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

[aguerrrroooooooooooo]

The eleven most senior justices in the UK have ruled (unanimously) - there’s simply no one to appeal to.

What about the European supreme court's ;)

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

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 ?

 

[Indaparkside]

But surely he should be up, speaking to the country ? It's two hours now.

He's supposed to be the fucking Prime Minister ?

Probably groveling to the queen as we speak

 

[1.618034]

Has anyone from the EU stopped laughing/drinking long enough to comment yet...?

 

[Chris in London]

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 ?

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

 

[nmc]

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?

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.

 

[goalmole]

Probably groveling to the queen as we speak

He's in America, isn't he?

 

[west didsblue]

Anybody seen him ?

Did they give him a pistol & a glass of whiskey but he's waiting for Dominic Cummings to tell him what he is supposed to do with them ?

Where the fuck is he ?

Looking for a ditch if he wasn't lying about that as well.

So he'll be hiding somewhere instead.

 

[nmc]

What about the European supreme court's ;)

No jurisdiction on cases regarding the British constitution.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

My guess is the advice Johnson received was that his proposed course of action was not legal. Otherwise why keep it from cabinet

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 .