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

Full bodied red said:
WHAT ????

It's everything to do with Brexit.

As I said last week - who brought the case in Scotland ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Who has now brought this case at the Supreme Court ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Almost every single Labour, SNP and LibDem UK politician ( and throw in a few Tories ) has shown that they don't give a shit about Democracy during the past three years - some a lot more than others.

Not too sure about lawless behaviour - the UK is hardly France or Spain or Italy. British people have a remarkably high tolerance of idiots that others in Europe don't have.

But the more that people like Miller and Benn try to ' do it ' their way, and deny the democracy of the Referendum, the more the risk arises of what you suggest. A few thousand Gilets Jaunes in Central London might concentrate the minds very quickly.

But of course, then it will be Johnson's fault. Well. on here at least....
Click to expand...


Jumping off the cliff on the basis of a 2% swing margin on an advisory vote which had a simple “in” or “out” with no further detail about what either actually meant other than the claims that were proven lies is not democracy.

Its so far been a democratic process leading towards Brexit and that democratic process may now have been illegally obstructed.
 
Pexbo said:
Jumping off the cliff on the basis of a 2% swing margin on an advisory vote which had a simple “in” or “out” with no further detail about what either actually meant other than the claims that were proven lies is not democracy.

Its so far been a democratic process leading towards Brexit and that democratic process may now have been illegally obstructed.
Click to expand...


What advisory vote ??

Is it my English that is not good enough to understand what people were told about the referendum and the implications of how they were to vote ??

Or yours ??





Anyway....Back to the court case.....
 
Full bodied red said:
What advisory vote ??

Is it my English that is not good enough to understand what people were told about the referendum and the implications of how they were to vote ??

Or yours ??





Anyway....Back to the court case.....
Click to expand...


HoCL.PNG
 
Pexbo said:
HoCL.PNG
Click to expand...
Does that mean then, if we have a second referendum, and remain wins, it's simply advisory, and MP's don't actually have to revoke Article 50?

Or if remain wins, would they do it because it's what the people want - meaning the result is only advisory when it's something you don't agree with?
 
Brownie85 said:
Does that mean then, if we have a second referendum, and remain wins, it's simply advisory, and MP's don't actually have to revoke Article 50?

Or if remain wins, would they do it because it's what the people want - meaning the result is only advisory when it's something you don't agree with?
Click to expand...

It really depends on what referendum is decided on.

Personally I’d have no problem if there was a binding referendum if a sensible Brexit deal was on the table verses Remain. I’d hope remain would win but if the people voted for a clearly defined Brexit that wasn’t going to destroy the country then I’m not sure what else would be left to do.

At least the options would be clearly defined this time and there could even be an independent report on the impact of each.
 
Full bodied red said:
What advisory vote ??

Is it my English that is not good enough to understand what people were told about the referendum and the implications of how they were to vote ??

Or yours ??





Anyway....Back to the court case.....
Click to expand...

A referendum is never binding in the UK they are always only adversary. That's part of our political system.
 
Full bodied red said:
WHAT ????

It's everything to do with Brexit.

As I said last week - who brought the case in Scotland ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Who has now brought this case at the Supreme Court ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Almost every single Labour, SNP and LibDem UK politician ( and throw in a few Tories ) has shown that they don't give a shit about Democracy during the past three years - some a lot more than others.

Not too sure about lawless behaviour - the UK is hardly France or Spain or Italy. British people have a remarkably high tolerance of idiots that others in Europe don't have.

But the more that people like Miller and Benn try to ' do it ' their way, and deny the democracy of the Referendum, the more the risk arises of what you suggest. A few thousand Gilets Jaunes in Central London might concentrate the minds very quickly.

But of course, then it will be Johnson's fault. Well. on here at least....
Click to expand...

Are you fecking kidding me....
 
Decision at 1030.

Justices present:

Lady Hale

Lord Reed
Lord Wilson
Lord Hodge
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin

The sheer number present for the decision indicates that it likely won't be 8:3 against the government. Anything from 5:6 to 7:4. Unwise to try and infer anything more.
 
owlo said:
Decision at 1030.

Justices present:

Lady Hale

Lord Reed
Lord Wilson
Lord Hodge
Lord Lloyd-Jones
Lady Arden
Lord Kitchin

The sheer number present for the decision indicates that it likely won't be 8:3 against the government. Anything from 5:6 to 7:4. Unwise to try and infer anything more.
Click to expand...

Could you explain the reasoning behind this a little please? What’s the significance of judges being present at a ruling and the indication of how they might vote?
 
Pexbo said:
Could you explain the reasoning behind this a little please? What’s the significance of judges being present at a ruling and the indication of how they might vote?
Click to expand...

Usually 3 are present for the decision, and Lady Hale would read out a brief statement. Dissenting judges may want to make a statement of their own, and are each free to do so.

It's simply a *lot* of judges. Unfortunately no indication of which way they might vote however.
 
owlo said:
Usually 3 are present for the decision, and Lady Hale would read out a brief statement. Dissenting judges may want to make a statement of their own, and are each free to do so.

It's simply a *lot* of judges. Unfortunately no indication of which way they might vote however.
Click to expand...

I see, thanks for explaining. Just had a look at those judges and I can’t place any of them at the hearing. From what I recall/watched they weren’t the ones pushing back against either side.
 
If court finds against the Government, anyone predict some riots in coming hours and days?
 
Full bodied red said:
WHAT ????

It's everything to do with Brexit.

As I said last week - who brought the case in Scotland ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Who has now brought this case at the Supreme Court ? Pro-Brexit supporters ??

Almost every single Labour, SNP and LibDem UK politician ( and throw in a few Tories ) has shown that they don't give a shit about Democracy during the past three years - some a lot more than others.

Not too sure about lawless behaviour - the UK is hardly France or Spain or Italy. British people have a remarkably high tolerance of idiots that others in Europe don't have.

But the more that people like Miller and Benn try to ' do it ' their way, and deny the democracy of the Referendum, the more the risk arises of what you suggest. A few thousand Gilets Jaunes in Central London might concentrate the minds very quickly.

But of course, then it will be Johnson's fault. Well. on here at least....
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY the kind of craziness I’m talking about. We have laws and constitutional conventions in the UK, and no you don’t get to just break them because you think you’re right.

It doesn’t matter who brings a case to court. The point is that if the courts are ruling in their favour on points of law, then the law needs to be upheld.

How is this difficult to understand? Its not a democracy if you can just ignore the democratically created laws.
 
Whatever happens, Buckland needs to resign. How can he take an oath then so obviously fail to uphold it?
 
ffs audio is messed up!

Edit - BBC website working properly now
 
Good... now get to the second ques
 
Absolutely right this isn't normal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.