It looks to me that the court will find against the government, but may take a less controversial route, that of it was unlawful to Proroge due to the loss of bills in process and the inability for parliament to legislate and hold the executive to account for more time than necessary during a time critical political crisis. Rather than that Johnson mislead the Queen. — Punshhh

Listening to the statements from both lawyers yesterday I learned that the defence parliament has to the PM's seemingly limitless power to prorogue it lies in its ability to request and pass a vote of no-confidence in the PM's govt, thus triggering an election. This was described by Lord Keen as a political defence rather than a legal one, which is part and parcel of the unwritten constitution. That sounds fine, but in the current situation - as he is well aware, that defence would be of no use as the PM could manipulate the timing of the election to suit his own ends - ie achieve Brexit on Oct 31 by default, either before the vote or in the days after it if no majority govt was elected.

The case for Miller/Major seems to hinge on the fact that Boris's reasons for proroguing are suspect, and that he lied in his advice to the Queen, so the suspension of parliament is invalid. However, if lying was not allowed in politics, would we have any politics?

So we have responses to two different questions; one political-masquerading-as-legal and one purely political. Clearly this is a unprecedented situation which the constitution is ill-equiped to handle. It will be interesting to see whether the judges prioritise the faux-legal aspect over the political one. As lawyers this is what I would expect, but I think there would be cries of 'shame' if they ignored the shabby conduct of the PM. So I think maybe a recommendation that some form of written constitution detailing the PM's powers be examined in the longer term will come too.

Yes, the constitution will have to be reformed now and perhaps proportional representation brought in.

If some tory clown got a majority to execute me, my children, and all educated people in the UK, would I accept a majority of four percent, few of whom had ever thought of the matter previously, and who had been told huge lies? Why should they rob us all, then, to no personal benefit to anyone but a few tories? This whole situation has been caused by ambitions clashing in the tory party. It ought to be settled by duels between tories, preferably with machine-guns. What it has to do with democracy escapes me.

Many people in the UK have an idealised view of democracy, that it must be upheld to the ends of the earth, or something like that. But that is a naive view, along with the thought that a one off referendum is democratic and must be respected even after much time has passed, or circumstances have changed. I think that this is due to the perception that Great Britain is where democracy was born and that it is in some way sacred. That democracy is more important than anything else. They don't realise that a perfect democracy is an impossibility and that our democracy only expresses a very remote and handfisted view of what the people think.

Such, views are flawed and vulnerable to exploitation by forms of nationalism and populism. In reality democracy works in two ways, firstly that some vestige of a democratic process is maintained, even if the people are not actually expressing their view on issues. Secondly the government can be changed at short notice and regularly through a process of a public vote. Hence we have the sovereignty upheld by a representative parliamentary democracy. At no point is any specific issue democratically decided by the people, it is only the parliamentarians who are chosen by the people and they then appoint a government to carry out their wishes. The important democratic principle in this system is that they can be thrown out, if they go wrong, as is the case at the moment. We have adopted this system to prevent rule by despots and people who don't have a democratic mandate, or who can hold on to power beyond the point when they fall out of favour. These things are what are important in democracy, not what the people think about something at some point.

A referendum does not follow any rules like these and the view of the people is inevitably going to change over time, but the result of the referendum is set in stone. so it is a mistake to think that the result of the referendum must be upheld and that another referendum cannot be held at a future point, to test the view of the people. People who support leave keep stating that the referendum must be honoured, or democracy is broken, but this is a flawed argument, as the democracy we have is in the form of a parliamentary democracy as I pointed out above and the referendum was simply an advisory snapshot of the people's view about something at some point. Actually the view of the people is not of importance in democracy, their view can be expressed, although in a remote and broad brush way through a general election.

Punshhh - Very well put. It has been a huge mistake (Wilson's at first) to abandon representative democracy, where we chose people who know something about such questions to decide, and, if we felt they'd made a mistake, elect some others who knew something about such things to do better. Mobs 'know' about their football teams, at best.

I agree with all you say. The mistake was in part Cameron's for calling the referendum and not realising that the result could cause all sorts of problems. The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since. I must admit it was hard to forsee all this in 2016 though. Those Brexiteers screaming about the loss of their democratic right if the decision is ignored need to learn what a parliamentary democracy is..

I think it's dangerous to say 'the view of the people is not important in a democracy' though. It clearly is, else the word 'democracy' loses its meaning; but that view is expressed only at the level of electing a govt every few years. The UKs problem is that many people don't think their election vote makes any difference, so given an extra opportunity like a binary referendum where they clearly can control future events (by kicking the establishment), it is galling now to be told the result will not be honoured. Subtleties like the fact that a no-deal Brexit was not envisaged at the time, nor would it be supported by the majority now, are lost in the rage to ensure the vote's promise is kept.

