Brexit

[Oracle]

https://fullfact.org/online/supreme-...no-EU-stipend/

So that is seemingly true. But The more or less universal opposition to brexit of the judges is not invented. And I will wager on history most are in Masonic lodges, the proceedings of those conversations would make interesting reading.

What is also true is that the court has contradicted itself on whether queens actions are a proceeding of parliament, and not withstanding that , it Has a duty only to interpret not to make law.

By adding the need for a "reason " to justify length of prorogue it created new law, then determined boris was guilty retrospectively . As I showed elsewhere the concept of reasonableness does not exist by default in law generally unless expressed, the Supreme Court put it there.

The Supreme Court did not do itself any favours. If it wants to be political it must also be accountable and appointed.

Worse:
Bercow tearing up the rule book handing control of primary legislation to back benches has destroyed our democracy and what it means to govern. If as is likely a sequence of coalitions follow this, he has handed authority to parliament where accountability and responsibility lies with government. Bercow has created a disaster for the future. Bot the deputy and previous speakers are rightly appalled at his behaviour.

The benn act should have been challenged as a product of ultra vires by speaker , but no doubt the Supreme Court would decide it was unable to rule on it.

Another legal principle was just destroyed in Scotland, time and again courts have refused to judge on cases purely hypothetical, like what would happen if boris didn't send the letter without any reference to circumstance or intention after the fact. Not any more.

It seems no legal principle is sacrosanct if it comes to destroying brexit,