Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether they want to be or not is irrelevant to the case.

The questions in the case are whether the court has the authority to rule and, if they do, whether the prorogation was lawful.

Whether it was lawful seems like it would matter if parliament cared if they were prorogued or not. The lawfulness seems tied to trying to get around parliament? Does it matter of parliament cares or not?
 
My opinion is that instead of giving your opinion you are asking irrelevant questions.

If I had an opinion, I wouldn't be on a thread asking questions. It would also be really weird to have an opinion on an issue I don't know the case history about.

Which is the reason for asking.
 
Congratulations. Fees in the UK are currently £9250 a year. Most 18 year old don't have three years of course fees and money for living expenses in their bank account. Nor can they earn that amount while studying. Most take out a loan.
IIRR my tuition fees in the late '80s were around IR£2,500. I had earned sufficient for my first two years, including living expenses, before I started.
At college many of my peers were working part-time.
 
If I had an opinion, I wouldn't be on a thread asking questions. It would also be really weird to have an opinion on an issue I don't know the case history about.

Which is the reason for asking.
If you read the decisions in the previous cases you will get the answers you want. This is a complex issue with no precedent. New law is being made. One of the two lower courts probably got the right answer. Read their decisions and make your choice.
The press are reading the judges questions favouring the Scottish view. Carnwath in my experience doesn't hide his opinion.
 
IIRR my tuition fees in the late '80s were around IR£2,500. I had earned sufficient for my first two years, including living expenses, before I started.

You are a very rare case. Did you take time off to work full time before starting your course?
 
If you read the decisions in the previous cases you will get the answers you want. This is a complex issue with no precedent. New law is being made. One of the two lower courts probably got the right answer. Read their decisions and make your choice.
The press are reading the judges questions favouring the Scottish view. Carnwath in my experience doesn't hide his opinion.

But if people are willing to try and answer here then I'm going to ask.
 
You are confusing unwillingness with just being open to other options. I'm willing to do both.

This is from a newspaper piece, where Eadie is one of the Govt. counsels in the Supreme Court hearing that's going on. It might clear up a few things for you:

"Eadie struggled on, each argument weaker than the last. If parliament hadn’t wanted to be prorogued, why wasn’t it doing something to stop being prorogued? He still hadn’t quite grasped that parliament can’t do anything when it is prorogued. Fairly basic stuff, you’d have thought. The time-sensitive legislation could be dealt with when parliament returned. Apart from the bits that were time sensitive. He didn’t even seem entirely sure of the difference between recess and prorogation."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom