It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.




posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




Which is why he doesn't want to release all of the Yellow paper stuff because thats just going to land him in even deeper #. Pretty good summary there buddy.


And for all those who want to lay blame at the SNP's door. It was members of his own party who stuck the balloon in, They had texts as evidence of what he planned to do and why. The blame lies fair and square with the Tories and Johnson.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.


The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.


www.theguardian.com...

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.
edit on 11/9/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

The judgment said that Boris Johnson's intention was to deny Parliament it's say. And that his advice to the Queen and subsequent closure of Parliament (prorogation) was unlawful.

Johnson's motivation ... his sole motivation ... is to insulate the UK Government from Parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability. So he closed down Parliament. That has now been ruled unlawful.

If you ignore Brexit, a hard task I know, it's probably a very sound judgment. Governments of all persuasions need to be held to account by Parliament for their actions otherwise it's not much of a democracy, is it ?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

That is a fantastic point.

You take Brexit out of this and look at it just as a case of the PM using prorogation as a means to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by giving untruthful advice to the Queen then this become a much easier judgement to accept and understand.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them. The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


So if those same legal standards are shown in an English court and the English courts find in favour of Boris you'll accept that decision?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
a reply to: seagull

The judgment said that Boris Johnson's intention was to deny Parliament it's say. And that his advice to the Queen and subsequent closure of Parliament (prorogation) was unlawful.

Johnson's motivation ... his sole motivation ... is to insulate the UK Government from Parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability. So he closed down Parliament. That has now been ruled unlawful.

If you ignore Brexit, a hard task I know, it's probably a very sound judgment. Governments of all persuasions need to be held to account by Parliament for their actions otherwise it's not much of a democracy, is it ?


It is a sound judgement IF you make up the law of the land on a case by case basis.
If you take the laws as they stand, then the Scottish court had no standing to make the ruling they did.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: UKTruth




So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them. The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


So if those same legal standards are shown in an English court and the English courts find in favour of Boris you'll accept that decision?


IF and ONLY IF they show the specific law and/or precedent that they are referring to in order to make a determination.
We must not accept judges making up laws to push their political opinions.

FWIW I am not in favour of a 5 week proroguing of Parliament, however the argument that it stopped Parliament from challenging a no-deal exit is clearly false - as they have done exactly that and had time to implement law.

My main concern is that we do not accept judge shopping by well funded activists.
edit on 11/9/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Some good news in all this carp, Conservative stance from Kwasi Kwarteng to Nigel Farage and his party, is no deal of any kind with the Brexit party, if BJ gets some sort of deal from the EU and does not make a coalition with the Brexit party, he may come out of this with a better reputation than his current PM status.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.


The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.


So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: TheShippingForecast

That is a fantastic point.

You take Brexit out of this and look at it just as a case of the PM using prorogation as a means to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by giving untruthful advice to the Queen then this become a much easier judgement to accept and understand.


No, it isn't easy to understand without the judge referring us to the specific law he or she considered.
I am not unsympathetic to the view that we can;t have a PM closing down parliament whenever he or she wants and for long periods of time, but we are a nation of laws. We can't create law in the courts.
The route to stopping a PM doing this is in Parliament - with new legislation agreed in the House of Commons and the House of Lords and signed into law.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
If Boris gets away with closing parliament to circumvent the will of parliament without a legal challenge then what's to stop the SNP closing Hollyrood and pushing through Independence, what's to stop the Welsh assembly from doing the same. Do you see the dangers here? These things need to be challenged.

The eventual outcome could see a total shift in how we do politics and law in the UK.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.


The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.


So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.


A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

edit on 11/9/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: seagull
He lied to the Queen, Parliament and the public. It was clear from the start he lied. The 75 cross party MP's had the evidence, knew he was about to lie and the clown still went ahead with it. It was a clear cut in the eyes of the law what his end game was. Guilty.


No one knows if he actually lied or not without his testimony on the matter. It is pure conjecture to definitively say that he lied. This is where i think this ruling actually falls down - the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence. If you were a defendant in a similar situation, no right minded individual would dispute your right to a retrial, calling it a miscarriage of justice. This being the case, why should it be different for the government?



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: UpIsNowDown




Some good news in all this carp, Conservative stance from Kwasi Kwarteng to Nigel Farage and his party, is no deal of any kind with the Brexit party, if BJ gets some sort of deal from the EU and does not make a coalition with the Brexit party, he may come out of this with a better reputation than his current PM status.

The Eu is done negotiating, Boris is not even trying for another deal because he's # all to offer differently. Boris has had a guy in the Eu all week and all he's done is sit and drink coffee. He's only there for show, but the likes of the BBC won't report that.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.


The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.


So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.


A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.


Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
If Boris gets away with closing parliament to circumvent the will of parliament without a legal challenge then what's to stop the SNP closing Hollyrood and pushing through Independence, what's to stop the Welsh assembly from doing the same. Do you see the dangers here? These things need to be challenged.

The eventual outcome could see a total shift in how we do politics and law in the UK.


I see bigger danger in the Courts making decisions outside the law.
Parliament have the tools to create law.
The control of parliament is the people - via elections. It is not the court's role to get involved.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian




the decision has been made on opinion without proper evidence.

Do you believe the judges in Scotland are somewhat inferior to judges in England?, trust me, they know the law inside and out. Scottish law as a model going way back is used worldwide including England.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.


I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?


It's completely within their remit.


The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.


So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.


The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.


A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.


Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.


Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.



posted on Sep, 11 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
If Boris loses at the supreme court do you think he'll take it to the European courts



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join