I'm just happy that in proroguing Parliament, then losing votes, then withdrawing the whip to destroy his majority, prorogation may work against his interests. After all, the order of business is with Mr Speaker who takes his lead from Parliament, not the government, so there's a better chance that the pesky MPs who want a deal Bill debated may get their wish.
I know it's legal, and understand why Johnson has extended it. What I don't understand is why it happens at all. Are there any other organisations that shut down because the Boss is preparing to make a big speech?
I think it partly marks a pause between parliaments, since the one just ending has lasted two years. But it's also Tradition.
I know it's legal, and understand why Johnson has extended it. What I don't understand is why it happens at all. Are there any other organisations that shut down because the Boss is preparing to make a big speech?
This is not correct; we don't know if it's legal or not, the cases are still on-going.
It is an anachronism really, but then so much of our constitution is...
FWIW, the following is my understanding of the legal argument:
As in all such matters, the power to prorogue Parliament is reserved to the Monarch. Only the Queen can issue the order. The one constitutional convention that everyone seems to agree upon is that the Queen must follow the advice given to her by her Privy Councillors. The Privy Council is another weird anachronism but all cabinet and former cabinet members are on it as are certain other offices of state; the Leader of the Opposition, for example. There is a quorum requirement which I think is 3 but I'm not sure.... Anyway, once so advised by her Prime Minister, the Queen will give the order. No Ifs, No buts. As a general rule the Courts want nothing to do with Parliamentary procedures or prerogative powers because Parliament is sovereign. But there is one avenue of challenge to the prorogation; only the Queen can order it. Only the Queen can (effectively) rescind that order (on the advice of he Privy Counsellors....).
In this case, the Queen was acting on the advice of the Executive (The Prime Minister and two other current Cabinet members). The Courts regularly slap down the Executive when they over-step their boundaries. This is the way-in; the cases before the English Courts and the Scottish one argue that the Queen was given 'faithless advice' - i.e. Boris lied about his intentions and reasons. Thus, in theory, the courts could find this and order the executive (or others) to give different advice to the Monarch. The cases are with the Appeal Courts and will surely go to the Supreme Court.
As a point of fact, it is quite clear that Mr Johnson lied to the Queen (although that might not be provable). Whether the Courts will want to rule on that and will believe they have the Constitutional Power to do so (potentially injuring the sovereignty of Parliament) is another question. The people bringing these cases are very knowledgable and experienced Barristers. I don't think the Courts will rule against Mr Johnson because I think it's too big a leap, constitutionally but those bringing the case surely must believe it has some chance of success.
To just cover the basics here:
Prorogation is normal to bring a new Queen's Speech and start a new session of Parliament. A week would be about typical
By overlaying the Conference season when Parliament normally is in recess gives Mr J plausible deniability (i.e. 'i]Parliament is only losing a few days after all...[/i])
but: 1) During a recess, some Parliamentary business continues; such as Select Committees holding the executive to account such as the appearance booked for tomorrow for the Prime Minister that will now not take place 2) A Recess is voted on by Parliament and does not have to happen. Indeed all the indications were that Parliament would not recess for the conferences when there's so much to do!
Hence what the PM has done IS to shut down Parliament for 5 weeks because there probably wouldn't have been a recess at all. He knows this. His reasons are nothing to do with good policymaking but simply to avoid scrutiny for him and his government. Not that I can prove that.*
Thus, whilst probably legal (in the technical sense) it is clearly an abuse of prerogative power hence the various angry responses. We all have to wait to see how the Supreme Court views this.
A friend of mine was talking about Poundland fascism. Gulp. Help.
Could you unpack that a little, please?
(Though I might wish I hadn't asked...)
Poundland was the chain of shops selling everything for £1. So it's used to mean a cheap version of something, e.g., Poundland democracy. About fascism, it means an English shop-soiled variety. I don't think Boris is a fascist, but I wonder if we are en route.
Just when the anti-prorogation crowd had more-or-less convinced people of the rightness of their cause they had to go and wreck it by drowning out Black Rod, drowning out the Speaker, attempting to keep Bercow in his chair by force, and then scuffling with staff from the Sergeant at Arms office. Disgraceful.
Just when the anti-prorogation crowd had more-or-less convinced people of the rightness of their cause they had to go and wreck it by drowning out Black Rod, drowning out the Speaker, attempting to keep Bercow in his chair by force, and then scuffling with staff from the Sergeant at Arms office. Disgraceful.
As Lucas and others explained, the attempt to prevent Bercow leaving his seat (what "force" was used?) was a symbolic echo of what happened when there was last an attempt to abuse the Royal prerogative and rule without parliament. That some people are either too stupid to realise that or deliberately misrepresenting it says a great deal.
Ah-ha! He could find a use for those aborted 'Garden Bridge' plans of his...
And he could build a Big, Beautiful Wall along the Irish border - or perhaps dig a wide channel, instead, so as to turn the province into Northern Island...
I have heard rumours (one of my RL friends seems to be remarkably well connected) that if the full Yellowhammer report is released, Brexit is finished.
I have heard rumours (one of my RL friends seems to be remarkably well connected) that if the full Yellowhammer report is released, Brexit is finished.
Which would be nice.
How would the full report be released? Who makes the decision?
Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government's public internet service into a platform for "targeted and personalised information" to be gathered in the run-up to Brexit, BuzzFeed News has learned.
In a move that has alarmed Whitehall officials, the prime minister has instructed departments to share data they collect about usage of the GOV.UK portal so that it can feed into preparations for leaving the European Union at the end of next month.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser, emailed senior officials instructing them to make sure that ministers, department heads and political aides know that the instruction is “TOP PRIORITY”, according to leaked government documents.
So government websites will track everyone who uses them not just on a department by department basis but combine the data into one vast panopticon and the reason for this has to be done now Now NOW! is "something something Brexit". Am I the only one wondering what an organization like Cambridge Analytica could do with a dataset that comprehensive and integrated and whether this has anything to do with the election Mr. Johnson wants to have in the near future?
C4 news is now reporting BJ is thinking he can build a bridge from NI to the mainland - FFS
Across the deepest water around the British Isles, and where we dumped hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions after WW2, including 14000 tons of rockets laden with phosgene gas...
I spy a photo opportunity - a decaying case with a dangerous cargo handling WW2 munitions.
1. It's not that there's a suspicion that the prorogation is to stop MPs debating, criticising and obstructing. It's that everyone assumes that's the case. Those who support Mr de Pfeffel Johnson think it's a really clever ruse, and the rest think he's both crooked and frit.
2. The point about the power to prorogue Parliament being reserved to the Monarch is confusing form and substance. The fact that she can't do this off her own bat, and is obliged to do so if PM asks for it, means that this is not really a power of the Crown. The real issue is whether, and to what extent, the PM and Cabinet have any powers independently of Parliament. Although it is often claimed that such powers do exist as part of the royal prerogative, unless the Crown can personally exercise them, that isn't really true. Form and substance have parted company.
3. Despite what is sometimes maintained, the UK constitution really doesn't have a doctrine of separation of powers in the US sense.
4. The courts are separate and have become more so in recent years, but that is more to do with the rule of law and the principle that no one may be judge in their own cause.
5. The Legislature and the Executive are not separate. The PM + cabinet don't have an independent source of legitimacy. They could only have that by being directly elected. They get their authority from their ability to manage Parliament. They are members of it and answerable to it. That's evidenced by the regular Prime Minister's Question Time. There's no President's Question Time in either house of Congress.
6. It is the claim to be able to manage Parliament which gives a new PM the right to go to the Queen and ask to be appointed PM. Mr de Pfeffel Johnson makes that claim because the Conservative Party has chosen him as its leader. So its MPs are supposed to accept that verdict. As they aren't doing at the moment, that means he hasn't really got the authority to be PM. Form and substance have parted company. He's trying to get round that by silencing the substance and hoping therefore that it will be nullified - i.e. that substance will become what he'd like it to be.
