|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 10:27
...according to three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. It can now be appealed to the Supreme Court I think. I never understood why this case was heard separately in Scotland, N Ireland and England? What happens if they disagree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 11:15
It seems 'our precious union' has some benefit after all!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Wed 11 Sep 11:16
Scotland had its own legal system from my understanding and given Westminster covers Scotland then it falls under the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts
Edited to say that I think the English courts ultimately reign supreme so we don't have the final say, but it woukd mean the English court had effectively overruled our highest court
Post Edited (Wed 11 Sep 11:20)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 11 Sep 11:19
I think the English courts were on their summer holidays when it all kicked off too?
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 11:34
Gina Miller's case to the High Court in London was dismissed last week but she's appealing it to the Supreme Court. Does that mean the Supreme Court has to hear appeals against two judgements which contradict each other?
There's also an ongoing case in Belfast on which there's been no ruling yet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Wed 11 Sep 12:48
The Supreme Court is not an English court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 11 Sep 13:32
I'm not clear what point you're making, Mario. Both cases are being appealed to the Supreme Court, so where is it? This is from the Supreme Court's own website:
''The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.''
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Wed 11 Sep 14:14
I know that, someone else appears to think our court could be overruled by an English one.
Edit: I only know that cos I looked it up..!
Post Edited (Wed 11 Sep 14:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 11 Sep 15:14
So the ruling was that Johnson "misled the queen"
In other words a court found, unanimously, that our Prime Minister lied to the queen in order to obtain prorogation.
Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 11 Sep 15:16
To be fair he's made a career out of misleading people so I dont see why the Queen would be any different 😉
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 11 Sep 15:26
Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against lying to the queen.
His supporters might not feel the same way though; lots of them have a fetish for her maj.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Wed 11 Sep 19:18
The queen having anything to do with it is ridiculous as well to be honest. About time we had a referendum to get rid of her and her family of parasites
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 11 Sep 19:32
Quote:
red-star-par, Wed 11 Sep 19:18
The queen having anything to do with it is ridiculous as well to be honest. About time we had a referendum to get rid of her and her family of parasites
This.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 11 Sep 20:15
Quote:
Rastapari, Wed 11 Sep 19:32
Quote:
red-star-par, Wed 11 Sep 19:18
The queen having anything to do with it is ridiculous as well to be honest. About time we had a referendum to get rid of her and her family of parasites
This.
Yes I agree but there should be something other than the courts to hold parliament to book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Thu 12 Sep 17:20
Pretty sure if we had a referendum we would keep the Queen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Thu 12 Sep 17:35
Depends on how openly the press were allowed to debate it I reckon.
Most folk won't have been exposed to much in the way of negative press or even balanced debate about them.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 12 Sep 19:06
Quote:
PARrot, Thu 12 Sep 17:20
Pretty sure if we had a referendum we would keep the Queen.
Let's wait until we have Charles on the throne. They have a chequered record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Thu 12 Sep 20:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 12 Sep 23:21
Support for the monarchy as an institution has been consistently about 80% since the 1960s.
Support for the Queen is normally around the 90% mark.
I suspect the second figure strongly underpins the first.
I've always regarded it as being very encouraging that despite the continuous stream of pro-royal news items- the BBC even has a 'Royal Correspondent'- and despite every banal activity of any royal child being a major news item in the Daily Mail, that 20% of the UK population have decided to take a different view. One in 5 people are immune to royal propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 17 Sep 11:34
The hearing in the Supreme Court has started. It is being heard by 11 judges rather than the usual 9 which indicates the significance being attributed to the judgement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 17 Sep 20:28
And still no sworn affidavits from Dominic and his minions Mmmm I wonder why ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Tue 17 Sep 22:23
Tbh, I would suspect that it would be a different story in Scotland. Especially so in the case of an independent Scotland. For most Scots I think its a case of who cares? I would say there should be a vote on the continuance of the Monarchy within 3 months of a yes vote. Either that or when Liz kicks the bucket, which will likely be within the next 10 years.
I don't know anyone of my generation that supports the queen or monarchy other than my a*rse cousins that are in the Orange Order...
Post Edited (Tue 17 Sep 22:25)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Sep 18:54
Have any of you legal eagles been following the Supreme Court hearing? If so, have you any opinions on how the verdict is likely to go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:02
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 19 Sep 18:54
Have any of you legal eagles been following the Supreme Court hearing? If so, have you any opinions on how the verdict is likely to go?
