Jump to content
Be the first to know! Get our Daily Newsletter! ×

Blow for PM Johnson as Scottish court rules suspension of parliament is unlawful

snoop1130

By snoop1130
in World News

Recommended Posts

Baerboxer Star Member

Baerboxer

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

#55

 

So in Scotland, the court of first instance supported the government and the High Court, on appeal supported the Plaintiffs. (Not only SNP btw).

 

In England the High Court ruled differently but made it clear an appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

The law of England and Wales and the law of Scotland have many differences. But the Supreme Court of the UK and the UK Constitution are for all the UK.

 

So we shall have to wait until next week to hear what the Supreme Court judges have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Baerboxer Star Member

Baerboxer

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Scots Law is sovereign - my understanding is that regardless of any difference of opinion in the Supreme Court, the decision today cannot be overruled. 

 

This thread sheds a little light on those differences, but we seem to be in very uncharted territory at the moment. 

 

EDIT: I have read a bit more regarding court supremacy and now seem more confused than ever. What I think (but very happy to be corrected if wrong) is that the Supreme Court is above all the courts in the land, but that they rule in accordance with the law of the court in question. Therefore the appeal to the Supreme Court will be that the Scots judges made an incorrect decision under Scots law. 

 

A nice little quote from the thread I linked above: Boris Johnson is the first prime minister to have been found by a court to have misled a king or queen.

 

My understanding is that Scottish law applies in Scotland. The quite different law of England and Wales applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland has it's own variant of this.

 

The Supreme Court is the highest court for the UK. It replaced the House of Lords as the highest court in the land when set up.

 

Constitutional law applies to the whole UK. The sovereign entity, the country, is the UK. 

 

This is not so clear because the judges are having to interpret the real intentions of the government in suspending parliament. Were they merely, as Boris the Liar maintains, allowing time before the Queen's Speech for the new government to get things together? Or was he plainly being tricky in trying to deny parliament the necessary time to debate and scrutinize what his government is up to? Further complicated by the timing clashing with party conferences be held soon.

 

It seems, to me anyway, that although the High Court judges in Scotland ruled it was unlawful, therefore implying Boris was lying and deliberately trying to stimmie parliament. they declined to over turn it. I think that was because they felt that was outside their jurisdiction and knew that the government would have to appeal to the Supreme Court. Similarly the judges in England, whilst saying suspension was a political matter rather than judicial, made sure to include the comment that an appeal to the Supreme Court could be made.

Look like passing the decision upstairs. The Supreme Court judges will have to consider a) is this a matter for the law and a judicial review rather than a pure matter for the government and parliament; and if so b) did the government intentionally use the suspension to deprive parliament of time at a crucial and highly sensitive time rather than as Boris maintains just a normal albeit longer suspension so he can prepare his agenda for the QS; and take into account the political party conference timings.

 

We should know their ruling next week. Will be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david555 Ruby Member

david555

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So now you speak for the whole of the 27 EU countries. Only Merkel can do that!

 

Even though its a little dated (see below) that's because, nobody questions it. They would have to join the queue and the Euro and then you would have another free loader. The price of clogs really need to increase so you can contribute more to the EU.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/european-commission-independent-scotland-would-have-join-queue/

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html

 

 

You even have a clue how wrong you are ....:cheesy:. never mind it is more fun so 

 

As you speak for whole U.K. (in thoughts at least..) I feel very free to welcome anyone I like to welcome  , and I know for sure the Norway option is available , (as it was also for U.K. amongst other options …)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david555 Ruby Member

david555

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The EU via Tusk (who refused to meet Sturgeon) and Juncker (who met her out of politeness) made it very clear that the UK is a member of the EU, currently planning to leave. Scotland, should it leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU, will cease to be a member. An independent Scotland could apply to join the EU but would have to meet all the criteria, including financial criteria, and plan to adopt the Euro once the criteria was met. Scotland would have great difficulty meeting all the financial and budgetary criteria quickly. Should they do so at some point, once in they could play the game Sweden has been playing to avoid the Euro. Scotland by the way, would not have a currency should it leave the UK unless the UK allowed continued use of the GBP or Scotland tried to introduce one.

 

Hopefully those Scots who accepted Sturgeons rhetoric and Bull <deleted> without question may now start realizing she's about as truthful as Boris!

Norway option first step , no need to adopt Euro , Scotland's parliament can easy vote a currency if they like and name it at wish...

