Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19

bluethrunthru said:
The Govt's case was weak and they knew it - that was why they presented no evidence, no written statement , no ministerial witness - as John Major pointed out that was either because they had no case and as a result nobody from the Govt was prepared to perjure themselves.

Secondly their legal team concentrated on the argument 5 weeks wasn't unusual - to such an extent they were visibly rocked when one of the judges asked in that case what is to stop a PM for proroguing for a year or two years. They literally hadn't anticipated that question and so had no answer. Its speculated that the obvious answer would be that Parliament exists to call the PM to account but of course a Parliament that was just prorogued for two years can't do jack shit.

Ultimately if you consider those points they were always on a loser.
Click to expand...

The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.
 
George Hannah said:
Boris has a problem.
Click to expand...
The problem has a name; Dominic Cummings.



George Hannah said:
Maye we are seriously underestimating the incompetence of the Tory leadership. They prorogued to stop rebel anti-no deal legislation, it didn't because they allowed enough time for it to be enacted anyway- but the prorogation then went ahead completely unnecessarily. There is little doubt they would have recessed for the conferences in any case. Total stupidity.
Click to expand...
Classic Dom.
 
Chris in London said:
The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.
Click to expand...

Can it be appealed?
 
Mr Corbyn is bringing his leadres speach forward to this afternoon so he can be back in westminster tomorrow
 
Gaudion M said:
The court just picked through the evidence that they did not act in good faith and found against the government.
The government put up no evidence to suggest anything else. The meeting with the queen and who was present was called out in specific detail. The inference is clear....
Click to expand...
That meeting was preceded by a telephone call to her from BoJo so he is part of the group. That they failed to produce affidavits stating their reasons were constitutionally appropriate was the key to the judgement against them I think. The reasons given were not the genuine ones. So, as has been said, they may well not deliberately have acted illegally but their real motives have been judged unconstitutional and as such BoJo's position as PM is untenable,.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable
Click to expand...

See i don't get that argument. Afterall, the law somewhere does require that a prorogation of a unprecedented lenght must have a written explenation for that unprecedented lenght provided for it right? So, thats essentially "part of law"? How can one argue that the courts would not have the power to judge over the legallity of "a prorogation of unprecedented lenght" if by law they are the ones that must process the legaly required explenation for it's legallity? Surely that process isn't just a symbolic procedure that nessecarily always would have the same outcome? Surely if you have sepperation of powers and some independant judiciary they arn't nessecarily going to be default puppets on a string for the goverment?
 
Chris in London said:
The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.
Click to expand...

I thought it was established that Parliament is only dissolved at the end of a term or with a majority ?
 
Chris in London said:
The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument was that if the Governments argument was upheld in reality the Executive could simply sideline Parliament at any time of its choosing whenever it felt like it for any length of time. The balance of power between Parliament and the Executive had to be clarified and it has been.
 
FlemishDuck said:
See i don't get that argument. Afterall, the law somewhere does require that a prorogation of a unprecedented lenght must have a written explenation for that unprecedented lenght provided for it right? So, thats essentially "part of law"? How can one argue that the courts would not have the power to judge over the legallity of "a prorogation of unprecedented lenght" if by law they are the ones that must process the legaly required explenation for it's legallity? Surely that process isn't just a symbolic procedure that nessecarily always would have the same outcome? Surely if you have sepperation of powers and some independant judiciary they arn't nessecarily going to be default puppets on a string for the goverment?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. What the Supreme Court said is that you can't prorogue parliament without good reason. If the government had had good reasons to prorogue, it wouldn't have mattered that their reasons weren't in writing (though in practice they almost certainly would have been recorded somewhere.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top