7. On the cases that have been heard so far, the BBC et al who have reported this as that whatever happened between Mr de Pfeffel Johnson and the Queen was "lawful" is a serious misrepresentation. I haven't seen the English judgement yet, but the Scottish one at first instance did not say that his action was "lawful". It said that it was "not justiciable" - i.e. outside the scope of what the courts could deal with. That may sound the same to the government's friends, but to a lawyer, it's something quite different.
8. @Arethosemyfeet is correct to point out to @TheOrganist that seeking to hold the Speaker in his chair was not just rowdyism but was deliberately endeavouring to make an important point with very significant echoes from the seventeenth century.
9. There are a lot of parallels with the seventeenth century. There are ways in which Mr de Pfeffel Johnson is behaving like Charles I. And like Charles I, there are significant elements in the population who support him, and oppose Parliament's obstructing him.
10. There is, though, one big difference. In the C17, both King and Parliament could make a reasonable claim to an independent authority and legitimacy. As the PM's entitlement to govern now comes from his or her ability to manage Parliament, this is no longer the case. A PM who cannot manage Parliament, or who tries to avoid having to reveal this, has no real authority or legitimacy at all. There is nowhere else for him or her to get it from. It's form and substance again.
I don't know why but I was looking through Have Your Say on the BBC website just now and someone posted "Don't you think Boris looks tired?" which is a Dr Who reference and made me smile.
I remember the Speaker being held down, at the time of Charles I. However, I think that Speaker was trying to close Parliament at the kings command. So they held him down and passed various motions against the king. Also against Catholicism. But Charles did dissolve parliament, but presumably ran out of cash.
10. There is, though, one big difference. In the C17, both King and Parliament could make a reasonable claim to an independent authority and legitimacy. As the PM's entitlement to govern now comes from his or her ability to manage Parliament, this is no longer the case. A PM who cannot manage Parliament, or who tries to avoid having to reveal this, has no real authority or legitimacy at all. There is nowhere else for him or her to get it from. It's form and substance again.
I think that plays on your point 5. The PM and Cabinet are behaving as though they're an Executive with independent authority from Parliament, even though in reality they aren't.
I sometimes wonder about the number of times Mr Trump has said he'd advised Mrs May on how to handle Brexit and she didn't listen, and whether he's given that same advice the de Pfeffel. Would that advise be predicated on the assumption that the PM has authority of similar form to a president? I have no difficulty in believing Trump has no understanding of how a Parliamentary form of government works, he doesn't show much evidence of understanding how the US government works.
Just when the anti-prorogation crowd had more-or-less convinced people of the rightness of their cause they had to go and wreck it by drowning out Black Rod, drowning out the Speaker, attempting to keep Bercow in his chair by force, and then scuffling with staff from the Sergeant at Arms office. Disgraceful.
As Lucas and others explained, the attempt to prevent Bercow leaving his seat (what "force" was used?) was a symbolic echo of what happened when there was last an attempt to abuse the Royal prerogative and rule without parliament. That some people are either too stupid to realise that or deliberately misrepresenting it says a great deal.
I don't think the SaA would have called staff into the Chamber without cause, nor do I think The Daily Mirror would have described the melée as "scuffles" unless it felt it the right word - the DM is hardly a pro-BJ, right-wing puppet.
Just when the anti-prorogation crowd had more-or-less convinced people of the rightness of their cause they had to go and wreck it by drowning out Black Rod, drowning out the Speaker, attempting to keep Bercow in his chair by force, and then scuffling with staff from the Sergeant at Arms office. Disgraceful.
As Lucas and others explained, the attempt to prevent Bercow leaving his seat (what "force" was used?) was a symbolic echo of what happened when there was last an attempt to abuse the Royal prerogative and rule without parliament. That some people are either too stupid to realise that or deliberately misrepresenting it says a great deal.