I can understand the Scott's would like to keep al like it is for now , but it seems  England ….YES England decides different for them , anyway there is hope as it looks the dictatorship does not keep ground.... so maybe all ends well and can stay as it is ….????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sawadee1947 Platinum Member

sawadee1947

Posted
Posted

Well, it's somehow amazing and funny how quiet the Brexiteers are now watching their hero vanishing or at least struggeling about honesty, truth, and character. 

It's the chance now to continue the road of independence for Scotland joining EU and reunification of Ireland in particular. Good Friday is not forgotten ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slip Gold Member

Slip

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So now you speak for the whole of the 27 EU countries. Only Merkel can do that!

 

Even though its a little dated (see below) that's because, nobody questions it. They would have to join the queue and the Euro and then you would have another free loader. The price of clogs really need to increase so you can contribute more to the EU.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/european-commission-independent-scotland-would-have-join-queue/

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scottish-eu-independence-referendum-scotland-join-queue-membership-apply-a7627201.html

 

 

Not this again.  Jacqueline Minor didn't say queue, she said a list of countries wanting to join.  I even posted a video of it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
evadgib Ruby Member

evadgib

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Well, it's somehow amazing and funny how quiet the Brexiteers are now watching their hero vanishing or at least struggeling about honesty, truth, and character. 

It's the chance now to continue the road of independence for Scotland joining EU and reunification of Ireland in particular. Good Friday is not forgotten ????

Oh the irony????

('They haven't gone away you know!')

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caldera Platinum Member

Caldera

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Well, it's somehow amazing and funny how quiet the Brexiteers are now watching their hero vanishing or at least struggeling about honesty, truth, and character.

Indeed. In a situation such as this one, you almost have to regret that British politicians don't have seppuku as an honourable way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandyf Diamond Member

sandyf

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The EU via Tusk (who refused to meet Sturgeon) and Juncker (who met her out of politeness) made it very clear that the UK is a member of the EU, currently planning to leave. Scotland, should it leave the UK before the UK leaves the EU, will cease to be a member. An independent Scotland could apply to join the EU but would have to meet all the criteria, including financial criteria, and plan to adopt the Euro once the criteria was met. Scotland would have great difficulty meeting all the financial and budgetary criteria quickly. Should they do so at some point, once in they could play the game Sweden has been playing to avoid the Euro. Scotland by the way, would not have a currency should it leave the UK unless the UK allowed continued use of the GBP or Scotland tried to introduce one.

 

Hopefully those Scots who accepted Sturgeons rhetoric and Bull <deleted> without question may now start realizing she's about as truthful as Boris!

"Scotland would have great difficulty meeting all the financial and budgetary criteria quickly."

Bit of an arrogant assertion, you, as well as everyone else have absolutely no idea what "difficulties" Scotland would face as an independent nation.

At this point in time the EU must take a position that respects the UK membership of the EU. Once the EU is free of the UK there will no longer be that obligation and there is every chance that the EU would be more than happy to see NI and Scotland return to the fold. 

If Spain was no longer a member of the EU, the Catalonia issue would take on a whole new perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dunroaming Gold Member

dunroaming

Posted
Posted

I think the English High Court will overturn it.  Not because it is wrong (it isn't) but that they will feel that the government cannot take any more embarrassment, in other words, the country cannot take any more embarrassment.  If upheld it put's the Queen in a difficult, excruciating position.  I hope I am wrong and they do uphold it but I have a feeling they won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david555 Ruby Member

david555

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Thongkorn said:

Scotland will not fit the EU criteria,

calculate the geological oil reserves and the very strategic Lochs …. ideal for submarines for that  U.S.E. fleet.... (wink ???? …) Other interests than money are also in consideration to take , and it seems they have no problem with freedom of movement ….

If country's as Bulgaria  or  Romania would fit in ….I see no reason why the Scotts would not be considered  qualified .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
david555 Ruby Member

david555

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Loiner said:


Subsidy junkies bludging off the UK taxes - they’d fit right in.

Hereby above you can see how the little Englanders think about their counterparts in what they call " United Kingdom" ….. meaning.... England 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zorrow424 Rookie Member

zorrow424

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, david555 said:

calculate the geological oil reserves and the very strategic Lochs …. ideal for submarines for that  U.S.E. fleet.... (wink ???? …) Other interests than money are also in consideration to take , and it seems they have no problem with freedom of movement ….

If country's as Bulgaria  or  Romania would fit in ….I see no reason why the Scotts would not be considered  qualified .

No winking needed..  UK Trident submarines serviced at US bases  already in hand. OIL gas supplies belong to Orkney /Shetland if they go for Independence,not for Scotland

Link to comment
Share on other sites
englishoak Ruby Member

englishoak

Posted
Posted

Just for comment and maybe some peoples interest, the Privy council is all members of her majesties chosen or elected subjects. Usually there are 3 senior members present at any meeting with the Queen, usually high rank not just the PM alone there would always be 2 others. Jacob Rees Mogg for example is the Lord President of the council and would be in attendance being the highest rank Privy most of the time its requested or meets with the Queen, the other would possibly been the leader of the House of lords or quite possibly the Lord Chief Justice of the supreme court. the point is those present would have been of the highest rank in the Privy council and of pretty much unquestionable loyalty of the Crown. 

 

That dosnt mean all the privy council hold the same rank or respect, they are free to do as the law allows and hold whatever views they may have including the view The Royals are no longer wanted or needed, Jeremy Corbyn has that view and is also a m,ember of the privy council, quite high ranked too being hes the leader of the Queens opposition, Robin Tillbrook is clerk of the council,another high rank and he recently brought a case against the last government of May having breached protocol on March 31 original leave date. Diane Abbot as another example that you dont have to be smart at math either and she comes up first on the council member list alphabetically.. The only time ALL of the privy council come together is Accession of a new ruler to the Throne and holding their first 

 

The ridiculous part in all this is the claim that the PM LIED to HM The Queen in said meeting. It would be not only very foolish never tolerated by others of the Privy council, protocol and fealty demands it, thats why there are always 3 or more as checks and balance. If anyone thinks for example Jacob Rees Mogg values his party and position over his fealty and loyalty to the Crown which includes impeccable behaviour, honesty and absolute Loyalty first and foremost to Her Majesty then they know nothing at all about the man or honour of this position, or how stupidly ignorant these claims of lying to her majesty really are. 

 

Boris was asked today did he Lie to the Queen, his answer was immediate and exactly as you would expect it to be, unwavering and clear... Absolutely not. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Loiner Gold Member

Loiner

Posted
Posted
Loiner arrives to pay his "junkie subsidy-bludger" supporting taxes and inclusively abuse his own countrymen, proudly sporting his new "free Tommy" head tattoo. [emoji23]
 
image.png.92e0172cea540e96ee9ed0e659b9e35d.png

Another enemy of the state do you think? We should all be enemies of the state these day. The ‘state’ is not on our side.
Remainers would be the collaborators.

Free Tommy!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DannyCarlton Gold Member

DannyCarlton

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, englishoak said:

Usually there are 3 senior members present at any meeting with the Queen

The 3 privvy Councellors present to present Boris's request to the Queen were:

 

1 Moggy. Chair of the ERM and fanatical Brexiteer.

 

2. Baroness Evans. Leader of the HoL. Conservative Brexiteer.

 

3.Mark Spencer. Government Chief Whip. Brexiteer and back bencher until Boris appointed him to chief whip.

 

A very balanced group, I must say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
englishoak Ruby Member

englishoak

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

The 3 privvy Councellors present to present Boris's request to the Queen were:

 

1 Moggy. Chair of the ERM and fanatical Brexiteer.

 

2. Baroness Evans. Leader of the HoL. Conservative Brexiteer.

 

3.Mark Spencer. Government Chief Whip. Brexiteer and back bencher until Boris appointed him to chief whip.

 

A very balanced group, I must say!

 

You miss the point I think, I said honesty and respect for doing so with the Queen was expected and unthinkable to lie, balance has nothing to do with the privy council or on advice given, it is there to advise not debate with the queen nor argue in her presence and the party in power is the one who is represented not the opposition, its got zero to do with balance or to make things confusing, thats what parliament is for. EG It was remainers under May and as another example warmongers under Blair, etc etc... The Privy council isnt there to argue but give advice to the Queen, that advice would be represented by the government of the time and its policies and mandate would be mirrored in the privy council of that time. In this instance it would be to deliver Brexit as the vast majority of the UK ( bigger majority than any election in history btw ) answered when asked in the referendum vote. 

 

Its amazing how people assume all of a sudden these things are a revelation when this is the way its always been done same as prorogation happens every year usually and this time its the longest without a new session since the English Civil war but Boris Prorogs parliament for 5 more days than usual and the remain stream media and co melt down... over a few days lol its laughable but hey ho, false outrage n all that sells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...