Scottish judges rule suspension of parliament illegal

[Cannydc]

The Labour party policy remains unchanged, as per my previous post.

Individuals are free to state their own preferences, but you really must learn the difference between that and official policy.

Your nap wasn't long enough, obviously.

So just to summarise, Labour Party policy on Brexit is to renegotiate a deal with the EU based on membership of both the Customs Union and the Single Market

And everything else that Corbyn has said in the past couple of days is bollox.

You don't need to summarise - Labour party policy remains exactly as it was when I told you last time, a couple of hours ago. You can still read it here.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

[MungoBrush]

You don't need to summarise - Labour party policy remains exactly as it was when I told you last time, a couple of hours ago. You can still read it here.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Yes yes yes, I just quoted from that

So all that talk from Corbyn today about a 2nd referendum is bollox

[Cannydc]

You don't need to summarise - Labour party policy remains exactly as it was when I told you last time, a couple of hours ago. You can still read it here.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Yes yes yes, I just quoted from that

So all that talk from Corbyn today about a 2nd referendum is bollox

Nope.

General election first

Deal with EU second

Referendum, with accept deal or remain on ballot paper third.

There - as simple as I can get, but very sad for you that I feel the need to do it. Are you having another "forgot return journey" moment ?

[Cactus Jack]

The court’s summary concluded that Johnson’s prorogation request to the Queen and her decision “was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect”.

(All news sources, just now).

Has no effect? Does this mean they all have to troop back again? I guess we await what the Supreme Court will say.

Over to you CJ to explain.

Taken to it's logical conclusion it means that Boris Johnson has de facto abolished the monarchy.

The sovereign has the theoretical right to prorogue or dissolve Parliament at any time. Until the Fixed Term Parliament Act Boorish could have saved himself by dissolving Parliament calling for an exceptionally long General Election campaign and letting the UK fall into a No Deal Brexit. Any embarrassing leaks of government documents about how terrible no deal would be could have been painted merely as a violation of purdah. As the Fixed Term Parliament Act closed off that avenue for Boorish he went down a level to simply proroguing Parliament. To which you would have to add 'or would he' because to dissolve Parliament to prevent oversight and scrutiny of the executive could be considered treason - we don't need to go down that road but keep it in mind.

There is a big difference between a Recess, which MPs get to vote on, and Prorogation which, like dissolving Parliament, is a royal prerogative and is only done by the Queen on the advice of her Prime Minister. The question at issue is therefore not the right of the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament but the intent in so doing - if the intent was to avoid Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny then the only precedent we have - Parliament vs Rex 1649 - defines that as treason.

Whilst it is the Prime Minister who advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament it is the Queen who carried out the action and therefore the Prime Minister has incited the Queen to treason.

Obviously there is no mens rhea because the Queen, constitutionally, could not ignore or override the advice of a Prime Minister and yet - catch 22 - she could not take that advice either. The only resolution is to remove that prerogative power and that means the end of the monarchy

[McAz]

Thanks CJ - very interesting read.

[Cannydc]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

[Cactus Jack]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

[Cannydc]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

If they were being historically consistent, the Queen would order him to be dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death.
Then hung by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed, and the removed organs burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner. Finally his head to be cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters, and the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of London.

Just like her namesake Queen would have done.

[McAz]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

If they were being historically consistent, the Queen would order him to be dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death.
Then hung by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed, and the removed organs burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner. Finally his head to be cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters, and the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of London.

Just like her namesake Queen would have done.

You enjoyed that, didn't you?

[Cannydc]

Every word, but we live in a different age.

I would settle for a cringe making resignation, a short (one year and one day) custodial sentence to stop his return to parliament, no paper to ever employ him, no publisher to publish his book and the ex-girlfriend (she obviously won't stick around) to get custody of the dog.

[Stooo]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

If they were being historically consistent, the Queen would order him to be dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death.
Then hung by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed, and the removed organs burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner. Finally his head to be cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters, and the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of London.

Just like her namesake Queen would have done.

You tend to lose conciousness at around ten seconds with a ligature choke, drawing the bowels and barbecuing them is particularly savage and probably quite smelly especially when they wake you up. Thankfully you didn't get quartered until you were dead.

[MungoBrush]

You don't need to summarise - Labour party policy remains exactly as it was when I told you last time, a couple of hours ago. You can still read it here.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Yes yes yes, I just quoted from that

So all that talk from Corbyn today about a 2nd referendum is bollox

Nope.

General election first

Deal with EU second

Referendum, with accept deal or remain on ballot paper third.

There - as simple as I can get, but very sad for you that I feel the need to do it. Are you having another "forgot return journey" moment ?

None of that is in the Labour Party policy
So you're just posting bollox
Just like Corbyn.

[Cannydc]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

If they were being historically consistent, the Queen would order him to be dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death.
Then hung by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed, and the removed organs burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner. Finally his head to be cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters, and the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of London.

Just like her namesake Queen would have done.

You tend to lose conciousness at around ten seconds with a ligature choke, drawing the bowels and barbecuing them is particularly savage and probably quite smelly especially when they wake you up. Thankfully you didn't get quartered until you were dead.

The process was brilliantly portrayed in BBC's Gunpowder drama. The executioners woke him up with a bucket of water after the hanging...

[Cactus Jack]

Having done a bit of reading on both judgements, I have a strong suspicion that the Supreme Court will overturn the Scottish Appeals Court decision.

The first verdict in London stated that courts had no reason to interfere and that the matter was entirely a matter for the government. Sadly, I think that will stand. Their argument is quite compelling. The Supreme Court judgement may well read something like "Although the appeal judge's arguments are fully accepted, they had no authority to interfere in the actions of this government....etc...."

If they were being historically consistent they should order that Boris Johnson be put on trial in Houses of Parliament but I don't think they will

If they were being historically consistent, the Queen would order him to be dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death.
Then hung by the neck for a short time or until almost dead. Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed, and the removed organs burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner. Finally his head to be cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters, and the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of London.

Just like her namesake Queen would have done.

She could do what her namesakes Dad did to Robert Aske and have Boris hanged living in chains.

https://www.tudorsociety.com/12-july-15 ... bert-aske/

[Cannydc]

You don't need to summarise - Labour party policy remains exactly as it was when I told you last time, a couple of hours ago. You can still read it here.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Yes yes yes, I just quoted from that

So all that talk from Corbyn today about a 2nd referendum is bollox

Nope.

General election first

Deal with EU second

Referendum, with accept deal or remain on ballot paper third.

There - as simple as I can get, but very sad for you that I feel the need to do it. Are you having another "forgot return journey" moment ?

None of that is in the Labour Party policy
So you're just posting bollox
Just like Corbyn.

Are you a Labour party member and speaking with authority, or just Googling frantically and grasping at any straw of comfort ?

It is Labour policy, in that precise order.

"Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister (after a General Election) should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote. "

Jeremy Corbyn 9.7.2019

https://labour.org.uk/latest/stories/la ... blic-vote/

"If an election was called, Labour says it would go into a campaign arguing for a further referendum, with voters able to choose between a "credible Leave option" and Remain."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union"

Labour manifesto 2017

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/