Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful
383 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by THECORBYLOON. 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.
THELOONYCORBYN, in one of your posts you said,
"You only have to look at the background of most of these Supreme Court judges to realise that today's judgment was never in doubt....nearly all of them married to the eussr "
and
"most of these judges that were on this case are directly linked with and are pro eussr one way or another, they have taken money from the eussr"
There were eleven Justices looking at this case yet you gave instances of "links" to the EU for only three, rather than six which would have been the minimum to be "most".
The three you named as having EU links are Lords Kerr, Reed and Sales.
You said Lords Kerr and Reed sat on the ECHR.
You do realize the ECHR is completely separate from the EU don't you?
You also said that Lord Kerr ruled against the Government in 2017 (in the Miller case) which is correct but why did you not mention that Lord Reed ruled in FAVOUR of the Government in that same case?
"You only have to look at the background of most of these Supreme Court judges to realise that today's judgment was never in doubt....nearly all of them married to the eussr "
and
"most of these judges that were on this case are directly linked with and are pro eussr one way or another, they have taken money from the eussr"
There were eleven Justices looking at this case yet you gave instances of "links" to the EU for only three, rather than six which would have been the minimum to be "most".
The three you named as having EU links are Lords Kerr, Reed and Sales.
You said Lords Kerr and Reed sat on the ECHR.
You do realize the ECHR is completely separate from the EU don't you?
You also said that Lord Kerr ruled against the Government in 2017 (in the Miller case) which is correct but why did you not mention that Lord Reed ruled in FAVOUR of the Government in that same case?
It's pretty obvious why: he's trying to fool people into taking his conspiracy theory seriously.
In reality, Brexit is a political objective that can be achieved perfectly lawfully, if only its advocates had respect for the rule of law and for the mechanisms of Parliamentary democracy. But Brexit supporters consistently show neither of these traits, dismissing judges as enemies of the people, MPs voting down specific Brexit deals as traitors, and Remainers as anti-democratic. It's divisive and despicable.
In reality, Brexit is a political objective that can be achieved perfectly lawfully, if only its advocates had respect for the rule of law and for the mechanisms of Parliamentary democracy. But Brexit supporters consistently show neither of these traits, dismissing judges as enemies of the people, MPs voting down specific Brexit deals as traitors, and Remainers as anti-democratic. It's divisive and despicable.
-- answer removed --
As for parliament acting against the “wishes of the people”.
Parliament is divided and disputatious. So are we. And the government not only did not have a majority to start with, which is the core of the problem of delivering Brexit, but by its confrontational approach has suspended and therefore alienated over 20 of its MPs, worsening the mathematics, and made even bigger enemies of Labour MPs whose votes it might need to vote a deal through.
Parliament is divided and disputatious. So are we. And the government not only did not have a majority to start with, which is the core of the problem of delivering Brexit, but by its confrontational approach has suspended and therefore alienated over 20 of its MPs, worsening the mathematics, and made even bigger enemies of Labour MPs whose votes it might need to vote a deal through.
The ONLY thing I'm 'appalled' at ZM is the fact that the leave vote won and we are still no nearer to leaving !!! It's a good job isn't it that when we have a general election and the party that some voted for got in, others just accepted that their party lost and got on with it, because that's democracy - not so the Brexit vote - it IS as simple as that whether the remainers like it or not ..
We are hardly being ruled by an unelected judiciary. It's not even worth taking that seriously. Nor are we "ruled" by Brussels -- again, it's just not even worth taking seriously the idea that we are "ruled" by a Union we chose to join. You may dislike the influence that the EU has but there's no need to completely overstate the situation. We are "ruled" neither by Brussels, nor by judges.
It's not so much the law being fluid, it's more a case of it being applied and interpreted as per the spirit in which the legislation would have been passed.
I'd say I pretty much disagreed with it all, but I didn't take notes on which was reasonable and which not.
I may look at it again, but still feel that the courts traditionally know the areas they should judge on and those which are in the political domain and leave well alone.
The judges views all rested on their personal opinion regarding that which was a private conversation between the PM and sovereign which they could not know but still claimed to be deception, and a judgement that meant they decided what was too long a break when, as far as I am aware that's not defined anywhere. And thus we return back to it being a political decision not a legal one.
In effect they are making law by coming up with these decisions, claims, interpretation and creating a precedent.
I'd say I pretty much disagreed with it all, but I didn't take notes on which was reasonable and which not.
I may look at it again, but still feel that the courts traditionally know the areas they should judge on and those which are in the political domain and leave well alone.
The judges views all rested on their personal opinion regarding that which was a private conversation between the PM and sovereign which they could not know but still claimed to be deception, and a judgement that meant they decided what was too long a break when, as far as I am aware that's not defined anywhere. And thus we return back to it being a political decision not a legal one.
In effect they are making law by coming up with these decisions, claims, interpretation and creating a precedent.
// The judges views all rested on their personal opinion regarding that which was a private conversation between the PM and sovereign which they could not know but still claimed to be deception ... //
The very fact that you have said this indicates that you cannot have read or understood the judgement properly. What matters (see paragraph 56) is the effect; coupled with the fact that the government were unable or unwilling to provide further justification for their view. In some sense this is also the government's fault: in the Appeal they bet everything on the question of whether the matter was even justiciable or not; and this argument was swiftly rejected.
Paragraph 50 has set out a definition of "too long" a break. Yes, this is for the first time, but, as explained in 43-44, the Court also held that there must clearly be *some* upper limit to the power to prorogue; otherwise it would be literally unlimited, and prorogation for years, or even decades, would be entirely within the scope of the prerogative power.
The very fact that you have said this indicates that you cannot have read or understood the judgement properly. What matters (see paragraph 56) is the effect; coupled with the fact that the government were unable or unwilling to provide further justification for their view. In some sense this is also the government's fault: in the Appeal they bet everything on the question of whether the matter was even justiciable or not; and this argument was swiftly rejected.
Paragraph 50 has set out a definition of "too long" a break. Yes, this is for the first time, but, as explained in 43-44, the Court also held that there must clearly be *some* upper limit to the power to prorogue; otherwise it would be literally unlimited, and prorogation for years, or even decades, would be entirely within the scope of the prerogative power.
Explain how. And also, explain why calling judges "enemies of the people", speaking of a constitutional coup, refusing to respect the rule of law. Nor is this last a Brexit v. Remain issue. Nigel Farage is aware of the importance of this point, and he has made *no* complaints about the judgement of anyone other than Johnson for seeking the prorogation in the first place.
jim; //We are "ruled" neither by Brussels, nor by judges.//
Your naivety astounds me! Do you know who Ursula von der Leyen actually IS ? Do you know what an incompetent disaster she has been in her previous post as Minister of Defence? Do you know, as now the incoming Head of the EU commission, what her expansionist ambitions are for Europe? & do you think you will somehow personally be excluded from these plans?
Your naivety astounds me! Do you know who Ursula von der Leyen actually IS ? Do you know what an incompetent disaster she has been in her previous post as Minister of Defence? Do you know, as now the incoming Head of the EU commission, what her expansionist ambitions are for Europe? & do you think you will somehow personally be excluded from these plans?
She's the incoming head of the EU Commission. But her appointment must be approved by the EU Parliament (elected), proposed by the Council of the EU (ministers from member states, elected), and approved by the EU Council (heads of state/government, elected). So there's more oversight than you are giving credit for, and certainly far more oversight than fits the definition of "ruler". She is accountable to myriad other bodies, who are in turn accountable to the citizens of the EU.
KHANDRO, less than a fortnight ago you wrote,
"Restaurant lunch with Junker (sounds boozy) on Monday. Supreme court will throw out this proroguing nonsense challenge on Tuesday? The pound is shooting up. Everything's going tickety-boo, wouldn't you say?"
"A lot of wriggling there! The winners are, as always, the lawyer's trousering of hefty fees.
It will be dismissed for what it is."
You had confidence in the unelected Justices then, did you not?
"Restaurant lunch with Junker (sounds boozy) on Monday. Supreme court will throw out this proroguing nonsense challenge on Tuesday? The pound is shooting up. Everything's going tickety-boo, wouldn't you say?"
"A lot of wriggling there! The winners are, as always, the lawyer's trousering of hefty fees.
It will be dismissed for what it is."
You had confidence in the unelected Justices then, did you not?
There is a limit to the length of time a government can be in power before holding an election so clearly a prorogation can't just go on for decades. So that's incorrect. The conversion was important because it's the cause of claims that Boris deceived the queen so is relevant whether it firmed part of the final decision or not.
Whilst in retrospect it may have been unwise for government to opt not to encourage the judges to reject the matter being justiciable, by submitting evidence to aid the case should it be rejected, (which leads me to think that this should have been done in two stages, one to determine that, then another session, if needed, to look at the matter in detail) it is still the court's job not to go making assumptions and deciding limits. That is opinion and adding to the actual legislation. Additional evidence ought not have been needed.
Whilst in retrospect it may have been unwise for government to opt not to encourage the judges to reject the matter being justiciable, by submitting evidence to aid the case should it be rejected, (which leads me to think that this should have been done in two stages, one to determine that, then another session, if needed, to look at the matter in detail) it is still the court's job not to go making assumptions and deciding limits. That is opinion and adding to the actual legislation. Additional evidence ought not have been needed.
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.