John Majors Threat Judicial Review

[fender62]

im astounded an ex tory pm, would even want to do this..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48934781

[Zacs-Master]

What, stop unknown damage to the UK economy? Really?

[Jackdaw33]

He, like the rest of his ilk, has completely lost the plot.

[jim360]

The trick is then to stop this nonsense about suspending Parliament to force something through that neither Parliament nor the country wants. If you want to test opinion on whether we leave on a specific date regardless then ask -- Parliament or the people -- rather than force the answer you want.

The judicial threat is, in any case, subject to the law of the country. I am sure that we are all in agreement that the rule of law is paramount in this country.

[Peter Pedant]

listen Jonathan sumption on reith lectures.

incredibly as an old Law Lord, he says that judges shouldnt get involved
in the seventies at law skool we were told by Much Wiser Men that would never happen ( judges hold up their hands and say nuffin to do wiv us - where's my pension?)
sorry - great big fat judges pension earned by being a govt poodle

[dannyk13]

The only person that can prorogue Parliament is the Queen.Can she be the subject of a judicial review?

[jim360]

The Queen only prorogues Parliament subject to the advice of the Prime Minister -- and the advice can certainly be subject to JR.

[Zacs-Master]

Privy Council, actually.

[New Judge]

That Nice Mr Major is probably more responsible than most for the result of the referendum. It was he who signed the appalling Maastricht Treaty which set the European Community on the road to becoming the EU and a fledgling federal state.

Now he is seeing the likelihood of that work being undone and like many Euromaniacs he cannot hack it.

//If you want to test opinion on whether we leave on a specific date regardless then ask...//

The question was asked three years ago, Jim. It was obvious then that we would have to leave on a specific date and fairly obvious that it would have to be regardless of what obstructions the EU placed in our way.

//What, stop unknown damage to the UK economy?//

Precisely, Zacs - unknown.

//The only person that can prorogue Parliament is the Queen.Can she be the subject of a judicial review?//

Somebody has to break this ridiculous paralysis that has gripped Parliament. It is causing far more damage than leaving with No Deal ever will. MPs' continual refusal to countenance any form of departure is unacceptable and desperate times call for desperate measures.

[dannyk13]

Jim, from the link//Using a judicial review, anyone can apply to challenge the lawfulness of decisionsmade by the government.
Advice is not a decision, only the Queen can make that decision.

[jim360]

It certainly wasn't asked if we wanted to leave on 31st October, with No Deal, three years ago.

[jim360]

Dannyk: perhaps a fair point on reflection. Still, let's agree that the ability for the PM to suspend Parliament on their own whim, be it through the actions of the Queen or not, is an aspect of the current constitution that should probably be considered more seriously.

[dannyk13]

Jim when the HOC is deadlocked over Brexit it may be the only solution.

[jim360]

I don't agree -- obviously -- but in any case that's not the question I asked. There's also a principle here, is there not? Suppose that whenever the current Government is facing defeat on a given policy, all they need to do in order to avoid that defeat is to suspend Parliament, until a relevant deadline passes.

[New Judge]

//It certainly wasn't asked if we wanted to leave on 31st October, with No Deal, three years ago.//

Neither was I. I was asked if I wanted too leave and I said that I did. I also wasn't asked if I wanted to leave only provided it didn't cause too much inconvenience.

//Suppose that whenever the current Government is facing defeat on a given policy, all they need to do in order to avoid that defeat is to suspend Parliament, until a relevant deadline passes.//

But the government is not facing defeat on a particular policy. The policy (to leave) has been decided and endorsed by Parliament. It was Parliament that forced the Prime Minister to beg for an extension to the original leaving date and Parliament which agreed to that new date. No more votes are necessary. Normally when the government is facing defeat the policy has not been endorsed by Parliament and suspending proceedings will simply see that policy fail to materialise. That is not the case here. This continual kicking the can down the road is causing untold damage to UK businesses and the economy in general and those suggesting they are interested in its wellbeing and so will seek to defer or abandon Brexit are actually causing extended damage.

//Jim, from the link//Using a judicial review, anyone can apply to challenge the lawfulness of decisionsmade by the government.
Advice is not a decision, only the Queen can make that decision.//

Then we should have a Judicial Review to establish whether we can have a Judicial Review! :-)

[dannyk13]

the // in my post should be after the word government, not decision.

[naomi24]

//...to force something through that neither Parliament nor the country wants.//

How mysterious! The last I heard the country wanted to leave. Nothing said about deals that keep us tied to the EU. Just plain old 'leave'.

[david small]

This grey man can be very dangerous.

[agchristie]

Politics, Parliament...

Will he ever again say:

'Nice peas Norma'?

[naomi24]

How ironic if Mr Major was shooting himself and the rest of the duplicitous Remainers in the foot. Just imagine the court concluding that since the electorate voted ‘Leave’ with no mention of deals to keep the country bound by EU regulations, and since parliament agreed by voting to trigger A50, this whole process was a nonsense and a waste of the court’s time. Just musing. :o)

[agchristie]

He certainly is a vexatious complainant!!