The best ones are those who want a return to the law lords who were just as unelected, but also got to be unelected politicians.
1 Like
The inference here is that Johnson did the same.
Maybe those instances would have also been found unlawful had they been challenged, but they werenât and âwell he got away with itâ is not a valid argument.
3 1/4 years under different leadership. This government should also expect to have its policies and movements scrutinised in that fashion. Also, there is new material to scrutinise such as Yellow Hammer. Weâre also drawing closer to the current deadline - a critical time requiring oversight.
1 Like
Itâs not getting away with it, it would be that funny old thing called legal precedent. A mate of mine got off losing his licence after his solicitor brought previous cases and argued the case.
The drawing closer of the current deadline is down to those opposing leaving, so they can scrutinise themselves and we can leave while they are doing so. Yellow hammer (stupid name) is part of a sensible approach, not that sensible would be something the remoaners have ever shown any interest in.
That may be the most generic statement I have ever heard.
2 Likes
There was no legal precedent as the court had never considered the question of prorogation. Next straw man please
2 Likes
Pretty sure Iâm right, but Iâm no @Baldrick, when I say that a precedent is only set following a judgment - absence of a judgement/charge/or case is not a precedent.
You said it yourself - the solicitor raised previous CASES that were a matter of record in court documents.
Doesnât really matter does it, the decision was made and abided by, but not accepted by the PM.
The opposition are not prepared to force a GE, as they realise it wonât go their way and the Supreme Court has created a situation of Parliament vs The People, by sticking their noses into politics. So now we are just faffing around with a no deal Brexit law which should printed on perforated 3 ply, as it only applies to this extension. I am praying that the eu say ânon/neinâ to the request as they wonât pass a deal in parliament and see what happens then. We could have left without a deal (Lord knows why we need one, it wasnât what I expected when voted to Leave) a long time ago and by now had trade deals set up with europe, USA and many others.
It also depends which court made the decision. Some courts bind others, some donât. So the Magistratesâ and Crown Courts donât really set precedents, but may show examples of how other decisions have gone.
Then itâs a matter of ranking. the High Court is bound by the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal by the Supreme Court/House of Lords.
All English Courts are bound by the decisions of the CJEU, (Although itâs MUCH more complicated in that particular case, as the remit of what the CJEU does is actually rather narrow in that context.) English Courts are not bound by decisions of the ECtHR, their views are merely advisory, but usually followed.
Oddly, it wasnât until 1966 (IIRC) that the House of Lords decided it wasnât bound by itself! So until then. Even if they realised that something needed to be changed, or was wrong, they were stuck with it.
1 Like
Isnt this whole Brexit now academic.I voted leave in 2016 as did many of my friends.However it became clear to me a long time ago that the establishment and the markets would do everything in their power(which is quite considerable) to thwart it.
This they have effectively done the country is in limbo stumbling on like a zombie a bit like my beloved Newcastle United.
If Mike Ashley became PM that would complete the triangle.
1 Like
whatever the outcome of the referendum the country would be left split, what people were perhaps not expecting was how 50/50 (or 52/48) that split would be.
unlike for example the countries feeling on ditching the pound for the Euro as our currency, given the referendum result being so close and near equally matched either side it will forever be a contentious topic
The irony is that the opposition parties can see how their baulking is going, hence they wonât go for a GE. They may oust Boris Johnson in a vote of no confidence (if they can agree who they want to be temporary PM) only for him to come back as PM. How I will laugh.
The only opposition party to not be adversely affected will mostly be the SNP.
There they were the chance to topple Boris and they canât decide who to have as PM in a National (DIS)unity Government, given the old Trot Corbyn has less appeal than 2 week old egg sandwich. You couldnât make it up. And this lot think they could run the country.
Waaaaat!!!
Gan ootside and have a word with yersell, man.
3 Likes
This is getting quite daft. The opposition parties canât bring themselves to vote Boris out and keep looking for things heâs said and or done years ago, to try and discredit him and get him out in some other way, trying to convince people heâs not up to the job as they are running scared that the Conservatives would win a GE and Boris would be back by right and do whatever he wants. What makes me laugh is the Conservative membership voted for him and it would seem the old guard of MPs donât like it.
The irish border is confusing. I cannot understand how an âinformalâ border is better for peace than a formal one, unless a formal one means those doing what they shouldnât will get caught and we canât have that can we.
What happens on the fringes of the bloc where the non member and member states have borders? This will be the same when we leave, the border between N Ireland and Eire will be on the fringe of the bloc. I still think the eu should say what arrangements they want when we leave, given anything we put forward gets knocked back and they should know what will work.