Brexit Encore

[Jeremy Roussak]

I said the Queen has no power. To say she was overruled because the PM misled her is silly.  She knows what's going on.  The fact is however they call it, the Queen's decision was declared null and void.  A commoner Scottish judge overruled the monarch.  She has no power.

Alan, I vowed a few weeks ago not to engage with you in any discussion involving the UK. I broke that vow to try to explain to you what actually happens over here, but as before, you replace facts with your erroneous perceptions.

This time, I mean it. Pour forth your misapprehensions; I will not attempt to educate you.

Jeremy

[Chris Kern]

This time, I mean it. Pour forth your misapprehensions; I will not attempt to educate you.

I think posters who wish to opine on legal issues should confine themselves to misconstruing the laws of the countries where they reside.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... replace facts with your erroneous perceptions...

What exactly is erroneous here? Alan stated the Queen has no (political) power. What's erroneous with that statement?

[Alan Klein]

That's all I said.  The queen has no power Others may have arrived at that conclusion in a different manner.   I don't see what the argument is about. But pulling up anchor and sailing away because someone doesn't agree with you.  it's not the way to handleit.   We can have different opinions.

[faberryman]

We can have different opinions.

Some based on fact, others not.

[Alan Klein]

Whose facts? Whose Truth? 

If everyone agreed with these, there wouldn't be a debate. We wouldn't need this forum. 

[Alan Klein]

I think posters who wish to opine on legal issues should confine themselves to misconstruing the laws of the countries where they reside.

For years we've been hearing Europeans opining on American politics and law. Now that the shoe's on the other foot with brexit, suddenly you don't like the opining when it comes from our side.   You can dish it out but can't take it.   

[Chris Kern]

For years we've been hearing Europeans opining on American politics and law. Now that the shoe's on the other foot with brexit, suddenly you don't like the opining when it comes from our side.   You can dish it out but can't take it.

Al contrario, compadre.  I find the legal commentary that comes from our side (see attached) quite amusing.

[Jeremy Roussak]

What exactly is erroneous here? Alan stated the Queen has no (political) power. What's erroneous with that statement?

Nothing, Slobodan; that far, his post is a restatement of my own text and it's been common knowledge for a very long time.

In the 17th century, a poem was nailed to the bedchamber door of Charles II:

Here lies our sovereign lord the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.

Charles's response is said to have been "It is true. My words are my own; my actions are those of my ministers".

It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me. It makes no sense to write that a "Scottish commoner overruled the monarch"; the comment betrays a misunderstanding of process so fundamental that it makes no sense to argue with it. A re-reading of my post might help, I suppose, but I doubt it.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

Nothing, Slobodan; that far, his post is a restatement of my own text and it's been common knowledge for a very long time.

In the 17th century, a poem was nailed to the bedchamber door of Charles II:

Here lies our sovereign lord the king,
Whose word no man relies on;
He never says a foolish thing,
Nor ever does a wise one.

Charles's response is said to have been "It is true. My words are my own; my actions are those of my ministers".

It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me. It makes no sense to write that a

"; the comment betrays a misunderstanding of process so fundamental that it makes no sense to argue with it. A re-reading of my post might help, I suppose, but I doubt it.

Jeremy

Jeremy I said it for effect. The process is beside the point. . A king or queen is a Sovereign, like God, and everyone else is a Nobody by comparison. So even a Scottish judge is a nobody or should be. So here is a nobody telling the Sovereign that Her decision is meaningless. That's pretty powerful.

[Alan Klein]

You're little poem reminds me of this ditty attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[[email protected]]

Jeremy I said it for effect. The process is beside the point. . A king or queen is a Sovereign, like God, and everyone else is a Nobody by comparison. So even a Scottish judge is a nobody or should be. So here is a nobody telling the Sovereign that Her decision is meaningless. That's pretty powerful.

Alan, perhaps I can help you to make sense of this. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, which essentially means that all political powers have been transferred to parliament and government ministers. Your misunderstanding is where you refer to the decision to suspend Parliament as being “Her decision”. Of course, we don’t know what conversation took place between the Queen and the PMs ‘envoys’ but in theory no explanation or reasoning would be necessary, the Queen cannot refuse to accept the request. However for Constitutional reasons this process has to take place. It is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently.

I hope this helps!

Mike

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

..lIt is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently...

Mike, welcome and thanks for the explanation!

(You may want to change your forum name to something else - your real name, for instance - other than email, if for no other reason than to prevent hassle for yourself when bots discover it and start spamming you)

On the matter of legality, it seems to me, a complete layman and outsider, that the court’s decision is purely political, and nothing to do with legality, as at no point they cited what law was violated. Instead, they went after motivation and intention. As I wrote above, that approach leads to s slippery slope and will be almost certainly overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Rhossydd]

It's the remainder of Alan's comments which exasperate me.

Those of us that aren't moderators can simply put trolls on an ignore status and never have to engage. You have a bit more power should you wish....

