Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful

The argument that Parliament had the power to prevent Prorogation and didn't, and thus that power lies with them and not with the Courts, seems to me a powerful argument, especially with regard to the N.I. bill where they did choose to use that power. Think the Govt. will win this one, but not unanimously.
 
The governments legal defence is completely different to their public defence here. There's no argument that it's normal but instead they're arguing we can do what we like as it's a political decision.
 
Smores said:
The governments legal defence is completely different to their public defence here. There's no argument that it's normal but instead they're arguing we can do what we like as it's a political decision.
Click to expand...

But, the Caf's resident Tory spin doctor was all over that original thread telling us how normal it was and how only an incompetent no nothing could think that there was any ulterior motive. You don't mean to tell us he'd been duped, do you?
 
OohAahMartial said:
The argument that Parliament had the power to prevent Prorogation and didn't, and thus that power lies with them and not with the Courts, seems to me a powerful argument, especially with regard to the N.I. bill where they did choose to use that power. Think the Govt. will win this one, but not unanimously.
Click to expand...

The problem with that argument, if I understand correctly, is that when it is parliament's intention to impinge upon prerogative powers the crown would have to consent to the bill being laid. This would be done under advice proffered by the government. If that's right, then parliaments ability to prevent prorogation isn't unfettered and does in fact rely upon the acquiescence of the very government that wants to prorogue.

I may be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
The governments legal defence is completely different to their public defence here. There's no argument that it's normal but instead they're arguing we can do what we like as it's a political decision.
Click to expand...

To be fair the government's defence is multi-layered. Eadie earlier argued that the prorogation was normal, then he took up the argument that even if it wasn't it would still be nonjusticiable
 
This is a good article that covers many of the arguments today in quite a straightforward manner. @Ekkie Thump @OohAahMartial

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/201...ion-and-the-courts-a-question-of-sovereignty/

I'm not sure I quite buy it, but its very interesting. Also interesting how the government position has become far more nuanced and indiscrete for this case, almost as if they knew they'd lose on their original grounds heavily.

There's another article on there here by Yossi Nehushtan that covers most of Allison Youngs opinion quite succinctly. (Which is very similar to my own)
 
Ps. I've counted a few potentially for and 2 against in judges leaning either way. So I think this is going to be quite close. I think Hale is leaning against the government currently, but it's very hard to tell with her.
 
I happen to own two houses in two different constituencies - both unfortunately Tory.
So. I wrote to both MP's expressing by deep anger and unease at the suspension of parliament.
I was careful to word them both differently with a different set of questions.
The first response was a nice long, rather ambling email telling me that the suspension of parliament had absolutely nothing to do with the Brexit process and was simply done to allow the party conferences and Queens Speach to go ahead. It stressed that this is the longest sitting of parliament for some 400 years. Quite what this had to do with anything was less than obvious.
Like a fool I thought this was a specific response to my specific question.

A few days later I then received the second email response. Again nice and long and rambling.
Both were exactly the same. Same words but to two different questions.
Should I have been surprised. Not at all. The only surprising thing was that I expected them not to be.
 
This scottish guy is being really poor so far - he seems to just be arguing that accepting the governments appeal against the Scottish ruling would be being mean to the scottish people. he's bringing up bannockburn for gods sake! Pannick put across much more evidence and was methodical and reasoned. This guy just seems to be wrapping himself in tartan and selling shortbread rather than legal argument.
 
Telling the court one of their previous decisions was shit seems like a pretty questionable legal strategy..
 
buchansleftleg said:
This scottish guy is being really poor so far - he seems to just be arguing that accepting the governments appeal against the Scottish ruling would be being mean to the scottish people. he's bringing up bannockburn for gods sake! Pannick put across much more evidence and was methodical and reasoned. This guy just seems to be wrapping himself in tartan and selling shortbread rather than legal argument.
Click to expand...
He's been an absolute joke so far, more like one of the street protesters.
 
His style has the effect of masking his substance - it is distracting and you're left struggling to extract the actual argument from within the bluster.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
His style has the effect of masking his substance - it is distracting and you're left struggling to extract the actual argument from within the bluster.
Click to expand...
They should pull this guy...he is harming the case with his attitude towards the judges and is just blustering rather than arguing case law. has he been nobbled or is he always this arrogant?
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
Click to expand...

he actaully said somethng along the lines of if an arsonist breaks into your house and sets fire to it and you have time to save the bathroom you cant be said to have consented to having your house burned down because you didnt have time to save the living room... it was a pretty poor analogy and it didnt seem to resonate with anybody
that said he makes a reasonable point in that to pass a law to stop the prorogation the government would have had to give it royal assent which was not guaranteed hence people focused on emergency legislation to prevent no deal
 
Buster15 said:
I happen to own two houses in two different constituencies - both unfortunately Tory.
So. I wrote to both MP's expressing by deep anger and unease at the suspension of parliament.
I was careful to word them both differently with a different set of questions.
The first response was a nice long, rather ambling email telling me that the suspension of parliament had absolutely nothing to do with the Brexit process and was simply done to allow the party conferences and Queens Speach to go ahead. It stressed that this is the longest sitting of parliament for some 400 years. Quite what this had to do with anything was less than obvious.
Like a fool I thought this was a specific response to my specific question.

A few days later I then received the second email response. Again nice and long and rambling.
Both were exactly the same. Same words but to two different questions.
Should I have been surprised. Not at all. The only surprising thing was that I expected them not to be.
Click to expand...
Blanket response to everything, toe the company line
 
golden_blunder said:
Blanket response to everything, toe the company line
Click to expand...

Quite. Which makes the reason for suspension all the more colluded. Because if it was a normal suspension it is much more likely that each MP would have given their own response.
 
Buster15 said:
I happen to own two houses in two different constituencies - both unfortunately Tory.
So. I wrote to both MP's expressing by deep anger and unease at the suspension of parliament.
I was careful to word them both differently with a different set of questions.
The first response was a nice long, rather ambling email telling me that the suspension of parliament had absolutely nothing to do with the Brexit process and was simply done to allow the party conferences and Queens Speach to go ahead. It stressed that this is the longest sitting of parliament for some 400 years. Quite what this had to do with anything was less than obvious.
Like a fool I thought this was a specific response to my specific question.

A few days later I then received the second email response. Again nice and long and rambling.
Both were exactly the same. Same words but to two different questions.
Should I have been surprised. Not at all. The only surprising thing was that I expected them not to be.
Click to expand...

Send them to Pannick.
 
So was O’Neill as bad as the news updates made him sound? It read like just pure showboating and emotional appeal to the wider audience.
 
Kentonio said:
So was O’Neill as bad as the news updates made him sound? It read like just pure showboating and emotional appeal to the wider audience.
Click to expand...
I think that some QCs go all Simon Callow at the sight of an historic case.
 
Buster15 said:
I am embarressed to say that I don't follow. Clearly I have missed something...
Click to expand...

I'm not really serious but they are clearly not doing their job if they simply give you the exact same answer to two different questions, so find someone that could do something about it.
 
Very interesting day. I'm still holding with my prediction of a judgement against the government, and keeping my money where my mouth is. Can't say there aren't nerves.

I count Hales, Wilson, Kerr against the government in principle, and possibly Black too now.

Carnwath sounded a lot sharper today [to Eadie] than you'd have expected too. And he was somebody I had in the government column.
 
So when should be the result on this?
 
Full bodied red said:
Curious what you guys do for jobs that you can spend all day watching this live....
Click to expand...

I work for the Open Society Foundations. (funded by George Soros) I'm on the outward communications team which basically promotes and protects democracy.
 
Full bodied red said:
Curious what you guys do for jobs that you can spend all day watching this live....
Click to expand...
I run a company currently trying to plan around brexit which is now kinda my job... So trying to keep abreast of what's going on is pretty critical especially so I can discuss options with shareholders who are European and frankly find it all a bit baffling with our arcane ways and the language used in courts / parliament so I'm streeming the court case and dipping in and out around meetings / calls

Suspect it will Be the same with parliament TV whenever the commons actually goes back and especially around the 19th if Boris is still in power and saying he won't ask for an extension
 
I've just spent 12 fecking hours the past two days with a bunch of EASA ( EU aviation arm ) Auditors answering stupid frckin questions to ensure that our 200+ employees and sub-contractors will get their monthly pay check for the next 12 months.

Can I get a job with any of you guys ??

I particularly fancy OWLO's place - must be great to have a zillionaire benefactor.

Edited to add - A bit like playing for PSG, really....
 
Last edited:
Full bodied red said:
I've just spent 12 fecking hours the past two days with a bunch of EASA ( EU aviation arm ) Auditors answering stupid frckin questions to ensure that our 200+ employees and sub-contractors will get their monthly pay check for the next 12 months.

Can I get a job with any of you guys ??

I particularly fancy OWLO's place - must be great to have a zillionaire benefactor.

Edited to add - A bit like playing for PSG, really....
Click to expand...

I'm a teacher - it's great, a part-time job with gauranteed full-time pay and no way to get fired!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.