UK Parliament suspension 'unlawful, void'

[L.A.T.1961]

The suspension was "unlawful, void and of no effect", the UK's Supreme Court concluded on Tuesday.

 

The high court today decided it was a good idea to step into the political arena, the Remain team was hoping for a fudge ruling that did not go as far as this but they had no control over the outcome once the ball was rolling.

Once the court felt justified in declaring the decision unlawful there was only one final outcome which was to ignore the original proroguing and continue with the previous sitting of parliament.

There will be implications from this ruling going forward.

The EU will feel emboldened and not deal with the UK government as remainers appear to gain the initiative.

But the fact the old session of parliament is still sitting will stop the old May deal coming back and voted on yet again.

This reduces the options available to avoid a no deal brexit. Which is why the remain team wanted a different verdict. 

 

Link1: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/uk/government-loses-supreme-court-suspension-case-gbr-intl/index.html

Link2: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49810261

Link3: https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1W9124-OCATP

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Daughter of the Nine Moons
add links

[TigerBright19]

The same court that released the Lockerbie bomber?

Boris may be forced to ask for an extension, but there is nothing which says he must sign it.  If there is a second referendum public opinion will still be the same and Leave will win again.

 

 

31st October 2019

 

 

 

[Bella-Angelique]

How long can they stay sitting now, until each one dies in office or decides to leave? What a grim state of affairs.

[+OverSword]

Your government sucks (too)  Leave EU and become the 51st State.  For a bonus we will give you each the gun of your choice.

Edited September 24, 2019 by OverSword

[RAyMO]

3 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

1. Boris may be forced to ask for an extension, but there is nothing which says he must sign it.  2. If there is a second referendum public opinion will still be the same and Leave will win again.

1. I doubt even he would stupid enough to rely on this as a legal defence.

2. evidence suggests otherwise - but feel free to put it to the test. - oh but this time actually make the referendum binding - nothing worse than an advisory referendum!

[RAyMO]

1 hour ago, Bella-Angelique said:

How long can they stay sitting now, until each one dies in office or decides to leave? What a grim state of affairs.

its nothing to do with how long they sit - there will be an election (mutually agreed) in November but even if there was not one, the length of the parliament is defined in statute as 5 years - which is 2022. last election having been 2017

what this was about, was a prime Minister closing parliament so that it  couldn't challenge his policies.

Edited September 24, 2019 by RAyMO

[Bella-Angelique]

Since the judicial branch is now dictating what other branches of government may and may not do, it really does not matter what any procedural statute says. The judicial branch already did their coup and seized power over all of that. They can pick and choose what they wish to happen or not.

[RAyMO]

6 minutes ago, Bella-Angelique said:

Since the judicial branch is now dictating what other branches of government may and may not do, it really does not matter what any procedural statute says. The judicial branch already did their coup and seized power over all of that. They can pick and choose what they wish to happen or not.

No this merely said that what the Prime Minister did of his own bat, without the support of paliament was illegal. We don't have presidential style democracy here - we have a parliamentary democracy.

The problem for Boris and his government is that they don't command a majority in the Parliament and since the majority don't trust him they will not let him call an election on his terms and timescales as Boris would use this to get a no deal brexit by default.

Edited September 24, 2019 by RAyMO

[Bella-Angelique]

Parliament did not make the decision and move onward with its agenda on its own. The court did it. That is a power move of judicial over both executive and legislative branches in controlling government processes outside of judicial. 

Without a constitution separating powers of different branches, power bases can shift and claim areas outside of what they currently contain, with even a dictatorship through the executive branch possible. It is why many nations have constitutions, and not just an ever evolving body of case laws and legislation.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Bella-Angelique

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

How long can they stay sitting now, until each one dies in office or decides to leave? What a grim state of affairs.

huh? 

[Space Commander Travis]

What I find rather ironical is that the same people who were saying, when the current, possibly shortest-lived Prime Minister in history, was chosen by the Party without the voters having any choice in it whatsoever, that this was how Representative Democracy works, and we elect our local MPs and not the chief executive, because that's how it is, will now, I've no doubt whatsoever, be declaring loudly how outrageous it is that Parliament should be allowed to decide things.  

[Setton]

5 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

The suspension was "unlawful, void and of no effect", the UK's Supreme Court concluded on Tuesday.

 

The high court today decided it was a good idea to step into the political arena, the Remain team was hoping for a fudge ruling that did not go as far as this but they had no control over the outcome once the ball was rolling.

 

Hahaha hahaha you're actually trying to spin this as a defeat for remain?! 

Priceless. 

Your precious unelected PM has just been found to have broken the law in pursuit of your undemocratic goal. You. Are. Losing. 

Again. 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, Bella-Angelique said:

How long can they stay sitting now, until each one dies in office or decides to leave? What a grim state of affairs.

Until the 5 year session runs out. Or a majority of parliament vote for one. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Your government sucks (too)  Leave EU and become the 51st State.  For a bonus we will give you each the gun of your choice.

Our government certainly does. Our courts however, remain fortunately independent of that government so we'll pass for now thanks. 

[Setton]

4 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

  If there is a second referendum public opinion will still be the same and Leave will win again.

Odd then that you've been desperate to avoid one for 3 years. 

Whenever you're ready. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, Bella-Angelique said:

Parliament did not make the decision and move onward with its agenda on its own. The court did it. That is a power move of judicial over both executive and legislative branches in controlling government processes outside of judicial. 

Without a constitution separating powers of different branches, power bases can shift and claim areas outside of what they currently contain, with even a dictatorship through the executive branch possible. It is why many nations have constitutions, and not just an ever evolving body of case laws and legislation.

You really haven't a clue what just happened or how the UK works, have you? 

[Duke Wellington]

4 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

The same court that released the Lockerbie bomber?

Boris may be forced to ask for an extension, but there is nothing which says he must sign it.  If there is a second referendum public opinion will still be the same and Leave will win again.

 

 

31st October 2019

 

 

 

He could say yes I will sign and extension, then go on holiday forcing his removal via a vote of no confidence (a General Election).

[Setton]

3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

He could say yes I will sign and extension, then go on holiday forcing his removal via a vote of no confidence (a General Election).

Thereby not signing it, thereby breaking the law. Again. 

You do realise the PM of the United Kingdom can't just pop off on holiday whenever likes, right? Please?! 

[TigerBright19]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Odd then that you've been desperate to avoid one for 3 years. 

Whenever you're ready. 

Nobody is desperate to avoid another referendum.  There just is no point.  Parliament accepted the result and implemented Article 50.  The negotiation deadline was reached, and delayed, again, and again, and again.  The public are sick of it.  Parliament seems to hold the people with contempt and refuses to accept the result of the first referendum, despite saying they did accept it.  It is understandable that the public will naturally not be so enthusiastic to vote a second time, which will make a second vote / third vote /  fourth vote a joke to democracy.  Trump won the election, but imagine if the opposition party was allowed to contest that result and demand another election, and as many as they can get, until the result is in their favour.

 

[Setton]

5 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Nobody is desperate to avoid another referendum.  There just is no point.  Parliament accepted the result and implemented Article 50.  The negotiation deadline was reached, and delayed, again, and again, and again.  The public are sick of it.  Parliament seems to hold the people with contempt and refuses to accept the result of the first referendum, despite saying they did accept it.  It is understandable that the public will naturally not be so enthusiastic to vote a second time, which will make a second vote / third vote /  fourth vote a joke to democracy.  Trump won the election, but imagine if the opposition party was allowed to contest that result and demand another election, and as many as they can get, until the result is in their favour.

Parliament has spent 3 years trying to implement the result. As they are unable to (due to the vague nature of the first referendum), I'd say a second is the best way to break the deadlock. 

Yet a single mention of it has all the no deal supporters running scared. Why? Because they know the people don't want their vision for Brexit. They tried to pull a fast one and abuse the mandate the people did give them and they have failed. 

[Duke Wellington]

17 minutes ago, Setton said:

Thereby not signing it, thereby breaking the law. Again. 

You do realise the PM of the United Kingdom can't just pop off on holiday whenever likes, right? Please?! 

Of course he can, he has a passport.

[Setton]

1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Of course he can, he has a passport.

Yikes. You actually are that clueless. 

Moving on then... 

[RoofGardener]

11 minutes ago, Setton said:

Parliament has spent 3 years trying to implement the result. As they are unable to (due to the vague nature of the first referendum), I'd say a second is the best way to break the deadlock. 

Yet a single mention of it has all the no deal supporters running scared. Why? Because they know the people don't want their vision for Brexit. They tried to pull a fast one and abuse the mandate the people did give them and they have failed. 

The refferendum question was NOT vague. It simply asked: do you want to leave the european union, or remain in it. 

It was parliament - who had ALWAYS favoured remaining - that suddenly twisted this into a "Withdrawal Agreement", in which we leave SOME aspects of the European Union, but not all of them. That is NOT what the referendum said ! 

I am very saddened by the Supreme Courts decision. I just HOPE that Boris Johnson can find some way of continuing with a "true" brexit.  

[TigerBright19]

9 minutes ago, Setton said:

Parliament has spent 3 years trying to implement the result. As they are unable to (due to the vague nature of the first referendum), I'd say a second is the best way to break the deadlock. 

Yet a single mention of it has all the no deal supporters running scared. Why? Because they know the people don't want their vision for Brexit. They tried to pull a fast one and abuse the mandate the people did give them and they have failed. 

We all know the 2nd referendum will intentionally be used to split the Leave vote and allow remain to win.  e.g.

25% vote for Hard Brexit - (Leave without a deal)

27% vote for Soft Brexit - (Leave with a negotiated deal)

48% vote to Remain - (Revoke Article 50)

 

[L.A.T.1961]

26 minutes ago, Setton said:

Hahaha hahaha you're actually trying to spin this as a defeat for remain?! 

Priceless. 

Your precious unelected PM has just been found to have broken the law in pursuit of your undemocratic goal. You. Are. Losing. 

Again. 

The remain legal team only wanted a judgement saying proroguing was unlawful, that would have allowed parliament to be called back for a new term. The ruling today has reinstated the old session and so there is no chance of the EU seeing the May deal signed off as it cannot be allowed back without significant change.

The remainers wanted maximum flexibility to set things up as they wanted, the court today has given them a win but also tied their hands by saying what happens next. 

I am sure remainers would have taken great delight in voting down the governments Queens speech but there won't be one now to vote against. 

[Space Commander Travis]

1 minute ago, Aaron2016 said:

We all know the 2nd referendum will intentionally be used to split the Leave vote and allow remain to win.  e.g.

25% vote for Hard Brexit - (Leave without a deal)

27% vote for Soft Brexit - (Leave with a negotiated deal)

48% vote to Remain - (Revoke Article 50)

 

Doesn't that rather suggest that, if you suspect that that's likely to be the sort of proportions, the rather fanatical insistence on a Hard Brexit insisted on by some might not in fact be representative of the nation as a whole, and might just be the desire of a more hardline element?