Reply to: Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

[Old Greg]

You mean the Prime Minister? (Parliament didn't prorogue itself.)

So, you think a Prime Minister should be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, and duration, he/she deems appropriate?

Exactly.

[Paddy]

Live in UK or by proxy server or direct on Supreme Court Website

Supreme Court challenge over PM's Parliament suspension - BBC News

I must add, that as with other cases, the judges would have read all the documents prior to the Hearing. The Hearing is just the last formality for the judges' decision. Most Judges would already have the verdict in the back of their minds.

It’s now emerged that the prime minister has not made a witness statement explaining why he advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks.

Such a witness statement to court - had it emerged - would have been subject to the standard rules of being truthful - Lord Pannick notes that telling porkies in witness statements is an offence.

[meridian]

I believe they did, and won the argument, in 2016.

That would be the argument put forward by the official Leave campaign?

Tell me, how is that looking compared to the reality of the current situation?

[Zigenare]

It's ironic that many talk of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when Scotland and NI had different laws even before the devolved governments were created. Wales became part of England for legal purposes in the reign of Henry VIII, but Scotland and Ireland hadn't joined the Union by then and were allowed a certain level of autonomy as part of joining the Union.

Really? How inneresting.

[Platypus]

If Brexit is going to be so good for the country, why can’t the Brexiters sell it on its merits?

I believe they did, and won the argument, in 2016.

[JohntheBike]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

It's ironic that many talk of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, when Scotland and NI had different laws even before the devolved governments were created. Wales became part of England for legal purposes in the reign of Henry VIII, but Scotland and Ireland hadn't joined the Union by then and were allowed a certain level of autonomy as part of joining the Union.

[NotAllThere]

The courts do not normally have jurisdiction over political decisions, unless they may be breaking the law..

Yep. Happens quite often - a political decision is made (e.g. by the Home Office, stripping some ISIS girl of British citizenship) and it is challenged in court. Sometimes ministers acted unlawfully and their decision must be reversed. Same applies to Prime Ministers.

[DaveB]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

You really do need to read the judgement for yourself.

The courts didn't rule on a decision made by Parliament , they ruled on a decision made by the executive. i.e. the government led by the prime minister.

The decision was based on actual Statute that specifically prohibits the executive from proroguing parliament in order to stop parliament from doing it's job, as I quoted previously (The Claim of Right Act 1689). The courts do not normally have jurisdiction over political decisions, unless they may be breaking the law. That was the basis on which the case was brought. The original judgement went against them on the basis that there was no evidence that the law had actually been broken, therefor the courts had no jurisdiction over the decision. The appeal was granted due to the additional evidence produced (meeting minutes, hand written material from Boris and a note from him approving the use of prorogation as a tool to avoid parliamentary scrutiny) that clearly showed, in the courts judgement, that the reasons for proroguing were in breech of the law.

The Claim of Right Act is UK Law that is applicable in Scotland and has been used as recently as 2014, as cited in my previous post, this is not a case of some archaic statute being dredged up as a last resort.

Your last statement is simply more muddying of the waters by trying to imply that the courts are biased one way or another, and typical tactics for Leavers when things go against them. That's what leads to Daily Mail headlines about enemies of the people. Frankly I trust the courts far more than any off the politicians or other interested parties involved in this.

[DealorNoDeal]

I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament.

You mean the Prime Minister? (Parliament didn't prorogue itself.)

So, you think a Prime Minister should be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, and duration, he/she deems appropriate?

[Mordac]

mordy has a zero hours contract for the conference season as the back end of a donkey, so he's hoping for some action.

At least I didn't get sacked from the front end for scaring the children...

[malvolio]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

[meridian]

Cummings appears to confirm that the reason for proroguing is Brexit. His “genius” is only matched by his idiocy in running his mouth off.

H/t Sunday Times.

[Old Greg]

Lol, you make conference season sound exciting. “Totty”? Is it a Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, or Tory conference that you’d find “totty”!

Perhaps it’s all relative though, a week in Blackpool and even the donkeys might look attractive to some of them.

mordy has a zero hours contract for the conference season as the back end of a donkey, so he's hoping for some action.

[meridian]

Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

What, you think they'd turn down the chance to go on a weeks freebie pissup on expenses, and possibly get some totty into the bargain?

Lol, you make conference season sound exciting. “Totty”? Is it a Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, or Tory conference that you’d find “totty”!

Perhaps it’s all relative though, a week in Blackpool and even the donkeys might look attractive to some of them.

[Mordac]

We’ll never know, Parliament didn’t get the chance to vote on the period of recess for conference season.

What, you think they'd turn down the chance to go on a weeks freebie pissup on expenses, and possibly get some totty into the bargain?