I don't think the SaA would have called staff into the Chamber without cause, nor do I think The Daily Mirror would have described the melée as "scuffles" unless it felt it the right word - the DM is hardly a pro-BJ, right-wing puppet.
I know it's legal, and understand why Johnson has extended it. What I don't understand is why it happens at all. Are there any other organisations that shut down because the Boss is preparing to make a big speech?
This is not correct; we don't know if it's legal or not, the cases are still on-going.
As I said before, I expected the court to rule that they did not have jurisdiction here. So I am surprised and pleased.
However, as one of the litigants argued, this is a vital case as without such a role in there is nothing to stop any Prime Minister from shutting down Parliament for any reason.
Boris Johnson has secretly ordered the Cabinet Office to turn the government's public internet service into a platform for "targeted and personalised information" to be gathered in the run-up to Brexit, BuzzFeed News has learned.
In a move that has alarmed Whitehall officials, the prime minister has instructed departments to share data they collect about usage of the GOV.UK portal so that it can feed into preparations for leaving the European Union at the end of next month.
Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s chief adviser, emailed senior officials instructing them to make sure that ministers, department heads and political aides know that the instruction is “TOP PRIORITY”, according to leaked government documents.
So government websites will track everyone who uses them not just on a department by department basis but combine the data into one vast panopticon and the reason for this has to be done now Now NOW! is "something something Brexit". Am I the only one wondering what an organization like Cambridge Analytica could do with a dataset that comprehensive and integrated and whether this has anything to do with the election Mr. Johnson wants to have in the near future?
I'm pretty sure this constitutes using data for purposes other than for those it was obtained. Of course exceptions can be made, and the European Directive on PII/GDPR acknowledges this, for criminal and security investigations but I thing HMG is spreading its net desperately widely, and probably on the wrong side of the Ship of State. I expect the law lords will have something to say about it.
extra: I'm sure Yellowhammer will tweet. Dr Nicholls is not alone, and the ghost of David Kelly stalks the memory of those who want to kep the lid on things.
Report in the Times that one option being considered for the bridge to Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the Beaufort Trench where the mustard gas was dumpted, is to havethe Scottish end on the Mull of Kintyre. A glance at a map of Scotland leads one to conclude that this is as much of a practical proposition as our Dear Leader's other grands projets.
10. There is, though, one big difference. In the C17, both King and Parliament could make a reasonable claim to an independent authority and legitimacy. As the PM's entitlement to govern now comes from his or her ability to manage Parliament, this is no longer the case. A PM who cannot manage Parliament, or who tries to avoid having to reveal this, has no real authority or legitimacy at all. There is nowhere else for him or her to get it from. It's form and substance again.
I think that plays on your point 5. The PM and Cabinet are behaving as though they're an Executive with independent authority from Parliament, even though in reality they aren't.
Exactly!
I sometimes wonder about the number of times Mr Trump has said he'd advised Mrs May on how to handle Brexit and she didn't listen, and whether he's given that same advice the de Pfeffel. Would that advise be predicated on the assumption that the PM has authority of similar form to a president? I have no difficulty in believing Trump has no understanding of how a Parliamentary form of government works, he doesn't show much evidence of understanding how the US government works.
Well said. I'd not thought of that dimension. I think you may be onto something.
Report in the Times that one option being considered for the bridge to Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the Beaufort Trench where the mustard gas was dumpted, is to havethe Scottish end on the Mull of Kintyre. A glance at a map of Scotland leads one to conclude that this is as much of a practical proposition as our Dear Leader's other grands projets.
The only possible benefit of a bridge to Kintyre is that Campbelltown might no longer be 5 hours drive from the nearest city. A real treat for those with a penchant for schadenfreude is to be sitting near the gates at Glasgow airport used by Loganair on a foggy day and watching the faces of folk scheduled to fly to Campbelltown when they're told that their flight has been cancelled but it's ok because Loganair have laid on a bus to get them there. A couple of hours over the bridge to Belfast is going to seem infinitely preferable.
