Brexit and Future of UK : Discussions

BMD said:
Supreme court has ruled that the prorogation isn't illegal. So what a Scottish court says is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf
Extract from the summary of the judgment (pdf).

This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that 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.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the court should grant. The court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.

It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.

It follows that the advocate general’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Ginvincible
Everything is unlawful if it makes a Remainer unhappy.


What really annoys me is that if they really want to remain they can, all they have to do is fnck off across the channel and stay there. But no, they have to drag everyone else into it too.
 
Mandatory speed limiters to be fitted to all new UK cars after 2022 | Evo

Mandatory speed limiters to be fitted to all new UK cars after 2022
Following approval from MEPs, the European Transport Safety Council will impose mandatory speed limiters and data loggers on all new cars

Sitting among a range of new safety features due for all new cars, the mandatory speed limiters come as part of a proposal from the European Transport Safety Council, recently approved by a group of key MEPs. Regardless of whether the UK is in the EU, it has been confirmed that the UK will receive the technology.
 
 
Picdelamirand-oil said:
Click to expand...
Luxembourg via Juncker - "You can't have the benefits of EU membership for free." *Luxembourg continues to get paid for having the benefits.

Belgium via Verhofstadt - "You can't have the benefits of EU membership for free." *Belgium continues to get paid for having the benefits.

Poland via Tusk - "You can't have the benefits of EU membership for free." *Poland continues to get paid for having the benefits.

UK - "So how come you get paid for having the benefits, but I have to pay."

Luxembourg, Poland and Belgium - "We are poor."

UK - "Errr... well Poland maybe but not you Luxembourg or Belgium."

Luxembourg, Poland and Belgium - "You can't have the benefits of EU membership for free."

UK - "I think the discussion was past that point."

France - "Why are you complaining UK, I like socialising things and having my *censored* screwed."

UK, US and Germany - "Yeah we know."

Russia - "Thank God we got rid of Poland."

Poland - "Hey I heard that. When are you going to let Ukraine go?"

Russia - "Looks like I just have, do you want it too?"

Netherlands - "Hell no."

Ireland, France and Netherlands - "Why did no one listen to us about the EU Constitution."

EU - "STFU, it's called the Lisbon Treaty now."

UK - "But who voted for it?"

EU - "We all did."

Ireland, France and Netherlands - "Pretty sure that's incorrect."
 
Last edited:
Boris Johnson told to resign following Supreme Court defeat and become the 'shortest-serving prime minister ever'
Boris Johnson told to resign following Supreme Court defeat and become the 'shortest-serving prime minister ever'
  • Prime Minister Boris Johnson's opponents have called on him to resign following Tuesday's explosive verdict of the UK Supreme Court that his suspension of Parliament was illegal.
    Click to expand...
    [*]The court ruled that Johnson's decision to close down Parliament was null and void.
    [*]The opposition Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said Johnson should consider his position and become the "shortest serving prime minister" ever.
    [*]Johnson has had a turbulent beginning to his premiership since he entered office in July. He has suffered a series of high-profile resignations, including that of his brother.
    Click to expand...
 
Why are the Brits so frightened to leave. There should be an election with the sole issue being whether the Brits support a no-deal Brexit. So, much pussy footing.
 
Sulla84 said:
Why are the Brits so frightened to leave. There should be an election with the sole issue being whether the Brits support a no-deal Brexit. So, much pussy footing.
Click to expand...
They aren't it's just MPs and their lobbyists.


Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
 
'This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit' - UK Attorney General says as Boris Johnson returns to UK - Independent.ie

'This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit' - UK Attorney General says as Boris Johnson returns to UK

Some lawmakers shouted and jeered at Johnson's top legal adviser, UK Attorney General Geoffrey Cox. Under questioning, Cox said the government would comply with a law forcing the prime minister to request a Brexit delay if no deal was struck.

But Cox provoked ire when he said the current parliament was a disgrace, casting Johnson's opponents as cowards for avoiding an election and trying to block Brexit. He argued that the lawmakers were preventing the government from governing while blocking any route out of the impasse.

"This parliament is a dead parliament. It should no longer sit," Cox said. "This parliament should have the courage to face the electorate. But it won't."
 
Court rejects latest request to force PM to ask for Brexit extension

Court rejects latest request to force PM to ask for Brexit extension

Anti-Brexit campaigners have failed in an attempt to force Boris Johnson to ask for an extension to article 50 if he is unable to get a Brexit deal through parliament.

Lord Pentland, sitting in the court of session in Edinburgh, rejected their request for a court order instructing the prime minister to seek an extension if he cannot get a deal passed by the Commons this month.
 
Looks like Boris will finally yank the UK out of the EU.. although it might be delayed by a few weeks beyond October 31st... Looks like his implicit threat to campaign an election on no-deal, got the remainers' attention...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom