Let's give a big thank you to Gina Miller Watch

DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#21
Report 3 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Ah yes, Gina miller, a super rich businesswoman who clearly has too much time and money on hands....
The case was crowd funded.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Absolutely unbelievable, are you actually happy with Americanisation of our political system without the political constitutions in place to regulate the courts.

The legal profession has been trying to get their teeth into poltics for a while. Gina Miller may of made it easier but thanking her really?

You just wait till brexit is over, and the can of worms spread out, we will see how happy you are with Gina miller then
Nonsense. Read the judgement.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#22
Report 3 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by DSilva)
So should a Prime Minister be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, for any amount of time, whenever they choose, with no restrictions at all?

Have you read the judgement of the Court?
Yes and you are talking like parliaments prorogation was until November the first, it wasn't and parliamentarians still had their voice. Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#23
Report 3 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by DSilva)
The case was crowd funded.


Nonsense. Read the judgement.
I have and it's not nonsense
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#24
Report 3 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Yes and you are talking like parliaments prorogation was until November the first, it wasn't and parliamentarians still had their voice. Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!
So if a PM wants to prorogue Parliament for six months that's fine? How about a year, or two years? If a PM wanted to rejoin the EU but Parliament kept voting it down, you would have no issue with that PM proroging Parliament to force it through?

It sets a dangerous precedent if there are no limits at all on a government's ability to suspend the legislature.
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I have and it's not nonsense
If you have, you'd know why it was, and why constitutionally this was the correct decision. Are you a Constitutional lawyer, or even a lawyer? If not then it's rather bizarre to say the highest judges in the land were incorrect. It would be like a non medically trained person telling the top doctor in the country that their diagnosis was wrong.

What exactly did they get wrong? Which errors did they make in their judgement which you have managed to pick up on? I'm keen to understand the legal errors you think they made.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 3 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Well maybe you could explain why a minority labour goverment proroged in the 1930 if it were not to close down scrutiny over the general strike and its handling of it? Or why John Major did in the 90's?
Maybe I could, or maybe you could bog off with that irrelevant nonsense. What makes you think that because I oppose BoJo's anti-democratic actions that I would not also oppose anti-democratic actions from the Labour party? I've never even voted Labour.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Well let's see, its apprajt to me only hard core remainers seem to be happy about this. For a neutral decision.......
This simply isn't true. There are at least some level-headed leave-supporters who accept that democracy is more important than getting their own way as quickly as possible. The number is sadly dwindling, as it often does in fascist uprisings, but not all hope is lost yet.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
This is not a decision we should be happy with, its actually quite worrying. It opens doors and could spiral, I can see backfiring on Corbyn if he does win power, opening up to poltical morals is a exceptionally grey area the courts if the UK have been absent.
Oh do tell. What doors will this open? What spirals will unfold? Imagine living in a country where the executive was upheld to the legal framework created by a soverign parliament... oh the horror!

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!
People didn't vote for no deal. Quit your bullcrap.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 3 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Dez)
Maybe I could, or maybe you could bog off with that irrelevant nonsense. What makes you think that because I oppose BoJo's anti-democratic actions that I would not also oppose anti-democratic actions from the Labour party? I've never even voted Labour.



This simply isn't true. There are at least some level-headed leave-supporters who accept that democracy is more important than getting their own way as quickly as possible. The number is sadly dwindling, as it often does in fascist uprisings, but not all hope is lost yet.



Oh do tell. What doors will this open? What spirals will unfold? Imagine living in a country where the executive was upheld to the legal framework created by a soverign parliament... oh the horror!



People didn't vote for no deal. Quit your bullcrap.
You're the one talking bull as you crudly and unceremoniously put it.

Lol :rofl3:lets refocus, you made an incorrect statement, so I pointed out two prorogations in our past which proved you're statement wrong and you're response, you call it irrelevant nonsense? Then create a stawman about what i think, you think and get that wrong too. I don't care who you vote for or what you think of John Majors Majors prorogation! The facts are you claimed this had never happened, i proved it has and that's not irrelevant nonsense just because you dont hold the knowledge too debate it.

You need to learn what you are talking about rather than trying to look smart. If you believe this does not set a precedent then you need to provide me with information of uk courts intervening in political opinion previously to Miller.

The brexit party have no manifesto and no policy apart from no deal. They won the last national election, over the lib dems, conservative, ukip, labour etc. And you actually think nobody has voted for no deal, do you? Or are you just sucking up the nonsense you're political heros are feeding you?
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 3 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by DSilva)
So if a PM wants to prorogue Parliament for six months that's fine? How about a year, or two years? If a PM wanted to rejoin the EU but Parliament kept voting it down, you would have no issue with that PM proroging Parliament to force it through?

It sets a dangerous precedent if there are no limits at all on a government's ability to suspend the legislature. .
No that's not what I'm saying at all, you are blowing up my words out of all proportion. I'm saying the courts should not become politicised and Johnson has not dont anything other governments in the past have also done.


(Original post by DSilva)
f you have, you'd know why it was, and why constitutionally this was the correct decision. Are you a Constitutional lawyer, or even a lawyer? If not then it's rather bizarre to say the highest judges in the land were incorrect. It would be like a non medically trained person telling the top doctor in the country that their diagnosis was wrong.

What exactly did they get wrong? Which errors did they make in their judgement which you have managed to pick up on? I'm keen to understand the legal errors you think they made.
No I'm not a lawyer, and im not saying theh have made legal errors, I'm saying - and I refer you to what I said in my above sentence
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 3 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
No that's not what I'm saying at all, you are blowing up my words out of all proportion. I'm saying the courts should not become politicised and Johnson has not dont anything other governments in the past have also done.




No I'm not a lawyer, and im not saying theh have made legal errors, I'm saying - and I refer you to what I said in my above sentence
I think that you need to prove that these judges relied on extra-legal norms, instead of established legal norms, in reaching their judgment

Judges routinely make judgments that may be politically or socially controversial or which may have an effect on large swathes of the population. This doesn't make them 'politicised'
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#29
Report 3 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
No that's not what I'm saying at all, you are blowing up my words out of all proportion. I'm saying the courts should not become politicised and Johnson has not dont anything other governments in the past have also done.


In what sense have they become politicised? The use of the prerogative power is not legally unlimited and is subject to legal constraints such as the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty.

The matter before them was a legal matter. The fact it is related to a politically voaltilie issue is no reason for a Court not to rule on the legal issues contained within. This is explained very clearly in the court's judgement.

What exactly was political about their decision?


No I'm not a lawyer, and im not saying theh have made legal errors, I'm saying - and I refer you to what I said in my above sentence
So they haven't made any legal errors, yet you're saying the decision is wrong? That makes no sense.
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 3 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Lol :rofl3:lets refocus, you made an incorrect statement, so I pointed out two prorogations in our past which proved you're statement wrong and you're response, you call it irrelevant nonsense?
It is irrelevant. If these prior examples were relevant and pertinent they would have been successfully used by the government to argue their case. The government lost their case, ergo these historical examples are not important.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Then create a stawman about what i think, you think and get that wrong too. I don't care who you vote for or what you think of John Majors Majors prorogation! The facts are you claimed this had never happened, i proved it has and that's not irrelevant nonsense just because you dont hold the knowledge too debate it.
I never claimed that parliament had never been prorogued before, or even done so under extraordinary circumstances. What I said was that there was no valid historical precedent, which as I explained above, is provably true because if there had been, the government would have been able to cite it in their case.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You need to learn what you are talking about rather than trying to look smart. If you believe this does not set a precedent then you need to provide me with information of uk courts intervening in political opinion previously to Miller.
Again, I never said it doesn't set a precedent. Stop putting words into my mouth. In fact I rather hope this does set a precedent of the UK not allowing HM's government to ride roughshod over our parliamentary democracy.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
The brexit party have no manifesto and no policy apart from no deal. They won the last national election, over the lib dems, conservative, ukip, labour etc. And you actually think nobody has voted for no deal, do you? Or are you just sucking up the nonsense you're political heros are feeding you?
Yes they "won", with a massive 30.5% of the vote. The LDs, greens and SNP, all of whom clearly oppose a no deal Brexit, returned 35% of the vote combined. So tell me again about how no deal "won" exactly?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#31
Brexiteers who allegedly wanted to return powers to Britain showing their true spots in this saga, accusing the UK supreme court of various things and demanding that the government rule as a dictatorship. It would seem that the claim that Brexit was about solid British values and returning power to our constitution was so much humbug. Brexit is about racism and xenophobia and activating the powers of an extremely right wing oligarchy and nothing whatever to do with our traditions.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#32
Report 3 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Dez)
It is irrelevant. If these prior examples were relevant and pertinent they would have been successfully used by the government to argue their case. The government lost their case, ergo these historical examples are not important.



