The Student Room Group

Suspending Parliament was unlawful, court rules

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Fullofsurprises
Afaik he's the only PM in history to cancel Parliament because he has no workable majority to get anything through.


Macdonald in 1930 prorogued Parliament for exactly that reason.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
This is interesting - what's your theory there? That the government instructed bad behaviour as an additional part of the 'blame anyone but Boris' strategy, eg, set it up so that he can then include the courts as part of the conspiracy of the elites against the people election? We're really getting deep into Trump territory now, aren't we.


I think the Boris and his circle closed off the ability for their lawyers to put forward a winning case.
Original post by Deyesy
But it's not really the 'will of the people'. I am all for respecting the result of the referendum - I vehemently believe we should leave (even though I'm a remainer) as it'd be terrible for our democracy. 48% of those who voted, voted to remain. To say it's the will of the people is nonsense.


What is nonsense about the majority wanting Brexit and stating that it was the will of the people? Scotland voted 60% for Remain and the SNPs shout that they are pushing for the will of the Scottish people. Isn't it double standards?
Original post by nulli tertius
I think the Boris and his circle closed off the ability for their lawyers to put forward a winning case.

Due to incompetence or malice?
Reply 84
Avatar for Deyesy
Deyesy
20
Original post by Wired_1800
What is nonsense about the majority wanting Brexit and stating that it was the will of the people? Scotland voted 60% for Remain and the SNPs shout that they are pushing for the will of the Scottish people. Isn't it double standards?

If it was a higher majority, I'd agree with you.
Original post by Wired_1800
Can you elaborate on how the Government’s legal team handled it badly?


By arguing for a power that was unconstained rather than a power that was constrained but not so as to prevent what had occurred.

An Act of Parliament, the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, says that Parliament has to meet by 10th September 2022. Authority for Corporation Tax ceases on 31 March 2020 and Income Tax on 5 April 2020. Military discipline would cease to be enforcible on 11 May 2020 (and arguably the existence of the Army and Royal Air Force but not the Royal Navy would cease to be legal after that date)

Do you think this is Johnson’s Nixon moment?


Possibly. I wonder if things will run away from him over the next two or three days.
Waiting for the papers start to brand them as "traitors" again, or use the phrase "unelected judges".
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Due to incompetence or malice?


I think the malice is incidental. It is the incompetence that is operative.
Original post by nulli tertius
I think the malice is incidental. It is the incompetence that is operative.

It was kind of an unwinnable case wasn't it? He told the public (and one must assume therefore, the Queen - perish the thought that we get one version and she gets the true version, that would be dreadful) that it was all down to prepping for an exciting new Queen's Speech. He told the court it was all just politics as usual.

The trouble with lying all the time is that eventually even the more gullible finally cotton on.
Original post by nulli tertius
Macdonald in 1930 prorogued Parliament for exactly that reason.

Yet he had a massive majority - as the leader of the National government - what were the circumstances of that? I thought people were generally referring to the dissolution after the confidence vote in 1924, which was dissimilar to the current situation in that the King had the agreement of all main party leaders.
Original post by SHallowvale
Waiting for the papers start to brand them as "traitors" again, or use the phrase "unelected judges".

The Mail is usually the cheerleader for that approach, but perhaps under their new editor they are being a bit more cautious about the rhetoric. Dacre was a shameless slander-merchant and whipper-upper of the masses in the fascist mould.
Original post by nulli tertius
By arguing for a power that was unconstained rather than a power that was constrained but not so as to prevent what had occurred.

An Act of Parliament, the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, says that Parliament has to meet by 10th September 2022. Authority for Corporation Tax ceases on 31 March 2020 and Income Tax on 5 April 2020. Military discipline would cease to be enforcible on 11 May 2020 (and arguably the existence of the Army and Royal Air Force but not the Royal Navy would cease to be legal after that date)



Possibly. I wonder if things will run away from him over the next two or three days.


What?

“An Act of Parliament, the Meeting of Parliament Act 1694, says that Parliament has to meet by 10th September 2022. Authority for Corporation Tax ceases on 31 March 2020 and Income Tax on 5 April 2020. Military discipline would cease to be enforcible on 11 May 2020 (and arguably the existence of the Army and Royal Air Force but not the Royal Navy would cease to be legal after that date)”

What do you mean by the above?

it would be interesting to see how things play out.
Original post by Deyesy
If it was a higher majority, I'd agree with you.

The issue is that “higher majority” is subjective. If it was 60%, people would want 75%. If it was 75%, people would want 80%. This argument is a bit ridiculous IMHO.
That magical time in the electoral cycle has arrived when it has become necessary to send the Prime Minister to prison forthwith.

borisprison.jpg
Reply 94
Avatar for Deyesy
Deyesy
20
Original post by Wired_1800
The issue is that “higher majority” is subjective. If it was 60%, people would want 75%. If it was 75%, people would want 80%. This argument is a bit ridiculous IMHO.

You could argue the same thing for Brexit...
He'll blame Cummings then Cummings will become a whistle blower and reveal just what a complete web of lies, bigotry and deceit the Vote Leave campaign was! Cameron and Cummings in cahoots... whatever next?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
That magical time in the electoral cycle has arrived when it has become necessary to send the Prime Minister to prison forthwith.

borisprison.jpg

At least he might get a decent haircut there.
Original post by Deyesy
You could argue the same thing for Brexit...


That is exactly the point. Foolish people want to move the goal post to argue against Brexit. Some say that 52% is not a good majority, but I bet if it was 60% they would still want a higher percentage.
Original post by Wired_1800
That is exactly the point. Foolish people want to move the goal post to argue against Brexit. Some say that 52% is not a good majority, but I bet if it was 60% they would still want a higher percentage.

Better than running into it over and over... no wonder Gove has that surprised carrot look.
Original post by mojojojo101
My point is that case and ruling is significantly more important than Brexit which appears to have soared right over your head.

Not at all, it's just you're incapable of understanding alternate view points seems to be closer to the truth. I've said this is bigger than brexit nearly in different words.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you