UK Supreme Court Rules Prorogation was Unlawful

a reply to: zatara

Well they say she is the "Queen of the World", even Presidents of sovereign nations bow to her. Could have been a setup from the get go.

All this even after the will of the people was made clear in a referendum.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

No-one calls her 'Queen of the World' and its simply a courteous bow.

I'd bow to her if I ever met her but I certainly don't think she's any better than me or my superior.

What any of that has to do with this ruling is beyond me.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JPtruther

Its not a Brexit issue, take the "B" word out of it, the highest court in the land has ruled this was unlawful because it was basically done to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of government.

That's not a legal point but a POLITICAL opinion. That is simply the judges surmising. Pathetic! It's not based upon hard, documentary evidence that would convince a jury.

Boris done this to stop the people of the UK holding parliament to account through the sovereign parliament of the UK.

How on earth could the judges know that? I didn't know that they have telepathic powers of reading people's minds?! Yet another purely POLITICAL opinion, not a LEGAL one.

Boris lied not only to you, but to parliament, to the rest of the people, the courts and the Queen.

An inference based upon a vacuous opinion or political judgement - worthless because it is not based upon any point of law.

Regardless of the Brexit issue, he was acting unlawfully and thats all that really matters.

What law did Boris break? The Supreme Court judges don't say. That's because their judgement is a POLITICAL (antiBrexit) judgement dressed up to look like a legal one. They may disapprove on moral grounds. But they shouln't use their authority to pretend that their disapproval has ANYTHING to do with the law.

I found Lady Hale's choice of brooch interesting and wondered if it was significant , it seems I'm not the only one and it may well be.

The leading legal figure has won a legion of fans thanks to her striking brooch but could she have picked the memorable jewellery to send a secret - but powerful - message to Boris.

Some had even warned before the ruling was delivered that if "Lady Hale is wearing her large spider brooch, it means she is about to eat a hapless advocate".

It is said the spider signifies "feminie energy" in the spirit animal kingdom.

The creatures weave intricate webs while they wait for their prey to fall into them, which seems very appropriate today.

It is also said that people who feel an affinity to spiders as their spirit animal have two speeds - "motionless and lightening strike".
www.mirror.co.uk...

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Its not a Brexit issue

Could you help me understand that part please?
Were it not for brexit this action would not have been undertaken, would it?
With out the action the court ruling would not have occured?

How is this parliament time any more important than the last few years?

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JPtruther

Its not a Brexit issue, take the "B" word out of it, the highest court in the land has ruled this was unlawful because it was basically done to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of government.

That's not a legal point but a POLITICAL opinion. That is simply the judges surmising. Pathetic! It's not based upon hard, documentary evidence that would convince a jury.

Boris done this to stop the people of the UK holding parliament to account through the sovereign parliament of the UK.

How on earth could the judges know that? I didn't know that they have telepathic powers of reading people's minds?! Yet another purely POLITICAL opinion, not a LEGAL one.

Boris lied not only to you, but to parliament, to the rest of the people, the courts and the Queen.

An inference based upon a vacuous opinion or political judgement - worthless because it is not based upon any point of law.

Regardless of the Brexit issue, he was acting unlawfully and thats all that really matters.

What law did Boris break? The Supreme Court judges don't say. That's because their judgement is a POLITICAL (antiBrexit) judgement dressed up to look like a legal one. They may disapprove on moral grounds. But they shouln't use their authority to pretend that their disapproval has ANYTHING to do with the law. Spot on !! Now what, we need a GE to get our BREXIT!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Its not a Brexit issue

Could you help me understand that part please?
Were it not for brexit this action would not have been undertaken, would it?
With out the action the court ruling would not have occured?

How is this parliament time any more important than the last few years?

Of course it was ALL to do with Brexit! And the prorogation was only five days more than normal! The Remainers will concoct any excuse they can find - however flimsy - to disrupt the government in carrying out the wishes of the majority who voted for Brexit. And then they have the cheek to claim that THEY are defending democracy. It's laughable.

a reply to: gortex

Did you see the picture of the Supreme Court table and carpet? It looked exactly like the all seeing eye when viewed from above. Or the same as the eye used for big brother. Their watching us alright, hidden in plane site.

Isnt it ironic that Parliment is screaming about not being allowed to do its duty....when it hasnt done its duty for the past three years. What could they possibly do in 6 weeks other than to kick the can down the road further? And make no mistake...this IS irretreviably linked to Brexit.

The worst part about remaineds will be their smug, condescending tone when they revoke article 50.
This swine of an MP sums up what it is to be a remoaner.....

www.express.co.uk...

a reply to: Freeborn

I wouldn't bow unless forced physically or through coercion. I'm very much against the idea of status. Respect is earned, and bowing is disrespect to oneself, except in the condition where two people bow equally to each other. I can't stand having to treat anyone different simply because of their position or status. I do so when I must for survival sake, but I hate it and despise it as a concept. We'd be better of if we got rid of all such traditions, and required people, regardless of position, to be treated as, and treat others as equals. It would end a lot of nonsense, and prevent a lot of the thinking of people of different status as others mentality.

Why would you bow to the queen? WTH has she done in your life to make you feel the need to lower yourself to her with such an act?

a reply to: JPtruther

originally posted by: JPtruther


Dear remainers: I wouldn’t shout too loudly that you voted to remain in the local pub or in the street when this all goes tits up, you might be in for a very very nasty surprise. This is not going to end well.

originally posted by: JPtruther

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The EU leaning establishment win again , a government attempting to act on the democratic will of the people to bring the stalemate to an end has been scuttled by the anti-democratic remoaners , the stalemate is set to continue.

Sad day for British democracy and Parliament.

Am sorry dude but how can you say this is a sad day for British democracy.

Boris and his government effectively cancelled our democracy for 5 weeks and the courts have stepped in to stop this.

Take the B word out and its a good day for democracy but I guess sad in a sense that it should never have came to this.

Honestly I do think that for the Brexiteers there has to come a point where you look around and ask yourself if actually, the hard no-deal Brexit thats being sold by the government against the will of parliament might not be all its cracked up to be.

Oh give it a rest!!! Cancelled our democracy? You really irritate me beyond belief OSOTC.

MPS WERE NOT ACTING DEMOCRATICALLY ON OUR BEHALF TRYING TO POSTPONE AND CANCEL BREXIT WHEN WE VOTED FOR IT. ALLOWING THEM TO ‘SCRUTINISE’ IT JUST ALLOWED THEM TO CONTINUE TO FRUSTRATE THE DECISION.

Clear enough for you ^

Starting with an small threat? not sure that will resolve anything by beating up people with different views, then the need for a paragraph of shouty capitals, maybe you need a break from it all before you commit an act you may regret

I am a brexit voter and belive a no deal brexit is not what I signed up for, am i allowed that opinion without a broken nose/ribs?

a reply to: Freeborn

Well if you follow the clarification in this thread and options open to Boris it points to him doing it knowing wouldn't work.
ie the Remainers got their way - the establishment overrode the will of the people ( referendum )

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Raggedyman

yeah need to realise though that this isn't so much about Brexit.

Its the principle here, Boris tried to basically shut up parliament, he was in effect cancelling democracy for 5 weeks because it would be easier for the government not to face parliamentary (public) scrutiny.

I think its really important to look at this without the "B" word because its about much more than that.

I didn’t mention Brexit

I mentioned the British parliament being dictated to by the EU
Democracy being forced to submit to oligarchs and Britainnsmiling while bent over being served a nasty one by the Europeans

No brexit from me at all

It seems Boris tried to shut down whatever because they were serving oligarchs and the EU ignoring the voting public

Don’t cloud your failed system by constantly mentioning brexit and saying don’t mention brexit, that’s just dumb

It’s about the British public getting screwed by greedy politicians and globalism, nothing else

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

But the 'will of the people' hasn't been overridden....yet.

I know full well that the Remainers are doing everything possible to usurp the democratic process....but this is a matter of UK Law and all the ruling is about is the legality of the proroguing of parliament...it clearly states that.

She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.

www.bbc.co.uk...

It seems I've got to repeat myself; one of the primary reasons I passionately support Brexit is the need for the UK to regain sovereignty over its own governance. I can't pick and choose which part of UK Law and sovereignty I support.
This ruling comes for the highest judicial body in the UK therefore it has to be adhered to regardless of if I like it or not.....same as many other laws.

As for the future of Brexit and where we are politically in the UK?

I along with millions others am at a complete loss.....I just know that our politicians and the party political system they represent and seek to maintain at all costs have completely failed us.

We need urgent and radical reform.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Please forgive my ignorance when it comes to British government, but I remember reading that this prorogation thing was pretty common whenever a new government was elected. Why was it unlawful this time? And wasn't Parliament on vacation anyway?

I'll try to explain.

Normally, Parliament is elected once every five years. Members of Parliament represent the population in a given area, called a "constituency". MP's are supposed to defend the interests of their constituents (so, the folks that live in the area they were elected from). As it is logical and understandable that constituents may change their minds during these five years about some issues, MP's were expected to frequently communicate with their constituents.

