Disaster Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

Coolio55

DON'T CALL LUIGI AT 3AM!! *OMG HE RICKROLLED ME*
kiwifarms.net
Don't give the 9th circuit any ideas... I can totally see one of their more activist members trying to issue an injunction against Trump for an "improperly motivated veto" when, much like this case:

A. The court has no jurisdiction to review Executive Veto, that power is granted by the Constitution, full stop, with no challenge to it available except Congressional override.
B. Within the framework of the courts, "Improperly Motivated" means nothing, it is not a legal term or even a legal concept, it's just someone's raw opinion. You might as well just say "The court finds that you are a doo-doo head".
I hope heads roll for submitting utter crap in their line of duty but seeing as judges answer to no-one by design I severely doubt it.
 

Fareal

will definitely consider what you have said
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
This in particular is where they went completely off the rails:

"Three judges concluded that the PM had an 'improper purpose' when he advised the Queen to prorogue."

It's not up to them to have any opinion whatsoever on whether he had a proper purpose. It's entirely within the power of the PM to recommend that, and the Crown to do it. It's like suing the President for vetoing something. Courts have no power to review decisions like that.
I love you, but as a Scottish lawyer, this is not a correct statement of Scots law.

Scots law is fundamentally different from English law in that it has always been a settled principle of Scots law that any action by the executive, including those actions purporting to be done in exercise of the Royal prerogative, admits of judicial review in Her Majesty’s courts. This is why the Scottish case proceeded on completely different arguments to the English case. (I am not qualified in England so calling @Ginger Piglet to commentate that decision.)

The courts in Scotland absolutely do have the power to review this decision. They just exercised it.

I am about 80% certain that the Supreme Court will follow the English decision on principles of English law. This creates an issue which frankly is more serious than Brexit bickering: the Supreme Court either needs to completely ignore the Scots law issues raised, or overrule the Inner House on a matter of Scots law (sidenote: The SC has far fewer Scottish judges than the old House of Lords did. The old House of Lords was always able to field a majority-Scottish bench when dealing with issues of Scots law/Scottish cases brought before it. This is not true of the SC, and there have been a couple of major fuck ups - the ParkingEye decision! - where Scots law has essentially been overwritten with totally alien principles of English law).

The difficulty alluded to upthread is that the Parliament in Westminster is the creation of the Union of the Parliaments. It’s not solely England’s parliament, and there is no good legal argument for why it should be bound and regulated solely by English laws. Even when the SC rules in Boris’ favour, the turd in the punch bowl that is the Inner House decision doesn’t actually go away.

If they overrule the Inner House on whether the matter is justiciable ab initio, they will overturn around 500 years of Scots legal principle and settled law. I cannot stress enough how much conceptual violence this will do to Scots constitutional law and how completely not fucking acceptable it is to the Scottish legal establishment.

If they decide that English law takes precedence over Scots law in regulating the affairs of the executive and legislature, this will go down like a flaming barrel of shite in Scottish public discourse. The Parliaments were united by the Acts of Union; the Scottish Parliament was explicitly not subjugated to the English one.
 

Fareal

will definitely consider what you have said
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The alternative seems worse, though, for the harmony of the UK legal system.
I don’t practise any more, but more or less everyone I know is either still in practice or in legal academia.

Absolutely none of them with whom I have chatted about this issue this week thinks that the union will withstand the stresses unleashed by the Supreme Court’s incoming decision. And I’ve been talking with a wide political spectrum (particularly in terms of their views about independence).

I don’t see a way in which the SC can gracefully extricate themselves here. But they are a magnitude smarter than I, so I await with interest what happens.
 

Ponderous Pillock

Welcome to Triple T, Tards, Troons and Trolls!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Meanwhile, in the political world: Amber Dudd (yes, she's still about) quit the party, claimed the government was doing nothing to prepare for Brexit (despite the fact Cummings, Boris and Gove kept her out of all Brexit planning meetings) is now flauncing away from the seat she managed to turn into an ultra-marginal due to being such a fucking winning personality.

On the Supreme Court side, the Remainiacs picked Scotland precisely because they knew the Scottish Court was more likely to review in their favour, which is why Swinson et all began screeching and the BBC claimed with barely contained excitement that Brexit was dead.

Quite honestly, the scottish legal system not being harmonized is a terrible, terrible oversight that's been left to be there because it vaguely worked, but when you have numerous issues such as this it's probably time to either reform the SC so it can work, or remove this ancient abberation and bring scottish law in line (considering how much of it is just EU law anyway, it won't take that long).

Brexit is exposing a lot of weaknesses in the UK constitution (such as it is) to the point there's an opinion poll floating about that back major reform and even a written constitution to stop such abuses of power going forward.
 

