Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Feek, Sep 5, 2019.
Yes, the PM really is a child.
Absolutely not. That would be grossly unfair.
That's hardly the only way to solve it.
He isn't the one screeching and bringing up Joe Cox etc.. over how he's chosen to frame his reference to an act.
Because it has now been found to be unlawful? He should be more contrite and more supportive of the law. Yes, he acted on legal advice that, at the time, the prorogation would be lawful. But that advice has since found to be wrong. Saying that the highest court of the land "got it wrong" isn't what he should be doing. He might very well disagree with the situation but I think the 11 supreme court judges have a better grasp of the law than him.
No it wasn't. It was for the High Court to decide, and then they decided it was for the Supreme Court to decide, who made a final ruling. That's how these things are supposed to work.
No government is above the law. That's been a precedent for about 400 years now.
It seems Brexiteers are now showing they don't understand the judicial system of this country, the same as they don't understand the parliamentary system, or the system of government, or our laws, or the ways international trade and treaties work, or pretty much anything else it seems.
That's our parliament.
It's totally unfit for purpose. A general election wouldn't change that either. We'd just have some different MP's doing the same inane thing.
Hmm that last question, he didn't repeat his claim that he's not extend, he's just stated that he'd respect the rule of law and he called it the "humiliation act".
Has the Supreme Court case changed whatever he might have had planned then?
Key word being "now", yes it has now been found unlawful as the AG pointed out they don't have a crystal ball. He's got every right to disagree as has the AG, they both respect and accept the result... beyond that... meh.
Lady Hale decided, like the Scottish High Court that the Govt prorogued for an unlawful purpose, that is to prevent Parliament sitting. Parliament being Sovereign. The Govt had also not followed procedure.
There was no precedent set.
You may agree with a lower court however that is only your opinion, the legal position holds.
Law interpretation is for the courts and the creation of law for parliament’s democratically elected MP’s. The Supreme Court 11-0 ruled on the law and then handed straight back over to parliament. That is how the rule of law works. Johnson specifically chose to take the illegal action he did for personal political gain and like every successive vote he has had so far it backfired. His EU negotiations are going exactly the same way. Yet still people support him and make excuses for him while he continually blusters and runs away.
Brexiteers want Brexit done so we have control over our own laws yet when our own laws are ruled by our own courts they don't agree with the process. How curious!
I wonder what their opinion would be if the European courts ruled it lawful, would they prefer to follow their ruling or the Supreme Court?
As much as I dislike to defend Johnson, he didn't take an illegal action. He took an action that was later deemed unlawful. So he didn't break any laws and didn't do anything illegal.
They didn't agree with the decision not the process but the accept it and respect the court. Do they have to agree with every decision made by that court? Why?
Erm, see above where @Caracus2k moaned it took 3 courts to come to this decision. That sounds to me like disagreeing with the process.
If I was to be really fussy, and I am, then I’d suggest a precedent has been set where proroguing can be quashed if a bona fide assertion that such proroguing is unconstitutional cannot be rebutted in a satisfactory manner.
I think it was mentioned on here but the format needs physically changing, i.e. circular, sterile, controlled via speaker/mic. Something that changes the balance and encourages reasoned debate rather than this constant school yard behaviour!
Supreme court unanimously smacked it down, people still trying to peddle alt facts.
He knew it was illegal, that's why the government failed to provide any evidence regarding the "legal" reasons for proroguing. Better for Boris to roll the dice and lose the case, than to lose the case and be found committing perjury.
I understand the point you are trying to make but his action was deemed illegal 11-0 in the Supreme Court, which is why it is illegal. Ignorance or wilfully disregard for the law make no difference to this. If someone robs a bank it is not considered lawful until a court convicts them, but they are not convicted without due process. In this case the big clue to their motivations is no government minister would provide a signed , witness testimony and they at no point explained in legal detail the reason for proroguing parliament.
Separate names with a comma.