UK Supreme Court hears cases that PM Johnson's parliament suspension was illegal

[Baerboxer]

On 9/17/2019 at 11:20 AM, Araiwah said:

They've done nothing for 3 years and now they're complaining that he wants to close parliament for FOUR extra days. You honestly couldn't make this up. 

 

Er, not quite. Think about how many days again.

[Amalie]

The people can't even trust the law anymore even they are ownd by the globalists in government how very sad democracy means nothing to these people

[Rookiescot]

The FT this morning reports on a chastening encounter over lunch between Johnson, Michel Barnier and Jean-Claude Juncker, which one official described as a “penny dropping” moment for the prime minister over what it really means to replace the Irish backstop.

According to an account of the meeting, the prime minister was told by his EU counterparts in no uncertain terms that the UK’s plan to replace the backstop by allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock (known as SPS) was not enough to prevent customs checks on the vast majority of goods that cross the Irish border.

At that point, a befuddled Johnson turned to David Frost, his chief negotiator, and Stephen Barclay, Brexit secretary, and said: “So you're telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”

Another official describes the prime minister gradually “slumping” in his chair as the reality of the UK’s negotiating position and the limited time left to strike an agreement dawned on him.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

6 hours ago, evadgib said:

Some random observations so far;

 

- That Gina Miller was given yesterdays date before she had even left court last week should not be overlooked, given the Supreme Court were not supposed to be sitting until October & the entire bench (11 + sub) just happened to be available.

 

- Millar was able to play with her phone, screened around the world, throughout. Doing same outside a court elsewhere landed someone with an arguably similar profile in isolation in Belmarsh for 66 days. At the very least I would have expected her to have been chastised.

 

- Since B-liar tampered with the courts it is now not possible for Judges to be promoted into these positions without all sorts of boxes being ticked. I won't bother listing as the 'Rhubarb' brigade will tar and feather anyone that did, but some good candidates are being held back while others are being promoted beyond their ability and are making decisions that make a mockery of the alleged independence of the Courts. 

 

I do not know which way this will go but it would not surprise me in the least if Parliament and the courts are in league and this proves to be a stitch up.

 

I may yet submit an FoI seeking a breakdown of Leave-v-Remain among the panel; How sad is that?

 

(Content not Poster!)

 

Nice try - but no coconut!

 

The Supreme Court can decide to urgently hear cases of great importance. Which, this absolutely is.

 

Check the biographies of the 12 Supreme Court Justices. Then perhaps you'd like to explain which ones you feel have been promoted beyond their abilities and provide details of the people you believe should have been appointed? Don't cop out by claiming you know but are scared to post it. Let's have facts not surface drivel.

 

The fact that 11 Justices are sitting demonstrates the importance they attach to this case.

 

Bexiters seem to favor ignoring the law, ridiculing Justices, Judges and rulings they don't like whilst applauding the ones they do like with the vigor of seals expecting a fish to be thrown!

 

This habit of trying to slur the courts and the law in favor of mob rule is very representative of totalitarian regimes whilst coming to power.

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, Amalie said:

The people can't even trust the law anymore even they are ownd by the globalists in government how very sad democracy means nothing to these people

 

The law is, well, the law. Not what you, I or anyone else randomly fancies it should be.

[Baerboxer]

10 hours ago, JAG said:

Well said. Unfortunately we also have a Judiciary which quite fancies a role in governing, a legislature which is unwilling to face an election and an executive which has been rendered unable to function by that legislature.  The legislature, having engineered the ability to usurp the role of the executive is unwilling to risk the public verdict; the government rebels because they know that they will lose their seats, and the opposition because they know that they are unlikely to win the election. They will not (risk) hold an election until the government (Tory) rebels can regain control of their parliamentary party, and their allies in the  opposition parliamentary party (Labour) can oust their current leadership, who effectively make them electable. We could be in for a long wait.

 

This is what happens when our parliament allows personal ambitions to replace the constitutional conventions which govern it. They have been helped to do this by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. which is being misused to allow this.

 

Oh dear oh dear. 

 

This is what happens when a political party feud is handled badly and allowed to pollute parliament. 

 

The courts, AFAIK, have no desire to do anything other than perform their duty. Which is to interpret and apply the laws, as they stand. 

 

The government is accountable to parliament and is not above the law.

 

Parliament can make new, amend or cancel legislation. But it itself is also not above the law.

 

The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling based on the existing laws, with full explanations. 

