Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

[7by7]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

 You may recall that at the start of this exchange I remarked that I was not surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Mind you it would be fair to say that I am perhaps not as persuaded by the, how shall we put it, legal purity of the judgement as you may be.

 

3 hours ago, JAG said:

I am no legal expert. Are you?

 

Then how can you opine upon the 'legal purity' of the judgement?

[7by7]

3 hours ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Parliament makes laws, judges uphold them. But I don't see any law made by Parliament being broken here. Yes, I have read the judgement. Have you?

 

A lot of people are not going to accept that the Supreme Court's decision is neutral and unbiased, since it is based on a highly subjective interpretation of the "unwritten constitution". That puts the Supreme Court in a very precarious position.

 I haven't read the judgement, but the part read out by Lady hale on the radio said they ruled it unlawful because the Prime Minister had given no reason for proroguing parliament for 5 weeks.

 

Had Johnson answered the court's request for a witness statement outlining his reasons, they may very well have found in his favour! But how can they judge if his reasons are valid if he won't say what those reasons are?

 

Addendum:

You said "Parliament makes laws, judges uphold them." Have a read of 7.2 Statute law and common law to see where you've gone wrong.

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[Bruntoid]

21 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

Well, you joined this site 3 weeks ago, and you've already made 131 posts. Just arrived in Thailand, have you?

 

The mods should check your IP address, and see which other Thaivisa members it matches up with.

Wow again - it appears when under pressure you resort to hostility and the grassing route and you know what they say about grasses.

 

It transpires I’m not the only alleged doppelgänger outed by frustrated leavers looking back in this thread. 

 

So approximately 7 posts a day means .....? 

 

I’m happy to face any scrutiny - infact I’ve had a beer with a couple of the mods (purely to do a bit of brown nosing you understand) - if one of them would like to PM me or invite me in for a bit of water boarding that would be fine. 

 

However if it’s too hot in the kitchen chap ....

[Bruntoid]

26 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

I couldn't give a monkeys. I look forward to you getting banned when the moderators discover you've been multi-handling.

Odd then you gave quite a lot of monkeys pre tantrum. 

 

I will leave this to allow you to gather your emotions and to prepare for my forthcoming trial - Gina Miller not available is she ? 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, JamesBlond said:

So 11 people - who are more likely to have holidays villas in France than the general population - are allowed to undermine to desire of millions with a single, arbitrary decision? This is why the judiciary must stay out of politics.

 

The Supreme Court ruling does not effect Brexit in any way, shape or form.

 

The decision is that the PM cannot prorogue Parliament for a lengthy period without a valid reason. That is all.

 

 

 

[Bruntoid]

Well chaps goodnight all - after todays news I have a cheeky bottle of Lafitte that isn’t going to drink itself 

 

I expect to awake to the news Michael Gove has slung a few more knives towards Boris’s back and is leading in the hastily arranged leadership contest and Dominic Cummings has been found dangling from Tower Bridge! 

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

It was 11-0. There is no ambiguity in that.

What you going to do now?

Appeal to the EU courts?

 I'm sure that Johnson would if he could.

 

Unfortunately for him, this is a UK legal matter and the ECJ only hears cases and rules on EU treaty disputes and other EU matters.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, HansumFarang said:

3 hours ago, bannork said:

It is not normal to close Parliament for 5 weeks before a momentous decision such as Brexit.

 

Or for the three weeks before a General Election. Ask John Major if you don't believe me.

 Another notorious and, in my opinion, wrongful prorogation.

 

Perhaps you should have challenged it in the High Court at the time?

[7by7]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

3 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

No one voted to leave without a deal.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

But there again and again and again, how could they when it wasn't even on the ballot paper, there was leave or remain.

 

Yet again it has to be explained to you.

 

All the leave campaigns promised the electorate that leaving the EU meant we would still enjoy the benefits we liked, such as the single market, whilst ditching the bits we didn't, such as the FoM directive.

 

Whenever anyone mentioned the prospect and consequences of a no deal during the campaign, this was dismissed by Leave campaigners as 'Project Fear.'

 

The Leave promised us by Cummings and others, the Leave people voted for was very similar in every way to the deal May negotiated.

 

Whilst I firmly believe that leaving the EU without a deal will be a disaster for us which will take a generation or more to recover from, if that is what the majority of my fellow Brits decide they want in a final, legally binding referendum then I will accept it.

 

But having such a thing forced upon us by the devious, underhand methods attempted by Johnson, that I cannot in all conscience accept.

 

Fortunately for this country Parliament stopped him from dissolving it until November for his election, and the Supreme Court has now stopped his deceitful prorogation as well.

[7by7]

3 hours ago, Forethat said:

In my opinion, repeatedly calling other posters liars should - at a minimum - be supported by some kind of evidence. I think it's lamentable behavior. I refuse to report posts, but I have to say I'm seriously surprised to see posters get away with this time and again.

 

In terms of recess, the HOC conference recess was in the HOC calendar long before the request for a prorogation. That's not dishonest. It's a fact.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/28/what-is-prorogation-prorogue-parliament-boris-johnson-brexit :

 

 

The prorogation effectively canceled the conference recess, but had BJ not requested one it would - by my count - have left five days to prepare for the Queen's speech.

 

There, once again I provide accurate information.

Another happy customer...

 

As already shown, Johnson published his programme in August. What more did he need 5 weeks to prepare for?

 

He could easily have prorogued Parliament immediately upon it's return from the summer recess and had the Queen's speech a matter of days later.

 

You have previously claimed to be an SME working on the plans for Brexit; maybe you can tell us why he didn't do so.

 

As for the conference season; that could easily have been postponed; indeed many politicians from all parties suggested that it should have been.

Edited September 24, 2019 by 7by7
Typo

[SheungWan]

 
You keep quoting me, but leaving the text blank? I'm sure it's unintentional, but it's a bit annoying.
 
My personal opinion is that the PM was acting in bad faith, but that is irrelevant in legal terms.
 
The point that I've been trying to make is that the Supreme Court has made itself vulnerable with this ruling. The legal grounding of their ruling will appear shaky to many observers. When the PM, Parliament and the Supreme Court are all stretching the limits of their powers like this, it damages people's faith in the system.

Half-hearted point making.

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

[SheungWan]

Ah but a political lie is not the same as a normal lie.

Lie means lie.

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

[Forethat]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

As already shown, Johnson published his programme in August. What more did he need 5 weeks to prepare for?

 

He could easily have prorogued Parliament immediately upon it's return from the summer recess and had the Queen's speech a matter of days later.

 

You have previously claimed to be an SME working on the plans for Brexit; maybe you can tell us why he didn't do so.

 

As for the conference season; that could easily have been postponed; indeed many politicians from all parties suggested that it should have been.

He didn't need five weeks. The HOC was supposed to be in recess for party conferences. That left five or six days to prepare. Obviously one could speculate as to whether HOC would postpone the conference recess in case they felt necessary, but that is exactly that - speculations.

[Chelseafan]

Good job the Government can't go to the European Supreme court - The irony of it!

 

[SheungWan]

what happens in the UK when a legal court finds someone guilty of having committed
an illegal act? 

Thrown into the Tower of London.

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

[SheungWan]

Good job the Government can't go to the European Supreme court - The irony of it!
 

Good luck with getting away with the scam there.

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

[Basil B]

34 minutes ago, Forethat said:

He didn't need five weeks. The HOC was supposed to be in recess for party conferences. That left five or six days to prepare. Obviously one could speculate as to whether HOC would postpone the conference recess in case they felt necessary, but that is exactly that - speculations.

Parliament recalled tomorrow at 11:30, and now no recess for the remaining party conference... ????

Quote

Parliament will be recalled tomorrow thanks to the government’s defeat in the Supreme Court, and it is considered likely that MPs will vote to extend its sittings to last throughout the remainder of conference season.

 

Wounder if any Tory will find anyone to pair with so they can attend the party conference next week??? ????