The in-out question was too simple, as has become all too obvious in the 3 years since

Yes, there should have been more detail, or follow up on what kind of Brexit the people want and I think a super majority of 60%. As soon as one looks into this, the means of using a referendum to decide these things rapidly becomes problematic, or divisive. Which leads into my other point "the view of the people". I agree that the way I put it "the view of the people is not of importance in democracy" might give the impression to the populous that it sounds as though the democracy doesn't serve the people. But the way in which I use it is as part of a philosophical discussion amongst people who have a more intellectual grasp of the issues we are discussing.

What is the view of the people? Well it may be very difficult to find out, and when you find out, it might not actually be their view, but rather them saying something else with the limited options you gave them when you asked. Or it might be an amplified view of a small focussed group of people, while the silent majority didn't bother speaking for some reason. Half the people asked might not understand the question, or might for some reason mis construe it. An example I heard from a political analyst while discussing this recently, I don't remember who, was "you might ask the population whether they want an apple, or an orange, and the answer is I want a ham sandwich. Then what do you do". This kind of situation might have come about because in the run up to the referendum, a prominent person in the public sphere might have done something with a ham sandwich.

I suggest that all of the above did to some degree happen in this referendum and that the actual view of the people may have been more nuanced or conciliatory on the issue. They might vote "out" so as to have curved cucumbers, rather than straight, but "remain" to maintain the integrity of NATO in the current global political turmoil.

I don't know the US scene, but isnt Trump the guarantor of all the male white-collar industrial jobs that globalism and immigration threaten? Hence trade wars to defend US companies. — Tim3003

That's the story, sometimes, the point is Trump does not need to deliver this, it's just a story being told and actions are for show and not substance.

For instance, if the trade wars lose more male white-collar industrial jobs than they create, Trump base will either just deny those numbers or make up a new story where that's a good thing or in any case not due to Trump. "Nuanced facts" (by which I mean anything not essentially recorded) haven't mattered much to most republicans for a while, Fox News exists to create propaganda and predates Trump; what Trump represents is abandoning internal-consistency as well as non-nuanced-obvious facts, this is a new step into the absurd.

Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked).

Uhh...no. Trump and nuclear weapons isn't an issue. Trump is simply such an inept leader that he simply cannot do such trouble. And what is rarely mentioned is that Trump supporters don't like the neocons and the hawks in Washington — ssu

We agree on several points, but I'd just like to react to this. It may seem at first "obvious someone like Trump should not have nuclear powers" and then quickly turn into a trope because we think other people would prevent reckless nuclear launch, I think the first intuition is the correct one.

For two reasons:

First, it's a baseless assumption that "it would be hard to launch a nuke". We actually simply don't know. Trump is not surrounded by "other responsible people" all the time, and so anytime he's alone and if he called in the nuclear codes handler; as far as we know those codes simply just work and the soldier with the nuclear football is told to do what the president says. So if it got into his mind that he needs to launch, there's simply no good basis to assume that would be a hard thing to do, and someone who's erratic, unpredictable, self-contradictory and is seems to follow no identifiable pattern of behaviour it's again just groundless speculation that wanting to launch a nuke stays unreasonable to this person. Maybe it's unreasonable today, but tomorrow a few new ideas come up and it looks like genius.

Second, there may arise crisis uncaused by Trump where the use of nuclear weapons looks like it's reasonable, no one in the chain of command has complete knowledge, the order to launch arises and it is carried out because it seems a reasonable response to the crisis and lower-downs will assume "certainly a lot of the higher-ups agree"; but in such moment of crisis it maybe, with complete information (i.e. the information available), completely unreasonable to launch but Trump, using one of his long list of erroneous conclusion formula, truly believes it's reasonable, has all the other "higher-ups" arrested or sidesteps them and sends the command to launch. It's a crisis, it's tense, the likely outcome is people do what they've been trained to do: do what the president says. Things simply happen too fast for there to be some sort of coup to depose Trump.

Let's hope neither of these situations are ever tested, but I think it's unwise to minimize it; it can of course be discussed further, my purpose here was simply to compare the stakes in Brexit with the Trump presidency (there's lot's of other examples of "large gap in stakes").

Dr Strangelove

...and perhaps proportional representation brought in. — Punshhh

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option.

Trump and republican talking heads are willing to deny taped statements, be completely self-contradictory and make no plausible "truthiness theater" (which Republicans, pre-Trump, would at least go through the motions of; so Trump is a not straying too far from Republican strategy and intellectual honesty, but it is a new phase where intellectual honesty is no longer even a "pretend value" but openly mocked). — boethius

This is the most appalling truth about populism. Trump knows that his supporters don't follow politics, so he can contradict what he said last week and they won't mind, or possibly even notice. As long as he's true to their values their trust remains. It's identity politics, as I mentioned before. Trump's voters identify with him and that's their politics. They don't need or want to think beyond that. The Brexiteer credo in the UK is much the same. In both arenas the airing of arguments becomes irrelevent, a distraction - a fear-inducing one - for those who don't understand the arguments and in them just see a threat to their identities.

