Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Was Maduro a bus driver a close mate of Chavez??
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im unclear how its unlawful, Id be interested in seeing the why etc.
Either way, if it is simple noise and the Supreme court bats it away, it matters not - it still gives the remain camp the fire and pr they need for now.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
How do we know he's not actually Fire(wo)man Samantha, but simply chooses to identify as male...?
They appear to have claimed that parliament was prorogued for the wrong reason. What I suspect the SC will tell them (assuming that's not been stuffed with remainders uninterested in the proper rule of law too) is that there is no wrong reason to prorogue and that it therefore can't be illegal.
Of course, if the SC also decides that there was nothing in the documents provided by the government to show their sound reasoning for proroguing and also decides that's justiciable (it's not), then all Johnson has to do is send an email to the privy council spelling out some reason and go back to the Queen.
Last edited:
I take offence to such binary terms as male and female.
I propose we refer to it as Fire Citizen X.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
My sincere apologies for any offence my post may have caused.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
That does seem pretty tenuous.
Though my point remains (pun not intended), whether or not it is batted away later, it fans the flames right now...
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Hahaha, American History X just took on a whole new meaning
So it seems that this ruling is fairly solid in Scotland where there are some differences in constitutional law to that in England. For the same reason it appears to have always been doomed to fail in the SC here.
So bringing this case in Scotland was about nothing more than headlines and giving the noisy minority something else to shout about for a few days. What a fudging waste of everyone's time.
So bringing this case in Scotland was about nothing more than headlines and giving the noisy minority something else to shout about for a few days. What a fudging waste of everyone's time.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
So two sets of judges say the proroguing was legal, and one say it was not legal
Isn't this like referendums - keep seeking them till you get the answer you want?
I'm slightly uncomfortable with the legal profession becoming politicised like this. The executive, legislative and judiciary have very discrete roles for very good reasons.
Isn't this like referendums - keep seeking them till you get the answer you want?
I'm slightly uncomfortable with the legal profession becoming politicised like this. The executive, legislative and judiciary have very discrete roles for very good reasons.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
This is entirely my point. Its PR. Problem is, it works - even if its later proven to be gonads (ironically a common complaint of Remain with regards to the leave campaign)
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Behind the paywall, what does it say?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The English court has just issued a statement explaining why the Scottish court is incorrect:
The court concludes on well established and conventional grounds that the claim is non justiciable - that is, it is not capable of being determined by the courts.
A decision to prorogue parliament is a prerogative power, a discretionary power still in the hands of the crown. Such a decision is formally made by the Sovereign on the advice of the privy council. By constitutional convention the sovereign invariably acts on the advice of the prime minister ...
The criteria adopted by the courts for identifying non-justiciable exercises of prerogative power are whether they involve matters of high policy or are political. In this way the courts have marked out the separation of power between the judicial and the executive branches of government, a fundamental feature of our unwritten constitution. In this context the essential characteristic of a political issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the executive’s decision or action ...
The claimant’s novel and wider legally enforceable concept of parliamentary sovereignty, distilled to its essence as the ability of parliament to conduct its business unimpeded, is not supported by the passages from the authority relied on ...
The constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom have evolved to achieve a balance between the three branches of the state; the relationship between the executive and parliament is governed in part by statute and in part by convention. Standing orders of both houses elaborate the procedural relationship between the executive and parliament. This is territory into which the courts should be slow to intrude by recognising an expanded concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Summary-Miller-v-The-Prime-Minister-1.pdf
The court concludes on well established and conventional grounds that the claim is non justiciable - that is, it is not capable of being determined by the courts.
A decision to prorogue parliament is a prerogative power, a discretionary power still in the hands of the crown. Such a decision is formally made by the Sovereign on the advice of the privy council. By constitutional convention the sovereign invariably acts on the advice of the prime minister ...
The criteria adopted by the courts for identifying non-justiciable exercises of prerogative power are whether they involve matters of high policy or are political. In this way the courts have marked out the separation of power between the judicial and the executive branches of government, a fundamental feature of our unwritten constitution. In this context the essential characteristic of a political issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the executive’s decision or action ...
The claimant’s novel and wider legally enforceable concept of parliamentary sovereignty, distilled to its essence as the ability of parliament to conduct its business unimpeded, is not supported by the passages from the authority relied on ...
The constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom have evolved to achieve a balance between the three branches of the state; the relationship between the executive and parliament is governed in part by statute and in part by convention. Standing orders of both houses elaborate the procedural relationship between the executive and parliament. This is territory into which the courts should be slow to intrude by recognising an expanded concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Summary-Miller-v-The-Prime-Minister-1.pdf
parklane1
Tony Galvin
More proof that the world has gone nuts, all the social workers, kissy kissy flimflam makers and the " everyone deserves to be treated the same merchants" need to wake up and get off their high podium and get back into the real world.
StephenH
David Ginola
I blame the likes of the BBC they and many many other are straitjacketed by the PC phalanx that holds sway over everybody now!
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Liked on account of this phrase making me laugh out loud. But I do agree of course...
Grays_1890
Chris Jones
Is this genuine
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Not sure if your serious or not. But if you are what organisations do you think is more PC then the BBC...
Intel. Made bloody loads of PCs those guys