 

[SheungWan]

Except that's not at all the way it is. They are bound by the fact that if the result is not enacted, Britain's international reputation will be in shreds, parliament will lose all credibility, the foundations of participative democracy will be utterly undermined, and there will be rioting in the streets.
 
'Not legally binding' is just caviling. Everyone knows a referendum is morally binding otherwise it would not be held, and the result will stand unless there are legal reasons why the vote was invalid. As there are no such reasons, the vote is as good as binding.

No-deal Brexit is not only not binding (apologies for the double negative) but Sterling rises every time no-deal is seen to be in retreat. It is no-deal Brexit which is seen as destroying UK reputation and threatening to make it a laughing stock.

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

[Basil B]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

what happens in the UK when a legal court finds someone guilty of having committed
an illegal act? 

Thrown into the Tower of London.

I would like to know if civil servants advised Boris, and did they advise him against? if he ignored their advice then then hope he will be held in "Contempt of Parliament" or "Misconduct in Public Office"

 

Hope the outcome is he being band from holding public office, not only will he be barred from being PM, he would be barred from being a MP and even barred from receiving a peerage. ???? 

[Loiner]

I would like to know if civil servants advised Boris, and did they advise him against?

If the AG told him it’s OK, that’s pretty good advice.
Who knows best - the govt top lawman, or a bunch of judges dabbling in politics?

[tebee]

8 hours ago, tebee said:

Er - would that not be Rees Mogg  as leader of the Privy council who asked the queen to do the dirty dead ? 

DAG aggres with me ! 

 

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

If the AG told him it’s OK, that’s pretty good advice.
Who knows best - the govt top lawman, or a bunch of judges dabbling in politics?

The advice from the Attorney General was wrong by 11-0. The fool was clearly a bad appointment and should resign. On the other hand maybe a medal for the continued clown antics of the Boris govt.

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

[SheungWan]

I would like to know if civil servants advised Boris, and did they advise him against? if he ignored their advice then then hope he will be held in "Contempt of Parliament" or "Misconduct in Public Office"
 
Hope the outcome is he being band from holding public office, not only will he be barred from being PM, he would be barred from being a MP and even barred from receiving a peerage. [emoji23] 

The Attorney General holds responsibility for the bad legal advice. Anyone in the Cabinet who isn't a clown?

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

[SheungWan]

I would like to know if civil servants advised Boris, and did they advise him against? if he ignored their advice then then hope he will be held in "Contempt of Parliament" or "Misconduct in Public Office"
 
Hope the outcome is he being band from holding public office, not only will he be barred from being PM, he would be barred from being a MP and even barred from receiving a peerage. [emoji23] 

The outcome is to comply with the ruling. So then, back to Parliamentary Democracy.

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

[SheungWan]

 Ask Rees-Mogg; he understands it perfectly and has made millions from it since the referendum!

Joker Rees-Mogg doubling down on his effort to be top fool in the Govt with his attack on the Supreme Court. Cleared with Boris? Doubtful.

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

[Rookiescot]

3 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Lie means lie.

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

I always thought that but a court in Scotland found an MP called Alistair Carmichael guilty of lying but said it was a political lie not a real lie.

Yeah I know. Me neither.

 

 

[legend49]

13 hours ago, soalbundy said:

Normally common decency would mean that BJ would resign but being BJ he won't.

No he is a twin of DT.

[soalbundy]

The icing on the cake, Donald Trump will probably be impeached so not much hope for that fantastic brexit deal with Boris, two losers going down the pan, yes, yes, yes.

[yogi100]

14 hours ago, SheungWan said:

AFAIK, the referendum did not give a green light to Boris Johnson to break the law.

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

The referendum was a demand to leave the EU. 

 

The judges and the Establishment are the ones breaking a moral law and code of honour by having done all they can for three years to defy that demand made by the British people who employ the MPs and judges.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

The referendum was a demand to leave the EU. 

 

The judges and the Establishment are the ones breaking a moral law and code of honour by having done all they can for three years to defy that demand made by the British people who employ the MPs and judges.

The statute book of ‘moral law’, do you have a copy I can have a look at?