Seriously though, the only way a bridge is worthwhile is if you turn the roads to Stranraer from both Glasgow (for Scotland) and Carlisle (for England) into motorways and even if they spend the money for the bridge no-one is going to shell out for 200 miles of new motorway.
Report in the Times that one option being considered for the bridge to Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the Beaufort Trench where the mustard gas was dumpted, is to havethe Scottish end on the Mull of Kintyre. A glance at a map of Scotland leads one to conclude that this is as much of a practical proposition as our Dear Leader's other grands projets.
The only possible benefit of a bridge to Kintyre is that Campbelltown might no longer be 5 hours drive from the nearest city. A real treat for those with a penchant for schadenfreude is to be sitting near the gates at Glasgow airport used by Loganair on a foggy day and watching the faces of folk scheduled to fly to Campbelltown when they're told that their flight has been cancelled but it's ok because Loganair have laid on a bus to get them there. A couple of hours over the bridge to Belfast is going to seem infinitely preferable.
Seriously though, the only way a bridge is worthwhile is if you turn the roads to Stranraer from both Glasgow (for Scotland) and Carlisle (for England) into motorways and even if they spend the money for the bridge no-one is going to shell out for 200 miles of new motorway.
A high speed rail link to the north might solve that. Has anyone thought of it?
Report in the Times that one option being considered for the bridge to Northern Ireland, presumably to avoid the Beaufort Trench where the mustard gas was dumpted, is to havethe Scottish end on the Mull of Kintyre. A glance at a map of Scotland leads one to conclude that this is as much of a practical proposition as our Dear Leader's other grands projets.
The only possible benefit of a bridge to Kintyre is that Campbelltown might no longer be 5 hours drive from the nearest city. A real treat for those with a penchant for schadenfreude is to be sitting near the gates at Glasgow airport used by Loganair on a foggy day and watching the faces of folk scheduled to fly to Campbelltown when they're told that their flight has been cancelled but it's ok because Loganair have laid on a bus to get them there. A couple of hours over the bridge to Belfast is going to seem infinitely preferable.
Seriously though, the only way a bridge is worthwhile is if you turn the roads to Stranraer from both Glasgow (for Scotland) and Carlisle (for England) into motorways and even if they spend the money for the bridge no-one is going to shell out for 200 miles of new motorway.
A high speed rail link to the north might solve that. Has anyone thought of it?
A high speed rail link with a huge dog-leg into Dumfries and Galloway? I think it's unlikely.
But the Government have said that the country needs some grand infrastructure projects to show the world how clever our engineers and architects are.
But, I hear you cry, what about the cancellation of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project and the putative cancellation of HS2? To which I answer, move on, nothing to see here...
Unfortunately the railways in Ireland are laid to a different track gauge from those in Great Britain.
Yes, and that was decided by an Englishman (a long time ago, admittedly).
So...
Re-open the line from Dumfries to Stranraer, making it double-track, and linking with the new HS10 project from the south.
Build the bridge, with both road, and rail tracks.
Install apparatus to convert rail vehicles from Our Gauge to Their Gauge (the French, Spanish, Russians etc. will show us how).
Simples! And name the new trains 'Borismasters', in honour of our great Lord Protector.
Or, even better, do what Hitler did, and plan an entirely new Very Broad Gauge railway system to link the important cities of the ReichEmpire. Here's what it might have looked like (IIRC the proposed gauge was 3 metres - about 10 feet): https://youtube.com/watch?v=cbPlcn9yg3A
Meanwhile, why (having lied to the Queen) is Piffleglum not being hauled off in chains, to the Tower? Or being shown the secluded side room, containing whisky, and a loaded revolver?
Especially if the railway is built to the 10-foot gauge - bags of room for lorries, coaches, etc., all being charged High Rates for passage, UK Treasury for the filling of!
I doubt the DUP can be fooled into believing that regulatory or legal differences between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland don’t exist, just because you intend to connect the two land masses in (guesses wildly at implementation) 30 years time.