My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant. These politicians' aim is not the improvement of the country, but the ego-driven continuation of their own power. Most know this about Trump, and over here in the UK we're realising BJ is from the same mould. I would be interested to see a statistical analysis of the depth of the population's political knowledge, and thus learn whether the majority really are just identity-minded. I used to use the sales of tabloid newspapers vs those of broadsheets, since the split in their readers' mind-sets effectively drives the 2 different journalistic approaches. It' hard to tell with sales of both falling fast nowadays, but I used to reckon the sales ratio was 4 to 1 - tabloids vs broadsheets. That's a dispiriting thought!

That should only be brought in if it wins in a referendum. We don't need another referendum on it, I'd say. The results would probably be more or less the same as last time. I would vote against it if given the option

l mentioned Pr because we are in a position of constitutional crisis and weaknesses in the system have become apparent. I realise that constitutional reform is a challenge, and that it should not be done now, but looked at when the dust settles.

I think our politics is very different to how it was in 2011. We have the two main parties moving further apart, to the right and the left before our eyes, unable to do anything about it, other than to swing one way or the other with them. The centrist ( Lib dems) party is not able to fill the gap electorally due to the way the constituency system is set up. We have the Greens growing in popularity, with an increased growth expected due to the climate change crisis developing at the moment.

I have been voting since the early 80's and my vote has never counted, as I have always lived in seats where there was a comfortable majority for either Conservative, or on one occasion Labour. There are many people in the same boat, their voices are ignored by the system as it is. The two main parties can become complacent, this has certainly happened with the Conservatives, I welcome Labour's return to socialism, but there may have been a complacency in their safe seats in the north(I'm no expert).

Take for example a talented person interested in politics who is thinking of a career in politics. If they are not a dyed in the wool Conservative, or Labour person, what choice do they have? If their politics is different to this choice they will have to spend years volunteering for the party they join, virtually no chance of becoming an MP and no chance of their party getting into the position to put their policies into action. There may be an issue with a brain drain in our jaded political system.

Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it.

My fear is that democracy is thus dying beneath the weight of politicians whose strategy is the exploitation of the ignorant. — Tim3003

Democracy is threatened solely by the electorate. In a democracy nobody else can be held responsible. Blaming the system or politicians is exactly what demagogues do. So I kind of agree with your gloomy analysis but it’s important to maintain confidence in democratic systems in the absence of alternatives.

This is nonsense. The rules of the game affect how the game is played. The electorate does not have unlimited power or knowlegde, even if they could have it they don't have time. Most people are busy making a living. So we can certainly point out the many issues with various socio-economic systems.

You're frogleaping to a conclusion (or reading that in Tim3003's post) that because the US democratic system is broken (or any other) democratic systems must be bad or something must be wrong with democracy. I would expect that one of the measures of the system is whether it correctly reflects the democratic will of the people. But that shouldn't be, in my view, the only measure.

I’m just saying that giving up on democracy plays into the hands of those who wish to subvert it. I’m often surprised, and depressed, by the number of people on this forum who seem happy to write democracy off. In favour of what? I ask. Never get an answer to that, although Agustino did say ‘monarchism’.

Talking about democracy...
and Brexit at the Labour Conference.
Running commentary from Guardian Politics Live:

'The fact that Unison, which controls a sizeable chunk of the union vote at conference, is going to vote against the NEC motion and in favour of composite 13 (see 10.10am), means that there is now a greater chance than we thought this morning that the conference could unequivocally come down in favour of committing to remain now.'

From McDonnell:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/23/mcdonnell-labour-remaining-in-eu-would-be-better-than-any-brexit-deal

"I smiled when you used the language earlier of civil war and revolt but there isn’t any war in the Labour party. It’s about honest, democratic debate,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The Labour Party finds itself between a rock and a hard place on the Brexit issue. It will be decided in the next couple of days, as the party is deeply democratic and policy is made through a democratic process at the party conference. The split is over whether the policy is to campaign in favour of remain during a confirmatory referendum, or to campaign for the deal which the party will offer in the referendum on the assumption they win an election. I am personally conflicted over the issue, as which ever way it goes it could have either a good, or a bad outcome. It could help to win the election, or loose it and we know what might happen if they loose it.

It's difficult to say I think whether the lack of confidence in Corbyn is critical, as the media faces criticism of anti Corbyn rhetoric, also many people who don't like him might prefer him to the alternative. It has just been announced that the Supreme Court decision will be published Tuesday morning.

