Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

Just now, snowychap said:

Expect a new prorogation announcement within the next couple of days. ;)

They haven't ruled it out. Whether this will be legit or not will be set out in the full judgment, but this is a big loss for the government. Exceptionally pleased that the Courts have supported the parliamentary sovereignty argument.

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

Yep. It'll be interesting to see the next steps.

I owe you an apology for my skepticism about the intervention of the courts earlier in the thread!

Don't worry about it; I appreciate that the way things have been, it is hard to believe that something will go right! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, desensitized43 said:

They can't prorogue if it has the effect of restricting parliaments ability to hold the government to account...for whatever reason. That's the judgement.

I may be wrong but I think it's a judgment on this particular prorogation - 'this case is a one off'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, snowychap said:

I may be wrong but I think it's a judgment on this particular prorogation - 'this case is a one off'.

Need to read the full judgment, but I understood it to be "of course we can intervene" and each time it comes to Court has to be decided on the facts. The test will be "does it stop parliament doing its job?" On this occasion, "definitely!". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Verdict went as expected I can't imagine anyone is surprised by the decision other than it being unanimous perhaps

 

I saw comments that 6-5 would have been more likely but unanimous shows that he has no leg to stand on, and must resign.

Edited by StefanAVFC
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cyrusr said:

Need to read the full judgment, but I understood it to be "of course we can intervene" and each time it comes to Court has to be decided on the facts. The test will be "does it stop parliament doing its job?" On this occasion, "definitely!". 

It sounded like that to me, too.

I wonder whether they might push it again and whether the court might come to a different conclusion for a shorter prorogation.

If Parliament sits later on or tomorrow then surely they need to take control of the order papaer again and attempt to take back the power to prorogue from the PM becuase if they don't then it might give a little more weight to the argument put forward by Lord Keen last week on the basis of 'why didn't they try it this time given what had happened?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

I thought to myself, how long after the decision comes out until someone on VT says its was obvious/expected :lol: 

if you followed the case and commentators then you'd have known it was the likely outcome (see Stefans comment after mine for example)   ... fear not , had Boris won I'd have been taking bets on corrupt judges comments filling the forum

the only real surprise was as i say , that it was unanimous

Edited by tonyh29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

if you followed the case and commentators then you'd have known it was the likely outcome (see Stefans comment after mine for example)   ... fear not , had Boris won I'd have been taking bets on corrupt judges comments filling the forum

the only real surprise was as i say , that it was unanimous

Don't judge us all by Daily Mail standards...some of us respect the law having never had so much as a speeding ticket or parking fine...ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

How's it work with the Conference parties going on? Parliament wouldn't be sitting anyway.

Depending on who you ask I think it means parliament will come back 3 days earlier now :)

 

but it could reconvene on Weds , just at the moment Johnson is due to address the Tory party conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

if you followed the case and commentators then you'd have known it was the likely outcome (see Stefans comment after mine for example)   ... fear not , had Boris won I'd have been taking bets on corrupt judges comments filling the forum

the only real surprise was as i say , that it was unanimous

Having followed it as closely as is realistically possible without being in the courtroom, pretty much everyone I saw said that it was likely to be somewhere between 6-5 to 8-3 in one direction or another. And that even if they found against the Government then they had no idea what the remedy would be, or even if a remedy were needed.

Who were the confident ones who were sure of what the result was going to be?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

Having followed it as closely as is realistically possible without being in the courtroom, pretty much everyone I saw said that it was likely to be somewhere between 6-5 to 8-3 in one direction or another. And that even if they found against the Government then they had no idea what the remedy would be, or even if a remedy were needed.

Who were the confident ones who were sure of what the result was going to be?

:mrgreen:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

How's it work with the Conference parties going on? Parliament wouldn't be sitting anyway.

Parliament didn't get the chance to decide whether it would adjourn for party conferences.

Anyway, there is a huge difference between Prorogation and Parliament being adjourned (Lords/written questions to Ministers/Select Committees).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â