Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Also, what is the implication on the Queen's role in this, now?

The PM made an illegal request, and she implemented it. And without apparent objection. Is that a case of just following orders? Is it an example of a completely powerless monarch? Is it a case of her agreeing with his Brexit goal and supporting his political activities? Is it a situation where the judicial system should pass sentence on her action as a lawbreaker?

In fact, it is not even routine lawbreaking: she apparently violated the solemn and long-standing Constitution of the United Kingdom. That seems pretty extreme.

What does the Constitution say about monarchs who attempt to undermine the pure, sacred, and privileged activities of parliament? Seems like the UK is now re-litigating the 17th century...

by asdf on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:31:10 PM EST
It'n not the duty of the Queen, the Monarch ... clear judgement by UKSC, wrongdoing by the Privy Council, a humiliation of BoJo, his cabinet and his advisors. The buck stops with him ... let's be very clear about that. No washing of hands like Pontius Pilate.

As if Parliament was handed a blank piece of paper! Null - void - prorogation didn't happen ... two black eyes for Boris.

by Oui on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 03:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You can imagine the teasing Boris will get whenever he has a speech or other document in his hand: "Is that a blank sheet of paper you have there Boris?"

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I have in my hand a piece of paper..."

Now who was it said that?

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I barely got over the "non-papers" taken to Brussels for crucial negotiations to end the no-deal chance of crashing out of our EU partnership. Non-papers are the property of Her Majesty - the Queen again - not to be shared with the heads of States of the EU27.

Another non-starter invented by the BoJo team residing in Downing Street 10.

At least we learned what the "YellowSheets" entailed.

by Oui on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While the Queen is seen as having had little choice, and is therefore personally blameless, the episode does highlight the uselessness of the monarchy as an institution, and I doubt HRH is best pleased about that.

In Ireland, for instance, the largely ceremonial Head of state is the President who does have the power to refer any Bills sent to him for signature by the government to the Supreme Court first, in order to test their Constitutionality.

Could the Queen's advisors not have advised her to do similarly? It seems not. But if the Monarchy is not to be an absolutely useless fig leaf for untrammelled PM power it has to be either abolished or made more useful. Can she do anything without or against the advice of her PM?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Rly? HRM is a "victim"?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She is being made to look toothless, which is not a good look for a 93 year old Queen

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Her mother looked toothless, but it might have been the result of uncorking her gin bottles with her gnashers.

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The PM made an unlawful request.

Y'all think I've been fooling about lawyers and their dictionaries. I am not.

SCOTUK chose to adjudicate questions of "lawfullness" advisedly. The PM did not commit a crime. Royal prerogative per se is judiciable --subject to review and judgment-- to the extent provided by parliamentary acts (laws). If the manner and subject of PM "advice" for teh monarch is not prescribed by law, but by "convention", the court proceeds to certify and adjudicate merits of the PM's (un)lawful conference with teh monarch brought by appellant(s) according to common law doctrine ("case law") deciding equity.

27. Both cases raise the same four issues, although there is some overlap between the issues: (1) Is the question of whether the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law? (2) If it is, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged? (3) By that standard, was it lawful? (4) If it was not, what remedy should the court grant?
Of course, "constitutional" law does not vest legislative and executive authority in judiciary.

So. Did Owen mention yet what remedy the court granted appelants?

archived "English law"
DICTION CORNER
lawful
DICTION CORNER
Not that equity, the other one.
the law is retrospective as it should be

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure about the USA, but in UK (and common law generally?) there is a distinction between constitutional, civil and criminal law. Only breaches of the latter are deemed to be "crimes" and their perpetrators "criminals". You can be in breach of contract - e.g. not paying your rent - without being a criminal.

But tbh a higher standard applies to PM's who are supposed to be fully compliant with all law at all times - as to be otherwise reduces respect for the law in general. For the government to have to say they with "obey the law" or "respect a judgement" as if this were a magnanimous concession is in itself astonishing. How could it be otherwise?

Why does even have to be said, and what credit does it give to the government which says it? THE LAW used to be the stick with which Conservatives bludgeoned liberal protestors. Now it is conservatives who are the law breakers...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Common law" also called "case law" is the body of of appellate opinions by courts. A litigant of a criminal or civil trial (the first instance), petitions a superior court to review and rule on error of an inferior court. The error alleged by the appellant might be in a finding of law (statutory procedure or "common law" application to merits of the case admitted by judge or jury instruction) or a finding of fact (typically, omission of exculpatory evidence).

The SCOTUK judgment relies heavily on "common law" opinions for its own reason, because the merits of the case have so little relevance to statute. They admit that. The appellants' objections to the PM's exercise of royal prerogative rely exclusively on "convention" --the duration of the prorogation is unlawful, unacceptable to "the Crown in parliament"; prorogation per se is not unlawful. The SCOTUK ruled against  unlimited exercise of royal prerogative, because "the Crown in parliament" had not limited by statute a "reasonable" prorogation period to Sir John Major's units of Queen's Speech and legislative agenda prep time.

archived
The descent of common pleas
common law
common law and restatements

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think there are a couple of things here worth considering;-

It took 3 courts to decide if it was illegal. Now the Queen's advisers are good, but I'm not sure they're able to finesse their way through such arcane Constitutional law confidently enough to predict the supreme's decision and then ignore it.

The Queen was having a problem, Prince andrew was all over the front pages and it wasn't going away. I think she and her advisers ARE good enough to recognise that a Constitutional kerfuffle like we've had for the last fortnight would make Andrew the stuff of single paragraphs on page 94.

So, even if the Queen did know she was being gulled by a known liar, she had every reason to go ahead anyway and let the chips fall as they may.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Shows you how much I know. I didn't realise most tabloids even had 94 pages, and if they had you would be deep into the sports coverage which is where most of their readers start reading anyway...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Private Eye convention. (cont'd P. 94...)

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothing, Nothing you can measure anymore
L. Cohen
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:54:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's hard to avoid the conjecture that a younger Monarch, or even the Queen herself a couple of decades previously, would have quibbled, delayed and sought wider advice before consenting to something so constitutionally dubious.

So in addition to giving illegal advice, Boris has, arguably, taken advantage of the diminished condition of a senior citizen [is the Queen a citizen?]

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series