On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not.Â* She is still bound constitutionally to follow the
advice of the Prime Minister.Â* She cannot take it into her own
hands to second guess what the courts might decide if they become
involved...

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to
do?
Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake,
even if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her.Â* If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take, of
course it would be her fault.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that, with all her experience, if she
refused to do as advised, on the basis that to do so was unlawful, it
would be because it was unlawful,

But she's not qualified to say what is unlawful and what isn't. That's
what we have courts for these days.

And the consequence if she got it wrong would be very serious. It would
be a constitutional crisis.

not because she had made a mistake and
deprived the government of the ability to do something it was entitled to.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely if
he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does. Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

...
When you step into unknown territory, the prudent will take the best
advice available.Â* Because it's unknown territory, however, that
advice is subject to error and 'events, dear boy, events'.Â* If things
go wrong, it's not reasonable after the event to blame either the
advisor or the person taking that advice.

Except that just about the only people NOT advising Boris that what he
was planning to do was unconstitutional were his band of extreme
Brexiteers, who seemed less interested in the legality of it than in
whether it would make it easier to get a no deal Brexit. That is not
taking the best advice available. It is taking the advice that agrees
with what you want and ignoring the majority view.

He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job
it is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the
opposition benches who might be just a tad biassed.

However, Boris seems far too arrogant even to admit he made a
mistake, despite the unanimous ruling of 11 of the highest judges in
the land.

Isn't 20:20 hindsight a wonderful thing?

No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice. The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

The courts have it easy. They can just decide, after the event, what
they want to decide. And that applies especially to the Supreme Court
whose judgements cannot be challenged but may nevertheless be wrong.

The fact is, the Supreme Court ventured into completely unmarked
territory with its judgement, and had in fact to reverse an earlier
decision by the English High Court.Â* What Boris did wasn't therefore
clearly wrong when he did it; it was only subsequently decided that it
was.Â* And that doesn't make it a resigning matter in anyone's book.

The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme Court
specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the High
Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we will
never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only the
Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the ruling
that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in
uncharted areas in advance of doing what you want to do. You may
succeed even in the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the
Supreme Court. Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't. When
Boris made his decision, it wasn't. And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide. Indeed,
no-one had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after
all the arguments had been put. Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,
presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he
so dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st
October.

Which is exactly what the country needs.Â* It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.

I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything. Boris
is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will be
stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the Labour
Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems, who have
already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely to be more
than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung parliament.
However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have sought a further
extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*. Now is the time we have a government in office but
not in power. It is being prevented from governing by those who
apparently think it's a good game to stop it and have a good laugh.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday. It is
paralysed. It can't do anything, and it won't do anything to resolve
the situation.

It's all very dispiriting and childish. I expect better.