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

[cibaman]

There is a lot at stake. Ruling with the government today basically gives them a green light to halt parliament at will unless the Queen gets involved.

The fact that it is wrong is not up for debate - it is basically a question of is it allowable under current law. Is there a massive loop hole? Under that scenario John Major could have ruled over us as a dictator for the last 20+ years as long as the Queen sat on her hands.

Massive drama either way.

Does the Supreme Court have the power to overturn massive loopholes?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Does the Supreme Court have the power to overturn massive loopholes?

Nope.

It just rules on the law, where there is a loop hole it will say either; there is no law and no case to answer, or some other law was intended to apply and they can set a precedent that something applies and therefore something is unlawful.

 

[FlemishDuck]

Does the Supreme Court have the power to overturn massive loopholes?

Whenever it is in the purview of law. So it requires that limitations are put on a prorogation by law, which clearly exist and were used by the Scotish court in the form of "no relevant explination was given to explain the unprecedented long nature of the prorogation, which is otherwise required by law."

Aka limits exist on prorogation for what regards the concerns raised by Gaudion M. , and imho they should be used just like the Scotisch court seemed to have applied them correctly. But, disclaimer: I cannot guarantee that the most logical or reasonable outcome is the one you are going to get. ;)

 

[BobKowalski]

Sturgeon will be primed if the Govt wins the day. Scottish High Court overruled by English Court in favour of an unchecked Executive. The SNP political ads almost write themselves.

 

[Chris in London]

Sturgeon will be primed if the Govt wins the day. Scottish High Court overruled by English Court in favour of an unchecked Executive. The SNP political ads almost write themselves.

No, Scottish court overruled by United Kingdom Supreme Court. Doubt even she would describe it as an English court, it plainly isn’t.

 

[blueinsa]

Sturgeon will be primed if the Govt wins the day. Scottish High Court overruled by English Court in favour of an unchecked Executive. The SNP political ads almost write themselves.

English court?

Whats your obsession with Scottish independence?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

No, Scottish court overruled by United Kingdom Supreme Court. Doubt even she would describe it as an English court, it plainly isn’t.

That wont matter - it sits in Westminster.

 

[blueinsa]

That wont matter - it sits in Westminster.

As do her MP's.

 

[BobKowalski]

No, Scottish court overruled by United Kingdom Supreme Court. Doubt even she would describe it as an English court, it plainly isn’t.

Optics dear boy. Optics.

 

[Chris in London]

That wont matter - it sits in Westminster.

It also sits in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh.

 

[George Hannah]

There is a lot at stake. Ruling with the government today basically gives them a green light to halt parliament at will unless the Queen gets involved.

The fact that it is wrong is not up for debate - it is basically a question of is it allowable under current law. Is there a massive loop hole? Under that scenario John Major could have ruled over us as a dictator for the last 20+ years as long as the Queen sat on her hands.

Massive drama either way.

I asked GDM about that thorny point when he suggested a 12 month prorogation was possible
'Does Parliament not already have other legal mechanisms (in addition to votes of no-confidence) for ensuring prorogation is limited? The example you give would prevent the proper functioning of the state - its existing obligations to regularly enact routine pieces of armed forces and financial legislation were cited by the Govt lawyers as requiring parliament to be recalled from excessive periods of recess or prorogation.

Chris I think said that the dissolution process always includes a reassembly date for Parliament, (at least prorogation does) and if that date was so far into the future as to obstruct the business of state it could be challenged on clearly legal grounds.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Whenever it is in the purview of law. So it requires that limitations are put on a prorogation by law, which clearly exist and were used by the Scotish court in the form of "no relevant explination was given to explain the unprecedented long nature of the prorogation, which is otherwise required by law."

Aka limits exist on prorogation for what regards the concerns raised by Gaudion M. , and imho they should be used just like the Scotisch court seemed to have applied them correctly. But, disclaimer: I cannot guarantee that the most logical or reasonable outcome is the one you are going to get. ;)

Limits exist and years of precedent exist on how things should be done and what happened when precedents were not followed.

The ultimate question is does the law, as accepted, or if not as it as accepted, as it was intended to be applied, allow for this course of action. They could go right back to the start of Parliament and say what was the reason and intent for the procedure? What was proroguing intended for and what was it not intended for and at what point is something unlawful?

 

[George Hannah]

Whenever it is in the purview of law. So it requires that limitations are put on a prorogation by law, which clearly exist and were used by the Scotish court in the form of "no relevant explination was given to explain the unprecedented long nature of the prorogation, which is otherwise required by law."

Aka limits exist on prorogation for what regards the concerns raised by Gaudion M. , and imho they should be used just like the Scotisch court seemed to have applied them correctly. But, disclaimer: I cannot guarantee that the most logical or reasonable outcome is the one you are going to get. ;)

I just can't understand what point or points you are making - not long now anyway

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

It also sits in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh.

That is trivia that will be lost on the masses - right now a court in Westminster is deciding on overriding a court that sat in Edinburgh. Its a gift for the SNP if it goes against them.

 

[George Hannah]

That is trivia that will be lost on the masses - right now a court in Westminster is deciding on overriding a court that sat in Edinburgh. Its a gift for the SNP if it goes against them.

The SNP regard any event as a gift that encourages their separatist nonsense.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The SNP regard any event as a gift that encourages their separatist nonsense.

Haha - I consider brexit as separatist nonsense...

 

[FlemishDuck]

I just can't understand what point or points you are making - not long now anyway

By default i would further elaborate to anyone who'd be interrested to understand, is that what you want me to do or should i presume there is another incentive for this remark? Excuse me if that question reveals my caution with you but sometimes youre reactions to me seem a bit edgy.

The SNP regard any event as a gift that encourages their separatist nonsense.

As a Flemming i naturally love and support that seperatist nonsense, not sure why you have it so difficult to respect Scotlands desire for sovereignity.

 

[yerwot?]

The SNP regard any event as a gift that encourages their separatist nonsense.

Almost a copy of the brexit playbook then but without the lies

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

No sound

 

[1.618034]

This is going well. When did she turn into Davros?