"Suspend Parliament" How Will the Supreme Court Rule ?

[KS55]

It’s the Executive’s will. The Executive argued the Queen had no choice therefore there is no remedy for an Executive if it wishes to suspend Parliament for six months, a year or whatever. As there is no effective remedy the court may wish apply one.

The Queen’s problem is that she has no oversight function or power over the Executive as Head of State so all this calls into question what is the Monarch for and would we be better served with an elected Head of State with oversight powers.

That's the problem with these legal fictions. It is the sovereign's will, but ,of course she exercises it only in accordance with the advice she receives.......from the executive.! The English civil war estabished that parliament was sovereign,so no oversight required! Now, is parliament sovereign or does PM really rule?
Not sure about elected head, more that these constitutional issues need sorting....see Gough Whitlam removal. Don't think my master plan for a federal republic of Britain will be adopted any time soon.

 

[lancs blue]

In addition to its judgment on prorogation the court should also make a strong recommendation that we progress to a fully written constitution asap and stop relying too much on "conventions" and trusting the executive not to exceed its powers.

I'd also like to see an elected second chamber and get rid of that piffling anachronism that is the monarchy but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime. (where did I hear that phrase before...)

 

[Rascal]

Even though the electorate (the important people in this) voted to get out? The thing is, I don't remember any caveats being mentioned during the referendum. Wasn't it just a case of in or out? And nobody will convince me that the doomonging remainers or anybody else knows exactly how this will ultimately affect the country. I'm sick of hearing about disaster left right an centre. I see an opportunity to set this country free from the un-elected twats over there.

No deal or whatever. Let's get it done

The case is not about BREXIT, it is about where power resides.

Quite possibly its one of the most important cases in recent history.

 

[Rascal]

As someone who was one of 64% who voted to stay in the common Market/EU Referendum back in 1975 I was happy to see us part of a strong trading group of 6 then 9 countries representing 30% of the global economy. Funnily enough the 36% who voted to Leave never made a fuss like nowadays -they accepted the democratic vote.
Todays EU bears little resemblance to that trading bloc . Political domination,subsuming nation states into an EU superstate was not what we signed up for in 1975.

You voted in that referendum but obviously didn't listen to Edward Heath.

That is exactly what Heath said you were signing up for. He said it was a political project, you can find it on you tube.

 

[George Hannah]

When Her Majesty gives tongue all must yield. The separation of powers must be preserved.

 

[George Hannah]

You voted in that referendum but obviously didn't listen to Edward Heath.

That is exactly what Heath said you were signing up for. He said it was a political project, you can find it on you tube.

I believe his commitment to eventual federalisation was asked for and given only in private, it was a prerequisite condition of our membership.

 

[Rascal]

Did he mention where our drugs currently come from? Did he mention in what quantities we buy from each affected country. Did he mention other suppliers across the world who would love to become a big supplier of ours.

Not being funny pal, but the drug I take is only made in Belgium by one company as it is on patent. No other supplier of that drug is available.

I have no problem leaving, but this point is a gross oversimplification of the situation and many people in a similar position to me will have genuine fears over their medication. It is unfair to see these fears dismissed so readily, not by you btw, but in general.

 

[cibaman]

I have no idea how they will rule. The bits I heard seemed more like philosophical debates rather than legal arguments. More about what the law should be rather than what the law actually is. One of the justices made a comment along the lines of “it would help to have some actual authority”. I could understand his frustration.

Should it have been unlawful for the PM to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks for political advantage? Absolutely.

Was it unlawful for the PM to prorogue parliament for 5 weeks for political advantage? Dunno

 

[Saddleworth2]

Indications are that they will rule that Johnson acted unlawfully. They talked in detail about remedy and commentators have taken that as an important indicator of outcome.

 

[cibaman]

Indications are that they will rule that Johnson acted unlawfully. They talked in detail about remedy and commentators have taken that as an important indicator of outcome.

Isn’t that just them doing their job? There are 11 of them so clearly they wouldn’t have known for sure how the vote will go. Even if each and everyone of them is planning to rule in favour of the government they would not know that, and would have to work on the basis that the vote might go against the government. So clearly they would need to have discussed remedy to cover that eventuality.