"Suspend Parliament" How Will the Supreme Court Rule ?

I would add to that afraid of getting into bed with Trump,he is just as likely to have a tantrum and pull trade deals or insist we don't get other deals before he would deal with us,getting into bed with a man child terrifies me!
We will be able to trade all over the world -Australia,Canada will all be keen.The US will be one of our markets but we will still trade with the EU and once initial instability settles they will quickly want to get the 53% of our EU imports to the UK re-established. Only Ireland Sweden and Luxembourg buy more from us than we buy from them..
 
We will be able to trade all over the world -Australia,Canada will all be keen.The US will be one of our markets but we will still trade with the EU and once initial instability settles they will quickly want to get the 53% of our EU imports to the UK re-established. Only Ireland Sweden and Luxembourg buy more from us than we buy from them..
Thank you,every day is a learning day
 
We will be able to trade all over the world -Australia,Canada will all be keen.The US will be one of our markets but we will still trade with the EU and once initial instability settles they will quickly want to get the 53% of our EU imports to the UK re-established. Only Ireland Sweden and Luxembourg buy more from us than we buy from them..
Not so sure about the EU. May they not throw a tantrum and try to punish us for leaving?
 
The most important factor to take into account, is the people making this decsion are part of the establishment. It always makes me chuckle when the likes of the Daily Mail talk about our liberal Judges in the Court of Appeal. I defy anyone who has been in front of the Court of Appeal, or had dealings with it, to characterise it in those terms. Its primary function is to uphold the decision of the court below and only a determination that is likely to bring the overall system into disrepute is tackled with any gusto.

The other point is that as people get older they become more conservative. This is (generally) as self-evident as the decline in penile function as we age. Supreme Court Judges are almost exclusively in their sixties and seventies - the demographic who ultimately determined the referendum vote. They are hardwired to maintain the status quo and not rock the boat from a legal perspective, unless given no other choice.

So that is the backdrop.

That said, ambition does strange things to people and Judges of the Supreme Court have reached their professional apogee. They have literally nowhere further to go in their careers; and so given the ladder of ambition has been climbed to its full extent, you are much more likely to get an intellectually honest determination from this tribunal than from the courts below, the Judges within which may be seeking one (or more) more leg- up(s) from those they are being asked to make judgments against, to climb further up the tree.

I've not heard enough of the evidence to form a view about how it will end, but whatever the decsion, it is bound to carry accusations of being political.

What I have no doubt about is the importance of the role of an independent judiciary in holding the executive to account, within certain limits, of course - but anyone taking that as a fait accompli in terms of these proceedings, or any other, is seriously deluded. The establishment tends to take care of its own, unless compelled to do otherwise.

Gina Miller has to overcome that aphorism, if her appeal is going to find favour with the Court.
 
uk-politics-concept-of-westminster-hung-parliament-represented-by-EP0JXX.jpg
 
That's a way of thinking i suppose,the deal has to be decent and parliament has to be able to vote on it or it's a handful of people making the decision,Boris is unelected,he has no mandate to do that,you are a democracy or you are not,i do not believe that MP's should be whipped into voting against something they don't think is right,there are also a lot whose constitencies(sp)voted remain,leavers forget that
He has a mandate to leave because Parliament voted to invoke article 50. And Boris being "unelected"is constitutionally incorrect. He just doesn't have a mandate for any particular version of leave, because Parliament, after 3 years of wrangling, couldn't agree one. We can't do nothing or the EU will just try to vote us out. Beats me!
 
He has a mandate to leave because Parliament voted to invoke article 50. And Boris being "unelected"is constitutionally incorrect. He just doesn't have a mandate for any particular version of leave, because Parliament, after 3 years of wrangling, couldn't agree one. We can't do nothing or the EU will just try to vote us out. Beats me!
That's what i was getting at,he doesn't have a mandate so he can't force through what he personally wants,he is trying all the **** tricks to make that happen and it's not on imo and the mp's are right to take him on,i would rather they get fired standing up for what is right than being sheep and doing the wrong thing
 
I think they'll find that it was unlawful but allow parliament to try and sort it out and then it'll end up back in the courts again.

Just to clarify though, the Supreme Court are not judging anything to do with Brexit, this is entirely about the prorogation.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.