ChatterBank4 mins ago
Conservatives Attack On The Judiciary.
After several embarrassing defeats in the Courts of the Conservative Government, and Boris in particular, the Tories, in their manifesto published today, plan to clamp down on the courts of the law to uphold the law and keep our politicians accountable.
Hidden in the manifesto is this threat:
// We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come
up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. //
Fascism here we come.
Hidden in the manifesto is this threat:
// We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come
up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. //
Fascism here we come.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The Law is made and passed by Parliament.
If it trips the Government up later, then they have themselves to blame.//
But that's not what happened recently (in his attempted prorogation of Parliament, which is what I assume you are referring to).
The Prime Minister was not of breaking the "law made by Parliament". He was found to have acted unlawfully. A different matter entirely. Prorogation is within the Prime Minister's gift but when, for how long and in what circumstances it can be used is not written anywhere either in Statute or Parliamentary procedure. It is a matter of Constitution and the UK does not have a written Constitution. Matters arising are usually tackled in accordance with precedence or convention but sometimes there is neither to refer to. On such occasions decisions made by Ministers can be challenged in the courts.
The PM's proposal seems a sensible first step to reducing the chances of some of the fiascos that have occurred in recent months when government tried to implement the result of the referendum and were prevented from doing so by Parliament.
If it trips the Government up later, then they have themselves to blame.//
But that's not what happened recently (in his attempted prorogation of Parliament, which is what I assume you are referring to).
The Prime Minister was not of breaking the "law made by Parliament". He was found to have acted unlawfully. A different matter entirely. Prorogation is within the Prime Minister's gift but when, for how long and in what circumstances it can be used is not written anywhere either in Statute or Parliamentary procedure. It is a matter of Constitution and the UK does not have a written Constitution. Matters arising are usually tackled in accordance with precedence or convention but sometimes there is neither to refer to. On such occasions decisions made by Ministers can be challenged in the courts.
The PM's proposal seems a sensible first step to reducing the chances of some of the fiascos that have occurred in recent months when government tried to implement the result of the referendum and were prevented from doing so by Parliament.
Thanks NJ,
The court ruled that any prorogation would be unlawful "if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature".
Once it is decided the act is unlawful, there is no need to decide it was illegal.
The court ruled that any prorogation would be unlawful "if it has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature".
Once it is decided the act is unlawful, there is no need to decide it was illegal.
Even though I have said this is in the Conservative’s Election manifesto, I am being criticised for not supplying a link, so here it is...
https:/
https:/
//NJ, what is "the Prime Ministers gift"?//
Within his capabilities; something he's allowed to do; within his powers.
I accept that strictly speaking prorogation is only in the Monarch's gift, but it would not be exercised by the Monarch without a request from the PM.
I don't think there is any proposal to take this "gift" away from the PM/Monarch. What's proposed is the establishment of a Commission to look into whether any aspects of the UK's unwritten Constitution can be perhaps formalised.
Personally I think little or nothing will come of it (apart from a few fat fees for whichever of m'Learned Friends is chosen to head it up). They will produce a couple of amorphous reports which will lay in somebody's in tray for a couple of years, there will be another General Election and the entire matter, including the issue which initiated the farce, will have long been forgotten by then.
Within his capabilities; something he's allowed to do; within his powers.
I accept that strictly speaking prorogation is only in the Monarch's gift, but it would not be exercised by the Monarch without a request from the PM.
I don't think there is any proposal to take this "gift" away from the PM/Monarch. What's proposed is the establishment of a Commission to look into whether any aspects of the UK's unwritten Constitution can be perhaps formalised.
Personally I think little or nothing will come of it (apart from a few fat fees for whichever of m'Learned Friends is chosen to head it up). They will produce a couple of amorphous reports which will lay in somebody's in tray for a couple of years, there will be another General Election and the entire matter, including the issue which initiated the farce, will have long been forgotten by then.
well what did you expect?
we had the great British bill of Liberties from David Cameron which ltd our liberties and didnt enlarge them
I have to say the judiciary havent been that keen on the actions of Geena Miller et al
( if the judges dont lie down and take it, something awful will happen to their great big fat pensions)
we had the great British bill of Liberties from David Cameron which ltd our liberties and didnt enlarge them
I have to say the judiciary havent been that keen on the actions of Geena Miller et al
( if the judges dont lie down and take it, something awful will happen to their great big fat pensions)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.