Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the unwritten constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.

That is completely wrong.

UK courts can and do rule on the UK constitution.

See the original Miller case.

Once again - Our constituion is made of various elements - including Acts of Parliament which ARE law. So, yes, courts always rule on the UK Constituion - or at least the codified parts of what is more broadly a fairly unstructured concept (much of which is not even written down anywhere).
Many parliamentary conventions are not even written down. There is no law associated to them.
So, using nebulous terms like 'our constitution' doesn't wash.
There is no law that the Kangaroo Court can cite that they ruled on.

The Miller case goes into detal about actual Acts of law both in the UK and the EU.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the unwritten constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.

That is completely wrong.

UK courts can and do rule on the UK constitution.

See the original Miller case.

Once again - Our constituion is made of various elements - including Acts of Parliament which ARE law. So, yes, courts always rule on the UK Constituion - or at least the codified parts of what is more broadly a fairly unstructured concept (much of which is not even written down anywhere).
Many parliamentary conventions are not even written down. There is no law associated to them.
So, using nebulous terms like 'our constitution' doesn't wash.
There is no law that the Kangaroo Court can cite that they ruled on.

The fact that UK constitution is uncodified just makes judicial review more important not less.

Governments are not above the law.

The basis for the judgement is clearly given in the published judgement.

Calling the highest court in Scotland a kangaroo court just demonstrates your bias.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the unwritten constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.

That is completely wrong.

UK courts can and do rule on the UK constitution.

See the original Miller case.

Once again - Our constituion is made of various elements - including Acts of Parliament which ARE law. So, yes, courts always rule on the UK Constituion - or at least the codified parts of what is more broadly a fairly unstructured concept (much of which is not even written down anywhere).
Many parliamentary conventions are not even written down. There is no law associated to them.
So, using nebulous terms like 'our constitution' doesn't wash.
There is no law that the Kangaroo Court can cite that they ruled on.

The fact that UK constitution is uncodified just makes judicial review more important not less.

Governments are not above the law.

The basis for the judgement is clearly given in the published judgement.

Calling the highest court in Scotland a kangaroo court just demonstrates your bias.

The legal elements of the Constitution ARE codiefied by Acts of Parliament - LAW.
Our constitution goes beyond law to elements that are not legally enforceable.
Any court that declares non compliance with a Parliamentary convention to be unlawful is a Kanagaroo court. There is no bias - I will be saying the same about the UK Supreme Court should they make a similar illegitimate decision.

I want the ACTUAL law broken to be cited. Not much to ask for.
I would hope that you too do not want a system where you can be declared a criminal with no written law having been broken.

While the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution that is a single document, the collection of legal instruments that have developed into a body of law known as constitutional law has existed for hundreds of years.
As part of this uncodified British constitution, constitutional conventions play a key role. They are rules that are observed by the various constituted parts though they are not written in any document having legal authority; there are often underlying enforcing principles that are themselves uncodified. Nonetheless it is very unlikely that there would be a departure of such conventions without good reason, even if an underlying enforcing principle has been overtaken by history, as these conventions also acquire the force of custom.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Aspie
Ask yourself why it went to a Scottish court

It got thrown out of a Scottish Court too. The Outer Court of Sessions. 3 judges in the Inner Court of Sessions in Scotland overturned the decision of the lower Scottish Court.

So far 3 courts have said this is not a justicable argument, 2 of which are not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Sessions - the only court to rule this unlawful (which is an illigitmate decision as they could not even cite the law that was broken).

Looks to me like 3 Remainer Scottish judges playing God - all on their own and totally at odds with every other court decision.

The judgement is available on the courts website.

www.scotcourts.gov.uk...

Already seen it. It's waffle, citing now law that hasbeen broken.
3 Remainer judges trying to play politics.

And your, non legal anonymous opinion online, is based on you being a leave supporter.

Works both ways.

Nope. Based on the law.
As no law has been shown to be broken and none can even be cited, the decision is illegitmate.
My view is also backed by 3 courts.

Courts aren't a best of.

They have published in detail the reason for judgement.

Yes, I've seen the details.
No law is cited. It's a rambling piece of fluff about the constitution and 'conventions' that are not law.
Remainers in robes who disgraced themselves.
One has even spoken negatively about Brexit.

This is a constitutional issue and courts can , and have, rule on such things.

Claiming they can't is nonsense.

Again, 'constituional issues' is a fluff term that requires specifics.
Our constitution includes Acts of Parliament that have codified the unwritten constitution, so of course courts have judged on the legal aspects of our constitution.
Our constitution also includes unwritten conventions that are not legal matters - they are handled by institutional codes of conduct, not law courts.
If a court passes judgement on something that is not law, they do so illegitimately.

That is completely wrong.

UK courts can and do rule on the UK constitution.

See the original Miller case.

Once again - Our constituion is made of various elements - including Acts of Parliament which ARE law. So, yes, courts always rule on the UK Constituion - or at least the codified parts of what is more broadly a fairly unstructured concept (much of which is not even written down anywhere).
Many parliamentary conventions are not even written down. There is no law associated to them.
So, using nebulous terms like 'our constitution' doesn't wash.
There is no law that the Kangaroo Court can cite that they ruled on.

The fact that UK constitution is uncodified just makes judicial review more important not less.

