Why Is It The Scottish Courts They Run To First?

[cassa333]

Why is it the Scottish courts the remainers run to first when they want to stamp their feet?

Why not the English high court? Is there a benefit to go north? And if so why don’t we abolish the English courts and just rely on the Scottish?

I’m not anti Scottish or anything but just wonder why they go there?

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, in evidence given on behalf of the UK government's Advocate General it said, "the Prime Minister accepts in relation to the 2019 Act:
...
he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions."

What was the purpose of the letter signed by the PM if not to frustrate the Act?

[dannyk13]

Corby, conversely, what was the purpose of the act if not to frustrate Brexit?. The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

[THECORBYLOON]

The purpose of the Act is not the issue, it's the failure of the PM to adhere to a legal principle.

[dannyk13]

Corby, so are we going to have the courts run parliament? As I said this whole thing is getting ridiculous.

[THECORBYLOON]

Would you rather we have a government run by a PM who ignores legal principles, one who says one thing and then does another?

[dannyk13]

Corby, in a word,yes rather than have the courts rule parliament. At the moment the law, by an act of parliament, says we leave on the 31st.Why aren't the courts enforcing that?

[THECORBYLOON]

The latest Withdrawal Act states, "The provisions of this Act override any statutory or other provision which would otherwise require the UK to leave the European Union on any specified date."

[dannyk13]

Corby, that act has not yet been enacted.

[THECORBYLOON]

The Act is the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.

[jim360]

The Scottish Courts are part of the UK's legal system. Nobody is "running" to them. Nor is it undermining the concept of democracy. The Courts and the law have always had a vital part to play in ensuring that the other branches of the state "play fair".

I'm not sure that this case will lead anywhere. Johnson's action is morally contemptuous, but very possibly within the letter of the law.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: "he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions." - He has complied, he sent the letter, with the wording prescribed, the letter was from him. Signing it was not mentioned in the act. Hopefully the courts will see this for what it is, a peice of sloppy rushed legislation to thwart the will of the people and conclude that it has been complied with.

[jim360]

As to October 31st, yes, it is the present law of the land that we will leave on that date. But the Courts will only have a need to enforce that if two very specific things don't happen: firstly, that nothing happens in the next week to change that date; and secondly, that the government, for whatever reason, suddenly reverses course and decides that it wants to stay in the EU after all, without consulting anybody about this change.

And, thirdly, it would most likely only want to address the case in retrospect, because until October 31st comes up, the Courts would -- rightly -- see that the question of our departure date is a political and not a legal matter.

[ToraToraTora]

jim; "I'm not sure that this case will lead anywhere. Johnson's action is morally contemptuous, but very possibly within the letter of the law. " - I don't see it as morally contemptous, just exploiting a hole in rushed sloppy legislation, but yes I agree that it's almost certainly within the latter of the law.

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, the PM has sent two contradictory letters and it is that action the Court will be looking at.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: the PM is allowed to write to the EUSSR is he not? and chose when? Sloppy legislastion me old china!

[THECORBYLOON]

He accepted he "is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate [the Withrawal Act's ]purpose or the purpose of its provision"

Sounds like he's a liar me old wally.

[ToraToraTora]

tell you what TCL: I'll have £20 with you that the Judges rule it as within the letter of the law, chiridee of your choice?

[THECORBYLOON]

It is not that straightforward. He has followed the legislation but he has also attempted to frustrate it which is another matter for the court to decide.

[ToraToraTora]

TCL:"It is not that straightforward" - ah the old bottle job. Many times in my life I have challenged those with a different view to back their own view with their own money, 9 times out of ten they bottle it, so you are not so sure of your position then?
Are you gonna put your money where your mouth is or what?

[THECORBYLOON]

TTT, I am not "bottling" anything. He sent the letter as required by the Act. He has also attempted to frustrate the Act, something the Court was assured he would not do.

I will accept the bet if it is whether the PM has tried to frustrate the Act or no.