Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Why Is It The Scottish Courts They Run To First?
Why is it the Scottish courts the remainers run to first when they want to stamp their feet?
Why not the English high court? Is there a benefit to go north? And if so why don’t we abolish the English courts and just rely on the Scottish?
I’m not anti Scottish or anything but just wonder why they go there?
Why not the English high court? Is there a benefit to go north? And if so why don’t we abolish the English courts and just rely on the Scottish?
I’m not anti Scottish or anything but just wonder why they go there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. 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.TTT, in evidence given on behalf of the UK government's Advocate General it said, "the Prime Minister accepts in relation to the 2019 Act:
...
he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions."
What was the purpose of the letter signed by the PM if not to frustrate the Act?
...
he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions."
What was the purpose of the letter signed by the PM if not to frustrate the Act?
The Scottish Courts are part of the UK's legal system. Nobody is "running" to them. Nor is it undermining the concept of democracy. The Courts and the law have always had a vital part to play in ensuring that the other branches of the state "play fair".
I'm not sure that this case will lead anywhere. Johnson's action is morally contemptuous, but very possibly within the letter of the law.
I'm not sure that this case will lead anywhere. Johnson's action is morally contemptuous, but very possibly within the letter of the law.
TCL: "he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions." - He has complied, he sent the letter, with the wording prescribed, the letter was from him. Signing it was not mentioned in the act. Hopefully the courts will see this for what it is, a peice of sloppy rushed legislation to thwart the will of the people and conclude that it has been complied with.
As to October 31st, yes, it is the present law of the land that we will leave on that date. But the Courts will only have a need to enforce that if two very specific things don't happen: firstly, that nothing happens in the next week to change that date; and secondly, that the government, for whatever reason, suddenly reverses course and decides that it wants to stay in the EU after all, without consulting anybody about this change.
And, thirdly, it would most likely only want to address the case in retrospect, because until October 31st comes up, the Courts would -- rightly -- see that the question of our departure date is a political and not a legal matter.
And, thirdly, it would most likely only want to address the case in retrospect, because until October 31st comes up, the Courts would -- rightly -- see that the question of our departure date is a political and not a legal matter.
jim; "I'm not sure that this case will lead anywhere. Johnson's action is morally contemptuous, but very possibly within the letter of the law. " - I don't see it as morally contemptous, just exploiting a hole in rushed sloppy legislation, but yes I agree that it's almost certainly within the latter of the law.
TCL:"It is not that straightforward" - ah the old bottle job. Many times in my life I have challenged those with a different view to back their own view with their own money, 9 times out of ten they bottle it, so you are not so sure of your position then?
Are you gonna put your money where your mouth is or what?
Are you gonna put your money where your mouth is or what?
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.