• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,343
Reaction score
82,726
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Brexit: Scottish judges rule Parliament suspension is unlawful | BBC

Boris Johnson’s suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland’s highest civil court has ruled.

_108749150_284ae07b-a86a-42d9-b126-6010c8de831d.jpg


9/11/19
A panel of three judges at the Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move. The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit. A UK government appeal against the ruling will be heard by the Supreme Court in London next week. The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law. The current five week suspension of Parliament, a process known as proroguing, started in the early hours of Tuesday. MPs are not scheduled to return to Parliament until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October. Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be immediately recalled in the wake of the court judgement, but Downing Street said this would not happen ahead of the Supreme Court's ruling on the case.

Mr Johnson had previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament, and that it was "nonsense" to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy. But the Court of Session judges were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament. They added: "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." One of the three judges, Lord Brodie, said: "This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behavior of public authorities. "It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference."
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly this will next go to the UK Supreme Court.

Related: Keir Starmer: court's prorogation ruling a victory for democracy
 
cabse5 said:
If the people of Britain wish to leave the EU, can't they keep on voting in pro-Brexit MPs in 'special elections' until the UK leaves the EU?
Click to expand...


You make it sound so easy haha

Even the pro-Brexit MPs have, in the past voted against the Brexit process in it various forms.
 
cabse5 said:
If the people of Britain wish to leave the EU, can't they keep on voting in pro-Brexit MPs in 'special elections' until the UK leaves the EU?
Click to expand...

You make it sound so easy haha

Even the pro-Brexit MPs have, in the past voted against the Brexit process in it various forms.
 
Snazzy said:
You make it sound so easy haha

Even the pro-Brexit MPs have, in the past voted against the Brexit process in it various forms.
Click to expand...

If I were a pro-Brexit individual, I'd be sure to vote that MP out. That issue would be that important to me. Maybe I'm misreading the desire of people from the UK to leave the EU?
 
cabse5 said:
Maybe I'm misreading the desire of people from the UK to leave the EU?
Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between a "soft" Brexit with an EU exit deal in place, and the crash-out-no-deal Brexit that Johnson is pushing.
 
cabse5 said:
If the people of Britain wish to leave the EU, can't they keep on voting in pro-Brexit MPs in 'special elections' until the UK leaves the EU?
Click to expand...

Even if it were that easy it's not as if everyone is on the same page regarding a negotiated separation versus the hard exit. Some people want a plan in place that doesn't adversely affect the UK in regards to trade and existing treaties versus the "we'll leave and figure it out later". That's been the flaw by those who claim the will of the people isn't being served because the hard Brexit wasn't the bill of goods sold. One has to wonder what that referendum would look like if it were sold that way.
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
If I were a pro-Brexit individual, I'd be sure to vote that MP out. That issue would be that important to me. Maybe I'm misreading the desire of people from the UK to leave the EU?
Click to expand...

They were always in a minority, but the Brexit sold to them meant different things to different people. The government have spent three years trying to find a Brexit that a majority can agree to and it doesn't exist. The hard Brexiters vote down the soft Brexits and vice versa. Johnson's coup aims to drag us all out with the hardest possible Brexit, and he and his gang have broken the law to do it. Meanwhile polls of the electorate have shown consistently for months that we changed our minds as the reality dawned, and we no longer believed the lies.
Arrests should be made.
Some people are even suggesting the Queen should be arrested for authorising the shutdown! I don't believe that's a good idea.

Roseanne Watt ⚓️🌙 on Twitter: "If Scotland are going to arrest the Queen then it’s worth remembering that she can move diagonally, horizontally and VERTICALLY. Going to be an absolute nightmare to catch her. I reckon the best strategy would be to chuck a sheet over her; she’ll think it’s night and go to sleep."
 
If the prorogation petitioned for by Mr. Johnson is unlawful, then didn't Queen Elizabeth actually break the law and not Mr. Johnson? The sovereign gave royal assent to Mr. Johnson's petition for prorogation, so, even if her hands were tied by legal tradition, the unlawful act was hers as the head of state, no? She acted with the advice and consent of the head of government who requested something which is routinely done and granted in British governance. Having read some outlines of the Scottish court's decisions this seems to be an attempt to solve a political dispute with a legal remedy, and such practices usually produce very bad law. This is why mixing law and politics is such a messy affair.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
If the prorogation petitioned for by Mr. Johnson is unlawful, then didn't Queen Elizabeth actually break the law and not Mr. Johnson? The sovereign gave royal assent to Mr. Johnson's petition for prorogation, so, even if her hands were tied by legal tradition, the unlawful act was hers as the head of state, no? She acted with the advice and consent of the head of government who requested something which is routinely done and granted in British governance. Having read some outlines of the Scottish court's decisions this seems to be an attempt to solve a political dispute with a legal remedy, and such practices usually produce very bad law. This is why mixing law and politics is such a messy affair.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Even if conceptually the Queen it was who broke the law, I think we can all agree that the Queen's Speech she's going to have to deliver in a month's time will be punishment enough.

Since the judges' verdict will presumably have been reached under Scottish law rather than England & Wales one, it's probably going to be summarily kicked out by the Supreme Court, but having the suspense hanging over him only adds to the downtempo BoJo mood music. That Scotland has its own legal system from the get-go is good news for the independence project, but it comes with its quirks.
 
Evilroddy said:
If the prorogation petitioned for by Mr. Johnson is unlawful, then didn't Queen Elizabeth actually break the law and not Mr. Johnson? ~
Click to expand...

That's today's controversy - BoJo backtracking and claiming he didn't lie to the Queen in his petition. He has quite the track record which means I would be more likely to believe she didn't knowingly break the law.
Mind you, it is speculated that she actually supports Brexit.
 
