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

Neville Kneville said:
I thought it was established that Parliament is only dissolved at the end of a term or with a majority ?
Click to expand...

The position is different now because of the fixed term parliaments act, but the point was being taken that if (as was agreed) the dissolution wasn't justiciable, by analogy why wasn't the same true of a decision to prorogue.
 
George Hannah said:
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 constitionally 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,.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. If you listened to the judgement or if you go back and read it is very clear that the reasoning given to the queen and reasoning expressed in private were very different and the motivation for the difference were all considered connected issues and part of an unlawful act.

It sounded and reads as a judgement in a treason case.
 
nmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

No it couldn't because of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
 
FlemishDuck said:
So, thats part of law? Aka, it's the Supreme's courts job to process "the reason provided" for it's legallity?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court said this case is a one-off so it is very unlikely to happen again, but in the future when the Government decides to prorogue parliament it will probably only do so for clear and easily demonstrated reasons
 
dave_blue12 said:
My guess is the advice Johnson received was that his proposed course of action was not legal. Otherwise why keep it from cabinet

Click to expand...


Johnson and Cummins brand of car crash / chancer politics really isn’t what the Country wants or requires. The recent comments from Johnson and Raab about pushing the limits of the law really are dangerous and undermine our constitutional principles. I think Johnson’s position is wholly untenable- but he’ll try to cling on but he’s finished.
 
Chris in London said:
The position is different now because of the fixed term parliaments act, but the point was being taken that if (as was agreed) the dissolution wasn't justiciable, by analogy why wasn't the same true of a decision to prorogue.
Click to expand...

I thought the whole argument was based on the fact that the business of politics is its own business & therefore not a matter for the court, except of course, when the business of politics has been shut down thus it becomes a matter for the court, to put them back in business ?
 
Neville Kneville said:
I thought the whole argument was based on the fact that the business of politics is its own business & therefore not a matter for the court, except of course, when the business of politics has been shut down thus it becomes a matter for the court, to put them back in business ?
Click to expand...

That's the decision, in argument a number of points about justiciability were taken that haven't found their way into the judgment.
 
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...

I think what the Supreme Court was saying - is that the Government provided no justification or explanation in this case. The SC could not allow the Executive to command the right to prorogue Parliament as and when it liked for any period of time without justification.
 
dave_blue12 said:
My guess is the advice Johnson received was that his proposed course of action was not legal. Otherwise why keep it from cabinet

Click to expand...



They can't bring Mays deal back because its been rejected three times .... he obviously hasn't agreed anything with the Eu ... looks to me like these are his options

1) Throw Northern Ireland under the bus.

2) Revoke Article 50

3) Apply for an extension

4) Call a General Election

5) resign


He should do 5 anyway but probably 3 / 4 / 5 should be done together . Leaving the Eu on the 31st October still doesn't resolve the Northern Ireland border question .
 
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