Also, on the logic, wouldn’t Brexit be impossible because we’re connected to Europe via the channel tunnel ?
It’s a ridiculous distraction of an undeliverable vanity project.
(Also, massive infrastructure on coastlines - what could possibly go wrong ? *cough* climate change *cough* sea level ...)
Comments
I think it partly marks a pause between parliaments, since the one just ending has lasted two years. But it's also Tradition.
This is not correct; we don't know if it's legal or not, the cases are still on-going.
It is an anachronism really, but then so much of our constitution is...
FWIW, the following is my understanding of the legal argument:
As in all such matters, the power to prorogue Parliament is reserved to the Monarch. Only the Queen can issue the order. The one constitutional convention that everyone seems to agree upon is that the Queen must follow the advice given to her by her Privy Councillors. The Privy Council is another weird anachronism but all cabinet and former cabinet members are on it as are certain other offices of state; the Leader of the Opposition, for example. There is a quorum requirement which I think is 3 but I'm not sure.... Anyway, once so advised by her Prime Minister, the Queen will give the order. No Ifs, No buts. As a general rule the Courts want nothing to do with Parliamentary procedures or prerogative powers because Parliament is sovereign. But there is one avenue of challenge to the prorogation; only the Queen can order it. Only the Queen can (effectively) rescind that order (on the advice of he Privy Counsellors....).
In this case, the Queen was acting on the advice of the Executive (The Prime Minister and two other current Cabinet members). The Courts regularly slap down the Executive when they over-step their boundaries. This is the way-in; the cases before the English Courts and the Scottish one argue that the Queen was given 'faithless advice' - i.e. Boris lied about his intentions and reasons. Thus, in theory, the courts could find this and order the executive (or others) to give different advice to the Monarch. The cases are with the Appeal Courts and will surely go to the Supreme Court.
As a point of fact, it is quite clear that Mr Johnson lied to the Queen (although that might not be provable). Whether the Courts will want to rule on that and will believe they have the Constitutional Power to do so (potentially injuring the sovereignty of Parliament) is another question. The people bringing these cases are very knowledgable and experienced Barristers. I don't think the Courts will rule against Mr Johnson because I think it's too big a leap, constitutionally but those bringing the case surely must believe it has some chance of success.
To just cover the basics here:
Prorogation is normal to bring a new Queen's Speech and start a new session of Parliament. A week would be about typical
By overlaying the Conference season when Parliament normally is in recess gives Mr J plausible deniability (i.e. 'i]Parliament is only losing a few days after all...[/i])
but: 1) During a recess, some Parliamentary business continues; such as Select Committees holding the executive to account such as the appearance booked for tomorrow for the Prime Minister that will now not take place 2) A Recess is voted on by Parliament and does not have to happen. Indeed all the indications were that Parliament would not recess for the conferences when there's so much to do!
Hence what the PM has done IS to shut down Parliament for 5 weeks because there probably wouldn't have been a recess at all. He knows this. His reasons are nothing to do with good policymaking but simply to avoid scrutiny for him and his government. Not that I can prove that.*
Thus, whilst probably legal (in the technical sense) it is clearly an abuse of prerogative power hence the various angry responses. We all have to wait to see how the Supreme Court views this.
AFZ
*But Dominic Greive might be able to!
Could you unpack that a little, please?
(Though I might wish I hadn't asked...)
Poundland was the chain of shops selling everything for £1. So it's used to mean a cheap version of something, e.g., Poundland democracy. About fascism, it means an English shop-soiled variety. I don't think Boris is a fascist, but I wonder if we are en route.
I still wonder if Parliament will, after all, be recalled...
You may be right...
(x-post to BF)
As Lucas and others explained, the attempt to prevent Bercow leaving his seat (what "force" was used?) was a symbolic echo of what happened when there was last an attempt to abuse the Royal prerogative and rule without parliament. That some people are either too stupid to realise that or deliberately misrepresenting it says a great deal.
