Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
A right royal slap on the tits to auld Lizzie as well. Brilliant.

Would love it if she walked into parliament and just bitch slapped him.

The Queen is Pro Brexit so i doubt that very much.......

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Their decision is still illegitimate.

HAHA!!!!

All 11 Supreme Court Justices say it was unlawful and that the prorogation is void and yet you still bury your head in the sand saying the decision is some how illegitimate.

getting a bit embarrassing

Unless they cite a law that has been broken, their decision is nothing more than a political decision.
That simple. I don't care who they are.

Perhaps you could cite the law that has been broken - as the SC could not.
They have today weakened our country and turned our judicial system into a politcal institution.
You will see the backlash against the lawless decision today when we go to the polls in the General Election.

Perhaps the Supreme Court will then decide who we should have voted for and who becomes Prime Minister... Who knows now that we no longer have a legal system free of partisan politics.

Is anyone surprised a politician lied, its what they do best, except for Boris

Regardless of people's stance on the UK's membership of the EU people HAVE to recognise that Johnson's suspension of parliament was unlawful.
Only he knows whether he deliberately mislead The Queen or not but its a damning indictment of his Premiership and his fledgling administration.

This ruling in no way alters my opinion on Brexit or my contempt and disgust for our politicians and the current political system.....but this ruling HAS to be respected.
Probably the single most important reason I support Brexit is re-asserting the UK's sovereignty, ignoring this ruling surely undermines that.

a reply to: Freeborn

I might disagree with you on brexit but could star this post all day.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
A right royal slap on the tits to auld Lizzie as well. Brilliant.

Would love it if she walked into parliament and just bitch slapped him.

The Queen is Pro Brexit so i doubt that very much.......

The queen has not made her views public either way

a reply to: Soloprotocol

A right royal slap on the tits to auld Lizzie as well. Brilliant.

Why?

She simply acted upon advice from her Prime Minister as she is expected to do in a constitutional monarchy.

Regardless of one's opinions on the rights/wrongs of the monarchy no-one could ever accuse Liz of interfering in the politics of this country.....I very much doubt the same will be said of her successor(s).

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Its impossible for anyone to argue that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament.....but that has no bearing on Brexit: we voted to leave and there is no valid reason or excuse for us not to leave on the 31st of October.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
screw the courts.
the people voted
BREXIT
enough nonsense..

Forget any logical outcome Chop..................... You're watching a Muppet Show

originally posted by: Freeborn


Its impossible for anyone to argue that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament.....but that has no bearing on Brexit: we voted to leave and there is no valid reason or excuse for us not to leave on the 31st of October.

Which is why this decision is completely nonsensical. We have already signed the agreement and are leaving on the 31st October. So what exactly do they think they are going to do in the remaining weeks that they havent before? It is illogical.

The only viable option now is a General Election and no one really has the appetite for that - everyone i speak to is bored stiff with politics......

a reply to: Flavian

I don't have enough knowledge of that part of our judicial system to be able to comment.
The fact is that the highest court in this land has ruled that it was unlawful.....if I am to be consistent in my desire to see UK law and sovereignty be the highest authority in the UK and NOT foreign assemblies or bodies then I must recognise and accept this verdict.

Where we now go is beyond me.

I have absolutely no regard or respect for our party political system and those who infest it.

Every single person I speak to is disgusted and completely disengaged with the political system.
The vast majority are utterly dismayed with the options available; Corbyn, Johnson and Swinson are all viewed as totally unsuited for high office.

As our much missed Cornish friend used to say; I wouldn't trust any of them to look after my pint when I went for a piss let alone look after the best interests and well being of the country!

originally posted by: Flavian

Parliament has singularly failed to come up with a workable plan in 3 years. Of the 5 weeks prorogued, roughly only 15 days (max) were to be spent in Parliament. What exactly do people think will be achieved in 15 days, with no majority support for anything, that wasn't in the previous 3 years.

Three years and no further forward. You couldn't make it up!!

Very bottom line is the people voted OUT and the people representing

them will not get us out.

Now we have two parties in Parliament calling for another referendum

which has any deal even a bad deal or REMAIN

WHERE HAS DEMOCRACY GONE

The whole thing gets more farcical by the day.......

It does that!! I firmly believe that even in a second referendum the result

would be very much the same except for the fact that now the politicians

have removed the option to LEAVE.


The will of the people is being denied.

A question from an Aussie here. We too follow the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy. Is a referendum as we saw with Brexit actually legally binding? Or is it just a big opinion poll? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that in a parliamentary democracy, the vote of the MP's is what goes into law, public opinion be damned. You get your chance to change the direction by voting for or against the representative government at the next election. It seems the only way to get something like Brexit happening in a parliamentary system would be for a party that stands for that to be elected at a general election with sufficient numbers in the house to make it happen. It sounds like you guys need to sort this out with a general election.

a reply to: harold223

It is essentially just a big opinion poll here (unlike in many EU nations where it is underwritten in Law). However, for the first time, MP's from all sides of the spectrum said that they would honour the outcome of this particular referendum. To not do so now is tantamount to political suicide.

I'm a remainer and still believe passionately that Brexit is a disaster for our nation. However, we lost. If democracy has any future, we have to leave.

a reply to: Freeborn

I miss Cornish and more particularly the little hand grenades he used to like dropping into conversation!

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: harold223

It is essentially just a big opinion poll here (unlike in many EU nations where it is underwritten in Law). However, for the first time, MP's from all sides of the spectrum said that they would honour the outcome of this particular referendum. To not do so now is tantamount to political suicide.

I'm a remainer and still believe passionately that Brexit is a disaster for our nation. However, we lost. If democracy has any future, we have to leave.

Thanks for the explanation. If that is the case, not legally binding, I think the issue here was that the referendum was misleading. People were promised something that could not be guaranteed to be delivered due to the numbers in the house. It came down to a matter of "honouring" the result but no legal requirement to do so. That was a mistake. I wouldn't say democracy is dead, in fact, democracy is acting exactly how the parliamentary system of democracy is designed to act, on the vote of the MP's. You guys need to go to an election. If the party wanting to leave wins a majority in the house, you can leave legally. If a party that want to re-thik the issue gets elected, well its back to square one. It will then be how the people vote and where the numbers go.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Regardless of people's stance on the UK's membership of the EU people HAVE to recognise that Johnson's suspension of parliament was unlawful.
Only he knows whether he deliberately mislead The Queen or not but its a damning indictment of his Premiership and his fledgling administration.

This ruling in no way alters my opinion on Brexit or my contempt and disgust for our politicians and the current political system.....but this ruling HAS to be respected.
Probably the single most important reason I support Brexit is re-asserting the UK's sovereignty, ignoring this ruling surely undermines that.

Agreed - as yourself and OSOTC have pointed out people need to ignore the Brexit/Boris distraction and focus on the fact that the Proroguing of Parliament was illegal under UK law and UK Constitution - the very backbones of our democracy. Agreed UK Democracy needs major overhaul though as the current set up is not fit for purpose.

Whether pro or anti Brexit it should make no difference that this is should make no difference in people realising this is one of the biggest breaches of UK Democracy ad the Constitution for decades - The Commonwealth are organising a meeting to kick the UK out of the UK Commonwealth for crimes against Democracy.

---
"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.

Lawyers for the government had argued the decision to prorogue was one for Parliament, not the courts.

But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".

The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".

------

BBC Legal Affairs Analysis

--
Wow! This is legal, constitutional and political dynamite.

It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.

The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.
-----

One of the major reasons people want(ed) to leave was to stop the EU Courts interfering with UK Law and (technically inaccurate but perfectly understandable) wanting UK Sovereignty back. When the government break UK Democratic Law, UK Constitution, Royal Prerogative Powers and many more, it's a major, major event.

Sadly it looks like Boris and Rees-Mogg are trying to ignore the issue/brush it under the rug claiming they'll ignore the ruling and it was part of a 'constitutional coup' against them which would be laughable if the issue wasn't so serious.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
A right royal slap on the tits to auld Lizzie as well. Brilliant.

