Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ban-jani said:
It wouldn’t be a dictatorship but because we don’t have a written constitution it allows someone to behave as such sometimes.

I may be wrong, I just believe the fixed term parliament act allows it.
Click to expand...
If your parliament isn't the ultimate authority (sovereign) then who is?
 
Gaudion M said:
So what about if BoJo suggested proroguing for 12 months and gave no reason. At what point would you expect a court to step in and say that is not constitutional?
Click to expand...
That's a fair point to be honest.

I guess it just means I don't understand either our constitution (not surprising since we haven't got one) or the law (also not surprising since they make it up as they go along half the time).
 
Chippy_boy said:
That's a fair point to be honest.

I guess it just means I don't understand either our constitution (not surprising since we haven't got one) or the law (also not surprising since they make it up as they go along half the time).
Click to expand...

As we don't have a written constitution that lays out the rules all we have is every other instance going back to 16xx and the time frame and whatever reasons were given at the time. The consensus is (was?) that in every instance they were for valid non political reasons and were for an appropriate time period. The theory being 1, dont take the piss and 2 don't involve the Queen! That is the precedent that will be used to measure this against.

If he is adding on time for political gain then you would expect the court to flag that and take a view. Will they take a view on what is appropriate time / reason or will any deviance be considered unconstitutional? We will have to see.
 
kevin horlocks wand said:
Rubbish I am a lawyer

Ones against the law and ones a sick bird
Click to expand...
mwo,x1000,ipad_2_snap-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.jpg
 
Chippy_boy said:
That's a fair point to be honest.

I guess it just means I don't understand either our constitution (not surprising since we haven't got one) or the law (also not surprising since they make it up as they go along half the time).
Click to expand...
We don’t have a written constitution, but we do very much have a constitution.
 
smudgedj said:
We don’t have a written constitution, but we do very much have a constitution.
Click to expand...
But where or how is it defined.
If the judiciary is part of it and it seems to be saying that Prorogation of Parliament is lawful but a political procedure (let's see with the Supreme Court),
then what part of the political system defines what a valid reason for advising the queen is, and indeed how can you decide whether lying about the reasons is acceptable or not.
If the queen has no choice but to accept the advice of the Privy Council, then where is the final authority. Where is the sovereignty. If you are relying on precedent then who decides the precedent? Is it back to the judiciary? Was there any precedent for the current situation with a minority government?

I know it is accepted that you have a constitution, but I find the concept very vague and openly admit I really don't fully understand how it is supposed to operate.
 
Our "constitution" was the blueprint for the ref outcome, IDS famously replied when asked what the result means. Whatever the fuck we want it to mean.We won now piss off
 
Gaudion M said:
So what about if BoJo suggested proroguing for 12 months and gave no reason. At what point would you expect a court to step in and say that is not constitutional?
Click to expand...

This is out of my comfort zone so I’m open to being told this is incorrect but didn’t Johnson close Parliament for the maximum amount of time he could?
 
Ban-jani said:
I have to say I agree with this.

I can’t see how it is illegal but then again I’m not a lawyer either.

His tactics are completely immoral and dangerous and undemocratic etc. etc. but they are legal from my understanding.
Click to expand...

Apparently the courts in Scotland work to a very different framework than the courts in England, NI and Wales. The Scottish framework allows them to find it unlawful but that’s not the case for the courts in the rest of the UK. That’s the reason the legal bids in the uk, NI and Welsh courts have all failed. Expect the governments appeal to the Supreme Court in England to be successful and they’ll find the case non judicable.
 
Hesperus said:
Apparently the courts in Scotland work to a very different framework than the courts in England, NI and Wales. The Scottish framework allows them to find it unlawful but that’s not the case for the courts in the rest of the UK. That’s the reason the legal bids in the uk, NI and Welsh courts have all failed. Expect the governments appeal to the Supreme Court in England to be successful and they’ll find the case non justiciable.
Click to expand...

I’m guessing this will be the case to be honest mate.
 
One good thing has come of all of this though:

We've all increased our vocabulary with a new verb and a new noun. Prorogate and prorogation.

Prorogate - verb

I prorogate
You prorogate
They prorogate
He takes the piss

I feel positively enlightened.
 
Chippy_boy said:
One good thing has come of all of this though:

We've all increased our vocabulary with a new verb and a new noun. Prorogate and prorogation.

Prorogate - verb

I prorogate
You prorogate
They prorogate
He takes the piss

I feel positively enlightened.
Click to expand...

We all know more about the EU now, as opposed to absolutely fuck all when we were asked to make a nation defining decision in 2016.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top