The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:07 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Victorian judges probably would never have made such a ruling, but judicial activism has now become a reality in most Western countries.
You hit the nail on the head. Judges just love to legislate from the bench.
__________________

  #462  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:08 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
But Mbruno and wyevale both make important points. The court didn't simply rule that Johnson's advice was illegal, it went another step and voided the Queen's Order in Council. By doing so it ran roughshod over the Queen's (admittedly symbolic) prerogative or right to prorogue Parliament. As Mbruno pointed out, this symbolic right would have been respected and left intact by requiring Johnson to advise the Queen to call Parliament back into session.
Not "back into session". Parliament IS in session as Lady Hale described it: " [...]
This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. [...] "
__________________

  #463  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:15 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
You hit the nail on the head. Judges just love to legislate from the bench.
By lack of a Queen fighting as a lioness for the rights of "our Sovereign Parliament" (as Brexiteers always claim....) at least there are institutions maintaining the rule of Law.

Luckily it were the UK's most supreme Justices, in maximum assembly and with unanimous voice. Imagine the outcry if it was the European Court of Justice. The utmost parody would be Brexiteers going to the EU Courts to challenge this... (not possible, as far I know).
  #464  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:25 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacknch View Post
The full statement of the Supreme Court given by Lady Hale:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810680

It also addresses the issue concerning Courts being above the Crown.

From there: The decisive sentence seems to be - "However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power."

Hmmm, well in a country without a constitution and case law, this might be the case... But I would say, it is rather the electorate via the Parliament which decides not only about the prerogative power of the Monarch, but about the Monarchy altogether.
  #465  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:29 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Boris Johnson: “prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge”

But when it comes to stopping Brexit both the court and parliament have tossed hundreds of years of precedent out the window.
  #466  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:33 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
From there: The decisive sentence seems to be - "However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power."

Hmmm, well in a country without a constitution and case law, this might be the case... But I would say, it is rather the electorate via the Parliament which decides not only about the prerogative power of the Monarch, but about the Monarchy altogether.
Well, in earlier rulings on royal prerogatives, and today by Lady Hale, it was mentioned: "the King ( = Government) hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him".

This makes the use of prerogative justiciable because it are the Courts (who else?) to decide if "the law of the land" has been respected.
  #467  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:40 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
“Without wishing to overstate this, the #SupremeCourt has declared itself supreme over the Crown: we no longer live in a Constitutional Monarchy. That is a seismic shift, if not an unglorious revolution.”

- Adrian Hilton
  #468  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:45 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Boris Johnson: “prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge”

But when it comes to stopping Brexit both the court and parliament have tossed hundreds of years of precedent out the window.
If Boris had used this prorogation to write a Queen's Speech (three to five days). Yes.
But he was not even yet in power and prorogued for five weeks. As Lady Hale remarked:

" Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech.

During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October.

Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. "
  #469  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:53 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
“Without wishing to overstate this, the #SupremeCourt has declared itself supreme over the Crown: we no longer live in a Constitutional Monarchy. That is a seismic shift, if not an unglorious revolution.”

- Adrian Hilton
The Crown allowed this to happen. The courtiers and the Queen did nothing to this blatant abuse of the royal prerogative.

Baldrick Cummings to Blackadder Johnson: "I have a most cunning plan, m'lord..."

And the current successor of Blackadder's silly Prince-Regent sleepwalked in their trap, with the eyes wide open.
  #470  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:55 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,228
Just a reminder that this is not a platform to discuss Brexit - let's please stay closely on the topic of the Queen and her Prime Ministers as far as they relate to current events.
__________________
JACK
  #471  
Old 09-24-2019, 08:56 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Well, in earlier rulings on royal prerogatives, and today by Lady Hale, it was mentioned: "the King ( = Government) hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him".

This makes the use of prerogative justiciable because it are the Courts (who else?) to decide if "the law of the land" has been respected.

Yes, but this is the mere extent of the prerogative, not the existence of the prerogative itself. But the court claims with the sentence cited by me ( "However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power.") something different. Namely, that it is, that " the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence...".

Btw "Law of the Land" can be anything: From Human Rights down to regional norms of the Gin production! And I think the Queen needs one now. Poor Lizzy! From Monarch to Museum Royal in her lifetime...
  #472  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:07 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
The Court ignored the Queen's purely symbolic prerogative and went straight to the heart of the matter: it's actually the Government (not the Queen who reigns but doesn't rule) who can prorogue Parliament but the "courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries."


It will be interesting to see what the UK constitutional experts say about this.
  #473  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:07 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
I feel your pain...seems like no matter the form of government you have Judges who think they can legislate from the bench.