I never claimed that parliament had never been prorogued before, or even done so under extraordinary circumstances. What I said was that there was no valid historical precedent, which as I explained above, is provably true because if there had been, the government would have been able to cite it in their case.



Again, I never said it doesn't set a precedent. Stop putting words into my mouth. In fact I rather hope this does set a precedent of the UK not allowing HM's government to ride roughshod over our parliamentary democracy.



Yes they "won", with a massive 30.5% of the vote. The LDs, greens and SNP, all of whom clearly oppose a no deal Brexit, returned 35% of the vote combined. So tell me again about how no deal "won" exactly?
You get very uptight and defensive when you start too loose the debate, don't you

They are relevant, if the government used them in defence or not is besides the point. The point was johnson has he's done nothing that's not been done in the past. Should other prorogations of undergone this type of scrutiny then many historic prorogations would have been overturned. Which is the point I started from before you led me on a wild goose chase to make a incorrect point. :rolleyes:

I suggest before you start claiming you can do things you blatantly can't and crudly telling me to "bog off with that irrelevant nonsense" you learn some history so you dont look silly.

You're stawman creation continues, I never no deal won, let revisit what was said;

BB - Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!

Dez - People didn't vote for no deal. Quit your bullcrap.

Ok so you back on track with what was said now. I never said how no deal "won". You have got yourself confused. So you said nobidy voted for no deal, Well thats wrong. 31% of people in the last European elections voted a party who has no other policy, just to be 100% clear for you thats zero, none, zitch policy other than no deal. So clearly people have voted for no deal, because there us no reason to vote for TBP other than if they want no deal.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Justvisited
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 3 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Brexit is about racism and xenophobia and activating the powers of an extremely right wing oligarchy and nothing whatever to do with our traditions.
Hmm, Brexit is actually about facing up to what J-C Juncker himself alluded to a few days ago, that the Brits were never wholeheartedly in the EU project, i.e. we and Brussels were and are heading in/towards different visions of the future, so this will simply give explicit legal form to what has more or less been true since at least 1992....
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#34
Report 3 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Burton Bridge)

They are relevant, if the government used them in defence or not is besides the point. The point was johnson has he's done nothing that's not been done in the past. Should other prorogations of undergone this type of scrutiny then many historic prorogations would have been overturned. Which is the point I started from before you led me on a wild goose chase to make a incorrect point. :rolleyes:
The Court's judgement deals with this point quite comprehensively. The vast majority of prorogations take only 4-6 days, not 5 weeks. While proroguing for a short period of time to prepare for a Queen's Speech is perfectly legal, the government provided no justification whatsoever for the length of the prorogation.

There may have been other cases of lengthy prorogations in the past, but it appears no one brought it before the courts. The court can only make a decision if a case is brought to its door. Our constitution constantly evolves as the common law develops. Something that may not have been unawful decades ago could well be now. That's how our legal system has always worked.


BB - Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!
That's not relevant to the legal issue at hand. You can't just suspend Parliament because you think it's had 'enough' time to scrutinise. Parliamentary sovereignty is the cornerstone of our constitution - it requires a seriously good reason to prorogue.

How has the court become politicised? In what sense?[/quote]
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#35
Report 3 weeks ago
#35
(Original post by DSilva)
In what sense have they become politicised? The use of the prerogative power is not legally unlimited and is subject to legal constraints such as the rule of law and Parliamentary sovereignty.

The matter before them was a legal matter. The fact it is related to a politically voaltilie issue is no reason for a Court not to rule on the legal issues contained within. This is explained very clearly in the court's judgement.

What exactly was political about their decision?



So they haven't made any legal errors, yet you're saying the decision is wrong? That makes no sense.
They have become political by diving into political motivation and area that has always been taboo beforehand.

I'm not qualified to highlight legal errors, im not saying the decision is wrong either for the same reason. I'm saying I'm not comfortable with the decision and I dont like the potential for for future 'americanism' of our country.

