| Prorogation 10:44 - Sep 24 with 14369 views | waynekerr55 |
Illegal. Will Boris resign? |  |
| |  |
| Prorogation on 20:00 - Sep 24 with 973 views | exiledclaseboy |
Actually the judgement does reference the Bill of Rights:
“This court is not … precluded by article 9 [of the bill of rights] or by any wider parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself ... That advice [to the Queen] was outside the powers of the prime minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect.” |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:02 - Sep 24 with 969 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Prorogation on 19:56 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
Your line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. My point is that it is unprecedented for a PM to continue in his role when he cannot command a Commons majority and has already offered a general election. Do you mean that Parliament is now free to debate a motion for an early election under the FTPA, or a motion of no confidence? As far as I can see it is not the debate that is the issue, but the unwillingness of many MPs to support one or other motion to trigger an election. They prefer to extract political advantage in a zombie Parliament. |
Johnson hasn’t lost a confidence vote yet, so the requirements in section three of the Fixed Term Parliament’s Act have not yet been triggered. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:03 - Sep 24 with 966 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 19:56 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
Your line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. My point is that it is unprecedented for a PM to continue in his role when he cannot command a Commons majority and has already offered a general election. Do you mean that Parliament is now free to debate a motion for an early election under the FTPA, or a motion of no confidence? As far as I can see it is not the debate that is the issue, but the unwillingness of many MPs to support one or other motion to trigger an election. They prefer to extract political advantage in a zombie Parliament. |
Sorry. I thought you meant SC’s decision. Two different points
That’s exactly what they want to do. They want to force BJ to ask for an extension or be forced to resign, thereby humiliating him. They can’t trust him to call an election and stick to the dates that he says. Don’t blame them, makes perfect sense to me.
He wants to have an election before the 31st, why give him what he wants and put him in a stronger position ? |  | | |
| Prorogation on 20:03 - Sep 24 with 963 views | AguycalledJack |
| Prorogation on 19:56 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
Your line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. My point is that it is unprecedented for a PM to continue in his role when he cannot command a Commons majority and has already offered a general election. Do you mean that Parliament is now free to debate a motion for an early election under the FTPA, or a motion of no confidence? As far as I can see it is not the debate that is the issue, but the unwillingness of many MPs to support one or other motion to trigger an election. They prefer to extract political advantage in a zombie Parliament. |
They want to keep their seats and pay cheque more like. |  | | |
| Prorogation on 20:03 - Sep 24 with 962 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Prorogation on 19:56 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
Your line of reasoning isn't entirely clear to me. My point is that it is unprecedented for a PM to continue in his role when he cannot command a Commons majority and has already offered a general election. Do you mean that Parliament is now free to debate a motion for an early election under the FTPA, or a motion of no confidence? As far as I can see it is not the debate that is the issue, but the unwillingness of many MPs to support one or other motion to trigger an election. They prefer to extract political advantage in a zombie Parliament. |
The issue is the timing.
If Johnson were to pass a motion to dissolve Parliament under FTPA, he can change the date to after 31 October.
If there is a VONC that allows another PM without an election to get the extension.
If they wail a few days more, they get to beyond 19 October to make Johnson seek an extension.
If you look at the difference in polling between his asking for an extension, him leaving without a deal, him getting deal etc, you’ll see why it matters so much. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:05]
| | | |
| Prorogation on 20:04 - Sep 24 with 953 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 20:03 - Sep 24 by londonlisa2001 |
The issue is the timing.
If Johnson were to pass a motion to dissolve Parliament under FTPA, he can change the date to after 31 October.
If there is a VONC that allows another PM without an election to get the extension.
If they wail a few days more, they get to beyond 19 October to make Johnson seek an extension.
If you look at the difference in polling between his asking for an extension, him leaving without a deal, him getting deal etc, you’ll see why it matters so much. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:05]
|
Exactly | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:12 - Sep 24 with 933 views | AnotherJohn |
| Prorogation on 19:30 - Sep 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Article nine of the Bill of Rights? Parliamentary privilege? That refers to debates and/proceedings in parliament not being questioned in court. It’s the clause that gives parliamentarians protection from libel and slander.
The whole point of this case was that prorogation was not subject to a debate or isn’t a proceeding of parliament itself. It’s a prerogative power exercised by the monarch. Article nine can’t possibly apply. I haven’t read the judgement in full yet but I doubt it will be mentioned because it’s entirely irrelevant. |
The Supreme Court judges did explain briefly why Article 9 did not apply, but I was interested in the detailed reasoning. i'm afraid that your summary doesn't cover all the ramifications of A9.. If you want to see what lawyers argue about google 'judicial power project' and read some of the web articles there on the earlier cases and appeal..
P.S, Vernon Bogdanor is just on BBC News 24 making a similar point to what i said about the result of the FTPA. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:16]
| | | |
| Prorogation on 20:17 - Sep 24 with 920 views | Lohengrin |
| Prorogation on 19:14 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
Have a look at the full judgement and find something in there that isn’t legally sound. Baroness Hale is in Gray’s’s Inn, the same as me. She’s incredible, completely neutral and would never make any judgement on anything less than the laws |
Edward Kenealy was a bencher in Gray’s too, John. He claimed descent from Genghis Khan and Christ, among others. Reckoned The Almighty had sent him.
Not impossible but rather unlikely.  |  |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prorogation on 20:17 - Sep 24 with 916 views | AnotherJohn |
| Prorogation on 20:03 - Sep 24 by londonlisa2001 |
The issue is the timing.