Rogue Valley said:
There is a vast difference between a "soft" Brexit with an EU exit deal in place, and the crash-out-no-deal Brexit that Johnson is pushing.
Click to expand...

There will be no deal offered by the EU upon exit. I think this is apparent. Leave the EU and get screwed or stay in the EU and get screwed.
 
Last edited:
ElChupacabra said:
Even if it were that easy it's not as if everyone is on the same page regarding a negotiated separation versus the hard exit. Some people want a plan in place that doesn't adversely affect the UK in regards to trade and existing treaties versus the "we'll leave and figure it out later". That's been the flaw by those who claim the will of the people isn't being served because the hard Brexit wasn't the bill of goods sold. One has to wonder what that referendum would look like if it were sold that way.
Click to expand...

Read my post #12.
 
cabse5 said:
There will be no deal offered by the EU upon exit. I think this is apparent. Leave the EU and get screwed or stay in the EU and get screwed.
Click to expand...

May got a deal, but it was voted down three times by Parliament. (with hardline Brexit support) The EU is ready to meet, but Johnson has nothing that May didn't offer before. If anything Johnson has less to offer. If he forces Britain out, it will be on Johnson's head, not the EU. It has a duty to its members first, and Britain will no longer be one.
 
Manc Skipper said:
May got a deal, but it was voted down three times by Parliament. (with hardline Brexit support) The EU is ready to meet, but Johnson has nothing that May didn't offer before. If anything Johnson has less to offer. If he forces Britain out, it will be on Johnson's head, not the EU. It <the EU> has a duty to its members first, and Britain will no longer be one.
Click to expand...
Your commentary of what may be offered in a deal from the EU upon Brexit is 'EU-centric' as evidenced by the last bolded sentence of your quoted post.

Are your allegiances to the UK or to the EU?
 
cabse5 said:
Your commentary of what may be offered in a deal from the EU upon Brexit is 'EU-centric' as evidenced by the last bolded sentence of your quoted post.

Are your allegiances to the UK or to the EU?
Click to expand...
Eh?

Are you serious? Are you saying that the EU should offer the UK a sweetheart deal because it is the UK and screw the rest of the members?

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
Eh?

Are you serious? Are you saying that the EU should offer the UK a sweetheart deal because it is the UK and screw the rest of the members?

Sent from my JSN-L21 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are you saying the EU won't offer a sweetheart deal to the UK upon Brexit? Maybe you brits need to realize that and plan for your Brexit accordingly? EDIT: Instead of waiting for that sweetheart deal from the EU?
 
cabse5 said:
Your commentary of what may be offered in a deal from the EU upon Brexit is 'EU-centric' as evidenced by the last bolded sentence of your quoted post.

Are your allegiances to the UK or to the EU?
Click to expand...

Allegiances? I have many but I'm not at war. I'm pointing out reality. The EU owes a non-member nothing. Britain needs a deal far more than the EU, and to imagine that they will offer an ex-member anything approaching what's available to members is insane. That was the bill of goods sold at the referendum. "They need us more than we need them, No deal is impossible remainer fearmongering, they'll be begging us for a deal!"
 
Manc Skipper said:
Allegiances? I have many but I'm not at war. I'm pointing out reality. The EU owes a non-member nothing. Britain needs a deal far more than the EU, and to imagine that they will offer an ex-member anything approaching what's available to members is insane. That was the bill of goods sold at the referendum. "They need us more than we need them, No deal is impossible remainer fearmongering, they'll be begging us for a deal!"
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Do you want Brexit or are you making excuses for no Brexit?

EDIT: I'm more confused because allegiances don't automatically mean war. The EU is an allegiance of nations in Europe.
 
cabse5 said:
Are you saying the EU won't offer a sweetheart deal to the UK upon Brexit? Maybe you brits need to realize that and plan for your Brexit accordingly? EDIT: Instead of waiting for that sweetheart deal from the EU?
Click to expand...

Of course it wont offer the UK a sweetheart deal. That would totally undermine the EU and other agreements. The Brits sadly were lead to believe that the EU would cave on a deal during the referendum debate, and well.. welcome to reality.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course it wont offer the UK a sweetheart deal. That would totally undermine the EU and other agreements. The Brits sadly were lead to believe that the EU would cave on a deal during the referendum debate, and well.. welcome to reality.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't any leaving (good deals or not) of the EU be considered a sweetheart of a deal?
 
cabse5 said:
Wouldn't any leaving (good deals or not) of the EU be considered a sweetheart of a deal?
Click to expand...

Only for the brain dead. When does isolating yourself and alienating your friends ever work? By your logic, every state in the US should cede from the US, and in every state, areas should cede from the state itself.. that would be a "sweetheart deal" no?
 
PeteEU said:
Only for the brain dead. When does isolating yourself and alienating your friends ever work? By your logic, every state in the US should cede from the US, and in every state, areas should cede from the state itself.. that would be a "sweetheart deal" no?
Click to expand...

Freedom for Florida, from the tyranny of the USA, freedom for Miami from the Tyranny of Florida
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Freedom for Florida, from the tyranny of the USA, freedom for Miami from the Tyranny of Florida
Click to expand...
Freedom for Greenland, down with the ice floe.

Or. to stay with Pete's home country, free view of the Mediterranean, down with the Alps.
 
Chagos said:
Freedom for Greenland, down with the ice floe.

Or. to stay with Pete's home country, free view of the Mediterranean, down with the Alps.
Click to expand...

The Rhino Party of Canada, wanted to bulldoze the rocky mountains and smooth out Canada. no pesky hills getting in the way of building or travelling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom