politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Case of the Missing Documents
Comments
-
BiB - Sounds good to me.Carnyx said:
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?tlg86 said:
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.Cyclefree said:
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.CarlottaVance said:Not a good look:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553?s=20
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.0 -
Why does it need saying, because there are politicians like Johnson who are ignorant of the very basis of the separation of powers and the importance of an independent judiciary. The ghost of Robert Mugabe has his hand on Cummings shoulderCarlottaVance said:0 -
Yes, but if it is only an appeal court it doesn't work!tlg86 said:
BiB - Sounds good to me.Carnyx said:
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?tlg86 said:
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.Cyclefree said:
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.CarlottaVance said:Not a good look:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553?s=20
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
Fascinating to see what the judgement has revealed in perhaps hitherto unexpressed assumptions.0 -
He's too short & stout to be a leader.TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?0 -
This all must bring a GE closer - by some means.
All stems from a minority government.0 -
Writ of Mandamus would enforce the decision, could be applied, heard and granted today!
For Downing Street to allege politcal bias in a judicial decision is outrageous. No doubt they would hit the roof if anyone had suggested that was the reason for last weeks decision. What have we come to?.
If they lose in the Supreme Court on Tuesday the government MUST resign and allow an alternative to replace it, for our sysetem of govertnment to have any credence or respect.0 -
It stems from a lack of morals and a self serving elitist liar who thinks he is playing a parlour game with his chums from Eton.TGOHF said:This all must bring a GE closer - by some means.
All stems from a minority government.0 -
This is a matter for Scotland (as well as the rest of the UK). Westminster governs the entire nation, including Scotland. It's perfectly reasonable to bring a case there to ensure that the government's actions, affecting representatives of Scottish constituencies, are lawful.tlg86 said:
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.Cyclefree said:
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.CarlottaVance said:Not a good look:
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553?s=20
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
In the absence of any UK-wide courts below the Supreme Court, it's just as fair to bring a case under Scottish (or Northern Irish) law for these UK-wide matters as it is to bring one under English law. That's what the Union is about.0 -
Indeed. It is straight from the Donald Trump school of bluster and unseemly and constitutionally dangerous behaviourNigelb said:
But particularly egregious to question the integrity of the Scottish judges.TOPPING said:
Yes that makes sense (IANAL obvs). Proroguing parliament is lawful. But the Queen was fooled/deceived into doing it.mr-claypole said:The significance of this has not sunk in yet. The SC can and possibly will rule that prorogation was lawful- but has the power to say in doing so that the monarch was misled as to reason. If so the PM has to resign- there can be no greater wrong under the constitution. Boris career could be over next week whatever the Brexit outcome.
Even if the SC overturns this, that is another stain that JRM in particular will have to bear.
All No.10 had to do was say 'we note the decision and await the judgment of the Supreme Court', or something along those lines.
They just can't help themselves.1 -
Can we get a price on the Attorney General?mr-claypole said:If a cabinet minister now resigns on the basis the monarch was misled.............
0 -
Parliament returns but is open only to MPs in Scottish seats?1
-
On that basis we should look forward to lots of other political arrests if he ever managed to get his hands on the machinery of government.dr_spyn said:A citizen's arrest - McCluskey has lost his marbles.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/11717281449125191680 -
As someone who is, or at least has been, both, I regard that as unreasonable prejudice.Pulpstar said:
He's too short & stout to be a leader.TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
Mind, from his published sayings I can't think of much, if anything, on which I agree with Francois!0 -
Any chance of an appeal to Strasbourg?3
-
Unfortunately the Conservative leadership and the Brexiteers are doing everything they can to make that day nearer.Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that basis we should look forward to lots of other political arrests if he ever managed to get his hands on the machinery of government.dr_spyn said:A citizen's arrest - McCluskey has lost his marbles.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/11717281449125191680 -
One upside.
If Boris recalls Parliament this afternoon an VONC himself he might still get his October election?
0 -
No, the Supreme Court have the final word. But I’d be astonished if they did.noneoftheabove said:
So if the supreme court uphold the judgment then you would be content it is illegal - even if you think it shouldnt be?Casino_Royale said:
I think it’s both.noneoftheabove said:
Who gets to decide if not the court? You? Boris? Everyone just makes their own mind up and we choose anarchy?Casino_Royale said:
They’re wrong.Scott_P said:
Three judges just ruled it is...Casino_Royale said:But it’s not illegal.
I dont understand your point, is it that you think the court is wrong to rule it illegal? Or that the court doesnt have the power to rule it illegal?0 -
Interesting to see Mr Gin seeing the prospect of the government having to resign as a strong possibility rather than just offing the judges like others on here.0
-
TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
That would lead to even me quitting the party.0 -
Was it the NI Ireland secretary close to resigning over the PMs willingness to obey the law? Think he may be next.DecrepitJohnL said:
Can we get a price on the Attorney General?mr-claypole said:If a cabinet minister now resigns on the basis the monarch was misled.............
0 -
Has the Queen ordered the Scots Guards to Downing Street yet?0
-
That seems wholly sensible. The only job for the UK Supreme Court is to see whether the Scottish High Court decision was legally correct under Scots law - and with a good governance clause, that seems a given - and perhaps make a ruling about how Scots, English+Welsh, Northern Irish and UK constitutional law work together.TheWhiteRabbit said:Casino_Royale said:
The Supreme Court, yes.noneoftheabove said:
Isnt that for the courts to decide?Casino_Royale said:
I don’t think that’s relevant.Scott_P said:
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...Casino_Royale said:They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
I don’t see how Scottish courts have jurisdiction over the Parliament of the whole UK. Only the Court of the whole UK does.
Similarly, I’d expect a Scottish court ruling to have supreme weight over Scottish law and the Scottish Parliament.
Any government act which is unlawful as a matter of Scots law cannot be allowed to proceed, as it infringes the Acts of Union.
0 -
Astonishment is a regular emotion under dear leader Boris! Get used to it!Casino_Royale said:
No, the Supreme Court have the final word. But I’d be astonished if they did.noneoftheabove said:
So if the supreme court uphold the judgment then you would be content it is illegal - even if you think it shouldnt be?Casino_Royale said:
I think it’s both.noneoftheabove said:
Who gets to decide if not the court? You? Boris? Everyone just makes their own mind up and we choose anarchy?Casino_Royale said:
They’re wrong.Scott_P said:
Three judges just ruled it is...Casino_Royale said:But it’s not illegal.
I dont understand your point, is it that you think the court is wrong to rule it illegal? Or that the court doesnt have the power to rule it illegal?0 -
0
-
Nigel_Foremain said:
There will be a legal principle that will have been applied, which will become apparent to whomever takes time to read the full judgement. I suspect it will be something similar to the Clean Hands Doctrine, suggesting that the government has prorogued for reasons that are disingenuous and therefore unethical, thereby inequitable to their opponentsCasino_Royale said:
Well, they are. How can they be right?Gallowgate said:Casino_Royale said:
They’re wrong.Scott_P said:
Three judges just ruled it is...Casino_Royale said:But it’s not illegal.
There’s very little legal or constitutional basis for their judgement that I can see.
Obviously you disagree because you like the decision but it’s a downright weird judgement.
Maybe, yes. At the moment based on the current summary I can’t for the life of me work out what that is, so I await the full judgement with real interest.Nigel_Foremain said:
There will be a legal principle that will have been applied, which will become apparent to whomever takes time to read the full judgement. I suspect it will be something similar to the Clean Hands Doctrine, suggesting that the government has prorogued for reasons that are disingenuous and therefore unethical, thereby inequitable to their opponentsCasino_Royale said:
Well, they are. How can they be right?Gallowgate said:Casino_Royale said:
They’re wrong.Scott_P said:
Three judges just ruled it is...Casino_Royale said:But it’s not illegal.
There’s very little legal or constitutional basis for their judgement that I can see.
Obviously you disagree because you like the decision but it’s a downright weird judgement.0 -
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.CarlottaVance said:
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*0 -
Only if the Supreme Court finds HMQ has broken the law on the advice of her Prime Minister on Tuesday,nichomar said:Interesting to see Mr Gin seeing the prospect of the government having to resign as a strong possibility rather than just offing the judges like others on here.
0 -
You worry that under Labour, the government will be run by an unelected SpAd with no regard for parliament or the courts? Surely that could never happen in Britain?Wulfrun_Phil said:
On that basis we should look forward to lots of other political arrests if he ever managed to get his hands on the machinery of government.dr_spyn said:A citizen's arrest - McCluskey has lost his marbles.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/11717281449125191680 -
Johnson and Co are lying crooks.
Who'd have guessed?
0 -
-
Andrew 'Handy Andy' Bridgen is the man for our times.TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
0 -
This could turn out to be one of the most prescient headers ever from Ms CycleFree.Roger said:Johnson and Co are lying crooks.
Who'd have guessed?2 -
Johnson - a manchild born and raised in extreme privilege - has never, ever had people tell him No before. He grew up being indulged and never learning that rules are for everyone, not just other people. His collision with reality over the last few weeks has been quite something.2
-
Why isn't it possible for judges to be politically biased?Scott_P said:0 -
-
-
He has been sacked for lying on several occasions and it looks to me that is how his career will end nowSouthamObserver said:Johnson - a manchild born and raised in extreme privilege - has never, ever had people tell him No before. He grew up being indulged and never learning that rules are for everyone, not just other people. His collision with reality over the last few weeks has been quite something.
1 -
-
Is the Attorney General active on Twitter?0
-
No-one, have they, has seen the pulleys on Traitors Gate being oiled?0
-
Would a patriot deliberately deceive the Queen?0
-
Apparently Parliament can now reconvene according to legal experts.0
-
The Court of Session has jurisdiction in Scotland. The High Court has jurisdiction in England and Wales. However the judgments of both can be enforced outside their respective jurisdictions (otherwise how would you enforce a cross border debt?) where appropriate. The actions of the Government effect both justifications. Thus cases can be validly brought in either (or, for completeness, in NI).
How hard can this be to understand? There is no jurisdictional issue here.1 -
Let's hope so.williamglenn said:0 -
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
To be fair, worth reading the 2 paragraph preview on the Telegraph as it shows they do at least know the legend.williamglenn said:
"As Greek legend tells it, in a bid to regain his freedom and escape the dominion of a foreign land, Icarus took to the sky, borne aloft by hand-made wings fashioned from wood, feathers and wax. But, enticed by the golden glow of the sun, Icarus flew too high. The sun’s heat melted the wax that secured the feathers to his wings. Icarus plummeted into the sea. He drowned in his own tragedy.
It is a morality tale that Nigel Farage would do well to heed. "0 -
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
Impressive wasn't it?WhisperingOracle said:
This could turn out to be one of the most prescient headers ever from Ms CycleFree.Roger said:Johnson and Co are lying crooks.
Who'd have guessed?0 -
It'll be more likely to be Steve Baker.Casino_Royale said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
That would lead to even me quitting the party.0 -
0
-
They will be as individuals, but their judgement needs to be on the basis of law, and law only. For governments to suggest that a judgement is a political one is very dangerous indeed, as it seeks to undermine the impartiality of the judiciary. Quite frankly, it is fecking outrageous.AndyJS said:
Why isn't it possible for judges to be politically biased?Scott_P said:0 -
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.1 -
I think this is the point some are missing with this "oh.. the English judges will sort it" schtick. When the Supreme Court hears a Scottish case, it's judging it against Scottish law.Drutt said:
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.CarlottaVance said:
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
If the Number 10 source is right in his/her implication that Scots judges are activist libs with an axe to grind (compared to our proper English judges, aka "enemies of the people"), I'm sure the SC won't take long to bin off the judgment.0 -
Several people on here don't seem to grasp that a) Scotland is a separate and independent legal jurisdiction and b) Westminster covers three legal jurisdictions.
It is entirely necessary for Westminster's acts to be legal in all three jurisdictions – that is the awkward truth of a political union. You are governing legally separate nations as one nation.
Mostly, it's fine.
Sometimes, it isn't fine.2 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo6aKnRnBxMTheScreamingEagles said:
It'll be more likely to be Steve Baker.Casino_Royale said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
That would lead to even me quitting the party.0 -
Collapse of the Brexit Party vote, Lib-Lab pact even more crucial for Remain cause. Be interesting to see what this latest bombshell does to things, though.AndyJS said:0 -
Brexit Parties down to 45%. And that was before the party of law & order discovered they'd elected a lying crookAndyJS said:0 -
Has Miller appealed her London decision yet ?0
-
Trend is downwards though.GIN1138 said:0 -
The rule of law applies to politicians just as it applies to you and me.tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Britain has a constitution, albeit an unwritten one (or at least a patchwork of different writings with different legal statuses). And the constitution is justiciable, as it is in all other working democracies.
All this speaks of a need to codify the constitution and address many of these uncertainties, but the idea that there are no legally enforceable rules "coz politics innit" is not correct.0 -
Er, no.tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
The PM has to act within the law of the land – including the land of Scotland.0 -
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.Wulfrun_Phil said:
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".0 -
One hundred years from now, tourists will still flock to the statue of Jeremy Corbyn, greatest statesman of the 21st Century, or at least the year 2019.1
-
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.noneoftheabove said:
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
You'd expect the combined Brexit/Tory share to trend downward as the Tory share increases right now. The Tories can't take ALL the Brexit votes - some will go to Labour, others will stay home.Gallowgate said:
Trend is downwards though.GIN1138 said:0 -
It is not hard to understand but afaik is not taught at all in English schools, and is not something English people have thought much about. Understanding that in the UK the constitutional law of the 2 million from NI, 5.5 million from Scotland and 54 million in England have equal status will drive English nationalism further.DougSeal said:The Court of Session has jurisdiction in Scotland. The High Court has jurisdiction in England and Wales. However the judgments of both can be enforced outside their respective jurisdictions (otherwise how would you enforce a cross border debt?) where appropriate. The actions of the Government effect both justifications. Thus cases can be validly brought in either (or, for completeness, in NI).
How hard can this be to understand? There is no jurisdictional issue here.
If it is overturned Scottish nationalism will gain.
Whilst those opposing this shameful government may be momentarily pleased, the likelihood is this decision is likely to be bad for the UK whatever happens, unless the likes of Gavin Barwell do more than tweet their displeasure and take firm action to topple this administration and party leadership.0 -
Wait, the Supreme Court doesn't have the competency to apply laws of other legal jurisdictions to judgements in Scotland.Wulfrun_Phil said:
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was properly applied.
People need to understand this.0 -
There will be no Lib-Lab pact. They hate Libs more than Tories.WhisperingOracle said:
Collapse of the Brexit Party vote, Lib-Lab pact even more crucial for Remain cause. Be interesting to see what this latest bombshell does to things, though.AndyJS said:0 -
That's exactly right.Harris_Tweed said:
I think this is the point some are missing with this "oh.. the English judges will sort it" schtick. When the Supreme Court hears a Scottish case, it's judging it against Scottish law.Drutt said:
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.CarlottaVance said:
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
0 -
Gallowgate said:
Trend is downwards though.GIN1138 said:
0 -
That concept that Boris Johnson is the first Prime Minister who's been judged to have been lying to the monarch is not going to be whitewashed away too easily, whatever happens next.0
-
I suggested this down thread. It is the obvious course of action for those who object to Scottish courts having extraterritorial jurisdiction.Anabobazina said:Parliament returns but is open only to MPs in Scottish seats?
0 -
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.Wulfrun_Phil said:
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
0 -
It’s remarkable you are still there, as the only halfway sensible PB Tory who hasn’t left already.Casino_Royale said:TheScreamingEagles said:
Mark Francois.GIN1138 said:Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
That would lead to even me quitting the party.0 -
Gallowgate said:
Various polls have various headline figures.GIN1138 said:
But the Tory trend is one way...
Trend is downwards though.0 -
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?tlg86 said:
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.noneoftheabove said:
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
Er, it is quite important that governments follow the rule of law. The alternative is Robert Mugabeism. Tyranny wrapped in a veil of phoney legitimacy based on rigged elections. Putin is quite fond of this too.tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
OnlyLivingBoy said:
I suggested this down thread. It is the obvious course of action for those who object to Scottish courts having extraterritorial jurisdiction.Anabobazina said:Parliament returns but is open only to MPs in Scottish seats?
Would be amusing at the every least.
We'd probably be better off with an SNP government TBH!0 -
A Prime Minister being out under citizens arrest would certainly be a first for the UK.TGOHF said: 0 -
CarlottaVance said:
A resignation issue for Lord Falconer???0 -
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.Harris_Tweed said:
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.Wulfrun_Phil said:
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".0 -
I guess it's quite likely that Trump will end up with criminal convictions if he loses in 2020AndyJS said:
In the US they keep saying that about Trump.theakes said:Conservatives keep breaking the rule of law!!!!
Someone will end up in Prison, the only question is which Conservative that might be.
Because the entire UK constitution rests on the polite fiction that ultimate authority rests with the monarch who is apolitical. The monarch follows the advice of the Prime Minister which is supposedly given in good faith. When the Prime Minister starts lying to the monarch for political ends the whole thing falls apart.tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
Is there anyone Johnson wouldn't deceive in order to further his own aims?SouthamObserver said:Would a patriot deliberately deceive the Queen?
0 -
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.noneoftheabove said:
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?tlg86 said:
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.noneoftheabove said:
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.0 -
Yeah, the difference in the US is there is one overarching federal legal framework; in the UK there is Scottish Law, English Law and Northern Irish Law. The Supreme Court is fluent in all 3 and must judge cases brought in those jurisdictions against the individual traditions and precedents. There is no one overarching UK law.Anabobazina said:
Wait, the Supreme Court doesn't have the competency to apply laws of other legal jurisdictions to judgements in Scotland.Wulfrun_Phil said:
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.Scott_P said:
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was a properly applied.
People need to understand this.0 -
LOLPulpstar said:Gallowgate said:
Trend is downwards though.GIN1138 said:
You'd expect the combined Brexit/Tory share to trend downward as the Tory share increases right now. The Tories can't take ALL the Brexit votes - some will go to Labour, others will stay home.0 -
You've been smoking those funny ciggies again haven't you?DecrepitJohnL said:One hundred years from now, tourists will still flock to the statue of Jeremy Corbyn, greatest statesman of the 21st Century, or at least the year 2019.
0 -
But that isn't the issue. The court isn't saying that prorogation needs a Parliamentary vote. As I understand it, they are saying that it remains a prerogative power but one which was exercised for an improper purpose.tlg86 said:
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.noneoftheabove said:
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!tlg86 said:The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.0