I think people celebrating this on brexit grounds are being exceptionally short sighted.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#36
Report 3 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Brexiteers who allegedly wanted to return powers to Britain showing their true spots in this saga, accusing the UK supreme court of various things and demanding that the government rule as a dictatorship. It would seem that the claim that Brexit was about solid British values and returning power to our constitution was so much humbug. Brexit is about racism and xenophobia and activating the powers of an extremely right wing oligarchy and nothing whatever to do with our traditions.
So what's my true colours then and how am I showing them?
0
reply
Dez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 3 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You get very uptight and defensive when you start too loose the debate, don't you
You are an ignomious troll sometimes. :troll:

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
They are relevant, if the government used them in defence or not is besides the point. The point was johnson has he's done nothing that's not been done in the past. Should other prorogations of undergone this type of scrutiny then many historic prorogations would have been overturned. Which is the point I started from before you led me on a wild goose chase to make a incorrect point. :rolleyes:
Since they were not used in the court case used to decide the legality of Johnson's prorogation, they are not relevant to Johnson's prorogation. Yes, perhaps if those historical examples you gave were contested more heavily they would've been overturned too, but that has literally nothing to do with the current situation. You're citing precedent to try and justify BoJo's actions, and if that were a sound argument then parliament would still be empty.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You're stawman creation continues, I never no deal won, let revisit what was said;

BB - Hell they have just outlawed no deal something that people have voted for FFS!

Dez - People didn't vote for no deal. Quit your bullcrap.

Ok so you back on track with what was said now. I never said how no deal "won". You have got yourself confused. So you said nobidy voted for no deal, Well thats wrong. 31% of people in the last European elections voted a party who has no other policy, just to be 100% clear for you thats zero, none, zitch policy other than no deal. So clearly people have voted for no deal, because there us no reason to vote for TBP other than if they want no deal.
You're splitting hairs here. It's hardly fair to say "people voted for no deal" when in fact less than a third of voters expressed this opinion. By that logic, people voted for remain, and for a Labour government, so why haven't we implemented those things yet?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#38
Report 3 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
They have become political by diving into political motivation and area that has always been taboo beforehand.

I'm not qualified to highlight legal errors, im not saying the decision is wrong either for the same reason. I'm saying I'm not comfortable with the decision and I dont like the potential for for future 'americanism' of our country.

I think people celebrating this on brexit grounds are being exceptionally short sighted.
They expressly didn't go into political motivation - they focused on the effect of the suspension, not the intention behind it. Suspension of Parliament is serious and runs counter to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, it should only be used for short periods to bring about a Queen's speech, or if there is a seriously good justification for its use. If the government had provided any reasonable reason for proroging for five weeks, they would have won. But they provided no reason at all, never mind a good one.

This is quite the opposite of Americanism. In America the Supreme Court often overrules the legislature - in this case the Supreme Court was defending the role of the legislature against an executive acting unlawfully.

There was nothing political about the decision. It was a legal issue. The short sightedness is coming from those who are laughably accusing our Supreme Court of bias or of not doing their job properly.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#39
Report 3 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by Dez)
You are an ignomious troll sometimes. :troll:



Since they were not used in the court case used to decide the legality of Johnson's prorogation, they are not relevant to Johnson's prorogation. Yes, perhaps if those historical examples you gave were contested more heavily they would've been overturned too, but that has literally nothing to do with the current situation. You're citing precedent to try and justify BoJo's actions, and if that were a sound argument then parliament would still be empty.



You're splitting hairs here. It's hardly fair to say "people voted for no deal" when in fact less than a third of voters expressed this opinion. By that logic, people voted for remain, and for a Labour government, so why haven't we implemented those things yet?
Oh dear you just dont get it do you, I'm sick of dealing with people who can't debate without namecall.

Of course people voted for remain, I dont know how to simplify my words further so you understand so I'm out.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#40
Report 3 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by DSilva)
They expressly didn't go into political motivation - they focused on the effect of the suspension, not the intention behind it. Suspension of Parliament is serious and runs counter to the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, it should only be used for short periods to bring about a Queen's speech, or if there is a seriously good justification for its use. If the government had provided any reasonable reason for proroging for five weeks, they would have won. But they provided no reason at all, never mind a good one.

This is quite the opposite of Americanism. In America the Supreme Court often overrules the legislature - in this case the Supreme Court was defending the role of the legislature against an executive acting unlawfully.

There was nothing political about the decision. It was a legal issue. The short sightedness is coming from those who are laughably accusing our Supreme Court of bias or of not doing their job properly.
Time will tell, you may be correct but I dont think so.

See how things plan out mate, see you around
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.21%
No (215)
76.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed