Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Labour Says Recall Parliament
19 Answers
Labour wants MPs to return to parliament to scrutinise the government's plans for no deal.
https:/
errrrr, why? didn't parliament - not 3 days ago - legislate to prevent a no-deal happening? if yes, what's the point? if no, what did I miss?
https:/
errrrr, why? didn't parliament - not 3 days ago - legislate to prevent a no-deal happening? if yes, what's the point? if no, what did I miss?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. 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.
They can go blow it out their rear. A day after some judges make a decision based on their belief rather than proof, or even evidence, and the opposition are already trying to use that to bend things to it's will.
And they can't just prevent a no-deal; it's still the case that without agreement come the deadline, we have left.
And they can't just prevent a no-deal; it's still the case that without agreement come the deadline, we have left.
How did the court know what passed between Boris and the Queen ?
https:/
https:/
EDMUNDD, in the summary of the Court's decision yesterday, it said, "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
It's as if the prorogation had not been issued, meaning there is nothing for the Queen to reverse.
It's as if the prorogation had not been issued, meaning there is nothing for the Queen to reverse.
The court said they had seen documents.
I don’t think courts “guess”. They make judgments based on evidence and legal precedent (probably not a lot of the latter in this case)
I think the queen herself being misled is incidental to the main ruling that the govt was in their view trying to “stymie” Parliament.
I don’t think courts “guess”. They make judgments based on evidence and legal precedent (probably not a lot of the latter in this case)
I think the queen herself being misled is incidental to the main ruling that the govt was in their view trying to “stymie” Parliament.
VE, say we were conducting a deal and you needed to know if I had the money to make it worth your continuing with negotiations.
I could say to you I have £20,000 in my account and you ask me to confirm this by providing an up-to-date bank statement.
If I refuse, you cannot say for certain how much money I have but you can make an adverse inference that it's less than £20,000 and walk away from the deal.
Boris has given his reasons for prorogation but refused to sign an affidavit to that effect.
An adverse inference could be made that he was being untruthful.
I could say to you I have £20,000 in my account and you ask me to confirm this by providing an up-to-date bank statement.
If I refuse, you cannot say for certain how much money I have but you can make an adverse inference that it's less than £20,000 and walk away from the deal.
Boris has given his reasons for prorogation but refused to sign an affidavit to that effect.
An adverse inference could be made that he was being untruthful.
//...it's still the case that without agreement come the deadline, we have left.//
Unfortunately you have left out the small matter of the PM being compelled by Parliament to ask Brussels for an extension to 31st January, OG. Worse than that, if the EU says "No, not 31st January but 31st Decemeber 2050, he has to come back and put that proposal to Parliament. Being composed mainly of Remainers, it is likely that Parliament will accept that generous offer. Such is the law which MPs passed last week.
Back to the question, the English High Court took a different view to the Scottish equivalent. They did not look at the reasons for the prorogation. They simply declared that it was not a judicial matter. They said that the court was not to be used to "...exert hitherto unidentified power over the Executive branch of the State in its dealings with Parliament". Hopefully similar common sense will reign in the Supreme Court next week. If it doesn't we can be prepared for each and every decision made by the government under its executive powers to end up over the road in the Supreme Court for approval. Do we really want that? The matter goes far beyond Brexit.
Unfortunately you have left out the small matter of the PM being compelled by Parliament to ask Brussels for an extension to 31st January, OG. Worse than that, if the EU says "No, not 31st January but 31st Decemeber 2050, he has to come back and put that proposal to Parliament. Being composed mainly of Remainers, it is likely that Parliament will accept that generous offer. Such is the law which MPs passed last week.
Back to the question, the English High Court took a different view to the Scottish equivalent. They did not look at the reasons for the prorogation. They simply declared that it was not a judicial matter. They said that the court was not to be used to "...exert hitherto unidentified power over the Executive branch of the State in its dealings with Parliament". Hopefully similar common sense will reign in the Supreme Court next week. If it doesn't we can be prepared for each and every decision made by the government under its executive powers to end up over the road in the Supreme Court for approval. Do we really want that? The matter goes far beyond Brexit.
1 to 19 of 19
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.