Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[DannyCarlton]

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

'd vote for Rory Stewart as the next PM, as he appears to be the most realistic of all the candidates, and backs Britain, not himself. 

He's no longer a member of the Tory party. Besides, there'll be an election in a couple of months. Who would want to try and break Johnson's record of being the shortest lived PM in history?

[stephenterry]

Just now, DannyCarlton said:

He's no longer a member of the Tory party. Besides, there'll be an election in a couple of months. Who would want to try and break Johnson's record of being the shortest lived PM in history?

Stewart will be reinstated once johnson's gone. There will be an election, come November, or at least a positive no-confidence vote that would generate one. 

 

 

 

[sandyf]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A lot of Brexiteers ranting that the Supreme Court has somehow over ruled the referendum result, democracy and/or Brexit.

 

The Supreme Court has done no such thing, the ruling over rules Johnson’s unlawful attempt to prevent Parliamentary scrutiny of him and his Government’s actions on Brexit.

 

The prorogation of Parliament was an unlawful attack on British democracy, though an attack some Brexiteers were willing to stomach in the belief it would deliver them Brexit.

 

 

Quite. The government made no attempt to justify the decision to prorogue, their only defence was that it was not a matter for the courts. The interventions from the bench during the hearing indicated that approach was not going down well.

The only real surprise was that the verdict was unanimous and some of the comments made as the verdict was handed down.

I think in the years ahead many from both sides of the fence will come to appreciate the fundamental importance of this decision and how the decision itself did not relate to brexit.

[Blue Muton]

40 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Again, which post? I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you do not either.

 

If I changed a post it was have a line underneath saying "edited by..." 

 

So which post was it?

The post that was directly quoted in #295. The fact that your previous post has since been deleted does not excuse your lies about having clearly posted what you now claim you haven't.

[cleopatra2]

2 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite. The government made no attempt to justify the decision to prorogue, their only defence was that it was not a matter for the courts. The interventions from the bench during the hearing indicated that approach was not going down well.

The only real surprise was that the verdict was unanimous and some of the comments made as the verdict was handed down.

I think in the years ahead many from both sides of the fence will come to appreciate the fundamental importance of this decision and how the decision itself did not relate to brexit.

The 20 page judgement is very critical

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

Quite. The government made no attempt to justify the decision to prorogue, their only defence was that it was not a matter for the courts. The interventions from the bench during the hearing indicated that approach was not going down well.

The only real surprise was that the verdict was unanimous and some of the comments made as the verdict was handed down.

I think in the years ahead many from both sides of the fence will come to appreciate the fundamental importance of this decision and how the decision itself did not relate to brexit.

Quite right. A PM who runs roughshod over constitutional democracy deserves to be outed by his party. As to your last sentence, it's more realistic to accept that the unlawful action by johnson had everything to do with brexit.  

[Basil B]

28 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

With the supreme court ruling that johnson's proroguing of parliament was constitutionally unlawful, his days are numbered, as his PM post is untenable - or should be.

 

Probably happen if and when around 50 tory MPs send a letter of no confidence to the 1922 committee, he'll be history just like May. I'd vote for Rory Stewart as the next PM, as he appears to be the most realistic of all the candidates, and backs Britain, not himself. 

 

As I've said on several occasions, johnson went about brexit in totally the wrong way. Threatening a no-deal would never succeed, IMO. 

Problem is when his government is "routed" he and his government still remain at the helm until a new government is appointed, therefore until the option of him taking the UK out of the EU by a default "No Deal" or a deal unapproved by parliament is blocked there will be no General Election.

 

Edit (oh hell!!! seem to have replied to the wrong post)

Edited September 25, 2019 by Basil B
replied to the wrong post

[bannork]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

This is boring. The majority of those who voted wanted to Leave. If you don't vote or are not eligible to vote then it does not count. That's the way Democracy has always worked. Otherwise, we'd never have a majority government. It's a very weak argument, and you know it.

It's strong argument in a referendum where the outcome can cause sea changes in the UK economy. 

[BobBKK]

Don't tell me this was NOT political. All those minor politicians outside the court crowing away?  bring on an election and swipe that smirk off Corbyn's face. But he won't do that because he would LOSE.

[sandyf]

22 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Quite right. A PM who runs roughshod over constitutional democracy deserves to be outed by his party. As to your last sentence, it's more realistic to accept that the unlawful action by johnson had everything to do with brexit.  