 

If only the government were so forthcoming.

[Rookiescot]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Oh dear oh dear. 

 

This is what happens when a political party feud is handled badly and allowed to pollute parliament. 

 

The courts, AFAIK, have no desire to do anything other than perform their duty. Which is to interpret and apply the laws, as they stand. 

 

The government is accountable to parliament and is not above the law.

 

Parliament can make new, amend or cancel legislation. But it itself is also not above the law.

 

The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling based on the existing laws, with full explanations. 

 

If only the government were so forthcoming.

The Brexiteers want to appoint their own judges. Now where have I heard that before in history?

Anyway it sounds like a job for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. I understand he is familiar with legal proceedings.  

[Mavideol]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:36 PM, legend49 said:

USA?

maybe The Falklands/Malvinas would be more peaceful 555

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nice try - but no coconut!

 

The Supreme Court can decide to urgently hear cases of great importance. Which, this absolutely is.

 

Check the biographies of the 12 Supreme Court Justices. Then perhaps you'd like to explain which ones you feel have been promoted beyond their abilities and provide details of the people you believe should have been appointed? Don't cop out by claiming you know but are scared to post it. Let's have facts not surface drivel.

 

The fact that 11 Justices are sitting demonstrates the importance they attach to this case.

 

Bexiters seem to favor ignoring the law, ridiculing Justices, Judges and rulings they don't like whilst applauding the ones they do like with the vigor of seals expecting a fish to be thrown!

 

This habit of trying to slur the courts and the law in favor of mob rule is very representative of totalitarian regimes whilst coming to power.

...how about the length of time taken re the likes of the Tilbrook case & the bias shown in fobbing him off with a laughable 'TWM'?

Background and full details are readily available via his archive.

[watcharacters]

On 9/17/2019 at 2:36 PM, legend49 said:

On 9/17/2019 at 11:37 AM, the guest said:

I think all the British politicians should be rounded-up and put in a remote place far away from the electorate, where they can do minimal damage.

 

 

USA?

 

Possibly you should be locked up among   (or is it amongst) them?

 

 

[metisdead]

Some posts containing offensive trolling comments toward Remainers have been removed.  Continue to post using that offensive trolling term and a warning will be coming. 

[StreetCowboy]

6 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Oh dear oh dear. 

 

This is what happens when a political party feud is handled badly and allowed to pollute parliament. 

 

The courts, AFAIK, have no desire to do anything other than perform their duty. Which is to interpret and apply the laws, as they stand. 

 

The government is accountable to parliament and is not above the law.

 

Parliament can make new, amend or cancel legislation. But it itself is also not above the law.

 

The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling based on the existing laws, with full explanations. 

 

If only the government were so forthcoming.

We are fortunate indeed, in our country, that we have the rule of law, the government of parliament, the reign of our dear monarch and policing by consent.

 

Let us hope that all of those survive Brexit.

 

 

[JAG]

12 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Oh dear oh dear. 

 

This is what happens when a political party feud is handled badly and allowed to pollute parliament. 

 

The courts, AFAIK, have no desire to do anything other than perform their duty. Which is to interpret and apply the laws, as they stand. 

 

The government is accountable to parliament and is not above the law.

 

Parliament can make new, amend or cancel legislation. But it itself is also not above the law.

 

The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling based on the existing laws, with full explanations. 

 

If only the government were so forthcoming.

I agree that a political feud within the Tory party plays a large part in this mess, but it doesn't explain the unwillingness of the opposition to allow an election? An election is the most obvious and most constitutional way out of this. It is certainly the fastest way out. It will either deliver a mandate either way, or if unequivocal will at least act as a starting point for negotiating an internal (within the UK) parliamentary settlement.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Really? Brexit has happened? When did it happen? When did Britain leave the EU? I thought it had been postponed until October 31st 2019...

 

Brexit mentality, in the absence of constructive comment turn to sarcasm.

I never said the UK had left the EU, a fabrication on your part. Brexit has been in the air for the last 4 years or so and I said the country had been damaged by brexit, something only the blind would try and dispute.

[evadgib]

As the Queen can now be challenged in court by a (propped-up) member of the public what's stopping anyone doing same over the blatant bias displayed by the Hobbit?

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, evadgib said:

As the Queen can now be challenged in court by a (propped-up) member of the public what's stopping anyone doing same over the blatant bias displayed by the Hobbit?

Shock horror, man who relies heavily on unattributed ripped memes discovers nobody is above the law.

 

[billd766]

18 hours ago, Mavideol said:

maybe The Falklands/Malvinas would be more peaceful 555

I think that South Georgia Island would be better apart from out numbering the locals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Georgia_Island

 

Geography
Location    South Atlantic
Coordinates    54.4°S 36.7°W
Archipelago    South Georgia group
Area    3,528 km2 (1,362 sq mi)
Length    167.4 km (104.02 mi)
Width    37 km (23 mi)
Highest elevation    2,934 m (9,626 ft)
Highest point    Mount Paget
Largest settlement    Grytviken
Demographics
Population    32 (summer)
16 (winter)

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Shock horror, man who relies heavily on unattributed ripped memes discovers nobody is above the law.

Was that a yes or a no?

[Basil B]

Me think the scales may just be tilted on this one, I mean given the likelihood of a new government in the coming weeks would you vote for a long pay freeze and having you expenses and perks of the job scrutinised?

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Was that a yes or a no?

That’s a ‘nobody is above the law’.

 

[evadgib]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a ‘nobody is above the law’.

It was bait which, as usual, didn't quite go as you had hoped ????

[Slip]

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

As the Queen can now be challenged in court by a (propped-up) member of the public what's stopping anyone doing same over the blatant bias displayed by the Hobbit?

There seems to be an increasing confusion over the concept of impartiality (often mistakenly referred to as being "unbiased").

 

The Speaker's role is to represent Parliament. He/she is only required to exercise impartiality over political party affiliations, not the business of Parliament. When the Government of whatever day puts itself in opposition to Parliament, they also put themselves in opposition to the Speaker of the House of Commons. It really is as simple as that.

 

It is very unfortunate that, once again, the Tory party has conflated its own tribal concerns with government business and constructed the narrative that "as the natural party of government" (self-awarded title) any opposition to party will is a national betrayal.

 

There are very good reasons why "Parliament" and "Government" are distinct and separate terms, because it is not the role of Parliament to merely rubber stamp the will of the governing party. Far from being a traitor or a betrayer, Bercow has clearly exemplified why this should be so.

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, evadgib said:

As the Queen can now be challenged in court by a (propped-up) member of the public what's stopping anyone doing same over the blatant bias displayed by the Hobbit?

You should elaborate, what case has been brought against the Queen in court.

[beautifulthailand99]

Back from a 5 day ban - got a lot done in the 'real world' and stayed away from here. Anyway the good news is that pound is highest for a longest time but the bad news is that lying ,bloated bag of over-privileged entitled piffle is still our Prime Minister. Just a mod though why can't they have thread or sub-forum specific bans - I' sure TVF would do better as well as per impressions/clicks. I'm a much nicer person when not inflamed by this Brexit nonsense. 

 

1 Pound sterling equals

38.24 Thai Baht

[Basil B]

23 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Shock horror, man who relies heavily on unattributed ripped memes discovers nobody is above the law.

 

Wow ????

 

Very highfalutin and cryptic...

 

But could not be more accurate.

[batata]

On 9/17/2019 at 11:37 AM, the guest said:

I think all the British politicians should be rounded-up and put in a remote place far away from the electorate, where they can do minimal damage.

 

 

you mean somewhere around the north pole

[evadgib]

Robin Tilbrook explaining the disparity between his court actions and those of Gina Miller. Of particular interest is the revelation from BBC Laura Klinsberg that his actions 'are blocked' (ie deliberately 'blackballed' by MSM)  :

 

(Viewing isn't compulsory but I would at least expect the time of the clip to elapse before the usual culprits plss on the post!)

[stevenl]

40 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Robin Tilbrook explaining the disparity between his court actions and those of Gina Miller. Of particular interest is the revelation from BBC Laura Klinsberg that his actions 'are blocked' (ie deliberately 'blackballed' by MSM)  :

 

(Viewing isn't compulsory but I would at least expect the time of the clip to elapse before the usual culprits plss on the post!)

Same old same old, blame remainders for everything. And if that doesn't work blame the media.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Same old same old, blame remainders for everything. And if that doesn't work blame the media.

Quote

(Viewing isn't compulsory but I would at least expect the time of the clip to elapse before the usual culprits plss on the post!)

 

[stevenl]

32 minutes ago, evadgib said:

 

2 possibilities, either you have nothing to say, since you did not reply, see the quoted text, or you're implying I did not watch the video in full, which would be incorrect.