Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Olympia5776]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

I'm in agreement with you on this Albs.

I thought Geoffrey Cox was thoroughly entertaining .

[Entwood]

Whatever we as individuals think, this judgement was based on matters that are legal, but political, in tandem. You can go right back to 1611 when King James VI  was challenged, as then the effective Parliament of the land, and there was the Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22 which is a UK constitutional law case that has formed the backbone of the standing of the justice system and that of the King, now in 2019, the Prime Minister.

Now, 11 justices made the latest judgement, with all the highly trained legal experts, that is QC's, who have commented so far not even beginning to challenge this judgement because they, although not having heard the legal proceedings, see no reason to do so.

It is obviously avery complex legal matter that goes to the heart of our democracy, the unwritten Constitution, the law, and the standing of Parliament, with the monarch involved.

I cannot speak for all of you, but this matter is way above my head and legal knowledge!!

The judgement is what it is; the action by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister to Prorogue Parliament was unlawful. I, like you, must at this point in time accept that legal verdict by the highest court in the land    

Whilst we  must "accept" it .. we don't "have" to agree with it .... I'm only a simple soul, but in my time working in the Crown Courts it was ALWAYS neccessary for the prosecution to state what Statute had been breached in order for a trial to commence, as if no statute is breached no "law" is broken... an something can only be "unlawful" if a law is broken IMHO, and at no time has anyone quoted what law BJ is supposed to have broken.

We now have a situation that, by precedent, (in other words by a previous judgement ie this one) every decision by Parliament can be referred to the High Court, not what a democracy should be.

There has been much waffle regarding the idea of "parliamentary democracy" .. but very little talk of "true" democracy ... the referendum had no middle ground .. it was an "In or Out" decision that went the way of "Out", yet the bunch of wasters in parliament seek to over rule that as they don't like it, and are using the closeness of the result as a very poor excuse. There cannot be a comprimise they all pretend to seek ,, we cannot be half in and half out...  we either stay or we go .. and the vote said "Go"

So much for "True Democracy"   

[Sir Tigger KC]

There has been much waffle regarding the idea of "parliamentary democracy" .. but very little talk of "true" democracy ... the referendum had no middle ground .. it was an "In or Out" decision that went the way of "Out", yet the bunch of wasters in parliament seek to over rule that as they don't like it, and are using the closeness of the result as a very poor excuse. There cannot be a compromise they all pretend to seek ,, we cannot be half in and half out...  we either stay or we go .. and the vote said "Go"

So much for "True Democracy"   

On the BBC news earlier they played a clip of Amber Dudd speaking in Parliament earlier where she attacked Geoffrey Cox for his language and said that there must be a compromise. 

This is just not how democracy works and had Remain won the referendum there would have been no attempt at compromise, no partial withdrawal to satisfy the losers, nothing! 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Whatever we as individuals think, this judgement was based on matters that are legal, but political, in tandem. You can go right back to 1611 when King James VI  was challenged, as then the effective Parliament of the land, and there was the Case of Proclamations [1610] EWHC KB J22 which is a UK constitutional law case that has formed the backbone of the standing of the justice system and that of the King, now in 2019, the Prime Minister.

Now, 11 justices made the latest judgement, with all the highly trained legal experts, that is QC's, who have commented so far not even beginning to challenge this judgement because they, although not having heard the legal proceedings, see no reason to do so.

It is obviously avery complex legal matter that goes to the heart of our democracy, the unwritten Constitution, the law, and the standing of Parliament, with the monarch involved.

I cannot speak for all of you, but this matter is way above my head and legal knowledge!!

The judgement is what it is; the action by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister to Prorogue Parliament was unlawful. I, like you, must at this point in time accept that legal verdict by the highest court in the land    

Whilst we  must "accept" it .. we don't "have" to agree with it .... I'm only a simple soul, but in my time working in the Crown Courts it was ALWAYS neccessary for the prosecution to state what Statute had been breached in order for a trial to commence, as if no statute is breached no "law" is broken... an something can only be "unlawful" if a law is broken IMHO, and at no time has anyone quoted what law BJ is supposed to have broken.

