UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal - Page 22

**Mick** · 23-09-2019, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K

Umm, we elected them to do that ?

Funny that, because most were elected on a manifesto to honour the referendum result and leaving the EU.

That said, we are not going down old arguments Mr K.

**Hugh** · 23-09-2019, 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin78

You can't break the law if there wasn't one in the first place. Seems we need a law to keep MP's from taking over the country.

That’s why it is being mooted as being unlawful, not illegal.

**Chris** · 23-09-2019, 18:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

That’s why it is being mooted as being unlawful, not illegal.

I’ll be surprised if their lordships go for that.

Prorogation has been occurring on advice from the PM without any specific parliamentary authorisation for centuries. How could the Supreme Court possibly judge which previous prorogations were allowable and which were not? If no reasons for prorogation have ever been authorised, which reasons can be said to be unauthorised? And even if it is possible to show that prorogation intended to kill legislation or scrutiny was unlawful, in the present context it is an uncomfortable truth, from the appellants point of view, that this prorogation ended the longest parliamentary session since the English civil war. The “legitimate” reason to prorogue in such circumstances is extremely powerful.

If I were a betting man, I’d be betting that the judges will decline to go anywhere near it. I suspect that tomorrow they will observe that advice to prorogue was given without parliamentary authorisation just as it has always been, that it therefore is not unlawful, and that parliament has the right to determine when and how prorogation should occur in future if it so chooses.

Pierre · 23-09-2019, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

You don't get to decide if he has or hasn't broken any laws. That's opinion on your part.

Would love to know what statute he has contravened though.

---------- Post added at 18:56 ---------- Previous post was at 18:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

If I were a betting man, I’d be betting that the judges will decline to go anywhere near it. I suspect that tomorrow they will observe that advice to prorogue was given without parliamentary authorisation just as it has always been, that it therefore is not unlawful, and that parliament has the right to determine when and how prorogation should occur in future if it so chooses.

I would hope you’re right, but in this current “beyond the looking glass” world we find ourselves, there is always someone wanting to make themselves famous or infamous, that can get so wrapped up in their own self grandiosity.......they’ll do anything.

jfman · 23-09-2019, 19:00

Wouldn't we all. I'm sure if that's the outcome there will be a thorough explanation.

papa smurf · 23-09-2019, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman

Wouldn't we all. I'm sure if that's the outcome there will be a thorough explanation.

if i recall correctly before the case started they said they would rule then give their reasoning at some later date

Sephiroth · 23-09-2019, 19:17

It might well turn on whether or not Boris acted contrary to the public interest, which would be unlawful.

So what is the public interest? The guvmin carrying out the Referendum Mandate? The guvmin not preventing parliamentary scrutiny? Would the latter turn on the fact that after 14-October, when Parliament reconvenes, it can scrutinise?

Can't wait.

**Damien** · 23-09-2019, 22:23

I imagine the case will hinge on if the length of time for which it was prorogued and if they assume he motivation was to avoid Parliament having their say/interfering.

Sephiroth · 23-09-2019, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I imagine the case will hinge on if the length of time for which it was prorogued and if they assume he motivation was to avoid Parliament having their say/interfering.

I think your assessment would prevail only if the SC thought that Boris had acted against the public interest.

1andrew1 · 23-09-2019, 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think your assessment would prevail only if the SC thought that Boris had acted against the public interest.

Evading the scrutiny of elected MPs is against the public interest. Proving this is the reason for proroguing Parliament is a different kettle of fish.

**Mick** · 23-09-2019, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Evading the scrutiny of elected MPs is against the public interest. Proving this is the reason for proroguing Parliament is a different kettle of fish.

One could ask how much scrutiny do they need, they’ve had over 3 years !

1andrew1 · 23-09-2019, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

One could ask how much scrutiny do they need, they’ve had over 3 years !

Right now, despite BoJo promising 33 days ago to deliver a solution to No Deal in 30 days, there's nothing to scrutinise. So proving this is the reason for proroguing Parliament could be interesting.

**Chris** · 23-09-2019, 23:13

Well, we should know in 11 hours ...

ianch99 · 24-09-2019, 08:44

Of course the SC will rule in favour of the Government. The track record of the Establishment voting against the Establishment is not a long one

They would have been reminded of their obligation not to rock the boat and not to create a dangerous precedent.

jonbxx · 24-09-2019, 09:41

It's certainly a fascinating case and could potentially mark a significant change in the relations between the roles of the three pillars of UK democracy (Executive, Legislative and Judicial). As I see it, the heart of the question is when, why and how one branch, the Executive can close another, the Legislative.

Closing of Parliament is a thing of course but this case will establish whether conditions need to be applied to this. The hypothetical situations put forward by John Major are a good argument for a conditional prorogation.

All fascinating stuff!

My predictions - too close to call. I'm sitting on the fence for this one...