Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
In the same ComRes poll, 60% agreed with the statement “Parliament has had plenty of time to debate Brexit and we should just get on with leaving the EU".
|
The public are clearly idiots.
(Not for that one specifically but the at face value contradictory nature of that one and the one you quoted).
---------- Post added at 00:47 ---------- Previous post was at 00:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth
Late into the discussion, that's the trouble with working for a living . . .
Anyway:
Lady Hale said: "The court is bound to conclude therefore that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.""
I don't get this at all, surely ANY proroguement (is that a word? ) of Parliament has the effect of " frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions"
any good lawyers on here?  |
If you’d accept the attempt of this amateur armchair lawyer I think the view would be any time Parliament is prorogued previously isn’t against the backdrop of a deadline and is usually for the stated reason - to deliver a new Queen’s Speech.
Governments losing this many votes would generally be out the door and a General Election called. Making these very unusual times.