We now have a situation that, by precedent, (in other words by a previous judgement ie this one) every decision by Parliament can be referred to the High Court, not what a democracy should be.

There has been much waffle regarding the idea of "parliamentary democracy" .. but very little talk of "true" democracy ... the referendum had no middle ground .. it was an "In or Out" decision that went the way of "Out", yet the bunch of wasters in parliament seek to over rule that as they don't like it, and are using the closeness of the result as a very poor excuse. There cannot be a comprimise they all pretend to seek ,, we cannot be half in and half out...  we either stay or we go .. and the vote said "Go"

So much for "True Democracy"   

Yes, we do not "have" to agree with it

But us not agreeing with it will make absolutely no difference at this, or any other stage!  The trouble is every tom dick and harry political party, apart from the Conservatives, are ACCEPTING the ruling with glee, and the ones angry with the verdict, like Farage and old stooges from past Conservative governments, are only feeling that way about the fact Boris has brought it all to this level.  They are not challenging the ruling either!!

No, we as a people, as a country, are so split now that only a Civil "War", peaceful or otherwise to sort out our "representatives" in Parliament will, MAYBE, start to give us answers.  Even a General Election that gives us a chance to "voice" our views will achieve..................absolutely nothing...........as it stands, as we are so divided no clear majority will be arrived at, let alone a clear mandate to actually commit to BREXIT!

It is a mess, and we, the general public, can only, at the moment, express our anger on web sites like this!

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

Er........

Maybe our learned M'lud could direct us to the statute that the government has contravened? 

This wasn't a legal judgement, it was a political judgement and the High Court and the first Scottish judge called it correctly in my opinion. 

There is even recent precedent of Prime Ministers proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  John Major did it to avoid the cash for questions scandal and Clement Attlee did it to avoid the Lords wrecking legislation reducing their powers.    

Oh.....I accept that you and French Albs are right and the supreme court doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

Er........

Maybe our learned M'lud could direct us to the statute that the government has contravened? 

This wasn't a legal judgement, it was a political judgement and the High Court and the first Scottish judge called it correctly in my opinion. 

There is even recent precedent of Prime Ministers proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  John Major did it to avoid the cash for questions scandal and Clement Attlee did it to avoid the Lords wrecking legislation reducing their powers.    

Oh.....I accept that you and French Albs are right and the supreme court doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

Thankyou M'lud!   

However, what is interesting is that the three judges who dismissed Gina Millers case in the High Court are no lightweights either and were the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, The Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queens Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp.

I guess they didn't know their arses from their elbows either!    Although, I guess by giving permission to appeal they created some nice work for their lawyerly brethren.   

[Lizzie Zoom]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

Er........

Maybe our learned M'lud could direct us to the statute that the government has contravened? 

This wasn't a legal judgement, it was a political judgement and the High Court and the first Scottish judge called it correctly in my opinion. 

There is even recent precedent of Prime Ministers proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  John Major did it to avoid the cash for questions scandal and Clement Attlee did it to avoid the Lords wrecking legislation reducing their powers.    

Oh.....I accept that you and French Albs are right and the supreme court doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

Thankyou M'lud!   

However, what is interesting is that the three judges who dismissed Gina Millers case in the High Court are no lightweights either and were the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, The Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queens Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp.

I guess they didn't know their arses from their elbows either!    Although, I guess by giving permission to appeal they created some nice work for their lawyerly brethren.   

Yes, money, money, money, is what makes that profession tick at that level, so they all must be delighted and have won, won, won!

[Sir Tigger KC]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

Er........

Maybe our learned M'lud could direct us to the statute that the government has contravened? 

This wasn't a legal judgement, it was a political judgement and the High Court and the first Scottish judge called it correctly in my opinion. 

There is even recent precedent of Prime Ministers proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  John Major did it to avoid the cash for questions scandal and Clement Attlee did it to avoid the Lords wrecking legislation reducing their powers.    

Oh.....I accept that you and French Albs are right and the supreme court doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

Thankyou M'lud!   

However, what is interesting is that the three judges who dismissed Gina Millers case in the High Court are no lightweights either and were the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, The Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queens Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp.

I guess they didn't know their arses from their elbows either!    Although, I guess by giving permission to appeal they created some nice work for their lawyerly brethren.   

Yes, money, money, money, is what makes that profession tick at that level, so they all must be delighted and have won, won, won!

Yep and now thanks to Gina Miller (and whoever is really behind all this and pulling the strings), we can look forward to many more legal challenges to government decisions and lots of taxpayers money spent on legal fees! 

I wonder if the Government would qualify for Legal Aid?    Oh wait...   

[Lizzie Zoom]

Ive just been listening to the Attorney General speaking in the commons about this. From what I can make out the Govt. didn't break any law. The Supreme court decided to turn a Convention into a law and apply it retrospectively, therefore deeming the action to be unlawful !
They have the power to do this, but it sounds very much like a coup to me.

Er........

Maybe our learned M'lud could direct us to the statute that the government has contravened? 

This wasn't a legal judgement, it was a political judgement and the High Court and the first Scottish judge called it correctly in my opinion. 

There is even recent precedent of Prime Ministers proroguing Parliament for political purposes.  John Major did it to avoid the cash for questions scandal and Clement Attlee did it to avoid the Lords wrecking legislation reducing their powers.    

Oh.....I accept that you and French Albs are right and the supreme court doesn't know it's arse from it's elbow.

Thankyou M'lud!   

However, what is interesting is that the three judges who dismissed Gina Millers case in the High Court are no lightweights either and were the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, The Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queens Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp.

I guess they didn't know their arses from their elbows either!    Although, I guess by giving permission to appeal they created some nice work for their lawyerly brethren.   

Yes, money, money, money, is what makes that profession tick at that level, so they all must be delighted and have won, won, won!

Yep and now thanks to Gina Miller (and whoever is really behind all this and pulling the strings), we can look forward to many more legal challenges to government decisions and lots of taxpayers money spent on legal fees! 

I wonder if the Government would qualify for Legal Aid?    Oh wait...   

Oh yes, WE are certainly paying for it, and all the costs of the BREXIT fiasco, with Boris just the most recent cause for the "waste"!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

David Starkey has interesting views on this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/

[Lizzie Zoom]

David Starkey has interesting views on this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/

But he is an historian with an opinion, who is not a QC or even a lawyer of any kind.

Why is his opinion so important and relevant than everyone else's that has one on all this fiasco?

Interesting, yes, but has little meaning I'm afraid as usually I follow his statement, and presentations, on history

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

I never suggested his opinion was more relevant or important than anyone elses. Just suggested it was interesting.

[Olympia5776]

David Starkey has interesting views on this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/

But he is an historian with an opinion, who is not a QC or even a lawyer of any kind.

Why is his opinion so important and relevant than everyone else's that has one on all this fiasco?

Interesting, yes, but has little meaning I'm afraid as usually I follow his statement, and presentations, on history

Pot , kettle black.

[Lizzie Zoom]

David Starkey has interesting views on this.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/dr-david-starkey-brutal-analysis-on-supreme-court/

But he is an historian with an opinion, who is not a QC or even a lawyer of any kind.

Why is his opinion so important and relevant than everyone else's that has one on all this fiasco?

Interesting, yes, but has little meaning I'm afraid as usually I follow his statement, and presentations, on history

Pot , kettle black.

That's right, I, like you, are irrelevant in this debate, as an historian who has no legal training is, and indeed no electorate are important at the moment it seems going on what the politicians are up to!"

The latest is that Labour, the so called "opposition", do not want a general election.  You couldn't make it up!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Boris has begged them to propose a no confidence motion in his Govt. today, and they refuse to do it. We are through the looking glass folks.
 He said the only thing Labour MP,s fear more than losing an election under Corbyn, is winning one. Which is probably true.
Personally, I don't believe Corbyn wants to be PM. He is a protester, a malcontent, an agitator. He wouldn't know where to begin if he was handed the reins of power, and I suspect he knows it.