There is no doubt that Johnson had brexit in his sights but that was not the basis of the decision. It could have been any issue that denied parliament a say, and it is important that a precedent has been set.

At the end of the day there must be constitutional law.

[Basil B]

41 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The only other article of interest to catch my eye so far this morning has been this:

 

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Why don't we drag John Bercow in front of the Supreme Court?

First any case against Bercow would start in a lower court so may not get to the Supreme Court.

 

But seeing he has set a new president in allowing parliament to maintain it's sovereignty in the face of an aggressive feral government more likely there will be statue of him alongside Cromwell one day...

[evadgib]

This pretty much sums up the current debunkle:

Fiona Bruce will need a riot shield tomorrow night!

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, Basil B said:

First any case against Bercow would start in a lower court so may not get to the Supreme Court.

 

But seeing he has set a new president in allowing parliament to maintain it's sovereignty in the face of an aggressive feral government more likely there will be statue of him alongside Cromwell one day...

Miller's will be in the way ????

[DannyCarlton]

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

This pretty much sums up the current debunkle:

Fiona Bruce will need a riot shield tomorrow night!

A video produced by Lester Taylor, a UKIP (not Brexit party) councellor and failed UKIP MEP candidate.

 

UKIP is now accepted by most as an extreme right wing group with Tommy Robinson (ex Wandsworth goal) as a paid advisor. Even Farage deserted them when they accepted ex NF and TR into their fold.

 

Can you please stop posting nonsense by extreme right wing facists and racists? You are insulting people's intelligence.

[Basil B]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Miller's will be in the way ????

Suppose she will get a new nickname   ...Marmite "you either love her or hate her"

 

My vote... ????

 

I hope one day she is rewarded with a seat in the Lords...

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The only other article of interest to catch my eye so far this morning has been this:

 

RICHARD LITTLEJOHN: Why don't we drag John Bercow in front of the Supreme Court?

 

The 'Dog wiv 2 Dicks' routine from the usual culprits is to be expected but the boards would be far more enjoyable if they'd inject a bit o' banter or humour instead of resorting to witless abuse.

 

Signed ????

 

I am truly shocked by that article.

 

How can any newspaper, even a not so selfrespecting one like the Daily Mail, publish something like this, with the hatred for other people spewing from all sides, is beyond me.

[BobBKK]

13 minutes ago, Basil B said:

First any case against Bercow would start in a lower court so may not get to the Supreme Court.

 

But seeing he has set a new president in allowing parliament to maintain it's sovereignty in the face of an aggressive feral government more likely there will be statue of him alongside Cromwell one day...

Let's get this clear?  Bercow is mandated to be NEUTRAL and he has not been. He was then afraid of being 'outed' and resigned as Speaker and now he's on national TV spouting away.

 

He's a disgrace. Any decent Speaker would never allow Parliament to descend into this chaos - bring back Betty!

[BobBKK]

53 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite. The government made no attempt to justify the decision to prorogue, their only defence was that it was not a matter for the courts. The interventions from the bench during the hearing indicated that approach was not going down well.

The only real surprise was that the verdict was unanimous and some of the comments made as the verdict was handed down.

I think in the years ahead many from both sides of the fence will come to appreciate the fundamental importance of this decision and how the decision itself did not relate to brexit.

you don't really believe that right?  lol

[Slip]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Let's get this clear?  Bercow is mandated to be NEUTRAL and he has not been. He was then afraid of being 'outed' and resigned as Speaker and now he's on national TV spouting away.

 

He's a disgrace. Any decent Speaker would never allow Parliament to descend into this chaos - bring back Betty!

How many times does this have to be posted.  Brexiteers clearly have no idea of what the parliamentary neutrality of the speaker means.

 

Quote

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.

 

[Blue Muton]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

Let's get this clear?  Bercow is mandated to be NEUTRAL and he has not been. He was then afraid of being 'outed' and resigned as Speaker and now he's on national TV spouting away.

 

He's a disgrace. Any decent Speaker would never allow Parliament to descend into this chaos - bring back Betty!

His duty is most certainly NOT to be neutral when it comes down to protecting parliament against the illegal actions of a cowboy PM.

[BobBKK]

Just now, Blue Muton said:

His duty is most certainly NOT to be neutral when it comes down to protecting parliament against the illegal actions of a cowboy PM.

3 years and not a step further to implementing the Ref?  (and I'm a remainer)  this 'cowboy' PM will win the next election whether you like it or not there is no way us Brits will vote in weak Corbyn as we judge he's a coward for not holding a GE. Watch this space.

and WHAT will 3 more months of rubbish do? NOTHING will change

[Basil B]

Just now, BobBKK said:

Let's get this clear?  Bercow is mandated to be NEUTRAL and he has not been. He was then afraid of being 'outed' and resigned as Speaker and now he's on national TV spouting away.

 

He's a disgrace. Any decent Speaker would never allow Parliament to descend into this chaos - bring back Betty!

Bercow's views on Brexit are as clear as Johnson's on the reason why he prorogued Parliament, but what he has done is fight for the sovereignty of Parliament, of coerce if he was a Brexiteer he probably would have done nothing... 

[BobBKK]

Just now, Basil B said:

Bercow's views on Brexit are as clear as Johnson's on the reason why he prorogued Parliament, but what he has done is fight for the sovereignty of Parliament, of coerce if he was a Brexiteer he probably would have done nothing... 

and a 'business woman's' (who is she?) and ex PM and Scottish nationalist are left to 'save us'?  they are all unbiased of course. Once Courts get involved with politics we end up like USA endless partisan litigation. 

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, Blue Muton said:

The post that was directly quoted in #295. The fact that your previous post has since been deleted does not excuse your lies about having clearly posted what you now claim you haven't.

Post 292 was quoted in post 295. 292 is still there, unedited.

 

 

You're losing the plot mate.

[Jonnapat]

This is the type of result you get from a non politicised Supreme Court.

USA please note.

[bamboozle]

17 hours ago, mfd101 said:

No end of entertainment. At least for non-Brits.

 

HM will be extremely unamused. The decree issued by her, on 'her' PM's advice, is declared illegal, nul & void. I doubt that she's encountered that at any previous time in her 67 years on The Throne!

If something is unlawful, it means it is against the law, but not necessarily a criminal act; it can be a civil wrong, such as trademark infringement, for which the wrongdoer may be sued, but will unlikely face criminal prosecution.

Illegal describes an act that is unlawful and also a criminal act, such as drug trafficking.

 

[DannyCarlton]

18 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

3 years and not a step further to implementing the Ref?  (and I'm a remainer)  this 'cowboy' PM will win the next election whether you like it or not there is no way us Brits will vote in weak Corbyn as we judge he's a coward for not holding a GE. Watch this space.

and WHAT will 3 more months of rubbish do? NOTHING will change

Wrong. Change of government and confirmatory vote, the outcome of which will be leave with a sensible deal that doesn't do too much damage to the economy or remain. Either way it'll be all over by Christmas and we can all settle down to the Queens speech and listen to how Johnson has given her a bloody Annus Horribilis.

[JonnyF]

53 minutes ago, bannork said:

It's strong argument in a referendum where the outcome can cause sea changes in the UK economy. 

Incorrect.

 

You can only count the votes from the people who actually vote. This was one of the highest turnouts in UK Democratic history. The was a clear majority amongst those who voted, to Leave. You cannot say the vote doesn't count because x million toddlers, schoolchildren, prisoners etc. were ineligible to vote and therefore it is not a majority. It's such an eccentric view I can hardly believe you are serious about it. It's simply Remainiac desperation to justify ignoring the Democratic result.

 

The concept still applies whether you are voting on changes in the economy, who will form the next government, or whatever else is being voted on. You need a majority of those who vote. Not a majority of the entire population, many of whom cannot even vote ????.

[DannyCarlton]

Just now, JonnyF said:

Incorrect.

 

You can only count the votes from the people who actually vote. This was one of the highest turnouts in UK Democratic history. The was a clear majority amongst those who voted, to Leave. You cannot say the vote doesn't count because x million toddlers, schoolchildren, prisoners etc. were ineligible to vote and therefore it is not a majority. It's such an eccentric view I can hardly believe you are serious about it. It's simply Remainiac desperation to justify ignoring the Democratic result.

 

The concept still applies whether you are voting on changes in the economy, who will form the next government, or whatever else is being voted on. You need a majority of those who vote. Not a majority of the entire population, many of whom cannot even vote ????.

You are forgetting one small detail. The referendum was advisory and parliament is sovereign. If yo dont like it go and live in a country that isn't goverened by a parliamentary democracy. Thailand?

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

You are forgetting one small detail. The referendum was advisory and parliament is sovereign. If yo dont like it go and live in a country that isn't goverened by a parliamentary democracy. Thailand?

And yet Parliament enacted article 50.