News3 mins ago
Suspension Of Parliament Ruled Unlawful.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bigbad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Two decision makers can look at exactly the same evidence and reach differing outcomes.
It may be that they have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence; the evidence may have been misinterpreted; there may have been a fundamental error in the law.
In all three instances, there is no need to change the law.
It may be that they have reached a different conclusion based on the evidence; the evidence may have been misinterpreted; there may have been a fundamental error in the law.
In all three instances, there is no need to change the law.
Exercising powers cynically, if they interfere with democracy and the rule of law as it's usually understood in the constitution of the UK, *is* unlawful -- or at least, is potentially unlawful.
As to "fighting fire with fire", I've never understood why that's recommended over the usually more successful technique of using water. But anyway.
We'll see what the Supreme Court says. It may come to a different decision, it may come to the same one, but in either case it is right and proper that they rule on such an exercise of power. Even if you support it this time, if future Prime Ministers can use prorogation as a cover for frustrating the ability of Parliament to put them under scrutiny, then it's a dangerous precedent and one that deserves thoroughly testing in court.
As to "fighting fire with fire", I've never understood why that's recommended over the usually more successful technique of using water. But anyway.
We'll see what the Supreme Court says. It may come to a different decision, it may come to the same one, but in either case it is right and proper that they rule on such an exercise of power. Even if you support it this time, if future Prime Ministers can use prorogation as a cover for frustrating the ability of Parliament to put them under scrutiny, then it's a dangerous precedent and one that deserves thoroughly testing in court.
"I'm not aware that there *was* a prorogation in 1945 -- source please?"
Prorogation usually occurs *every* year, however there has not been one for 28 months (27th Apr - 2nd May 2017)
The prorogation in 1945 was 15th June - 3rd July.
https:/
Prorogation usually occurs *every* year, however there has not been one for 28 months (27th Apr - 2nd May 2017)
The prorogation in 1945 was 15th June - 3rd July.
https:/
'The most recent ruling of the Scottish courts and the phalanx of the judiciary generally, can easily be popped into the same category of “the establishment at work”, albeit the judges are probably the least bad offenders. Nonetheless, an intervention in relation to the executive authority of a PM is a most egregious interference in politics and our constitutional arrangements, such as to render, if taken too far, the country as ungovernable. But that is what many in the establishment want, they want instead to be governed by a technocratic foreign power.'
John Longworth, The Telegraph
John Longworth, The Telegraph
If ever you needed proof, and up until today it was easily argued to be untrue, that the judiciary is now corrupt and biased you have it. Compare this ruling in favour for the litigants by 3 Scottish remain judges, and the speed with which it was expedited, with the ruling against Tilbrook and his legal challenge and the length of time that it was spun out by a remain supporting judge. Now you all know why when Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Hitler came to power they executed the judges and most of the existing judiciaries.
I have to admit that my first thoughts were “hmm, 3 Scottish judges find it unlawful. Is it a coincidence that Scotland wants to remain?”
Mrs. May was a failure because she was weak and grovelly to the EU. It now looks like Mr. Johnson, despite all his “come what may/do or die” rhetoric, will fail too.
Is it all over? It looks that way to me. I do hope I’m wrong.
“Democracy” wasn’t the most commonly used word until recently. Now it’s used constantly. I think it needs a new definition, because if all the remainers can claim that they are democratic, yet those that want to uphold the referendum result are not, then that’s not democracy to me.
Mrs. May was a failure because she was weak and grovelly to the EU. It now looks like Mr. Johnson, despite all his “come what may/do or die” rhetoric, will fail too.
Is it all over? It looks that way to me. I do hope I’m wrong.
“Democracy” wasn’t the most commonly used word until recently. Now it’s used constantly. I think it needs a new definition, because if all the remainers can claim that they are democratic, yet those that want to uphold the referendum result are not, then that’s not democracy to me.
Also, it's a Scottish Court ruling on a UK-wide matter. Last time I checked, Scotland is part of the UK. Of course they have jurisdiction. And of course it's not political.
In case you weren't paying attention, the lower division of the Scottish Court ruled in favour of the government last week. I don't think people were complaining about the independence of the judge *that* time.
In case you weren't paying attention, the lower division of the Scottish Court ruled in favour of the government last week. I don't think people were complaining about the independence of the judge *that* time.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.