Certainly seems strange that the government were asked what theyll do in the event they lose.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Thu 19 Sep 19:45
Even the Daily Express and Daily Mail are a bit nervous about the judgment. There was one funny moment today when the government lawyer asked the judges, in the event of their finding against the government, not to interfere in politics by stating a date for parliament to resume since that was properly the responsibility of parliament itself. One judge asked wryly how parliament would be able to do that, if it was not sitting.
As for the verdict I would not expect the judges to claim that what Johnson has done is in breach of parliamentary law. However they may well let it be known that they were not persuaded by the documentation provided, nor the reasons stated for prorogation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 19 Sep 20:04
Interesting that no government minister was prepared to give any form of testimony, written or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 19 Sep 20:17
Some commentators seem to draw conclusions about the verdict from the questions asked by the judges and their reactions to the answers they get but I don't think it's as simple as that. The oral evidence is just the tip of the iceberg. They have a hell of a lot of written evidence to consider as well. My impression is that, even if they find against the government, there will be no real effect on what it has done or may continue to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Thu 19 Sep 20:24
Folk may be a bit more circumspect.....like cameron was today when he was asked by Humphries if he had said too much on a certain subject and may end up in the High Court at some point in the future.
I dont think theyll ignore a ruling against them....more likely to try and find another route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Thu 19 Sep 22:14
I've watched a fair amount of it, mostly legal jargon which goes over my head but the judges were very keen to ask questions of the government lawyers and didn't seem too impressed with the answers.
My feeling is, they won't overturn the Scottish decision but fall short of giving the same verdict and will say it is a political decision.
I say this because they have no other case to compare it with.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Fri 20 Sep 09:34
Think AAPS prediction isn't too far off the mark, although I think it could go either way but I suspect its leaning toward the opposition. The interesting things at the moment will be what happens to Johnson after? Surely has to be a resignation at the very least. If it goes in Johnsons favour then I wonder if there will be a bit of backlash in Scotland about what is basically a foreign court over-ruling our Judiciary. Granted you could argue vice versa from the English perspective, but I really wonder...either outcome plays into the SNPs hands I think.
Another thing in my mind would be, if Johnson plans to try and prorogue again as some are predicting, could the Commons not accelerate a bill stating that adjournment of Parliament has to be voted for in the Commons? Wonder if there is work going on behind the scenes toward this... The opposition could also legislate for an election after or just before Brexit to undermine Johnsons negotiating position and force him out.
Post Edited (Fri 20 Sep 09:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 23 Sep 08:43
Last night's 'Tories at War' on Channel 4 should have left no one in any doubt that prorogation was part of the government's Brexit strategy. Boris Johnson's financial backer, Crispin Olney, a hedge fund billionaire, was quite blatant about it and it was obvious who was pulling the strings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Mon 23 Sep 12:00
Looks like decision will be made tomorrow (Tuesday).
Obviously a very hard decision to make which has major political ramifications whichever way they decide.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Mon 23 Sep 13:02
Lots of murmuring on Twitter that government are going to lose this, and that MPs are already on standby to be recalled.
If that turns out to be the case it's impossible to see Johnson continuing in his role
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 23 Sep 13:23
He'll just prorogate again, pretend to act innocent whilst actually looking shifty as ****, then he'll tell us that parliament never existed and that we've always been at war with Eurasia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 23 Sep 22:57
I would be surprised if the court rules against this.
This would open a massive can of worms, potentially allowing every decision of the Executive to be challenged.
Yes, clearly Johnson was 'at it', but unfortunately, it IS in the rules that he can prorogue, as have PM's before him
- isn't that right Mr "let's avoid the cash-for-questions scandal" Major ?
However, I have been wrong before :D
The Supreme Court is going to have to overrule either the Scottish Court of Session, or the English High Court...
They can't both be right - anyone betting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 23 Sep 23:50
The feeling in the media seems to be that they'll rule against the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 02:02
This is a really good summary of the legal arguments being put forward regarding Parliament being prorogued:
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/what-odds-on-boris-johnson-losing-the-supreme-court-case
It's not a case of whether proroguing Parliament is legal, it is, it's a case of whether the reason for doing it is lawful.
The arguement is that the Government can't prorogue Parliament because it doesn't like what Parliament is doing as it infringes on Parliament's sovereignty.
There's a good line in there that the Government is accountable to Parliament not the other way about. BoJo has also declined to provide a sworn Affidavit that his reason for proroguing Parliament wasn't to stop Parliament having input to Brexit.
Finding against the Government won't really create a can of worms as the Government can always be taken to court when it acts outside the law. It's lost plenty of cases in the past.
I think they'll lose tomorrow as well from what I've read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 24 Sep 09:27
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 10:03
Yeah I saw that in the summary. It was a really interesting angle I didnt know was a possibility until I read it.
As you say, didn't seem to go down too well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 10:46
Confirmed as unlawful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Tue 24 Sep 10:55
Never a dull day anymore is there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:01
How often are decisions of the Supreme Court unanimous?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:07
Just about to post that. Didnt expect it to be unanimous - that's a tanking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:07
Nice to see that that the Scottish court decision has proven to be correct.
Wonder how long it will take parliament to reconvene.
What position does that leave Boris in now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:15
Lady Hail joins Lord Woolman as a modern day hero. :)
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:30
What kind of crack do you have to be on to come out with guff like that ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wetherby
Date: Tue 24 Sep 11:44
A stunning decision. Where next I wonder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 24 Sep 12:04
Must give pause to those who say Scotland has no say in the union. The verdict of a Scottish Court is upheld over that of an English Court.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 12:13
Parliament to resume at 11.30 tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 24 Sep 12:14
Can Boris now be subject to a citizens arrest ?
Auld Liz will be a tad annoyed one thinks ?
Maybe she should have " Thought very carefully " before agreeing eh ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 24 Sep 12:49
''Must give pause to those who say Scotland has no say in the union. The verdict of a Scottish Court is upheld over that of an English Court.''
Joanna Cherry has just answered that question on radio. Scotland may have a legal say but very little political say.
Scotland has always had its own legal system. It's nothing to do with the union and it's not devolved. Maybe we should have more institutions that are independent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dave67
Date: Tue 24 Sep 13:02
😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 13:14
Quote:
wee eck, Tue 24 Sep 12:49
''Must give pause to those who say Scotland has no say in the union. The verdict of a Scottish Court is upheld over that of an English Court.''
Joanna Cherry has just answered that question on radio. Scotland may have a legal say but very little political say.
Scotland has always had its own legal system. It's nothing to do with the union and it's not devolved. Maybe we should have more institutions that are independent.
Maybe our ones are better and we should run England 😉
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 24 Sep 13:38
One political source has revealed that Boris did not even let his own cabinet see the legal reasons for his proroge
Oh Dominic what have you done Laddie ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Tue 24 Sep 13:41
Can't wait for the collective seeth aimed at Scotland now. Absolutely delicious stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 24 Sep 13:50
This is probably the biggest constitutional ruling by a uk court ever. It has far reaching impact beyond the current situation since it is setting the precedent that the courts now have the power to check royal prerogative creating a whole new level of checks and balances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Tue 24 Sep 14:09
Weird comments from Johnson from the top of a posh shopping centre in New York. Maybe he was buying some diamonds for Cummings to thank him.
I assume Cummings is planning to prorogue parliament again in a few days. We will see how that goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 24 Sep 14:17
Quote:
desparado, Tue 24 Sep 12:14
Can Boris now be subject to a citizens arrest ?
Auld Liz will be a tad annoyed one thinks ?
Maybe she should have " Thought very carefully " before agreeing eh ?
She IS Brexit, she knew what she was doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 14:36
A lot folk reckoned the outfit she chose for the Quenns Speech was a nod towards the EU so I'm not sure she is Brexit.
Besides most the family are EU immigrants 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2017/jun/21/queens-hat-alludes-to-brexit#img-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 15:15
Quote:
Rastapari, Tue 24 Sep 14:17
Quote:
desparado, Tue 24 Sep 12:14
Can Boris now be subject to a citizens arrest ?
Auld Liz will be a tad annoyed one thinks ?
Maybe she should have " Thought very carefully " before agreeing eh ?
She IS Brexit, she knew what she was doing.
Not sure she had a choice. She must take the PM's advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Sep 15:31
Johnston wants to deliver no deal Brexit by the end of October end of story and will do absolutely everything to do this regardless if he and his Government are ousted afterwards.
Therefore, he will most likely attempt to prorogue Parliament a second time to buy him even more time.
The only solution from the opposition parties is to call a vote of no confidence now and remove them from office.
A General Election is a no goer as Johnston has it in his power to change the date of it till after Brexit and he most certainly would do that.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Tue 24 Sep 16:24
She has to trust her PM....and the PM has to heed the advice of the Attorney General. It is now emerging he said it was lawful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 24 Sep 16:42
To be honest that raises questions over his competence.
To be clear the I meant the AG.
Post Edited (Tue 24 Sep 16:43)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 24 Sep 17:20
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
She'll be aware enough of her family's offshore interests to play dumb and let us all suffer at the hands of our now completely rogue government.
And yet Brexiteers will still trust and hail them as heroes of democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 18:06
Quote:
Rastapari, Tue 24 Sep 17:20
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
She'll be aware enough of her family's offshore interests to play dumb and let us all suffer at the hands of our now completely rogue government.
And yet Brexiteers will still trust and hail them as heroes of democracy.
If she had refused to heed the advise if her PM that would have been a real constitutional problem. We would be back to the days where the royals held power.
Regardless of any of the offshore stuff she really had no option....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Tue 24 Sep 19:12
I said two weeks ago that Boris Johnson was finished and we are about to watch the death throes. His namesake Lyndon, former US president and a pragmatist of the highest order, pointed out that the first rule of democratic politics was being able to count. It was obvious from the day Boris Johnson took office that he had an arithmetical problem in regards to delivering any kind of Brexit. Since then he has actually managed to lose support where it matters most for him at the moment: in parliament. That was some achievement for a man already boxed in; to paraphrase Nye Bevan, he is probably too innumerate to be PM.
If Johnson truly believes that HRH Queen Elizabeth II will sign off another prorogation then he is politically illiterate.
His biggest forthcoming problem, once he has decided to spend more time with his family or what he has left of it, will be if the millionaire press barons are still happy to throw money at him for his columns. He has let them down big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 24 Sep 20:23
He said he respects the decision of the Supreme Court but he disagrees with it! On what grounds does a layman disagree with a legal decision made by 11 of the most learned judges in the land? Why didn't he provide them with a signed statement explaining the reasons for proroguing parliament?
He sounds more like Trump every time he opens his mouth. If accused of lying, deny it and tell a bigger one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Sep 20:26
To all Scots, great news from Corbyn if we give Labour just one more chance he will get rid of prescription charges in Scotland. No I am not sh*tting you!
Next he will tell us they will set up a separate Scottish Legal System! 😳😳
The guy is a diddy!
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 24 Sep 20:32
OOOPS wrong thread
We are forever shaped by the Children we once were
Post Edited (Tue 24 Sep 20:33)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 24 Sep 21:30
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
Aye, I'm sure she doesn't have the ways or means to afford legal advice. Poor old innocent dear
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 21:54
Quote:
red-star-par, Tue 24 Sep 21:30
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
Aye, I'm sure she doesn't have the ways or means to afford legal advice. Poor old innocent dear
So do you actually think that a case that went through the 4 highest courts in the UK to be settled could have been decided by the Queen? Regardless of how much legal assistance she would have immediate access to how could that be relied on.
Don't let your hatred of the monarchy ( which I think should be abolished) get in the way of the basic facts.
3 members of her privy council approached her to prorogate parliament. It's their job to know the legality of their request and advise the Queen. They lied. Simple really.
The monarchy has not changed any of the legislation from parliament for over 300 years. I hardly think this was the time to start
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Tue 24 Sep 22:03
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 21:54
Quote:
red-star-par, Tue 24 Sep 21:30
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
Aye, I'm sure she doesn't have the ways or means to afford legal advice. Poor old innocent dear
So do you actually think that a case that went through the 4 highest courts in the UK to be settled could have been decided by the Queen? Regardless of how much legal assistance she would have immediate access to how could that be relied on.
Don't let your hatred of the monarchy ( which I think should be abolished) get in the way of the basic facts.
3 members of her privy council approached her to prorogate parliament. It's their job to know the legality of their request and advise the Queen. They lied. Simple really.
The monarchy has not changed any of the legislation from parliament for over 300 years. I hardly think this was the time to start
Agreed 100%
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Tue 24 Sep 22:24
When was the last time a monarch gave a PM their jotters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 24 Sep 23:27
The fact that the Head of State of our country wasn't in a position to disobey an illegal order is pretty messed up.
What's the point of having one? I mean it's no better than having a wee stamp to stamp stuff "OK" and a damn sight more expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 23:45
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 23:27
The fact that the Head of State of our country wasn't in a position to disobey an illegal order is pretty messed up.
What's the point of having one? I mean it's no better than having a wee stamp to stamp stuff "OK" and a damn sight more expensive.
She didn't know it was an illegal order. Wouldn't it be interesting if she was asked again by Boris and refused now that she knows it is illegal
It is all very much a ceremonial role. Would you like that changed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 24 Sep 23:47
Quote:
ipswichpar, Tue 24 Sep 22:24
When was the last time a monarch gave a PM their jotters?
Every time we change PM. Don't all PM's have to be officially relieved of duty by the Queen?
I know if course that is also just protocol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Wed 25 Sep 00:17
Quote:
red-star-par, Tue 24 Sep 21:30
Quote:
moviescot, Tue 24 Sep 16:05
Quote:
Wotsit, Tue 24 Sep 15:29
She must take it off it's legal.
She's not a lawyer. How would she know. She has to trust her PM.
Aye, I'm sure she doesn't have the ways or means to afford legal advice. Poor old innocent dear
Her legal advice would come from a corupt AG he should go too, for embarrasing the monarch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 25 Sep 10:52
The self-styled party of Law and Order seems to be finding it difficult to accept the unanimous ruling of the highest court in the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 25 Sep 15:19
Just seen a clip of Cox's performance in Parliament today. What a rocket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 25 Sep 15:22
Cox was brilliant!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: hurricane_jimmy
Date: Wed 25 Sep 15:28
Cox just came across as very arrogant tbh. Had his totties from 11 of the most qualified legal heads from across the 4 nations and still can't just admit he just got it wrong. And I say that in agreement that they need to follow the referendum result.
Heard him basically say that they were gonna look at another prorogation too. Did Lady Hale not basically say that any further prorogations would also be null and void in that 15 minute statement?
Post Edited (Wed 25 Sep 15:29)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Wed 25 Sep 15:34
When he was banging on about Parliament not fulfilling the result he seemed to be blissfully unaware that all of the people sat behind him had voted against the deal.
I guess you have to have some sense of shame to be embarrassed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 25 Sep 16:14
It became embarrassing when it just became a promo for a general election and Tory backbenchers kept feeding him 'dollies' so he could repeat this point. It doesn't seem to be necessary at Westminster to stick to the matter being debated or to answer any question and, for all his alleged power, the Speaker does not appear to have any control over this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 25 Sep 16:27
Can't decide whether Cox reminds me of Keanrick or Mossop.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Wed 25 Sep 16:35
Excellent speech from Cox and he was bang on the money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 25 Sep 17:07
It really must be hard to stand up and defend lies and at the same time tell lies when every body in the room knows you are doing it
But Cox managed it with his supercilious bluster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 25 Sep 17:36
Should the esteemed judges in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales whose earlier rulings that prorogation was a political issue and not one for the judiciary were overruled by the UK Supreme Court now resign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Wed 25 Sep 17:59
Quote:
parbucks, Wed 25 Sep 17:36
Should the esteemed judges in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Scotland and the High Court of Justice in England and Wales whose earlier rulings that prorogation was a political issue and not one for the judiciary were overruled by the UK Supreme Court now resign?
Should all judges then resign who's findings were overruled in appeal?
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 25 Sep 18:26
Cox's bluster and bile made Yogi Hughes, he of the rant against his Raith Rovers players, sound like Cicero.
As LPF pointed out, Cox failed in his job to give sound legal advice to his PM. I'm not sure why he even turned up since he was of the opinion that parliament should not be sitting in any case.
Wait until he unleashes the masterstroke of Prorog 2 and then has to harangue the Queen when she refuses to put pen to paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 25 Sep 18:26
It was one judge acting alone, Lord Docherty (?), who rejected the initial case in Scotland but didn't he acknowledge it should go to the Court of Session for appeal?
As regards the cases in the Court of Session and the English Court, I'm not sure that they were presented with the same evidence, which may explain, at least partly, why they reached different conclusions.
If Cox was at fault it may have been not to anticipate that such an unprecedented use of prorogation would be regarded with suspicion by the Supreme Court. As one Labour MP said, having won the semi-final, he thought he had won the trophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 25 Sep 18:30
Let's not forget that these are the people who claim to be doing what they are doing in order to uphold the sovereignty of British institutions.
Although I suppose we aught to have learned a long time ago not to believe a single word they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Wed 25 Sep 20:46
Wotsit ....correct When you here the words it is for the good of the people or for the will of the people coming from a Tory mouth then you know it is lies
They do not give a toss for people and never have
Brexit has been a masterplan with many years of planning with huge hidden agendas ... It is not for the poor misled leavers ... it is for the Millionaires .. multi millionairs and oligarchs
A no deal will give them Catre Blanche
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: ipswichpar
Date: Wed 25 Sep 20:55
Yogi Hughes like Cicero.....🤣🤣🤣
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 25 Sep 21:10
It's like reading Piers Morgan's Twitter feed on here.
Cox is a moron. Johnson is also a moron. Most of their supporters appear to be morons.
If anything, Brexit has exposed more than ever that the UK is run by the aristocracy rather than democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 26 Sep 07:20
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Wed 25 Sep 16:35
Excellent speech from Cox and he was bang on the money.
Got a few bites there, did our Des......
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