In olden days, when communication was much harder, that meant they had to travel to their constituency to get an idea of what the good folks over there thought of matters. This, of course, takes some time, so Parliament would be prorogued (suspended), to allow the MP's to visit their constituency. This would be done at least once a year, sometimes more frequent.

During this time, the Government (the ministers actually) would draft a Queens speech, to set out the course they saw fit for the next year. The monarch then red that speech aloud (with the usual British pump and circumstance) and after that, Parliament was in session again. The MP's, armed with fresh knowledge on how their constituents felt, would debate these ideas and create new legislation, until the next prorogation, either a regular one (driven by the calendar, somewhat similar to the academic year) or one cause by the fall of Government.

So, in itself, it's quite normal to have a prorogation - it happens at least once a year. What makes the 2017-19 session unusual however, is that it has lasted for more than three years. This has been to permit the passage of Brexit-related legislation. And, as we all know, Government failed miserably to come up with something that Parliament could support. So, to put it simple: the session should not be terminated because the causes that made it take so long were not removed.

But mr Johnson decided to ignore all that. He simply stated that the UK would leave the EU on October 31st, and prorogued Parliament, with the rather lame excuse that the current session already had taken far too long and that the Nation needed some guidance on the future right now. And he chose the moment of prorogation such that in effect Parliament would have to sit on its hand for five weeks, where normally a period of say a week is normal. This meant that Parliament would not have much of a say during that period on how the Governement felt it should deal with Brexit - until it was probably too late to change much.

You are right: the prorogation includes a period of three weeks in which Parliament would normally be in recess anyway, this to allow the Liberal Democrat, Labour and Conservative party conferences to take place. However, Parliament could have decided to end that recess at any moment if they felt there was a need for it (e.g. scrutinizing the Johnson way of doing Brexit). But prorogation can NOT be ended by Parliament.

It seems rather obvious that Johnson did this to be able to force his ideas on how to deal with Brexit upon the Nations. Like any dictator does: you eliminate the democratic institutes to force your personal ideas upon a nation. And because Parliament would not be on a recess, but prorogued, it could not do much about it than gnashing its teeth.

Today, the Judges decided: that they felt that this prorogation was not legal and mr Johnson lied to the Queen about his intentions with it. Which everybody already knew, even the folks that feel that a no-deal Brexit is the best thing that could happen to the UK.

Hope this helps.

a reply to: micpsi

Doesn’t matter the judgement is that it was unlawful.

End of

Parliament is not prorogued and will sit tomorrow

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Thank you!

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Like any dictator does: you eliminate the democratic institutes to force your personal ideas upon a nation.

I'll take a guess that like many on the Remain side you can't see the irony, and dare I say hypocrisy, of moralising about democracy whilst advocating ignoring the result of a democratically held ballot.

Not that it has much bearing on todays judgement.

But I must say, that aside, that was quite a decent overview of our system. You seem to have a better understanding of how our process is supposed to work than many Brits.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JPtruther

Its not a Brexit issue, take the "B" word out of it, the highest court in the land has ruled this was unlawful because it was basically done to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of government.

That's not a legal point but a POLITICAL opinion. That is simply the judges surmising. Pathetic! It's not based upon hard, documentary evidence that would convince a jury.

Boris done this to stop the people of the UK holding parliament to account through the sovereign parliament of the UK.

How on earth could the judges know that? I didn't know that they have telepathic powers of reading people's minds?! Yet another purely POLITICAL opinion, not a LEGAL one.

Boris lied not only to you, but to parliament, to the rest of the people, the courts and the Queen.

An inference based upon a vacuous opinion or political judgement - worthless because it is not based upon any point of law.

Regardless of the Brexit issue, he was acting unlawfully and thats all that really matters.

What law did Boris break? The Supreme Court judges don't say. That's because their judgement is a POLITICAL (antiBrexit) judgement dressed up to look like a legal one. They may disapprove on moral grounds. But they shouln't use their authority to pretend that their disapproval has ANYTHING to do with the law.

You lot blame the judges, you blame remainer MP’s, you blame remainer activists, you blame the EU, you blame just about everyone and anyone. Always someone else to blame ain’t there ? For people so keen to take back control, when are you lot ever going to take responsibility for f’in anything ?

a reply to: TheShippingForecast
When you say "take responsibility-" are you recommending violence? Because I think that's exactly what everybody is trying to avoid. We don't think violence is a virtue.