cyrusr

Noticing a number of soon to be former Conservative MPs are presenting that bill.

The article deals with the much more basic principle of parliament > government in terms of sovereignty, the NI case relies upon a specific legislation that they say the the government will breach. I think it is a different type of argument but no less relevant. The point of the court cases will ultimately say to the government "you cannot pass over parliament" but remains the question as to what they do with it thereafter.

@snowychap here's the NI Court Case NI High Court Brexit challenge adjourned Basically that argument is that no-deal brexit would breach the Good Friday agreement.

Thanks, found that very interesting. Written from that persuasion but it does present a very convincing argument that even if the court accepts that the government is telling the truth about the reasoning, the impact it would have on brexit legislation it would impact upon parliamentary sovereignty. What it doesn’t address though is the remedy that the court could use. Even then, this government are presenting the case that they wouldn’t listen anyway. Whether that is true or not, only time will tell. Haven't had a chance yet, but read the other day that a 3rd case against the prorogation is going through the courts, this one in Northern Ireland. Trying to find the article again but cannot. When find it will put it up. In essence though of similar nature to Scottish one, to be heard this week as well. Along with Gina Miller’s case likely to be this week as well, it is going to be a very busy week...

Now I’ve had a chance to watch highlights, explains the comments on here in match thread. Given that even MOTD pundits can not explain it, utterly bonkers decision and clearly we were robbed of a point. I think I’ve seen that because the whistle was blown before the goal was disallowed, VAR doesn’t become involved as it wasn't one of those key decisions they can intervene on. I can understand that because if ref blows the whistle then some players will naturally stop. However whether Friend blew the whistle, well as MOTD say its debatable, clearly he didn’t. Horrific decision and I hope Villa make a formal complaint with him never referring Villa again. However, that being said we didn’t look good. We struggled to get in the game against a team that would be one of the possible rivals. The 2 yellow cards for trezeguet, first I can accept, the 2nd was harsh but I’ve seen softer cards given. I know we struggled after that particularly and being down a player it is understandable, but if we want to get points in this type of game/situations, we need to get hold of the ball and keep it. Heaton though was absolutely the best player on the pitch and that says it all. Given how many good saves he had to make, we should have been 2/3 goals down before the disallowed goal. Already worth the money and then some. We need perspective though. We have only just reached September internationals and there is a very long way to go. We have been close in all 3 games we have lost. Lessons need to be learnt but they will be, I have no doubt about that. We have 2 weeks to work with a lot of the players and West Ham will be winnable. Like Everton we will have a full villa park behind the team too.

Are the British public finally gaining back some common sense?

That’s cool - I’m having to wait for the physical copy as ordered it from Canada as it worked out about £20 cheaper including shipping... farcical really!

Clearly has nothing better to do. Immature and petty nonsense. This is someone that is meant to be representing people’s best interests?

Not had a chance to read it yet but that doesn’t surprise me. Given it can be heard properly before it has any effect, they will allow everyone to present the case fully. I am definitely intrigued by the quotes parts you highlighted in your earlier post.

Should also say, that the Courts could also make a Quashing Order, which would nullifies the executive decision to prorogue. Whether that is still applicable given it is the Queen technically doing it, that I simply have not got a clue on.

Well that may be another issue entirely, but we are trying to predict how everyone will act in an unprecedented scenario, it is somewhat difficult. Whilst there are possible outcomes of fines, even possible imprisonment for contempt (far reaching I know) it depends on how strong the Courts go. The difficulty with litigation is that there are many, many variables and factors that impact on the decision and how people act. It could be that Boris goes "well I tried" and respect the decision. It could be that he goes rogue, but that is very dangerous and would acting as a dictator and he is above the law. Yeah the Court, sorry should have made that clear. Ultimately, it is a possible huge overreach, which is what the article I posted earlier was saying. The Executive is subservient to parliament, it always has been, hence the need to go to parliament regarding Article 50, the deal etc. If there is a gap in the law, the Courts gives interpretation. All of the actions that you have said are Executive Powers, the question for the Court is whether they were right in acting in that way or not. If it ends up being a power argument between executive and parliament, parliament will win. However, with the argument getting increasingly heated and the lack of any physical law, then the Courts are likely less to want to be involved. The will also likely get into a position of considering policy, which it certainly is not keen on in anyway, shape or form. The Courts are meant to be neutral in this regard. So yeah, its quite an overreach, but not in the way that you say. The Court is being asked to meddle in something it probably would rather not. It is going to be asked questions where there are no laws and make a very politically charged decision that will be unpopular with a lot of people either way. If the decision could be avoid, then they will be happy. As such the far, far easier way would probably be through parliament itself to sort out the mess, but that requires the opposition to actually sort themselves out and speak as one, something that they have to date failed to do so. Hence the Court action. As we have previously discussed, and I think I agreed with you, it is a very convoluted way forward that is messy; however it is an option and currently is the only one that has come to fruition so far. I am also not a Constitutional Lawyer, so don't know the full ins and outs nor profess to; however, if there was no chance that this wasn't going to be successful, they simply wouldn't go for it. All that would end up is that they would pay the government lawyers a huge wad of cash. There is an argument there, how spurious it is, we shall see.

The remedy is the easy bit, its the Mandatory Order to state that Boris advises the Queen not to prorogue parliament and yes, stop the Commissioners from carrying out their roles. Parliament then carries on. The issue is, as you have pointed out, is on what decision they pin that on. They have to determine that it was unlawful move, and in essence create a law to say that "the executive cannot ask the queen to prorogue parliament" and reinforce the sovereignty of parliament. The issue of not having a written constitution though is that, nobody really knows what to do in these situations and there is nothing that the Courts can really say "you are wrong because of this Act or that Act". It maybe that when the full arguments come out, then they may have found something, put it is pure speculation at the moment.

"In theory", yes, it is a Mandatory Order that forces a government department to act in the specific way. That would be the likely remedy sought. However, as within the article, based on the points already raised, it would be a very unattractive option. It is also a big gap in the law, which the Courts will not be keen to fill. It could would it to say "there's a gap here - parliament needs to sort it now", but it would still be seen as meddling by many people and the Courts will be very, very cautious to say the least.

Possibly, possibly not. Don't forget the last challenge she did forced May to go to parliament to approve the Article 50 trigger and the deal rather than charging through on her own. If May had been allowed to do so, we would have already left with the version that she wanted without any scrutiny. This Article from UK Constitutional Law refers to an argument written in the Times by the QC for Gina Miller in the previous case which sets out the possible arguments. In easy summary this states: - However, the same article raises significant concerns, in particular the lack of statute around the area. It also relies heavily on the prorogation relates to the brexit issue, which the government is very clear it isn't. It also opens the judiciary to criticism of meddling and would not be attractive. Ultimately it would depend on the arguments that has been brought to the Court in relation to this decision. It also raises the very serious issue of time, given the last decision took 6 months to resolve. The article is very dry and legalise but interesting. It is also written from the perspective that it would be very attractive idea, but possibly flawed as stated. It may be that there are other arguments that they will use that are stronger and more convincing. Possibly testing the water and hiding their case, we don't know, but that will become clearer over the next few days/weeks. Certainly the time argument, they could argue for an interim injunction which could force Boris to act differently whilst it is going through the Courts, but even then if it goes beyond 31 October 2019, it would still be a hugely politically controversial decision. Even after all that, if they are successful, realistically they will only go so far as "it has to go back before parliament". It would then be down to parliament to sort it out, but that's fine, they have not had any problem to date in agreeing anything...

Love the lines "first focus is crystal palace" and "hope Jack is next." Well earned and fully deserved. Hopefully he will get on the pitch and get some time to show everyone what he can do.

Legal Challenges through the Courts have now commenced... Brexit: Gina Miller files for legal challenge to stop Boris Johnson's 'cynical and cowardly' plan to prorogue parliament

I’m am listening right now, the lack of balance of the “callers” is shocking. The position of “the callers” is that everyone voted just to leave so that’s what we should do. That we should stop being so scared of no deal, what will be will be. If it wasn’t so integral to me and my life, I would just give up and let them be stupid.

Possibly, but he will be the one of the main beneficiaries of “the plan” at the very least.

It is inherently flawed, but so many political bodies are. Democracy is only as good as those who vote for it and those who represent it. Sadly, they only want to represent themselves and we seem to be more that happy to vote for whatever cheap slogan solves all their problems.

Possibly, but what should be kept on being brought up is that 1) no one really campaigned for “no deal”. 2) no one realistically thought it would get to that anyway as it’s in everyone’s interest to sort out a deal. So yes parliament hasn’t helped per say, I think there other flaws inherent to the process and parliament. For starters, Wellingborough has too many MPs, I mean, there are a A LOT OF Representatives for Wellingborough in parliament that’s for sure...

I think there is definitely something behind it. Boris knows what he is doing as @tonyh29 states, he has gone too far to through it away. I think that @Chindie has got the crux of it. Either parliament will be scared into agreeing a “Boris Deal” (Mays deal with an extra bow on it) and he becomes the savour, or he’s forced to stop, making parliament/EU/anyone but Boris the fall guy, giving him (and Tories) a large chunk of brexit supporting people “because they tried”. That could stick the nail into Farage and bring those supporters to the Tories. He has to act this way as the tough persona in order to convince everyone that he is serious, and to be fair to him, it’s working. Either that, or he is truly determined to get the country f***ed and has already got his money elsewhere. Make no mistake, Boris is a very, very dangerous man. Sadly, whilst it maybe playing into his hand, not reacting is the worst thing that can be done.

Whilst the brexit issue is vastly important, but on whichever side of that fence you sit, what Boris is doing is a significant constitutional crisis. Boris is a person who, at best, was voted for by 92,153 people, is leading this country in a decision that the vast majority of his peers (MPs) don’t agree with. That is 0.14% of the population of the UK. Whilst the executive leads the country, the sovereignty has been for 100s of years within parliament and again recently confirmed through this process. If he is allowed to take to remove parliament from the decision making process, what is to stop him or another PM from doing the same for another decision? Next time there will be a different justification to remove parliament and if they cannot stop it now, they won’t be able to stop it in the future. It is one step towards an autocracy and that I hope we can all agree on, is never, ever in the best interest of anyone except for those in charge.