View Single Post
Old 16-09-2019, 20:43   #51
Mick
Cable Forum Team
 
Mick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,118
Mick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny star
Mick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny starMick has a nice shiny star
Re: Brexit Development(s) Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Jings, look at the timetable for Thursday morning. They’re lining up to get their five minutes of fame. Nippy Sturgeon’s sending someone to win her yet another chance to do her trademark head tilt and affected half-laugh on the Scottish news. And John Major’s at it as well. That’ll be riveting.

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:35 ----------



I suspect he’ll breeze through it. The narrative has moved well beyond Theresa May’s guddle of last spring. All anyone is interested in now is whether or not we have a deal by 31 October, and whether or not Boris can make good on his vow to take us out either way.
Just reading the written cases for Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland... I've read up to page 21... the following is clear and should be cut and dry...

Quote:
68. Only Her Majesty may prorogue Parliament: no other person or body in the constitution
has the power to do so. As already noted, no statute regulates prorogation or advice to Her
Majesty in relation to prorogation. Parliament has made specific legislative provisions
regulating its sittings (even if it stands prorogued) in particular contexts as referred to
above. These claims seek to challenge prorogation, even where it conforms to such
legislative control; and invite the courts to rule on advice relating to and decisions
concerning prorogation. It is submitted that that is impermissible, non-justiciable
territory.

69. There are no judicial or manageable standards by reference to which the Court could
review or control an exercise of the prerogative of the present kind. That is because the
prorogation of Parliament is inherently political in nature; and courts cannot weigh
political judgements of this type against legal standards. Moreover, such decisions have
been left by Parliament to the Executive subject to the specific legislative provisions
controlling the sittings of Parliament already noted. It would be constitutionally
inappropriate for the courts to enter the territory.
Bold bits the key to The Government winning this case...
Mick is offline