Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[oldhippy]

48 minutes ago, evadgib said:

You've had me rolling about like Sgt Wilson ????

Why do you feel the urge to post a pic of yourself?

 

[david555]

Breaking

https://news.sky.com/story/live-gove-refuses-to-say-if-government-will-try-to-suspend-parliament-again-11818984

LIVE: PM lands in Britain as he prepares to address parliament over unlawful suspension

All the latest updates as MPs - including Boris Johnson - rush back to Westminster following the Supreme Court's ruling it was not lawfully

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by david555

[billd766]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Nothing to back up? There was a clearly racist post without any brexiteers distancing themselves from it.

Did you report it?

 

I have no idea how many people on this thread read it and went to the next post, or how many of them were NOT Brexiteers.

 

Do you?

[DannyCarlton]

2 minutes ago, adammike said:

That's true but normally it's less than a week.

He prorogued parliament for less than a week but then used that to bypass another parliamentary convention in not allowing MPs to vote on the length of the recess for conference season. He, if he were being straight with parliament, could have suspended parliament for 2 weeks to accomodate conference season and used the week that the Tories weren't in conference to prepare the Queens speech which, as you say, normally only takes a few days. 5 weeks was completely unjustifiable as one of the court's findings concluded.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Maybe Brexiteers could ask the supreme court to vote again?

That is what Remainers do if the vote goes against them.

[adammike]

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Johnson said it wasn't to stifle debate, it was for a queens speech. Now, only Johnson knows his true motives, that is not what the court ruled on. They distinctly said they were not concerned with his motive.

 

But by any definition, proroguing Parliament is a political decision. It may have been for good political reasons or bad political reasons, but it's still political. And if it's political, the courts should stay away. This is unprecedented. And it's a very bad precedent to set, unless you want every government decision going to the supreme court to be over-ruled by un-elected judges. 

 

It's a process the supreme court is the end of the line it replaced the Law lords.They sit with an odd number so appeals are alway allowed or rejected, because it was a constitutional matter they sat with 11 of the 12 supreme court judges and to have the 11-0 result was the real shocker.For once everybody in the country knows exactly what Boris was about and it was to stifle debate and scrutiny,once again he has been caught out telling lies.While we are at it he is a un-elected prime minister foisted on the UK by 90,000 Tory party members.

 

[Slip]

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I repeat, it was a political decision and as such, not justiciable (as the first court correctly found before arms were twisted).

So is it your contention that the government should be above the law?

 

On a slightly tangental note, (but not really as you mention that 'arms were twisted') one thing that really did strike me was the difference in the reactions of the remainers when the decision went against them in the lower court- there was none of this hand-wringing and pearl clutching that we are seeing from the Brexiteers.

[the guest]

On 9/24/2019 at 12:21 PM, Jingthing said:

Congratulations to the people of the U.K. for having a supreme court that hasn't become corrupted by partisan politics. A great day indeed!

 

... and congratulations for the Supreme courts in interfering with British politics. Just wondering what specific law was broken for them to reach this decision? Pretty pathetic state of affairs that if we're talking about proroguing Parliament, how about the public taking Parliament to court for proroguing 3 years of not respecting the wishes of the majority vote. UK is look more clownish as the days, months, years go by ... the laughing stock of Europe !

[welovesundaysatspace]

50 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I repeat, it was a political decision and as such, not justiciable

It is justiciable. The Supreme Court just ruled on that. 

 

[SheungWan]

Was it, or was it not a political decision by Johnson?
 
And did unelected judges over-ride that political decision?
 
Therein lies the problem. Are governments going to be taken to court for every political decision they make so that unelected judges can over-ride those decisions? That sounds like the sort of Democracy a Remainer might like. [emoji38]

Irrelevant what the politics of the decision were. The Law Lords ruled that the decision impeded Parliamentary deliberation and decision making which it was entitled to do ie Parliament was being impeded from carrying out its job. And that was exactly the intention if you want to consider motivation on the side. I would suggest that Brexiteers give up trying to put lipstick on the Boris pig on this matter.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

how about the public taking Parliament to court for proroguing 3 years of not respecting the wishes of the majority vote.

I’ve asked this question Brexiteers before but never ow got an answer. So tell me: why are you not going to court instead of all the moaning and whining and ranting? Because you know very well that the referendum wasn’t legally binding, parliament is acting according to constitutional laws, and only Brexiteers are breaking them. Ever since all the lies and false promises, the whole of Brexit is built on exactly not playing by the rules. And that’s the only way it can survive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace

[oldhippy]

And by the way, completely off topic (?), but I was challenged by a racist poster, so I have to reply:

1/ Are there inferior and superior races? NO. End of discussion.

