a Vote of Confidence the an election will happen.  The expectation is that in a case like this the incumbent Prime Minister would resign and the new one would come in in plenty of time.  The fundamental issue is that no one thinks the Prime Minister would resign even if Parliament has someone that would pass a confidence vote so it puts the Palace in a sticky position where it either has to remain idle and effectively demonstrate that the government can just force an election on a majority vote or assert itself to upload the principles of the FTPA but also enter the sphere of politics.  Basically the law is terrible and should have been drafted better.

[IceAgeComing]

the issue is that you can't just 'repeal the fixed term parliament act' without passing a replacement.  Prior to 2011 the power to dissolve governments or call elections was entirely a prerogative power entirely in the hands of the Crown; and the government therefore handled it.  Once you take an area of law and pass legislation on it parliament is overriding that prerogative power and saying that area is now one that Parliament has interest in: and once you do that constitutionally you can't go back to what happened before since constitutionally its no longer a matter for the Monarch.  What a straight repeal would do is actually make it impossible FOR parliament to dissolve itself since no one would have any powers to do it.

[IceAgeComing]

Bercow will see out this term: there's absolutely no point in this Parliament electing the next speaker when its being dissolved in five days.