Judges In The Dock

Doesn’t the legal profession look decidedly dodgy? A Scottish High Court decides one thing, an English High Court decides the opposite, and the Supreme Court has to jump one way or the other. Having had their verdict so completely reversed, shouldn’t these foolish English High Court judges be called upon to resign? After all, the next level up found them to be completely wrong!

Though for the record, we think that the English decision was the correct one; proroguing Parliament is a political decision, and not a suitable arena for a court to intervene.

Also, more clarity is required from Lady Hale. Click here for the summary judgement. All of the press has quoted her conclusion, that “The decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful.” So which law exactly did Boris break? He is said to have misled the Queen, but in what way? The process is totally ceremonial. When a Prime Minister asks for Parliament to be prorogued, the Queen doesn’t think a little, scratch her chin and say yes or no, depending on what advice she has heard. She is going to agree. Proroguing Parliament was always in the gift of the PM, and so it remains. To state that he can only choose a time with no political impact is worse than naïve.

Lady Hale has suggested that there is too much going on for Parliament to be stopped – but in reality, Parliament has already prevented No-Deal – and any putative Deal will only come back from the EU summit on 17 October, when Parliament would have already reconvened in time to reconsider it. So what exactly does Lady Hale think could have happened in the meantime, apart from the usual shouting and point-scoring?

To us, this judgement has;-

a) Highlighted that different judges make completely diametrically opposite decisions based on the same facts.

b) The senior judiciary seem to have entered the political fray, supporting the anti-Brexit, elite, establishment side of the argument.

Both of these facts diminish the judiciary.

Additionally, the judges seem to have decided that a PM can only prorogue Parliament when “things are quiet”, and for a less time than 6 days of sitting. There is no precedent for these views, and so the Judges, rather than applying the democratically determined law, seem desperate to make up their own version of what seems sensible. This highlights their unaccountability.

Like Parliament voting against every Brexit alternative, the Judges have not outlined what would have been acceptable practice, merely striking down what they see as unacceptable. How can this be? Since there is no accepted precedent on how long or under what circumstances proroguing can take place, the judges have effectively made up the law. This is unacceptable, and illustrates what a dangerous step the Supreme Court has taken. To avoid highlighting the fact that the judiciary now thinks it can make up the law, they have not clarified when or under what circumstances Parliament can be prorogued, and for how long. Would BoJo have been okay if he had made it for 4 weeks and 6 days rather than 5 weeks? Or if he had prorogued it for the whole summer when they were all on recess anyway? Brexit has been going on for three years now. When would it have been acceptable to have a new Parliament? If the Supreme Court had made these clarifications, it would have made them look as if they saw themselves above Parliament, but without such explanations, they look to be just making a political statement.

Going forward, a wise government will codify these precedents, and start to work on a written constitution, to include who can prorogue Parliament, for how long and under what circumstances. This would at least have the benefit of preventing judges making random interpretations of  what is or is not acceptable. At that time, all sorts of anomalies will need to be addressed, such as our unelected upper chamber and the West Lothian question.  What a can of worms! Woohoo! Politics is going to be fun for years to come!

Please follow and like us:

Brexit! Where is the Cummings Plan, Baldrick?

Parliament has been prorogued! And the important news for word-puzzle fans is that this ‘new’ verb is indeed in the Collins Scrabble Dictionary.

But one has to ask, why did they do it? (I mean Boris, not Collins) And why in such a half-hearted manner? Conference season is coming up, so despite the headline “FIVE WEEK SUSPENSION”, in reality the proroguesion (Nope, that one isn’t a Scrabble word. Anyone got a number for Collins?) only made a few days difference to the actual sitting of Parliament. More importantly, the timing was such that Parliament had time to push through the no-deal bill that was always in prospect, and so the closing of Parliament had no real impact at all.

Boris; buffoon or battler?

To us, this high-profile political act was all about Team Boris tweaking Parliament’s tail, and continuing the theme of showing Parliament being against the referendum result and Boris battling manfully to enable what the people chose: Boris and the people versus Parliament if you like.

The two attempts by Boris to provoke a general election should be seen in the same light. The opposition parties saw a trick in that should an election have been called, selection of the date is in Boris’ gift, and hence he could choose a date after Brexit. However, forcing a second vote on the same issue gives the game away. The vote was for public consumption, designed to show the lengths to which Boris will go to deliver Brexit – even risk losing power – and the determination of the other parties to stop it. The subtlety of it being a no-deal Brexit that was stopped will be air-brushed over. This will be shown as Labour being determined to ignore the result of the referendum – and being frightened to face the electorate.

The third piece of evidence, m’lud, is Boris’s stated promise never to request an extension to Article 50, despite the eeyores of this world threatening him with prison. How much of a martyr would that make him? I note with surprise that ex-cons are allowed to stand as MP’s, so even if he was imprisoned, it would not prevent his comeback as a hero.

So, dear reader, you have a choice to make. Do you think that the current administration is ricocheting wildly from one crisis to another? This would not be out of alignment with the public image Boris has cultivated over many years.

Dominc Cummings – master strategist?

Or is this all a careful scheme, planned as the best option to cope with an unfavourable parliament? Boris is setting himself up as the people’s champion, fighting to the death (figuratively rather then literally we hope) to enact the referendum, and being frustrated at every turn by the self-important knuckle-heads in Parliament. Then when the inevitable election comes, Boris emerges with a very strong message. Dominic Cummings is a master at this kind of game…… we see a very Cummings plan Baldrick!

Please follow and like us:

Brexit Election Double Bluff Could Avoid No-Deal

Cripes, doesn’t Boris love poking the hornets’ nest with a sharp stick?

Boris – back on the front foot

The reality of his decision to close this Parliamentary session and arrange a Queen’s Speech to initiate a new Parliament is relatively small. Instead of Parliament having a recess for three and a half weeks over the party conference season, the break is five weeks. However, it has acted as a lightning rod for all of the pent up frustration and anger of the Remainers. Suddenly, they can see their case is lost. It was lost before, but now they can no longer pretend to themselves that they still have a chance.

Guy Verhofstadt, with name label to prove it

The greatest endorsement came from Guy Verhofstadt, Chief EU Brexit Negotiator, who branded it a ‘sinister development’. Clearly, many in Brussels have been relying on the Remainers to weaken the UK position. The strength of Boris’s move is reflected in their dislike of it.

The Nuclear Option

So now the Remainers have only one option left – win a vote of No Confidence next week and force an election before the end of October. This would be welcomed by the Boris team, as discussed yesterday, who have developed a suite of policies on which to campaign, and have clearly judged that such a poll would be winnable.

Our view is that;-

  1. The Remainers will not be able to win a vote of No Confidence

  2. It is far from clear that Mr Corbyn will even dare to call one (see 1. above)

  3. The EU will have to sit up and realise that the Remainers will not postpone Brexit

  4. The EU needs to avoid blame for No-Deal, and so see a deal as necessary.

 

Suddenly, to us, a No-Deal Brexit seems less likely than it did 24 hours ago.

Please follow and like us: