Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
psionl0 said:
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?
Click to expand...

Parliament created the supreme Court. If they created a roundabout way to change the law, that is their authority. They did as you described, just more convoluted.
 
psionl0 said:
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.
Click to expand...


And there was nothing to prevent Parliament creating a law that said that the actions of the executive, with respect to prorogation or anything else, are not subject to judicial review. They (unlike some here) know how the law works. They are fully aware of the current law of judicial review (and it was widely discussed a few years ago after several high-profile cases in which ministerial decisions were quashed) and have chosen not to change it. That means, as Parliament is fully aware, that the law is determined by the judicial precedents on the matter.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish.
Click to expand...


Nice* attempt to poison the well. Court decisions are not random; they are decided on the basis of legislation and precedent. This was a unanimous decision made by 11 of the most highly experienced lawyers in the country, on the basis of the law. There is nothing random about it.


*For very small values of “nice”.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
What has any of that got to do with the post you quoted? Parliament didn't set any rules for prorogation.
Click to expand...


Therefore the common law precedents set the rules. That’s how the system works. Parliament knows this, and has seen no need to legislate.
 
ceptimus said:
Quite wrong. It was planned during Tony Blair's time in office, and opened under Gordon Brown. These were Labour Prime Ministers and governments - not Tory.
Click to expand...
And the relevance of this is?
It's fascinating, but completely expected given your habits, that you make no mention of BoJo's unlawful, politically motivated, prorogation of parliament to avoid scrutiny but focus on this irrelevance.
:rolleyes:

psionl0 said:
Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"?
Click to expand...
Because, unlike you, they understand what the terms mean.

SezMe said:
I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?
Click to expand...
Yes, murdered by a far-right, Brexit supporting, loon.
 
And Johnson loses his 7th vote as parliament rejects a motion to grant a recess for the Conservative Party conference next week. And in what may be further bad news for Boris the Domestic Abuse Bill gets a second reading next week...
 
[With respects to Cat and Callie]
The People's Republic of Britain, is it all that you hoped to attain?
The glories that shone in your daydreams, are they dimmed by the blood of the slain?
While yesterday's shining successes get harder and harder to top.
Boris, you are riding a tiger. How are you going to stop?

The Proles only follow a leader who will keep them well feted and fed,
With trial and war for your circus, you'd better not run out of bread!
The curs that have fawned at your fingers will tear out your throat if you drop.
Boris, you are riding a tiger. How are you going to stop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom