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

[Chris in London]

Can it be unlawful and not justiciable?
Doubt it, but my guess would be something along those lines.
Perhaps a recommendation or pointer showing how the law needs changing to close a loophole around proroguing indefinitely.

My guess is Boris will come away feeling happy, but I know SFA really about the law around this, so it's just a feeling from what I've read.

If it isn't justiciable they won't pronounce on the legality of it one way or the other.

 

[George Hannah]

If it isn't justiciable they won't pronounce on the legality of it one way or the other.

What do you think they'll do?

 

[west didsblue]

I have full confidence that the decision will be based on the merits of the arguments put forward and will not be political. If the court rules against the government, the right wing press will see it very differently.

 

[Chris in London]

What do you think they'll do?

I don't have a clear sense of what they will do. The thing about the first Miller case was that it was blindingly obvious that the government couldn't leave the EU without primary legislation, given that primary legislation had taken us in. This is far less clear cut, and much too close to call.

It seems to me plain that the majority want to say it was unlawful. However they may well be hamstrung by the fact that the dissolution of parliament is non-justiciable, and nobody was able to come up with a convincing reason why prorogation should be any different. So either they come up with a distinction of their own (which they are easily bright enough to do) or they hold it non-justiciable.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I don't have a clear sense of what they will do. The thing about the first Miller case was that it was blindingly obvious that the government couldn't leave the EU without primary legislation, given that primary legislation had taken us in. This is far less clear cut, and much too close to call.

It seems to me plain that the majority want to say it was unlawful. However they may well be hamstrung by the fact that the dissolution of parliament is non-justiciable, and nobody was able to come up with a convincing reason why prorogation should be any different. So either they come up with a distinction of their own (which they are easily bright enough to do) or they hold it non-justiciable.

There has to be a lawful limit to the right to prorogue, surely. At some stage it has to become justiciable. What if a PM prorogued for a year, for example?

 

[lancs blue]

I don't have a clear sense of what they will do. The thing about the first Miller case was that it was blindingly obvious that the government couldn't leave the EU without primary legislation, given that primary legislation had taken us in. This is far less clear cut, and much too close to call.

It seems to me plain that the majority want to say it was unlawful. However they may well be hamstrung by the fact that the dissolution of parliament is non-justiciable, and nobody was able to come up with a convincing reason why prorogation should be any different. So either they come up with a distinction of their own (which they are easily bright enough to do) or they hold it non-justiciable.

Wasn't it a sufficient distinction that dissolution is followed by a GE whereas prorogation can be done seemingly on the whim of a PM (via "advice" to the monarch) without any democratic safety net such as a subsequent GE?

 

[lancs blue]

Ruling at 10-30am tomorrow.

 

[SWP's back]

Everyone please forgive me for not keeping fully up to date with this.

• Can Boris force a leave without Parliament following a "deal"?
• Can he force a "no deal" leave without Parliament?

 

[Mike D]

The mood music is this isn't going to go the governments way, based on the length of time is has taken to come to draw to a conclusion.

I am sitting firmly on the fence because these things rarely go as planned.

 

[Mike D]

Sadly a large % of the electorate think he should be breaking the law, regardless.
“We believe totally in Parliamentary sovereignty”. “Except when we don’t”..

The same lot don't know their arse from their elbow and think No Deal is the best option and everybody who disagrees is scaremongering.