So for the U.K. what does this really mean..as in will anything happen because of the ruling or is it just going to be political posturing and talking points?



LaRae
  #474  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:13 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
Yes, but this is the mere extent of the prerogative, not the existence of the prerogative itself. But the court claims with the sentence cited by me ( "However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power.") something different. Namely, that it is, that " the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence...".

Btw "Law of the Land" can be anything: From Human Rights down to regional norms of the Gin production! And I think the Queen needs one now. Poor Lizzy! From Monarch to Museum Royal in her lifetime...
Constitutionally the Queen has no less power today, than when she started her Reign. But her Prime Ministers, from Churchill to MacMillan, from Wilson to May, all have been careful towards the fragile House of Cards which Britain's unwritten constitution is. It is this Prime Minister, for short term gain (his political goals) he was willing to gamble with the long term: the monarchy, the union, the peaceful cohabitation of people in the home nations.
  #475  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:17 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I feel your pain...seems like no matter the form of government you have Judges who think they can legislate from the bench.


So for the U.K. what does this really mean..as in will anything happen because of the ruling or is it just going to be political posturing and talking points?



LaRae
What else? At least there is the rule of Law and not the political whim of the day ("Parliament annoys me. Send it home!")
  #476  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:29 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
The Court ignored the Queen's purely symbolic prerogative and went straight to the heart of the matter: it's actually the Government (not the Queen who reigns but doesn't rule) who can prorogue Parliament but the "courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries."


It will be interesting to see what the UK constitutional experts say about this.
In all other constitutional monarchies the executive is subject to the rule of Law, ultimately by a Supreme Court. This phenomenon is new in the UK (only 10 years old) but now it differs little from other monarchies (and republics).

People are no bowing and curtseying obedient serfs and peasants anymore. They are modern, well-educated conscious fellow citizens. When a Prime Minister lets the Queen abuse a royal prerogative (in their eyes), I fail to see why they can not fight for their right.
  #477  
Old 09-24-2019, 09:41 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Not "back into session". Parliament IS in session as Lady Hale described it: " [...]
This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. [...] "
Yes, but that was my point, originally made by Mbruno. The Court didn't simply rule that Johnson's advice was unconstitutional. It took another step and voided the Queen's Order in Council.
  #478  
Old 09-24-2019, 10:34 AM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Boris Johnson: “prorogation has been used for centuries without this kind of challenge”

But when it comes to stopping Brexit both the court and parliament have tossed hundreds of years of precedent out the window.
Yes, sometimes things must change to address massive challenges in the current time. If the UK governed strictly by how things were understood 20, 50, 100, 200, 300 years ago, a lot of things would be worse off.

Its ridiculous to pretend what Johnson did wasn't a blatant misuse of his power at a crisis time in the UK and that the Queen herself did herself no favors with how she responded. Nonetheless, the real danger to British political and constitutional norm remains Boris himself.

By the by, I always find the term(s) "activist judges" or "judicial activism" to be rather red herrings for a certain dangerous political ideology.
  #479  
Old 09-24-2019, 11:44 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
So for the U.K. what does this really mean..as in will anything happen because of the ruling or is it just going to be political posturing and talking points?
LaRae

Parliament will sit tomorrow (Wednesday). I wouldn't want to be in Boris Johnson's shoes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics...ments-49813642


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaira View Post

Its ridiculous to pretend what Johnson did wasn't a blatant misuse of his power at a crisis time in the UK and that the Queen herself did herself no favors with how she responded. Nonetheless, the real danger to British political and constitutional norm remains Boris himself.
Given that not all legal experts believed Johnson's action was illegal plus the present volatile state of British politics I'm not sure the Queen could have refused Johnson's request without being accused of taking sides, something she has always wished to avoid. But you're right, for some the Queen's hands have been sullied.

https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive...awful-11818599

Unfortunately this whole affair (Johnson's request and the court's ruling) has exposed the almost robotic and purely ceremonial nature of the Queen's "power." Any future biographies on the life of Elizabeth II will surely mention the political events of the past few months.
  #480  
Old 09-24-2019, 12:09 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
It's worth noting, [I think] that it’s not just the PM who disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision today. So do the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Lawyers, eh? Experts?
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
british commonwealth, british government, elizabeth ii, margaret thatcher, prime ministers, queen elizabeth ii, tony blair, winston churchill


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Elisabeth Of The Belgians (1876-1965) Julia Belgian Royal History 91 06-03-2021 10:54 AM
The Snow Princess: Queen Astrid Of Belgium, Part 1 Julia Belgian Royal History 198 12-12-2006 09:15 AM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia mountbatten names nara period pless politics prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida taiwan tradition united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×