Krokodil Overdose

[|][||][||][|_]
kiwifarms.net
If they overrule the Inner House on whether the matter is justiciable ab initio, they will overturn around 500 years of Scots legal principle and settled law. I cannot stress enough how much conceptual violence this will do to Scots constitutional law and how completely not fucking acceptable it is to the Scottish legal establishment.

If they decide that English law takes precedence over Scots law in regulating the affairs of the executive and legislature, this will go down like a flaming barrel of shite in Scottish public discourse. The Parliaments were united by the Acts of Union; the Scottish Parliament was explicitly not subjugated to the English one.
Does Scotland have a written Constitution, or is it one of those "we won't shit all over your rights, pinkie-swear" kind of deals that the Britbongs have?
 

JohnDoe

There is still time for some poolside fun!
kiwifarms.net
Absolutely none of them with whom I have chatted about this issue this week thinks that the union will withstand the stresses unleashed by the Supreme Court’s incoming decision. And I’ve been talking with a wide political spectrum (particularly in terms of their views about independence).
Are you suggesting a new Scottish War for independence is coming up on the horizon? I would enjoy seeing that unfold.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Magnum Tenebrosum

Sable

DANGEROUSLY WELCOMING IN THE NEW YEAR
kiwifarms.net
Are you suggesting a new Scottish War for independence is coming up on the horizon? I would enjoy seeing that unfold.
No, they're probably just going to use it as reasoning to get a new referendum, as otherwise the most recent one was too recent.

I mean, I too would like to see Scotland crushed militarily after siphoning all the money away that London doesn't steal from the rest of us, but that's neither here nor there.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Magnum Tenebrosum

JohnDoe

There is still time for some poolside fun!
kiwifarms.net
No, they're probably just going to use it as reasoning to get a new referendum, as otherwise the most recent one was too recent.
So, further fractioning of the fragile state of unity and sociopolitical cohesion? I need to call my bookie, I bet he's going to be drawing up the odds for which happens first; a popular revolt against the aristocracy or a government overthrow by the 'refugee' Muslim 5th column.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
Brave is one word, I suppose. Stupid would be another, and so would be seditious.
Especially since the thrust of the courts argument is that the prime minister misrepresented (or lied) to the queen on his reasons for suspending parliament. The entire ruling is entirely dependent on the queen herself saying nothing about it

The alternative seems worse, though, for the harmony of the UK legal system.
What Brexit has done is pushed the "unwritten constitution" to its final limit. At the end of the day in the UK all laws and decision making derive from the Queen. And nothing else. Tradition and practice keeps her from exercising this power but some very powerful people are saying they are doing things specifically in her name. Very grave things of historical and national importance. IMO it's getting perilously close to the moment when a Monarch of England will have to sit the throne for the first time in centuries and issue a proclamation written in their own hand.
 

Coolio55

DON'T CALL LUIGI AT 3AM!! *OMG HE RICKROLLED ME*
kiwifarms.net
I want Brexit but I don't like the Idea of scots law being rescinded. Personally I believe scots law to have been more fair than general UK law. (Until recently when fanny-face started adding stupid shit)

If you need an example just look at divorce and child maintenance laws. It's not perfect but it's much better than the JUST situation in England and Northern Ireland.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
IMO it's getting perilously close to the moment when a Monarch of England will have to sit the throne for the first time in centuries and issue a proclamation written in their own hand.
My biggest dream throughout all of this is that HM would get fed up and say "You will respect the vote you got from your people, that you yourselves asked for, and we will be leaving on X, with or without you" In much more regal language, but still....
 

CWCissey

Charming Man
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
My biggest dream throughout all of this is that HM would get fed up and say "You will respect the vote you got from your people, that you yourselves asked for, and we will be leaving on X, with or without you" In much more regal language, but still....
You mean 'Orf with their heads'?
 

X Prime

kiwifarms.net
This in particular is where they went completely off the rails:

"Three judges concluded that the PM had an 'improper purpose' when he advised the Queen to prorogue."

It's not up to them to have any opinion whatsoever on whether he had a proper purpose. It's entirely within the power of the PM to recommend that, and the Crown to do it. It's like suing the President for vetoing something. Courts have no power to review decisions like that.
To be completely fair, didn't the SCOTUS pull something like that over the 2020 census citizenship question, which has to my understanding never happened before to any President except Trump?
 

AnOminous

FIST FUCK
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
To be completely fair, didn't the SCOTUS pull something like that over the 2020 census citizenship question, which has to my understanding never happened before to any President except Trump?
Technically, that was against the Department of Commerce and its head, not Trump. Also, the census is a core duty of Congress, not the President. That's why I compared proroguing Parliament to something like the veto, as something that is a core power of the office. By comparison, when the executive branch carries out the U.S. Census, its only powers are those delegated to it by Congress, and its task is to fill in the details while carrying out its assigned duties, not to add or subtract from them.

(Trump isn't even mentioned by name in the decision.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino