The people have spoken - Should we listen?

[esme]

...Can a Prime Minister be arrested for contempt of court?...

as long as this expression of contempt isn't protected by parliamentary privilege, i.e. expressed outside the houses of parliament, then yes

[HeadingNorth]

as long as this expression of contempt isn't protected by parliamentary privilege, i.e. expressed outside the houses of parliament, then yes

 

In this case, it would be because he'd passed an illegal act and refused to rescind it. So it would be actions taken inside Parliament, and therefore protected - but at one and the same time, actions he is not legally allowed to make whether he has parliamentary privilege or not.

 

I really don't like the idea of the Supreme Court ordering police officers to enter parliament and arrest MPs, but - in theory! - it could come to that. And Parliamentary security would no doubt refuse to let them in, but when push comes to shove who's got the bigger force?

 

 

I argued at the time that those treaties should not be signed, because they involved Parliament giving up its own supremacy. If ever a government decides we should withdraw from the EU, we'll find out just how dangerous that was.

[Cyclone]

It's also illegal for Parliament to rescind that act, for the same reason.

 

 

Now historically, Parliament outranks the courts - it outranks everything - but in thisc instance, Parliament has passed laws specifically giving up the right to outrank the courts. If they passed a new law taking it back, that new law would be illegal, and one almighty ruckus of a constitutional crisis would ensue. (Can a Prime Minister be arrested for contempt of court?)

 

Presumably they'd rescind the law that gave the judiciary primacy in that case first, then they'd pass the new motion and withdraw from the relevant treaties.

[Nagel]

I really don't like the idea of the Supreme Court ordering police officers to enter parliament and arrest MPs, but - in theory! - it could come to that. And Parliamentary security would no doubt refuse to let them in, but when push comes to shove who's got the bigger force?

 

Why would the Police obey the Supreme Court? Who would force them to do that?

[Treatment]

I have a length of rope in the garage, and a few trees in the garden. That would minimise any cost expenditure.

[HeadingNorth]

Why would the Police obey the Supreme Court?

 

Because it's what they're for. When a court order goes out to arrest someone, the police arrest him.

[HeadingNorth]

Presumably they'd rescind the law that gave the judiciary primacy in that case first

 

There's the catch 22. They can't, because the law that gives the judiciary primary, is the treaty. You cannot legally withdraw from the treaty unless you've already withdrawn from it first.

 

 

I expect Parliament would win, but there could be severe damage done in the process.

[barleycorn]

well it's actually worse than 80% being told what to do by 20%

 

very roughly

 

we have an election where we vote for a representative for our constituency, this person usually belongs to a party

 

the party with most elected representatives forms the government of the day

 

however the party makes very sure that certain people are elected by parachuting them into safe seats where necessary

 

this handful of people form the cabinet who meet behind closed doors and make the big decisions without reference to the rest of parliament, their party and very definitely without reference to us, these decisions are then enforced by the party whips and parliament does what it's told

 

providing the cabinet have made no decision on a matter then your elected representative is free to vote how they wish and may even listen to your point of view on certain issues

 

but for the big issues, a small handful of people tell the entire country what to do and there's very little you can do to influence their decisions

 

You missed the bit where each elected MP requires only a plurality of votes and not a majority. This coupled with the differing sizes of constituencies means that the party with the most seats may have gained the support of far less than 50% of the votes. It's such a shame there are no alternative, fairer ways to vote...

 

jb

[Cyclone]

There's the catch 22. They can't, because the law that gives the judiciary primary, is the treaty. You cannot legally withdraw from the treaty unless you've already withdrawn from it first.

 

 

I expect Parliament would win, but there could be severe damage done in the process.

 

Hmmm, I suspect that our understanding of this isn't right. Treaties do not form law, parliament signs up to the treaty and then enacts laws to meet the obligations they've agreed to.

[Cyclone]

You missed the bit where each elected MP requires only a plurality of votes and not a majority. This coupled with the differing sizes of constituencies means that the party with the most seats may have gained the support of far less than 50% of the votes. It's such a shame there are no alternative, fairer ways to vote...

 

jb

 

jb

 

The alternative vote system for example.