Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. But the Supremes may decide that a century old precedent on the absolutism of Parliament needs updating when you have an occupant of No. 10 who seeks to put himself above the rule of law and Parliament.

All to play for.
If the Supreme Court issue an order for Parliament to reconvened the consequences will be catastrophic for Boris. Interesting refutation on Sky just now of Sumption's argument about the separation of the political and the legal when this prorogation has been shown as clearly intended to prevent parliament from exercising their due political deliberations.
 
Leadsom on the government's not publishing Yellowhammer:

I actually do not think that it serves people well to see what is the absolutely worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen to me is I could walk out of here and get run over. It is not a prediction, but it is something that could happen. And simply putting out there all of the possible permutations of what could happen actually just serves to concern people.

And presumably by knowing this, she will take the utmost caution when crossing the road.
 
And presumably by knowing this, she will take the utmost caution when crossing the road.
And if she starts crossing the road and realises that rather than a quiet road in a built up area, it's actually a busy motorway, she'll carry on trying to cross the road, rather than turn back, take stock, and maybe find a bridge to cross it instead.
 
Do you mean Goebbels?
Solittletime1952.jpg


Daily Didsbury disinformation
 
Last edited:
It's the correct ruling. If parliament are to be sovereign (given that sovereignty can only be absolute) it should be illegal to suspend parliament without it's consent.

If anyone has the power to do so, then they're sovereign instead of parliament.

Agreed. The convention of prorogation only works if it’s not used for nefarious purposes ie to silence Parliament. It is Parliaments duty in the first instance not to allow this to happen, but given Parliament relied on convention to govern the use of prorogation rather than codifying its use the Supremes may look to do so which will make for a fascinating session.
 
That's putting it mildly. We've never seen anything like this though, it's incredible. (quick side note, just been outside having a cig, chatting to a guy from our IT dept. Had to explain to him that no deal doesn't mean remain. Gobsmacked doesn't come close)
I know that was a common misconception when "no deal" was first mentioned but assumed no one was still that ill-informed.
 
Reasons for Boris to be cheerful - Engish and Scottish Constitutional law are apparently very different due to the 'poisonous' influence of A C Dicicey on the former. This may result in the Gov appeal being upheld.


If that's true, the Supreme Court could rule it lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland.

Not much different to the queen being CofE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.

If it's unlawful in one part of the realm that should make it unlawful in all parts.
 
If that's true, the Supreme Court could rule it lawful in England and unlawful in Scotland.

Not much different to the queen being CofE in England and Presbyterian in Scotland.

If it's unlawful in one part of the realm that should make it unlawful in all parts.
Another nail in the Union's coffin. The referendum has unleashed forces that cannot be contained.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top