[john beardsworth]

On the matter of legality, it seems to me, a complete layman and outsider, that the court’s decision is purely political, and nothing to do with legality, as at no point they cited what law was violated. Instead, they went after motivation and intention. As I wrote above, that approach leads to s slippery slope and will be almost certainly overturned by the Supreme Court.

That is ignorant nonsense. The judges read confidential government documents to make their decision.

Only an idiot would think that the suspension of Parliament was not intended to obstruct Parliament, or that the queen was not misled. Whatever side one takes on Brexit.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That is ignorant nonsense. The judges read confidential government documents to make their decision.

Only an idiot would think that the suspension of Parliament was not intended to obstruct Parliament, or that the queen was not misled. Whatever side one takes on Brexit.

We will see who is ignorant and idiot after the Supreme Court ruling. Let’s not forget that there already is another court’s decision that is completely opposite than the Scottish one.

It was clear from day one to everyone, including idiots, that the strategy was to shorten the time in which Parliament could obstruct PM’s Brexit strategy. But that’s just political maneuvering, as the first court had confirmed. Of course, there are activist, partisan judges who try to intervene in the political matters. Happens here in the States everyday. And every time they lose at the Supreme Court.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, perhaps I can help you to make sense of this. The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy, which essentially means that all political powers have been transferred to parliament and government ministers. Your misunderstanding is where you refer to the decision to suspend Parliament as being “Her decision”. Of course, we don’t know what conversation took place between the Queen and the PMs ‘envoys’ but in theory no explanation or reasoning would be necessary, the Queen cannot refuse to accept the request. However for Constitutional reasons this process has to take place. It is not for the Queen to examine the legality of the request, but the Judiciary, which is what is occurring presently.

I hope this helps!

Mike

You argue that the queen is just a figurehead, that she has to agree with whatever the PM says.  Then you argue that the Scottish judge overruled the whole thing because the queen was lied too by the government who is really in charge.  But everyone knows it doesn't matter what the PM said as she has to go along anyway with whatever the government wants to do.  So her agreement means nothing yet the court uses a meaningless decision on the queen's part as the reason to overrule the PM who has the authority in the first place.  This is Alice in Wonderland, tortured logic. You do understand why we Americans slap ourselves on the head with stuff like this.  And people think the US electoral system is screwy.

[Alan Klein]

Those of us that aren't moderators can simply put trolls on an ignore status and never have to engage. You have a bit more power should you wish....

Very classy.  Just want to shut the other side up.  What's the matter?  Couldn't come up with a cogent argument?

[Alan Klein]

We will see who is ignorant and idiot after the Supreme Court ruling. Let’s not forget that there already is another court’s decision that is completely opposite than the Scottish one.

It was clear from day one to everyone, including idiots, that the strategy was to shorten the time in which Parliament could obstruct PM’s Brexit strategy. But that’s just political maneuvering, as the first court had confirmed. Of course, there are activist, partisan judges who try to intervene in the political matters. Happens here in the States everyday. And every time they lose at the Supreme Court.

You mean the PM is making decisions for political reasons.  You think he has to run for election.  I'm shocked, simply shocked.   

[Manoli]

The government, had a legal power to prorogue parliament, but it was litigated and the argument was that the government were acting in bad faith and the real intention was to suppress the role of parliament.

A government, facing a legal challenge of bad faith, needed to put down a witness statement from a minister or a senior civil servant explaining how the decision was made.  That is what should have happened. For some reason, a witness statement was not put in in this Scottish case, and in the final  judgement that has turned out to be crucial.

In the absence of an account by the government of why they took this decision to prorogue parliament it became open to the Scottish judges to infer, in the absence of a positive plausible explanation, that there was a bad motive, that it was being done to stop parliamentary scrutiny.

Unanimously, all three Scottish judges said that the failure of ministers to offer a convincing reason for suspending parliament led them to rule that the motivation was to avoid scrutiny and push through Brexit on October 31 with or without a deal. The only explanation for this prorogation is thus ‘improper motive’. And if it's improper motive, then it's unlawful.

So why wasn't a witness statement submitted by the government? That's where things get more interesting.  The reason there wasn't a witness statement is because it seems that nobody would risk the legal peril of signing it. As it's a criminal offence to knowingly mislead a court, it would appear that something prevented somebody happily signing a witness statement explaining the true reason why prorogation was sought.

.

Lord Brodie [senior Scottish judge] said the government used its powers “for an improper purpose and in an unreasonable manner” by preventing parliament from holding it to account in the run-up to leaving the EU.

He accused Mr Johnson of failing “to give a proper and complete account of the executive’s true reasons for exercising the prerogative to prorogue parliament”. He said the refusal meant “that the court should draw inferences of fact against the respondent”.

Lord Brodie added: “I would infer . . . that the principal reason for the advice to the Queen to make the order for the prorogation of parliament was to prevent or impede parliament holding the executive politically to account in the run-up to exit day; to prevent or impede parliament from legislating on the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union; and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of no-deal Brexit without further parliamentary interference.”