If Johnson were to pass a motion to dissolve Parliament under FTPA, he can change the date to after 31 October.
If there is a VONC that allows another PM without an election to get the extension.
If they wail a few days more, they get to beyond 19 October to make Johnson seek an extension.
If you look at the difference in polling between his asking for an extension, him leaving without a deal, him getting deal etc, you’ll see why it matters so much. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:05]
|
Obviously, that is what I meant by political advantage. | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:18 - Sep 24 with 914 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Prorogation on 20:12 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
The Supreme Court judges did explain briefly why Article 9 did not apply, but I was interested in the detailed reasoning. i'm afraid that your summary doesn't cover all the ramifications of A9.. If you want to see what lawyers argue about google 'judicial power project' and read some of the web articles there on the earlier cases and appeal..
P.S, Vernon Bogdanor is just on BBC News 24 making a similar point to what i said about the result of the FTPA. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:16]
|
Yes I made a later post that outlined the reference in the judgement to article nine. Now I’ve read it they go into quite some detail as to why it was irrelevant. I’m going to go with their interpretation.
Edit - para 68 is the one you want
“The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.l
[Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:20]
| |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:20 - Sep 24 with 908 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 20:17 - Sep 24 by Lohengrin |
Edward Kenealy was a bencher in Gray’s too, John. He claimed descent from Genghis Khan and Christ, among others. Reckoned The Almighty had sent him.
Not impossible but rather unlikely. |
Chris Grayling was an Honourary Bencher too, but we don’t speak about him : ) | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:20 - Sep 24 with 906 views | AnotherJohn |
| Prorogation on 20:00 - Sep 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Actually the judgement does reference the Bill of Rights:
“This court is not … precluded by article 9 [of the bill of rights] or by any wider parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself ... That advice [to the Queen] was outside the powers of the prime minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect.” |
So it wasn't irrelevant as you said? Where did you study law? | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 with 900 views | monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 with 897 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Prorogation on 20:20 - Sep 24 by AnotherJohn |
So it wasn't irrelevant as you said? Where did you study law? |
Well yes, the judges did indeed conclude that it was irrelevant as they ruled unanimously that it had no impact on the case. But I was wrong to say that they didn’t mention it. I hadn’t fully appreciated how stupid the government’s stance was as it now transpires that they relied entirely on article nine, which was never gonna work. No wonder they lost. [Post edited 24 Sep 2019 20:24]
| |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:32 - Sep 24 with 874 views | Uxbridge |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |
I think we've had enough about experts thank you. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:32 - Sep 24 with 873 views | Lohengrin |
| Prorogation on 20:20 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
Chris Grayling was an Honourary Bencher too, but we don’t speak about him : ) |
Oh! dear.  | |
| An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it. |
| |
| Prorogation on 20:43 - Sep 24 with 846 views | Sirjohnalot |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |
This is true, I’m a complete arsehole and I always have an opinion, rarely genuine though. | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:49 - Sep 24 with 833 views | AnotherJohn |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |
Just as with football you will find that on the various public law blogs and in print legal scholars and others will debate court judgments. Of course many of us get called a******s or worse on here for our posts about the Swans. Anyway, so far so good at half time - about to start again so back to that. | | | |
| Prorogation on 20:57 - Sep 24 with 818 views | Pegojack |
| Prorogation on 20:20 - Sep 24 by Sirjohnalot |
Chris Grayling was an Honourary Bencher too, but we don’t speak about him : ) |
Did he keep dropping his briefs? |  | | |
| Prorogation on 23:08 - Sep 24 with 755 views | majorraglan |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |
It’s a shocking state of affairs when 11 of the country’s most eminent judges who hold positions in the highest Court in the land and who are experts in their field are savaged in the media by politicians and newspapers. Without the rule of law we degenerate in to an anarchic society. | | | |
| Prorogation on 23:20 - Sep 24 with 746 views | Luther27 |
| Prorogation on 20:21 - Sep 24 by monmouth |
I find it incredible that armchair jerks are trying to second guess or undermine the Supreme Court. The clue is in the name.
I guess it’s true, every arsehole now feels they have a valid opinion. |
Aren't we here because 17.4 million arsholes voted three years ago in a referendum that 16 point dot dot arseholes refuse to accept the outcome?
Arsehole. | | | |
| Prorogation on 23:22 - Sep 24 with 743 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Prorogation on 23:20 - Sep 24 by Luther27 |
Aren't we here because 17.4 million arsholes voted three years ago in a referendum that 16 point dot dot arseholes refuse to accept the outcome?
Arsehole. |
Nope. We’re here because no one knows what ‘we want to leave the European Union’ means.
Least of all those who pushed for it. | | | |
| Prorogation on 23:23 - Sep 24 with 741 views | Luther27 |
| Prorogation on 23:22 - Sep 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope. We’re here because no one knows what ‘we want to leave the European Union’ means.
Least of all those who pushed for it. |
Well, to be honest I thought it was leave or stay. | | | |
| Prorogation on 23:27 - Sep 24 with 734 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Prorogation on 23:23 - Sep 24 by Luther27 |
Well, to be honest I thought it was leave or stay. |
Yeah, and that’s why we’re here. As I said.
Many brexiters have already voted against leaving three times now in parliament. | | | |
| Prorogation on 23:31 - Sep 24 with 725 views | LeonWasGod |
| Prorogation on 23:22 - Sep 24 by londonlisa2001 |
Nope. We’re here because no one knows what ‘we want to leave the European Union’ means.
Least of all those who pushed for it. |
Leave means leave  |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
