The England & Wales High Court line, following Dicey, is that the decision to prorogue is not justiciable and they will not consider the issue ruled on by the Scottish Court.
"For a case to be open to judicial review, the discretionary prerogative power in question must be justiciable. The issue of justiciability simply enquires into whether an issue is appropriate for or subject to court trial. Although the distinction between justiciable and non-justiciable powers remains unclear, the concept has been ‘interpreted expansively.' Judicial review allows the actions of ministers to be challenged on the basis that he or she did not have the power to act in such a way; that the action was unreasonable, or that the power was exercised in a procedurally unfair way."
Consequently I think the Court of Session judgement will be set aside as improper and the Gov appeal will be upheld unanimously in the Supreme Court next Tuesday. A precedent will established that it is the constitutional right of any PM to lie to the Sovereign and also have the power, legally unchallengable, to suspend Parliament for as long as they feel like. If anything else happens BoJo is toast.
It's 100% the Trump playbook.I'd say you're right.
And that's a good thing, is it?
I know Bojo on the news the other night was making out like the English courts were validating his actions, where as I got the impression, in simple terms, they were saying they would not judge on a political matter.
That's not exactly validating what he did.
So comrade Corbyn in a minority government becomes PM, and asks the queen to suspend parliament while he exercises the royal prerogative and revokes article 50. Or a dictator suspends parliament for five years.The England & Wales High Court line, following Dicey, is that the decision to prorogue is not justiciable and they will not consider the issue ruled on by the Scottish Court.
"For a case to be open to judicial review, the discretionary prerogative power in question must be justiciable. The issue of justiciability simply enquires into whether an issue is appropriate for or subject to court trial. Although the distinction between justiciable and non-justiciable powers remains unclear, the concept has been ‘interpreted expansively.' Judicial review allows the actions of ministers to be challenged on the basis that he or she did not have the power to act in such a way; that the action was unreasonable, or that the power was exercised in a procedurally unfair way."
Consequently I think the Court of Session judgement will be set aside as improper and the Gov appeal will be upheld unanimously in the Supreme Court next Tuesday. A precedent will established that it is the constitutional right of any PM to lie to the Sovereign and also have the power, legally unchallengable, to suspend Parliament for as long as they feel like. If anything else happens BoJo is toast.
I think my final observation indicated whether I thought it was a good thing tbhI'd say you're right.
And that's a good thing, is it?
I know Bojo on the news the other night was making out like the English courts were validating his actions, where as I got the impression, in simple terms, they were saying they would not judge on a political matter.
That's not exactly validating what he did.
By expressing an opinion on the potential outcome I haven't endorsed it. I made your exact point to another poster earlier, if the position is confirmed as predicted our constitition is clearly open to further and far more serious abuse.So comrade Corbyn in a minority government becomes PM, and asks the queen to suspend parliament while he exercises the royal prerogative and revokes article 50. Or a dictator suspends parliament for five years. How do you like the precedent now?
I
There’s people on here who voted for Farage, yes it’s Farage as it’s a limited company without a manifesto, he is the party, and they expect us not to question their motives for doing so. Quite staggering really.
Obviously I am no lawyer, and also I am no fan of Johnson's, nor do I approve of his extended prorogation of parliament.
However, I fail to see how the Scottish courts could conclude that the prorogation was illegal.
(a) Does the MP need a reason to prorogue? I am not sure he does. As far as I am aware, it's at the PM's discretion to go to the Queen as ask for parliament to be prorogued and under centuries old tradition, the Queen agrees to the PMs recommendations, whatever they may be.
(b) How on earth does the Scottish court know what is in the PM's head when he asks for prorogation? (Assuming he needs a valid reason, and I am not sure he does). They might think it's a bit iffy, but they can hardly read his mind. He says one thing and the court concludes another based on it looking iffy? How the hell does that work, from a legal perspective?
I'm finding it difficult to read this in any other way than a Remainer judge (or judges) taking a political stance. It looks very dodgy imo.
Short for Boris Johnson
The whole thing is a fucking abortion.
BoJo is the guy who apparently lied to Brenda even though no one was there to witness it.Who's BoJo?
I was aware .... however the use of Boris / BoJo simply softens his image.... we never referred to Theresa May by any sort of nick name.
Rhetorical question George. I wasn't implying you thought it was.I think my final observation indicated whether I thought it was a good thing tbh
I will just counter this - but I do not want to get into one of your arguments
There are people on here that voted to Leave the EU in 2016
There are people on here that did so and remained committed in 2019 - so they voted in the EU elections in the manner that best kept pressure on the government to proceed with the referendum vote
There are people on here who did both those things and would be consistent in their commitment by voting in the upcoming election for the party that is most likely to bring about the referendum vote. I would vote for LibDems, Labour or the Conservatives based entirely on their commitment to Leaving the EU
Therefore there is no need to question their motives - they are abundantly clear about their motives - but in case you have missed their point they are motivated by:
A determination to see the UK leave the EU
There are people on here that have for 3 years used, what I consider to be, a shallow tactic of seeking to associate those committed to seeing the UK leave the EU with 'bogeymen etc. That is what is quite staggering!!
FFS, I almost brought myself to hope that the scum could take points of the redscouse towards the end of last season - it does not make me a scum supporter
I am pretty sure I can dig up posts from @Chippy_boy where he has stated that he is so committed to Remaining that it could be worth 5 years of Corbyn - are you saying that makes him a Labour supporter?
etc. etc.
We had a similar problem over here with Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach. There was a radio sketch on morning radio that made him out to be a down to earth affable funny guy. It became really popular and grew into something that lasted for years getting it's own morning section. He benefitted off the image and milked it. A man of the people, while taking backhanders all the way.I was aware .... however the use of Boris / BoJo simply softens his image.... we never referred to Theresa May by any sort of nick name. We should just refer to him as Johnson (spelled Blathering Idiot )
Reports today that the customs boarder will move to the Irish Sea leaving NI to follow EU rules and regulations. This option was proposed by the EU earlier but ruled out by May. Sounds like Boris is going to do a deal with the DUP and the Tory rebels. Probably offer the DUP pots of cash to agree to it. If he can get them to agree then he can put a deal to the house before the deadline of the 19th Oct and if he can get it through he doesn’t have to ask for an extension and may be seen as delivering on his promises. Could also mean no need for an election!
Am I completely losing the plot? (Not difficult at my age). But is this not the famous 'backstop' that nobody wants?
No it's the backstop only the DUP don't want.Am I completely losing the plot? (Not difficult at my age). But is this not the famous 'backstop' that nobody wants?