Arts & Literature0 min ago
Why Is It The Scottish Courts They Run To First?
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. 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.
yep that's always the next phase TCL. It's like when someone says to me there is no way England can beat XXXXX. I'll say so you are so sure you'll offer me 10 to 1 no problem as England winning is impossible right? Err nope! they always bottle it because they are not really sure they are just mouthing off. TCL I'm prepared to wager £20 on the Scottish judges why aren't you?
The act didn’t say he had to sign the letter but arguably he is going against the spirit of the act’s intention by sending a second letter.
However, the act itself does not explicitly say he has to bust a gut to fulfil that objective. Nevertheless he is bound to accept an extension of one is offered and one would not be offered if there was no request however grudging it might be.
If the EU want to grant an extension they will but they’ll probably wait to see how the bill is going first.
Pursuing this through the court strikes me as a waste of time.
However, the act itself does not explicitly say he has to bust a gut to fulfil that objective. Nevertheless he is bound to accept an extension of one is offered and one would not be offered if there was no request however grudging it might be.
If the EU want to grant an extension they will but they’ll probably wait to see how the bill is going first.
Pursuing this through the court strikes me as a waste of time.
TCL as with my other wager with jim: https:/
I don’t think one is legally obliged to observe the spirit of the law : the law should explicitly state that “best efforts” or some such need to be applied.
I can’t see anything Johnson has done that thwarts the objective of the act. If the EU wants to grant an extension they now can.
Where they might have an issue perhaps is his attempt to palm it off on parliament and dissociate the government from it. In practical terms that isn’t going to work but it may be interpreted otherwise perhaps legally. I wouldn’t be brave enough to put (another) £20 on it though or even less.
I can’t see anything Johnson has done that thwarts the objective of the act. If the EU wants to grant an extension they now can.
Where they might have an issue perhaps is his attempt to palm it off on parliament and dissociate the government from it. In practical terms that isn’t going to work but it may be interpreted otherwise perhaps legally. I wouldn’t be brave enough to put (another) £20 on it though or even less.
https:/
I've not read the judgement but the case us to continue.
Interesting to note the report says, "Lord Carloway said the case should continue until obligations under the law had been complied with in full.
A date for the next hearing at the Court of Session has yet to be set."
The Judge appears to think the obligations are yet to be met.
I've not read the judgement but the case us to continue.
Interesting to note the report says, "Lord Carloway said the case should continue until obligations under the law had been complied with in full.
A date for the next hearing at the Court of Session has yet to be set."
The Judge appears to think the obligations are yet to be met.
It seems to me to be the right decision to suspend judgement. Complying with the law also includes accepting any extension, which Johnson has yet to do, but as no such extension has been offered he doesn't have much choice in the matter.
All of this may well be rendered irrelevant by the events of the next ten days anyway, and I suspect that is the real reason why the Courts are holding back from any decision. Parliament is likely to vote through the Withdrawal Agreement Bill at Second Reading tomorrow -- because how can they not? -- and, depending on what happens between second and third reading, matters may move fast enough that we either do leave on 31st, or any delay is small enough that Johnson can feel justified to claim that leaving was "done" in theory, if not in practice, by that date, and the extra two weeks or so were merely to allow to be completed everything that was needed to be done in a more or less orderly manner.
Or MPs may decide to reject the current deal on its own merits, and if in that situation Johnson refuses to accept an offered extension -- or if the EU refuses, citing Johnson's second letter -- then the courts would step in, because at that point politics would have ended and breaking the law would have started. However grating it may be, due process of law also requires deference to politics from time to time.
All of this may well be rendered irrelevant by the events of the next ten days anyway, and I suspect that is the real reason why the Courts are holding back from any decision. Parliament is likely to vote through the Withdrawal Agreement Bill at Second Reading tomorrow -- because how can they not? -- and, depending on what happens between second and third reading, matters may move fast enough that we either do leave on 31st, or any delay is small enough that Johnson can feel justified to claim that leaving was "done" in theory, if not in practice, by that date, and the extra two weeks or so were merely to allow to be completed everything that was needed to be done in a more or less orderly manner.
Or MPs may decide to reject the current deal on its own merits, and if in that situation Johnson refuses to accept an offered extension -- or if the EU refuses, citing Johnson's second letter -- then the courts would step in, because at that point politics would have ended and breaking the law would have started. However grating it may be, due process of law also requires deference to politics from time to time.
jim: "Or MPs may decide to reject the current deal on its own merits, and if in that situation Johnson refuses to accept an offered extension -- or if the EU refuses, citing Johnson's second letter -- then the courts would step in, because at that point politics would have ended and breaking the law would have started. However grating it may be, due process of law also requires deference to politics from time to time. " - not with you jim, what law would have been broken if the EUSSR offers no extension and Parliament does not pass the MayBo Brino deal?
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
As The Football Is Going On, What Is...
Sport7 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.