Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful

[THECORBYLOON]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

What now for Boris?

[jim360]

The idea that it was predictable that the judges ruled "unanimously". What a biased and misguided video. Also, when he goes on about Paragraph 15, he missed the fact that the ruling was based on the effect, rather than the motive, of the decision to prorogue.

[naomi24]

How dare the establishment wilfully aid and abet the liars in their determination to trash democracy.

[jim360]

Oh, and while I'm at it, another reason why it's stupid to go after "the Establishment" -- if any more were needed -- is the very fact that three other senior judges ruled in favour of the government at the High Court. If the "Master of the Rolls" isn't an establishment title and establishment figure then nothing is.

[Old_Geezer]

Parliament is where Brexit will be implemented, and it is therefore Parliament which must come into line with the demands of the people whom they make out they represent, rather than do their utmost to defy them. All they have to do is support the sterling work being done to get us out, stop trying to take no-deal off the list of options, stop trying to extend the period of chaos, and stop trying to stop the democratic decision made to leave. This parliament is unfit for office and should resign.

[jim360]

Democracy is not being trashed by upholding the legal principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. That is what has been done here. Nothing more and nothing less.

Parliament is accountable to the people. Punish them, if you wish, at the ballot box. But you can do that without trampling over the rule of law.

[Old_Geezer]

Tends to destroy faith in the court's impartiality, doesn't it.

[Zacs-Master]

All the leavers up in arms at a British court upholding British law. I thought that’s exactly what you wanted?

[THECORBYLOON]

If they had reached a different verdict, would you have questioned their impartiality?

[shoota]

I have just written to my MP (Lab), the meat of the letter is below:

'Wiki tells me that in the past you have not exactly been enamoured of Mr Corbyn's leadership but research states that you have never directly opposed your party. I understand that MP's are MP's because they want to be and that they wish to remain in their chosen career but this 'Brexit' fiasco is now beyond ridiculous and is showing many of your colleagues up to be unprincipled opportunists more interested in self aggrandisement and advancement than serving the nation and their electorates.


Brexit needs to be sorted, it needs all of you to be bold and see what is best for the country and if that differs from your party line then so be it. If that means siding with 'the enemy' then so be it. If it means shelving your personal beliefs for the good of the country then so be it because this debacle is capable of becoming seriously disruptive. It is time to put party loyalties aside and work for a quick and beneficial result.'

[Old_Geezer]

It's not just upholding though, is it. It's interpreting as required even though there are no specified limit to the length of prorogation, and suggesting advice they never heard was unlawful as if it was a known fact. One can see an attempt to justify a highly questionable decision a mile off.

[THECORBYLOON]

Is upholding the law not part of a democracy?

[naomi24]

There you go yet again, Jim. Opinions contrary to yours are stupid. All I’ll say tonight is be careful what you wish for.

[jim360]

The Court addressed that point.

OG: have you read the judgement in full?

[Old_Geezer]

Of course. But interpreting law on the hoof to claim it's being upheld when that is questionable at the very least, isn't upholding the law.

[jim360]

It's stupid to go after "the Establishment" because it flies in the face of the facts. And, as a matter of fact, Government could plausibly have won its case. All observers were saying so. It's not a question of opinions contrary to mine being stupid by being contrary. It's a question of opinions being stupid because they fail to align with the facts.

[Zacs-Master]

I’ve no idea where all the leave voters are going to go and live. Appalled by The EU having legal influence on the Uk. Appalled at the highest court in the land. Crikey, what a dilemma you must all find yourselves in.

[Old_Geezer]

I read about a quarter which was waffle about Brexit and general stuff, then jumped to near the end to see what the reasons really were. I don't believe non-legal experienced folk need do more. The reasons were what we needed to know, not some way to overcome insomnia.

[THECORBYLOON]

OG, which part(s) of the summary or full decision do you disagree with?

[jim360]

The first bit was indeed "waffle", but it's standard for judgements to set out the facts of the case and background so you have to wade through all that. The meat of the judgement starts at Paragraph 30.

[Zacs-Master]

Isn’t it strange how people’s (OG’s inparticular) view of the law and how it should be used is fluid, depending on the situation.

Old_Geezer: ‘Let the courts decide. I can see parliament should be informed whenever it is possible, but that if doing so ruins the ability of the government to negotiate or will spoil commercial concerns getting a good deal, then there should be exceptions to disclosure. And it would be a major drop off if this wasn't already part of law. Trouble is no one can judge the situation without being given access to the data. So, let the judge at it’