The broad sunlit uplands of next March. Yeah, really. .

[S griffin]

Well there you go. Been dragged through the courts for this. When will this get finally sorted so we can go back to other things?

[Peter Mallett]

This is a good point. Since when did the courts have jurisdiction over the government. The two should be separate. Whilst judicial review is a legitimate process, this appears to be civil cases brought by individuals and not a full blown JR.

[S griffin]

Courts have always had there say I guess. It seems though they have been used a lot lately and not for little things

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

This is a good point. Since when did the courts have jurisdiction over the government. The two should be separate. Whilst judicial review is a legitimate process, this appears to be civil cases brought by individuals and not a full blown JR.

I always thought that checks and challenges of the House of Commons' procedures was the task of the House of Lords? And they act on behalf of the sovereign?

[Peter Mallett]

I can name a few cases where the government has lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Se...Brigades_Union This was about pensions and the then Home Minister (Mrs Thatcher). The case was found against the Home Minister. There were some interesting things to come out of this. The biggest thing being the definition of an employee. This then had consequences in employment law and law of tort (negligence) etc.

But, crucially these are usually cases where there is a public interest. As such organisations have to satisfy certain criteria before bringing them. It can't be because I don't like the result of the referendum. If a court can suggest that proroguing is illegal and it is upheld it means that government procedures will be exposed to legal challenge at any time. We don't therefore need a government just a court.

Scary.

[gary396]

I don't think the courts are saying prorogation is illegal per se.

They are saying that the Government's use of it in this manner was motivated for improper purposes i.e. cutting short Parliament to get their own way and that they had misled the Queen. If that is the case then it could be argued that it's probably right and proper that they have intervened. Checks and balances. Two sides to that argument I know.

Having said that these matters are probing into very grey areas of an unwritten constitution. Fascinating stuff in many ways which make even some of the telly experts say - 'I haven't a clue'!

[coppice]

Originally Posted by Tel 911S

Bearing in mind that just about everything you will read in the MSM is a load of rubbish , there is more to it than Boris overplaying his hand .
.

What medium do you suggest I access the real story from ? What resources does it have , and why should I rely on it ? Preferably not 'someone you know ' , please .

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by gary396

Having said that these matters are probing into very grey areas of an unwritten constitution.

That's the issue. Governments can't be held to account by the courts for parliamentary procedure. What if this was about declaring war in defence of the realm, but the Green party wanted to stop it? Certainly for acts where it impacts individuals such as the example I gave above, then yes Judicial review.

But for parliamentary business where they are acting on a mandate?

[Mike Harte]

Whatever happens in the Superior Court next week, I still believe that Johnson will enter into the record books as holding the office of PM for the shortest time in British history. I think that he already holds one record for losing all six of his government's first votes.

[Peter Mallett]

You may be correct. BTW it's the Supreme Court, used to be the House of Lords.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

That's the issue. Governments can't be held to account by the courts for parliamentary procedure. What if this was about declaring war in defence of the realm, but the Green party wanted to stop it? Certainly for acts where it impacts individuals such as the example I gave above, then yes Judicial review.

But for parliamentary business where they are acting on a mandate?

Peter, in a nutshell, the argument is that the government purposely closed down parliament so that our elected parliamentarians couldn't scrutinise what the executive was doing behind closed doors.

They are not arguing that the government doesn't have the right to prorogue parliament, but it's the way that it's been done so as to effectively shut parliament for over 5 weeks instead of the normal 2 or 3 days.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

You may be correct. BTW it's the Supreme Court, used to be the House of Lords.

I blame that on a brain fart!

[Peter Mallett]

Indeed. It was Blair trying to be presidential and preparing the UK for federalisation. In reality the same people sit on the bench as in the HoL. But our Parliament and legislature were being subsumed on the altar of the EU. You can see where this is going can't you?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Peter, in a nutshell, the argument is that the government purposely closed down parliament so that our elected parliamentarians couldn't scrutinise what the executive was doing behind closed doors.

They are not arguing that the government doesn't have the right to prorogue parliament, but it's the way that it's been done so as to effectively shut parliament for over 5 weeks instead of the normal 2 or 3 days.

Sorry I missed this. Yes, but I again make the point that if proroguation is made illegal then we are all lost. The reason for doing it was quite clear and since the protestors had had three years to do something and had not done so, then the only way to sort this out was to stop them from interfering. If now due to this decision proroguing parliament is made illegal (since the action does not rely on the reason) then it means that the executive can be stopped by parliament in any decisions. That way lies anarchy.

[Mike Bell]

Whoohoo- anarchy! Can’t be any worse?

Sorry, I am jesting. Please ignore the frivolity and carry on.....

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by coppice

What medium do you suggest I access the real story from ? What resources does it have , and why should I rely on it ? Preferably not 'someone you know ' , please .

That is a problem .
large scale surveys in the USA , UK , Germany , Sweden , Holland , [& those are just the ones I have seen ] , show that overall more than 60% of people do not believe the stories the MSM are trying to push .
And I believe that most people know how the EU has been trying to control the Internet , & Google has been censoring its content .

So where to find the actual truth is not easy .

[coppice]

But it's out there , right ?

[midgetman]

Now, if I were Boris and lost the prorogation, I would schedule an important vote on the day of each party leader's keynote speech to their conferences. Except the Conservative conference of course.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by coppice

But it's out there , right ?

Finding the truth is not easy .

Look how the BBC kept the truth about Jimmy Savile covered up for many years .

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

........ but it's the way that it's been done so as to effectively shut parliament for over 5 weeks instead of the normal 2 or 3 days.

Not quite; the Lords Library reports that the mean prorogation for the last 20 years is 8 days;
https://researchbriefings.parliament.../LLN-2019-0111

Add to this the absolutely normal Autumn Recess of 3 weeks for party conference season, and as was stated at the time, only an additional 3 or 4 days have been lost. The House - mostly the opposition parties - spent 1.5 hours wittering on about Bercow's (long-overdue) departure, you may think if they had more important matters to discuss they would have done so.

[Mike Bell]

Operation Yellowhammer........

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0lOtdvqyg

Or alternatively.......

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NlFWh7Sz8

[Peter Mallett]

Yes, it's amazing how these things get spun. Why would you suggest that everything in the garden is rosy if you want people to take things seriously? I'm sure Armageddon is not going to happen even if there are a few delays in delivery of peaches from Spain.

[Peter Mallett]

Incidentally did you know that trade agreements have been reached with 45 countries so far? Of those countries Norway, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Colombia and Switzerland have significant GDP.

Obviously more to come but the EU replacements appear to be lining up. Since much of our fruit can come from these countries things don't look that desperate at the moment.

[VIVA GT]

Never mind all of this positive news. I have just learned that once we have Brexited it will again become mandatory to display the bold style GB plates on the back of our vehicles when driving outside the UK. (This also includes of course Southern Ireland).
I wonder if you can still get the Townsend Thorenson ones?

[Peter Mallett]

I've got magnetic black and white ones.