Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick
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...
Bold bits the key to The Government winning this case...
|
Essentially the same arguments that were put before, and which have won everywhere they’ve been tried except the Inner House of the Supreme Court of Scotland, where I suspect their lordships gave the appellants a consolation prize, knowing it wouldn’t ultimately be their decision anyway. The decision in favour of the appellants in Scotland is absolutely absurd in my view - prorogation is conducted on advice from the PM and using Royal Prerogative. Those two acts occur in a political space devoid of any controlling Act of Parliament. How can the Prime Minister have broken a law that doesn’t exist? By what yardstick can he be said to have been acting improperly? That’s a political judgment, not a judicial one.
---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I haven’t seen the interview, however taking your points as with anything in law there’s probably competing opinions on it. Could be hubris for the People v Parliament election having Brexit “stolen” at the last minute is better for political optics. Either way, Boris gives the same message right now.
I’d not go as far as “concerned” personally. If we leave we leave.  |
It’s worth a read ... Laura K has written up the transcript, if you’re not near a telly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49717554