Would love it if she walked into parliament and just bitch slapped him.

The Queen is Pro Brexit so i doubt that very much.......

Any evidence for that? The Queen is a non-political Head of State, she has never made a single political comment in her 65 year reign - she prides herself on doing this and her Constitutional job is to be politically neutral, impartial and never speak of her own political views in private or in public. It simply does not happen. No one but herself knows if she is pro or anti Brexit.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Regardless of people's stance on the UK's membership of the EU people HAVE to recognise that Johnson's suspension of parliament was unlawful.

Oh! Why's that, then? Show me the law that was broken. The court could have just said the suspension was morally wrong, But then they would have been expressing an opinion, not stating what the supposed law was (which was what they were supposed to do. So - no - we don't have to accept that the suspension was "unlawful" because their is no law on the statute books specifying when and how long any suspension can be. Morally wrong, perhaps. But illegal? Absolutely NOT. It happens every year at party conference time. The Supreme Court had no business in judging on what was a POLITICAL decision.
Only he knows whether he deliberately mislead The Queen or not but its a damning indictment of his Premiership and his fledgling administration.
You beg the question that his decision was legally wrong, but then you were predisposed to do so, weren't you? If one disagrees with the court's judgement, there is nothing "damning" about Boris' premiership. I'll tell you, instead, what's damning: the way the highest court in Britain has become politicized. The High Court disagreed with its decision.

This ruling in no way alters my opinion on Brexit or my contempt and disgust for our politicians and the current political system.....but this ruling HAS to be respected.
Respected? Even when the court provides no documentary proof of illegality yet calls the supension "illegal"? You have got to be kidding! The court's decision is ludicrous. This was clearly a POLITICAL decision!
Probably the single most important reason I support Brexit is re-asserting the UK's sovereignty, ignoring this ruling surely undermines that.
Where's the logic in that statement? Of course it does not undermine it! The UK's sovereignty has nothing to do with whether the ruling should be ignored or not. Your argument is meaningless.

STAY OUT OF POLITICS, SUPREME COURT

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: harold223

It is essentially just a big opinion poll here (unlike in many EU nations where it is underwritten in Law). However, for the first time, MP's from all sides of the spectrum said that they would honour the outcome of this particular referendum. To not do so now is tantamount to political suicide.

I'm a remainer and still believe passionately that Brexit is a disaster for our nation. However, we lost. If democracy has any future, we have to leave.

Thanks for the explanation. If that is the case, not legally binding, I think the issue here was that the referendum was misleading. People were promised something that could not be guaranteed to be delivered due to the numbers in the house. It came down to a matter of "honouring" the result but no legal requirement to do so. That was a mistake. I wouldn't say democracy is dead, in fact, democracy is acting exactly how the parliamentary system of democracy is designed to act, on the vote of the MP's. You guys need to go to an election. If the party wanting to leave wins a majority in the house, you can leave legally. If a party that want to re-thik the issue gets elected, well its back to square one. It will then be how the people vote and where the numbers go.

Except Parliament DID vote to trigger Article 50 and started the process of exiting the EU. They just couldn't pull off their plan.

"The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale.


Nonsense!

The justification for suspension was to allow all parties to have their conferences. This happens every year. There was nothing unusual about the decision. That was perfectly "reasonable". The issue was about its length. It reduced the time for discussion by merely five days! FIVE DAYS OUT OF THREE YEARS OF DEBATE! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Now we will have to open the Thames barrier to cope with the crocodile tears of the Remainers.

As there was a conventional and perfectly normal reason for the suspension, the suspicion that it was really intended to frustrate parliament is a POLITICAL JUDGEMENT, not a point of law. Where's the law that restricts the length of time for such a suspension? There isn't one. There is only a convention, whose breaking does not amount to breaking the law because a convention is NOT a law. Therefore, there was nothing "unlawful" about the decision. This is a political judgement influenced by pre-disposed views that no judge should entertain when he or she decides on the legality of an action. The court has let their moral outrage colour their ability to decide objectively on matters of the law.