And he could build a Big, Beautiful Wall along the Irish border - or perhaps dig a wide channel, instead, so as to turn the province into Northern Island...
Which would be nice.
How would the full report be released? Who makes the decision?
Coincidentally I ran across this today:
So government websites will track everyone who uses them not just on a department by department basis but combine the data into one vast panopticon and the reason for this has to be done now Now NOW! is "something something Brexit". Am I the only one wondering what an organization like Cambridge Analytica could do with a dataset that comprehensive and integrated and whether this has anything to do with the election Mr. Johnson wants to have in the near future?
Across the deepest water around the British Isles, and where we dumped hundreds of thousands of tons of munitions after WW2, including 14000 tons of rockets laden with phosgene gas...
I spy a photo opportunity - a decaying case with a dangerous cargo handling WW2 munitions.
AG
1. It's not that there's a suspicion that the prorogation is to stop MPs debating, criticising and obstructing. It's that everyone assumes that's the case. Those who support Mr de Pfeffel Johnson think it's a really clever ruse, and the rest think he's both crooked and frit.
2. The point about the power to prorogue Parliament being reserved to the Monarch is confusing form and substance. The fact that she can't do this off her own bat, and is obliged to do so if PM asks for it, means that this is not really a power of the Crown. The real issue is whether, and to what extent, the PM and Cabinet have any powers independently of Parliament. Although it is often claimed that such powers do exist as part of the royal prerogative, unless the Crown can personally exercise them, that isn't really true. Form and substance have parted company.
3. Despite what is sometimes maintained, the UK constitution really doesn't have a doctrine of separation of powers in the US sense.
4. The courts are separate and have become more so in recent years, but that is more to do with the rule of law and the principle that no one may be judge in their own cause.
5. The Legislature and the Executive are not separate. The PM + cabinet don't have an independent source of legitimacy. They could only have that by being directly elected. They get their authority from their ability to manage Parliament. They are members of it and answerable to it. That's evidenced by the regular Prime Minister's Question Time. There's no President's Question Time in either house of Congress.
6. It is the claim to be able to manage Parliament which gives a new PM the right to go to the Queen and ask to be appointed PM. Mr de Pfeffel Johnson makes that claim because the Conservative Party has chosen him as its leader. So its MPs are supposed to accept that verdict. As they aren't doing at the moment, that means he hasn't really got the authority to be PM. Form and substance have parted company. He's trying to get round that by silencing the substance and hoping therefore that it will be nullified - i.e. that substance will become what he'd like it to be.
7. On the cases that have been heard so far, the BBC et al who have reported this as that whatever happened between Mr de Pfeffel Johnson and the Queen was "lawful" is a serious misrepresentation. I haven't seen the English judgement yet, but the Scottish one at first instance did not say that his action was "lawful". It said that it was "not justiciable" - i.e. outside the scope of what the courts could deal with. That may sound the same to the government's friends, but to a lawyer, it's something quite different.
8. @Arethosemyfeet is correct to point out to @TheOrganist that seeking to hold the Speaker in his chair was not just rowdyism but was deliberately endeavouring to make an important point with very significant echoes from the seventeenth century.
9. There are a lot of parallels with the seventeenth century. There are ways in which Mr de Pfeffel Johnson is behaving like Charles I. And like Charles I, there are significant elements in the population who support him, and oppose Parliament's obstructing him.
10. There is, though, one big difference. In the C17, both King and Parliament could make a reasonable claim to an independent authority and legitimacy. As the PM's entitlement to govern now comes from his or her ability to manage Parliament, this is no longer the case. A PM who cannot manage Parliament, or who tries to avoid having to reveal this, has no real authority or legitimacy at all. There is nowhere else for him or her to get it from. It's form and substance again.
I'll fetch my own coat.
Looks REALLY good on it though...