Prorogation decision. Tomorrow 10.30.

Judgment hand-down 24 September 2019 10:30 Courtroom 1

The Supreme Court has now heard the two prorogation-related judicial review cases. These took place between 17 and 19 September 2019.

The judgment hand-down will take place on 24 September at 10:30 in Courtroom 1.

Live coverage of the judgment hand-down can be watched online via Supreme Court Live.

Both the judgment and full video on demand coverage of the Court sittings can be found online via one of the following links:

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it. — Wayfarer

Seizing the moment with a lesser candidate wouldn't be ideal. Sure, it would be better than the Tories. But merely being better than the Tories isn't what turned hundreds of people like me away from political indifference. A moderate candidate is not what propelled Labour back into relevance after the lackluster performance of Brown and Miliband; and Corbyn's more moderate leadership challengers did terribly the last few times. They wouldn't have turned the Labour party into the biggest political party in Europe. They wouldn't have Beaten Blair's vote share in 2005.

So, although I'm a big Corbyn supporter, I take your point about the possibility of a more electable candidate, if one exists, but they probably wouldn't fit your ideal, given your criticisms, much of which could have come right out of the mouth of a Tory MP. You want a Red Tory, right? Like one of the loudmouths on the right of the party who are always in the papers or on social media criticising everything that Corbyn says or does? Someone bland like Owen Smith or Ed Miliband, perhaps? A Blairite?

I'd much rather someone like Rebecca Long-Bailey or Emily Thornberry become a successor to Corbyn if it came down to it.

Hey the Labor party seems to have gotten itself into a right pickle. Going on what I'm reading here in Oz, they're tearing themselves to pieces over Brexit at the Conference, and Corbyn has abysmal poll ratings. It's such a shame - if only there was an alternative leader to seize the moment, but I'm afraid Corbyn's not it. — Wayfarer

Agreed. Corbyn has yet again sat on the fence. He seems to want to please all of the Labour membership all of the time rather than Lead. One of the criticisms made of Theresa May's Brexit negotiations was that, as a remainer, her heart was never really in getting the best deal from Brussels. In theory it sounds fine that if Corbyn wins an election, then negotiates the best deal with the EU, and puts it to another referendum, he himself can remain neutral. But assuming he has a view (usually thought to be 'leave') that must affect his attitude to the negotiations. He cannot negotiate impartially any more than May could. Remain opponents within Labour will pounce on this and undermine him. And we're back in the same situation as we've been with the Tories for the past 2 years..

Let's hope neither of these situations are ever tested, but I think it's unwise to minimize it; it can of course be discussed further, my purpose here was simply to compare the stakes in Brexit with the Trump presidency (there's lot's of other examples of "large gap in stakes").

In both cases the elites and their acolytes and have taken it upon themselves to try to undo the democratic choices of the electorate. Even now, years after both votes have occurred, if the losers of said votes weren’t already crippled by media-induced anxiety and fear, they are front and center in the stifling and undoing of the democratic process.

Love Starmer and how he addresses people attending as 'Conference' - much better than 'Comrades'.
He sounds like a leader.

'Conference, you know where I stand on the question of remain: I’ve said many times that I will campaign for it. But I profoundly respect those who take a different view. And conference, let’s go into this with our eyes open.

In 2016 Labour campaigned for remain. We did so because we are internationalists. We stand in solidarity with our friends and neighbours in Europe. We profoundly believe in peace, reconciliation, human rights and collaboration across borders. Socialist values. Our values. Then and now. And let those values guide us on the road ahead.'

Incredible. An important decision to be taken by a show of hands ?

Chair rejects call for card vote - despite admitting there was some confusion as to result.

Jeez :roll:

The Brexit chaos in the UK is largely caused by an unfortunate new electoral practice. In the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy there used to high level of harmony between prime minister and parliament simply because the PM was elected by that parliament. If the MPs went against the cabinet, it meant that they would have to choose a new one and that would be their responsibility. Therefore the majority party would usually support their prime minister unless they had an alternative ready.

Now that the party leaders, and thereby the PM, is elected by party members instead, parliament is not responsible for the actual government policy and they can vote against anything the cabinet proposes without having to come up with an alternative plan.

Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.

Trump was upstaged by a sixteen year old girl today. I bet he didn't even recognise who she was when he breezed through the climate summit and breezed out again.

I don’t blame him. I’d avoid that cult of personality at all costs.

Then why did he turn up? He looked like petulant bully in a school playground, surrounded by his goons, who felt he needed to show his face because there was some other gig more important than his own going on.

Greta’s performance was by definition of petulant. Critics speak of Trump metaphorically as a child, yet grovel and self-flagellate in front of a literal one.