Governments are not above the law.

The basis for the judgement is clearly given in the published judgement.

Calling the highest court in Scotland a kangaroo court just demonstrates your bias.

The legal elements of the Constitution ARE codiefied by Acts of Parliament - LAW.
Our constitution goes beyond law to elements that are not legally enforceable.
Any court that declares non compliance with a Parliamentary convention to be unlawful is a Kanagaroo court. There is no bias - I will be saying the same about the UK Supreme Court should they make a similar illegitimate decision.

I want the ACTUAL law broken to be cited. Not much to ask for.
I would hope that you too do not want a system where you can be declared a criminal with no written law having been broken.

While the United Kingdom does not have a codified constitution that is a single document, the collection of legal instruments that have developed into a body of law known as constitutional law has existed for hundreds of years.
As part of this uncodified British constitution, constitutional conventions play a key role. They are rules that are observed by the various constituted parts though they are not written in any document having legal authority; there are often underlying enforcing principles that are themselves uncodified. Nonetheless it is very unlikely that there would be a departure of such conventions without good reason, even if an underlying enforcing principle has been overtaken by history, as these conventions also acquire the force of custom.

Your bias is that anything that doesn't agree with your view of brexit is wrong.

The law in the UK is not and never has been just statue. Courts have the ability to rule on the UK constitution. This isn't a matter of opinion you are factually wrong.

The supreme court may decide that Johnson did not break the lie.

They may decide that the decision is a purely political matter and so out with remit of the court even if he did lie.

What they 100% will not do is rule courts do not have the ability to review the legality of governments actions, including where there is no statute.

The details of the judgement are available for anyone with an interest to read.

a reply to: ScepticScot

'Courts aren't a best of.'

Neither are referenda

a reply to: Aspie

Accept that precedent has been set before where multiple referenda and national decisions are concerned.

originally posted by: Aspie
a reply to: ScepticScot

'Courts aren't a best of.'

Neither are referenda

No it's the last one that counts.

I have stated numerous times that in the absence of a second refendum we should leave the EU. ( what leaving entails is still open to debate).

However the idea that a second referendum is somehow undemocratic is absurd.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Seems to me another referendum is what's required to establish the will of the people now that they understand what a Hard Brexit No-Deal entails.

If indeed a no-deal scenario is what the really wish, im sure the vote would reflect such.

But now that the people of the nation have seen the complete and utter pig's ear our politicians on all sides have made of the mess, what it has cost the nation thus far, nevermind the lies on the sides of buses, and lets not forget the implications of Operation Yellowhammer, one has to wonder???

a reply to: andy06shake

Is Article 50 EU law or UK law?

originally posted by: Aspie
a reply to: andy06shake

Is Article 50 EU law or UK law?

Both.

Article 50 is the EU rule governing leaving the EU.

Enacting article 50 is UK law.

a reply to: Aspie

As of September 2019, Brexit is the first and only invocation of Article 50 as far as im aware.

Until the withdrawal from the European Union is affected, the UK remains a member of the EU.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Good. Just wondering.

Since the 1972 European Communties Act was signed EU law overrides UK law

a reply to: Aspie

Union law is accepted as having supremacy over the law of member states.

However not all member states share the ECJ's analysis of why EU law takes precedence over national law when there is a conflict.

Our by-laws change from one end of the nation to the other, EU law or otherwise.

a reply to: andy06shake
You mean they pick and choose when it suits?

a reply to: Aspie

Well, the people above the law certainly do, aka the banker's, corporations, financial institutions, politicians, landed gentry, aristocrats, lords, and royalty.

Whether or not "they" care to admit so is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Thing is most average run of the mill people pick and choose which laws they care to follow as long as they are not hurting anyone else, people know right from wrong.

But the bastards responsible for a no-deal Brexit and all the austerity mince, the real nefarious swine who will profit from other peoples misery, they simply dont care.

Either way they will make monies at the expense of everyone else.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I do not have enough posts to start my own thread.
So I thought I would share this with you all.

Excellent history lesson for public school casualties like me:

www.nationalreview.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
General conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.


You are clearly unaware of what the Constitution of the UK is - and is not.

you've clearly never read the documents and laws that form the uncodified UK consitution or Parliamentary Law, Public Administration Law in the UK, UK Devolution law, UK Democracy, Parliamentary law. How a PM/Executive knowingly lying to the head of state/queen abusing Royal Prerogative laws to have Parliament porogued to avoid loosing more democratic/parliamentary votes and lying he had a new deal with the EU plan. then immediately turned all Tory donations, press releases, front bench statements, touring the UK on hustings (undermining democratic vote and oversight) to force no-deal through and aren't even attempting to expand on securing more than the total trade deals we need in place in under six weeks' time (Zimbabwe and Seychelled, island in the artic circle dont export much/any goods to US.

Brief example of how to have the right to send local PM, politicians, council sent to jail - Under 1974 Section ii

a reply to: angelchemuel

One rainbow is better than 100 stars

a reply to: and14263

Well, the only pot of Gold at the end of the Brexit Rainbow will belong to the rich Tory bastards who are able to ride out the coming socioeconomic and financial storm.

Same dirty wrong'yins who have already profited millions of pounds from other peoples misery.

a reply to: andy06shake

I profit from others' misery and plan to ride out the storm.