I sometimes wonder about the number of times Mr Trump has said he'd advised Mrs May on how to handle Brexit and she didn't listen, and whether he's given that same advice the de Pfeffel. Would that advise be predicated on the assumption that the PM has authority of similar form to a president? I have no difficulty in believing Trump has no understanding of how a Parliamentary form of government works, he doesn't show much evidence of understanding how the US government works.
I don't think the SaA would have called staff into the Chamber without cause, nor do I think The Daily Mirror would have described the melée as "scuffles" unless it felt it the right word - the DM is hardly a pro-BJ, right-wing puppet.
The Mirror may not be. You, on the other hand...
Ahem...
Ruled unlawful.
As I said before, I expected the court to rule that they did not have jurisdiction here. So I am surprised and pleased.
However, as one of the litigants argued, this is a vital case as without such a role in there is nothing to stop any Prime Minister from shutting down Parliament for any reason.
Supreme Court here we come!
AFZ
I'm pretty sure this constitutes using data for purposes other than for those it was obtained. Of course exceptions can be made, and the European Directive on PII/GDPR acknowledges this, for criminal and security investigations but I thing HMG is spreading its net desperately widely, and probably on the wrong side of the Ship of State. I expect the law lords will have something to say about it.
extra: I'm sure Yellowhammer will tweet. Dr Nicholls is not alone, and the ghost of David Kelly stalks the memory of those who want to kep the lid on things.
A ruling in either direction is liable to open up rather large - and separate - cans of worms.
Yes and no.
The only possible benefit of a bridge to Kintyre is that Campbelltown might no longer be 5 hours drive from the nearest city. A real treat for those with a penchant for schadenfreude is to be sitting near the gates at Glasgow airport used by Loganair on a foggy day and watching the faces of folk scheduled to fly to Campbelltown when they're told that their flight has been cancelled but it's ok because Loganair have laid on a bus to get them there. A couple of hours over the bridge to Belfast is going to seem infinitely preferable.
Seriously though, the only way a bridge is worthwhile is if you turn the roads to Stranraer from both Glasgow (for Scotland) and Carlisle (for England) into motorways and even if they spend the money for the bridge no-one is going to shell out for 200 miles of new motorway.
I'm on the side of those who think those cans need opening, but I don't think there's much mileage in pretending they don't exist.
A high speed rail link to the north might solve that. Has anyone thought of it?
A high speed rail link with a huge dog-leg into Dumfries and Galloway? I think it's unlikely.
But, I hear you cry, what about the cancellation of the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project and the putative cancellation of HS2? To which I answer, move on, nothing to see here...
Yes, and that was decided by an Englishman (a long time ago, admittedly).
So...
Re-open the line from Dumfries to Stranraer, making it double-track, and linking with the new HS10 project from the south.
Build the bridge, with both road, and rail tracks.
Install apparatus to convert rail vehicles from Our Gauge to Their Gauge (the French, Spanish, Russians etc. will show us how).
Simples! And name the new trains 'Borismasters', in honour of our great Lord Protector.
Or, even better, do what Hitler did, and plan an entirely new Very Broad Gauge railway system to link the important cities of the ReichEmpire. Here's what it might have looked like (IIRC the proposed gauge was 3 metres - about 10 feet):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cbPlcn9yg3A
Meanwhile, why (having lied to the Queen) is Piffleglum not being hauled off in chains, to the Tower? Or being shown the secluded side room, containing whisky, and a loaded revolver?
No good reason to have a road bridge. Slap the vehicles on a Eurostar type train.
Especially if the railway is built to the 10-foot gauge - bags of room for lorries, coaches, etc., all being charged High Rates for passage, UK Treasury for the filling of!
What's not to like?
Also, on the logic, wouldn’t Brexit be impossible because we’re connected to Europe via the channel tunnel ?
It’s a ridiculous distraction of an undeliverable vanity project.
(Also, massive infrastructure on coastlines - what could possibly go wrong ? *cough* climate change *cough* sea level ...)
The Channel Tunnel is to be closed, and filled in with unwanted plastic, car tyres, nuclear waste, Remoaners, etc..