Brexit

[Wheeze]

Brilliant Geoff!!

[Witton Park]

I reckon he'll appeal to the European Court. They'll give him proper justice.

It would be funny if he could, but in this sphere of the law the ECJ doesn't have jurisdiction.

[Mike T]

Interesting that, like most people in prison, he disagrees with the judgement of the court.

[millipede]

Interesting that, like most people in prison, he disagrees with the judgement of the court.

[Witton Park]

Plenty disagree with the court decision.
The Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls for example.
Even Lord Sumption, a now retired Supreme Court Judge on Radio 4 this morning thought tthey had made an error.
It was a decision that nobody saw coming.
It has made new law.

There are some unusual inconsistences in the judgement as highlighted by some of the pieces written and comments made.

Paragraph 58 the judges advise they are not interested in the PM's motives.

Paragraph 61 they advise that they cannot find a good reason to prorogue.

That sounds like a judgement on motive.

[noel]

It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the PM can shut down parliament whenever he/she wants, this is a route to effectively remove them from the process of running the country. I don't think that should be allowed.

It's interesting that people are seeing this through largely partisan brexit-or not eyes. I can only imagine how offended you would be WP if Jeremy Corbyn were trying to remove parliament from the process while trying to achieve some aims with which you didn't approve.

[DangerMouse]

Spot on Noel - well said!!

Justice prevails - democracy actual exists for once

edit: just for the record (not interested in any more insults or personal attacks thank you very much) I have been thinking about this whole situation and my instinct tells me that Article 50 is going to end up being revoked, we will stay as things are, this whole thing will have been one big money making farce!

[bigfella]

Judges overrule the people, democracy is dead!

[molehill]

I give you Boris........and the Clash!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0pTpwqkB48

[Witton Park]

It seems like a no-brainer to me. If the PM can shut down parliament whenever he/she wants, this is a route to effectively remove them from the process of running the country. I don't think that should be allowed.

It's interesting that people are seeing this through largely partisan brexit-or not eyes. I can only imagine how offended you would be WP if Jeremy Corbyn were trying to remove parliament from the process while trying to achieve some aims with which you didn't approve.

Actually Noel I'm not looking at it in a partisan way. I think it's made little or no difference to the process.

However, one of the reasons why legal and constitutional experts didn't expect this to go the way it was is that Parliament has already had the ability at anytime previously to control the prorogation process.

For example, Major prorogued to block (although he denies it was the common perception) the publishing of a report in 1997 and extended the period to the General Election, none of the successive Governments have EVER tried to put forward an Act that for example said

"A Government is only allowed to prorogue for a maximum 14 day period in any calendar year, without requesting specific permission by a vote in the House."

The reason is quite simple. Most Governments have a majority and do not want to water down the options available to them.

Minority Governments are rare and are usually don't last long without a no-confidence vote.

We may now see a future Government look at this and actually put in to law a procedure and parameters for prorogation.