2/ Are all cultures equal? Difficult question, that I would be very happy to hear other's opinions about.

However, I am not in the least interested in discussing cultural differences with racists.

Maybe a non-racist can start a thread about that?

 

[oldhippy]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Did you report it?

 

I have no idea how many people on this thread read it and went to the next post, or how many of them were NOT Brexiteers.

 

Do you?

Do I what?

[SheungWan]

 
... and congratulations for the Supreme courts in interfering with British politics. Just wondering what specific law was broken for them to reach this decision? Pretty pathetic state of affairs that if we're talking about proroguing Parliament, how about the public taking Parliament to court for proroguing 3 years of not respecting the wishes of the majority vote. UK is look more clownish as the days, months, years go by ... the laughing stock of Europe !

The laughing stock is unfortunately the Hard Brexiteers who actually want Parliament to be impeded ahead of October 31. Their rattling, post decision of the Law Lords is pathetic.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

There would appear to be no EU or UK legal system that meets the requirements of some of the Hard Brexiteers here

Edited September 25, 2019 by SheungWan

[oldhippy]

12 minutes ago, the guest said:

 

... and congratulations for the Supreme courts in interfering with British politics. Just wondering what specific law was broken for them to reach this decision? Pretty pathetic state of affairs that if we're talking about proroguing Parliament, how about the public taking Parliament to court for proroguing 3 years of not respecting the wishes of the majority vote. UK is look more clownish as the days, months, years go by ... the laughing stock of Europe !

I agree with your last remark.

[Slip]

3 hours ago, evadgib said:

Being married to Asians renders that claptrap unnecessary.

 

Incidentally; when the Quail was poorly a few months ago it was the Brexiters he routinely slags off who enquired as to his welfare. 

So there aren't any racists that just hate one race, or hate some races and think others are great?

[Forethat]

An interesting debate in the HOC now. I urge each of you to listen in.

LIVE:

 

[david555]

Just now, Forethat said:

An interesting debate in the HOC now. I urge each of you to listen in.

LIVE:

 

I am already before you listening ….wink

[evadgib]

58 minutes ago, oldhippy said:

Why do you feel the urge to post a pic of yourself?

 

Cos I couldn't find the audio.

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, oldhippy said:

And not a single brexiteer to distance himself from this racist remark.

 

Is it any wonder that some people say all brexiteers are racists?

 

I'm happy to distance himself from this racist remark, whoever said it. But in my experience, the "some" people who would say all brexiteers are racists, are more likely to be so themselves.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Guy who drinks in my local is married to a Russian mail order bride. I've never met a bigger racist. Has been banned from several pubs for exopunding his views. Brexiteer, of course.

 

And those same Brexiteers have accused everyone and anyone, all remainers, of being Grouse, in order to get them banned.

 

 

What?

[SheungWan]

An interesting debate in the HOC now. I urge each of you to listen in.
LIVE:
[/url]  

If its the Attorney General taking questions in the HoC, then quite useful for aspirant pompous types.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Slip]

3 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If its the Attorney General taking questions in the HoC, then quite useful for aspirant pompous types.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

It is, and it is.  He is putting on some performance.  Gammongedon.

[oldhippy]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm happy to distance himself from this racist remark, whoever said it. But in my experience, the "some" people who would say all brexiteers are racists, are more likely to be so themselves.

That's 1.

Not realy a flying start, and only after 2 reminders.

[david555]

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

It is, and it is.  He is putting on some performance.  Gammongedon.

Very angry and  defiant because the conservatives don't get their election and the opposition  does not put their foot in traitorous Boris trap …… amusing to see 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

I’ve asked this question Brexiteers before but never ow got an answer. So tell me: why are you not going to court instead of all the moaning and whining and ranting? Because you know very well that the referendum wasn’t legally binding, parliament is acting according to constitutional laws, and only Brexiteers are breaking them. Ever since all the lies and false promises, the whole of Brexit is built on exactly not playing by the rules. And that’s the only way it can survive. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moaning, good one. 

[oldhippy]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm happy to distance himself from this racist remark, whoever said it. But in my experience, the "some" people who would say all brexiteers are racists, are more likely to be so themselves.

Quote: the "some" people who would say all brexiteers are racists, are more likely to be so themselves.

 

huh?

[nauseus]

13 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If its the Attorney General taking questions in the HoC, then quite useful for aspirant pompous types.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I'm sure you can recognize them instantly.

[nauseus]

Just now, oldhippy said:

Quote: the "some" people who would say all brexiteers are racists, are more likely to be so themselves.

 

huh?

Eh?