Swift court action
- Thread starter Agrivator
- Start date
sheepish
Member
- Location
- South Wales
It was agreed in the Vince case that the Court of Session would reconvene today when the government's position was clearer. See section 12 here : https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2019/2019_CSIH_51.html
There was no "short notice".
There was no "short notice".
- Location
- Westish Suffolk
Somebody has to, Boris has previous form.
sheepish
Member
- Location
- South Wales
The role of the judiciary is to ensure the executive (and legislature) operate within the law. Given the poor track-record of adhering to the law and the multiple statements coming from the executive of their intent to break or sail very close to it, it's perhaps not that surprising.
My guess is that Joanna Cherry is the driving force. She is driven by a desire to supplant her adversary, Queen Nicola, to become the Leader of the SNP, and this is purely a ploy to raise her profile among SNP supporters in Scotland who aren't bright enough to watch the Parliament Channel.
Just wait until wee Eck's (aka Alex Salmond's) trial starts.
Just wait until wee Eck's (aka Alex Salmond's) trial starts.
bluegreen
Member
17.4 million people voted too leave the EU with No Deal and now we have all manner of politicians and legal experts doing whatever they can to block Brexit and whilst they are doing it they try to take the moral high ground by telling us "Boris cant be trusted"!! WTF, their the ones that cant be trusted and have previous by pulling stunt after stunt too frustrate the democratic will of the people!
Yes , she's behind it , we should send the f**kin bill to her , vile woman , and I tempered my language there
sheepish
Member
- Location
- South Wales
I believe the QCs are working for free, but the costs of the court are being met through crowd funding.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/dont-suspend-parliament/
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Yes, she wants to replace NS; she is cleverer but, doesn't have the same charisma or personal charm.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Well, err... they always have, sort of. But as, in a rare instance of sanity, John Bercow wrote to the Court the other day, Parliament is top-dog and the Curt shout but out.
It's an odd circle; but Parliament makes the law and the Courts can then rule upon whether what parliamentarians do (HMG included) is legal. But... if Parliament doesn't like what the Court says it, i.e. Parliament, can make new law that the Court will then have to apply in a way that Parliament does like. The simple reason for this is that at the moment both Parliament and the Supreme Court accept the Queen in Parliament as sovereign and so, as the law stands, that is the status quo.
I, from the right of politics, and many others across the political spectrum but particularly on the left, disagree with this last point and believe, with very good grounds that the people are sovereign, not Parliament, and that we - the people - lend our sovereignty to Parliament. That this is so can be demonstrated by asking one simple question: If the people aren't sovereign, from where does Parliament derive its sovereignty?
We know, from precedent, that just sitting in the Palace of Westminster does not convey sovereignty. If they, Parliament, don't get it from the people, there is nothing to stop any random 650 people sitting in a large room and, with equal justification, claiming to be 'sovereign' and start passing laws.
- Location
- Beragh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
I note J Bryson intends a judicial review of the Government's proposed NI protocol in the proposed deal.
Very enlightening. Thank you.Well, err... they always have, sort of. But as, in a rare instance of sanity, John Bercow wrote to the Court the other day, Parliament is top-dog and the Curt shout but out.
It's an odd circle; but Parliament makes the law and the Courts can then rule upon whether what parliamentarians do (HMG included) is legal. But... if Parliament doesn't like what the Court says it, i.e. Parliament, can make new law that the Court will then have to apply in a way that Parliament does like. The simple reason for this is that at the moment both Parliament and the Supreme Court accept the Queen in Parliament as sovereign and so, as the law stands, that is the status quo.
I, from the right of politics, and many others across the political spectrum but particularly on the left, disagree with this last point and believe, with very good grounds that the people are sovereign, not Parliament, and that we - the people - lend our sovereignty to Parliament. That this is so can be demonstrated by asking one simple question: If the people aren't sovereign, from where does Parliament derive its sovereignty?
We know, from precedent, that just sitting in the Palace of Westminster does not convey sovereignty. If they, Parliament, don't get it from the people, there is nothing to stop any random 650 people sitting in a large room and, with equal justification, claiming to be 'sovereign' and start passing laws.
Boohoo
Member
- Location
- Newtownabbey
Would be interesting to know what was said in that meeting last night. There's a feeling that history may be about to repeat itself.
- Location
- Beragh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
Smarter tactics/action than 1985 and Drumcree would be vital.