Originally posted by DealorNoDeal
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Proroguing Parliament declared illegal
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Proroguing Parliament declared illegal"
Collapse
-
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.Last edited by Paddy; 17 September 2019, 10:13.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by JohntheBike View PostIt'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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostWe 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)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostThe courts do not normally have jurisdiction over political decisions, unless they may be breaking the law..
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostWe 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)
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by malvolio View PostI still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament.
So, you think a Prime Minister should be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, and duration, he/she deems appropriate?
Leave a comment:
-
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)
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostLol, 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Proroguing Parliament declared illegal
Originally posted by Mordac View PostWhat, 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?
Perhaps it’s all relative though, a week in Blackpool and even the donkeys might look attractive to some of them.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by meridian View PostWe’ll never know, Parliament didn’t get the chance to vote on the period of recess for conference season.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Leave a comment: