SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:36PM (14 children)
'The people' voted for 'Brexit'. Unfortunately, no one decided to define what this meant before the election, so we were left with ludicrous soundbites like 'Brexit means Brexit'. The Leave campaign made a large number of completely incompatible promises and now Parliament is being told that if they don't satisfy all of them simultaneously they're violating the 'will of the people'. They're starting to realise that the referendum had 48% of the voters choosing a single self-consistent thing and 52% choosing some subset of half a dozen mutually incompatible options. When they negotiated a deal, they discovered that the option that does the least damage to the British economy was to remain following all of the EU rules, keep paying into the EU budget, and stop having seats in the Parliament or Council: not exactly a great way of 'reclaiming sovereignty'. On the other hand, if you opt out of following the EU rules then you can't remain part of the common market (which the Leave campaign promised that we could).
It is disingenuous to blame Parliament when you're saying 'look, the people voted three years ago that grass is blue and the sky is green, Parliament has had three years to fix this, and they've still failed.' California is in a similar situation, where someone had the bright idea to make it possible for people to separately vote for initiatives that the state government must enact and vote against funding them. When 'the people' vote for a set of mutually incompatible things, it is not the fault of the legislature that they are unable to implement them.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @04:45PM (4 children)
It is disingenuous to blame Parliament
No, they could have stated the truth at the beginning. What went down was pure political pandering to deep pockets..
But yes, blaming parliament is wrong. I have to blame the people that vote for them. If they don't like it, only they can change it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:54PM (3 children)
So where does this stand in your opinion when it wasn't sold on the truth from the start, particularly when the one who sold the biggest lies about it is now the PM (or am I wrong and you guys really have been forced by the EU to standardize on only one condom size)? I don't see how you can't insist on a new vote from that standpoint. The Brexiteers fight that tooth and nail because they know that they'll get crushed on a second vote.
There is also a huge difference between a non-binding "should we leave" referendum and a 'Yes we will leave' declaration. This "going against the will of the people" is entirely disingenuous.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:16PM (2 children)
I don't see how you can't insist on a new vote from that standpoint.
It would be meddling in international affairs. The Brits have to decide what they want. By the looks of things it appears they have a bit of trouble making up their minds. Parliament mirrors that indecision.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Thursday September 26 2019, @05:53AM (1 child)
One thing for sure is that if the referendum had gone the other way, the leavers would be demanding another referendum.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:20AM
Eh, so one side is mad, and other is wimpy and cowardly. Nice choice people leave themselves. I find that to be the more interesting story.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:55PM (6 children)
It meant activating article 50, which was done on 29 March 2017.
That being the case, the UK appears to have legally ceased membership in the EU on 29 March 2019.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:34AM (5 children)
Except for the fact that all parties involved (UK and the other 27) agreed to extend the negociating period as specified in part 3 of article 50. Twice.
And the way things are going, a third extension looks likely too.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @06:45AM (4 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @01:31PM (3 children)
Legally, the extension is allowed by in part 3 of article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which all the member states of the European Union (including the UK) have ratified:
There's nothing there that implies there needs to be a particular justification for doing so, only that everyone has to agree to it. As written, I'm sure that was a practical measure, to cover scenarios such as "we've almost finished this negotiation, but need a bit more time to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's". There's no sense in being forced to follow a particular deadline if everyone involved agrees to move it.
If your mention of "legal justification" is meant to echo the Supreme Court case, you'll have to help me join the dots together. The Supreme Court ruled that the Prime Minister couldn't use his prerogative powers (without the agreement of Parliament) to disrupt the workings of Parliament without reasonable cause. In the case of extensions to the negotiation period, if every country agrees to an extension (in the matter that they have all ratified into law), how could it be without legal justification?
(I will grant you that the reasons for a potential third extension probably weren't foreseen when the Lisbon Treaty was drawn up. But if there's a unanimous agreement to give one...)
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)
Under that provision the EC and the UK *could have* agreed to extend the time, but that doesn't appear to have happened.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday September 27 2019, @09:06AM (1 child)
Concentrating on the second extension (to October 2019) for the sake of simplicity, we have...
A letter requesting an extension [service.gov.uk] until June, sent by Theresa May
Conclusions of a special meeting of the European Council [europa.eu] held to discuss the above letter, when it was decided to offer a flexible extension until October
A letter in reply [www.gov.uk], accepting [service.gov.uk] the October extension offered
and then a series of letters [europa.eu] covering technical changes to the existing agreements to reflect the change of date (such as this one [legislation.gov.uk]).
It appears to me that this is documentary evidence of an agreement. Or were you expecting a big sheet of paper with 28 signatures on it?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 27 2019, @02:36PM
October is coming up quickly though.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday September 26 2019, @07:46AM (1 child)
Who came up with the wording on the referendum? It wasn't 'the people'.
The wording was clear: "Vote for remain, or vote for colourless green ideas sleeping furiously; we promise we will act on whatever the majority decides" (yes, that final clause was explicitly there too).
Govt. shot itself in the foot with a 12-guage by making this farce even possible.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:28PM
The wording was made as clear as possible, on the advice of the electoral commission:
The trouble is that while it made the question simple and unbiased, it also meant that there was a lot of room for interpretation by advocates on either side. Compare that question with the style that was preferred back in the late 1970s:
Not as pretty a question, but there was no scope for argument over how to implement the result.