Gransnet forums

News & politics

Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

(450 Posts)
Elegran Tue 17-Sep-19 10:26:23

Watch live on Youtube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDH4TGDMvFw

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 10:31:08

I must admit I'm not expecting a lot. The judges will probably decide that it's political and they're not in a position to intervene.

Elegran Tue 17-Sep-19 11:22:10

At least it will air some facts and some expert opinions (not that experts are flavour of the month with those who don't want to be confused by facts)

Fennel Tue 17-Sep-19 11:28:42

It's expected to last about 3 days.
I agree with you growstuff.

JenniferEccles Tue 17-Sep-19 11:56:05

Well let’s hope they do decide it’s political and let the PM get on with delivering what the majority of us voted for.

newnanny Tue 17-Sep-19 12:49:21

I turned it on to see what it would be like but now but it is so boring I shall have to turn over. I can't follow it. I also too hope the court decide it is for PM to decide and not courts. As the party political conferences mean parliament would not be in session anyway it all seems blown out of proportion.

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 13:07:36

There is now talk of further prorogation and nobody will be able to do anything if a precedent has been set.

JenniferEccles Tue 17-Sep-19 13:15:40

Let's get something clear - Parliament has only been prorogued for an extra 4 or 5 days as the suspension was due to take place anyway.

Hardly a 'coup' is it?!

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 13:17:46

It's the precedent which has been set which is the issue.

trisher Tue 17-Sep-19 13:21:20

It is the longest proroguing of Parliament ever and the motives for doing it are not clear. Boris apparently doesn't think he should have to explain himself to the court or send anyone else to do it. He may be PM but like everyone else he has to obey the law.

Chucky Tue 17-Sep-19 13:22:41

I am more concerned with the precedent that Jo Swinson wishes to set.....that those in power can just ignore the results of an official referendum. Now that sounds more of a ‘coup’!

MaizieD Tue 17-Sep-19 13:22:43

Parliament goes into recess for the party conferences. This is a decision made by parliament. They don't have to go into recess and even if they do, they can be recalled at any time. This is completely different from the parliamentary session being ended.

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 13:24:23

Jo Swinson isn't Prime Minister.

MaizieD Tue 17-Sep-19 13:25:14

Swinson is not setting any precedent. There is absolutely no reason why the result of an advisory referendum has to be implemented.

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 13:27:37

The only way she would ever be in a position to revoke Article 50 would be if the people had voted the LibDems into office. The people would have been given that choice.

The prorogation of Parliament was an executive decision by the government. The people weren't given a voice. It sets a very dangerous precedent, especially at such an important time in the country's history.

humptydumpty Tue 17-Sep-19 13:50:39

Chucky as MaizieD points out, the referendum was not legally binding, it was advisory. Even if JS was PM she would not be legally required to proceed with implementing it.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 17-Sep-19 14:08:51

Agree with you grow

JenniferEccles Tue 17-Sep-19 14:31:15

I agree with Chucky

Smileless2012 Tue 17-Sep-19 14:40:33

I voted in the referendum because we were told by DC who called it that it was a once in a lifetime opportunity. There was no mention as far as I'm aware, that it was purely advisory.

If it was, surely it ceased to be advisory when parliament triggered Article 50.

janipat Tue 17-Sep-19 14:40:54

The House didn't have to go into recess for the party conferences, they could have been cancelled or MPs could have decided not to attend, or attend briefly and return to Westminster, an absolute host of alternatives. For those saying Parliament is only being prorogued for an extra few days, it's why those extra days that is the crux of the matter. Johnson, in my opinion, did it to avoid his minority government being called to account over Brexit. I wonder if you will be so in favour when a future PM, with whom you disagree, enjoys the precedent this will have set?

growstuff Tue 17-Sep-19 14:56:51

That's the point janipat. It sets a precedent which could be used by any political party for any reason.

Apparently Johnson has refused to produce a witness statement, explaining his reason for proroguing. Surely if he had a reason which would stand scrutiny, he would have had no difficulty in providing the court with a statement.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 17-Sep-19 15:17:37

It doesn’t bode well for our poor country if Johnson gets away with it.

Imagine Cummings? He will be very dangerous.

suziewoozie Tue 17-Sep-19 15:25:32

As some posters have said, there’s a difference between being prorogued and going into recess. This is the longest prorogation for 400 years. It normally lasts a few days with the rest of the time being recess during which for example, the committees can continue to sit (BJ was due to appear before one), the H of L may sit and as said above, the house could be recalled at any time if necessary. Those of you who agree with BJ proroguing shouldn’t insult the intelligence of those of us who don’t by pretending what he’s done is normal and usual - it’s simply not.

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 16:07:56

This is all very fast fascinating. These judges seem to be questioning the reason for the length just as the Scottish courts did.

Barmeyoldbat Tue 17-Sep-19 16:41:49

We have a national emergency and Boris is behaving like a dictator and shutting down parliament to stop any debate. On top of this he is not taking the negotiations with the EU seriously and is planning on breaking the law by us just leaving. He is a disgrace.

MaizieD Tue 17-Sep-19 17:21:56

If it was, surely it ceased to be advisory when parliament triggered Article 50

Parliament didn't trigger A50, the government did. There is a difference between parliament and the government.

Parliament voted to give May permission to trigger A50; the Miller court case which required this was to prevent the May using Henry VIII powers which would have bypassed the approval of parliament. I don't think anyone at that time could possibly have foretold what an absolute balls up the tories were going to make of the leaving process...

The referendum *never ceased to be advisory*; that was its legal status and its legal status has never been altered.

It's such a shame that no-one on the Leavers' side seems to explain these facts to them. It would really help their understanding of how parliament and the legal system works.

Davidhs Tue 17-Sep-19 17:28:17

The issue surely is,
Did The Government deliberately mislead (lie to) the Queen
and
Was it a deliberate move to restrict parliamentary scrutiny.

Recalling parliament is now pretty pointless but there is plenty of evidence that every action was designed to stop debate, for which there should be some kind of sanction, or do we really want future episodes of this manipulation.

lemongrove Tue 17-Sep-19 17:37:43

I don’t think the results will be known until next Mon or Tue.
I did watch a little at lunchtime, but it was like watching paint dry.

25Avalon Tue 17-Sep-19 17:47:42

Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. If May hadn't mucked about we would be out of the EU by now probably with a reasonable deal - all we see is her smirking in the Hoc and others. Thank god parliament is prorogued so we don't have to see any more of it.

Whitewavemark2 Tue 17-Sep-19 17:50:46

I find it fascinating and love the way the arguments get developed

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:40:00

Let's get something clear - Parliament has only been prorogued for an extra 4 or 5 days as the suspension was due to take place anyway. (Tue 17-Sep-19 13:15:40)

Why do people who want to leave tell lies, JenniferEccles?

If you had put "as far as I am aware" or "I thought", it would be fine, but no you believe your version is a fact without even checking out whether it is or it isn't because, of course, leavers know so much more than the experts.

Over the period of the conferences, Parliament usually goes into recess. It is not prorogued. Parliament has control while it is in recess. Some business continues while it is in recess. Parliament could be recalled while it is in recess.

By making the whole five weeks the period when Parliament was prorogued Johnson took away the power of parliament. As the man said in the court case today, the executive (the government) is the junior partner in parliament; parliament (the MPs) is the senior partner. Basically, Johnson has taken power he should not have from parliament by devious means. You are right it is not a coup, but it is overreaching of the powers of the Prime Minister. It is sly, it is lying and it is underhand. All the things I am beginning to associate with leavers of the Johnson ilk.

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:53:45

From what I gather the last bit of the case will be on Thursday when the "interveners", the lord advocate for the Scottish government, Raymond McCord, the counsel general for Wales, Sir John Major, Baroness Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, and the Public Law Project will have time. I seem to remember them saying John Major has 20 minutes.

We may get an outline of their outline ruling this week - Friday possibly, from what the experts were saying but the full detail will probably not be available until the beginning of next week.

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:55:26

From my post - Tue 17-Sep-19 18:40:00

It should have shown the quote from Jennifer Eccles, i.e., Let's get something clear - Parliament has only been prorogued for an extra 4 or 5 days as the suspension was due to take place anyway.

varian Tue 17-Sep-19 18:57:56

The liars may be exceedingly guillible or they may know very well what is going on but chose to repeat the lies because they would never dare admit the truth.

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 18:59:32

Tue 17-Sep-19 17:47:42
Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. (Tue 17-Sep-19 17:47:42)

Gone off the rule of law have you, Avalon? I suggest you re-read that famous Martin Niemoller poem just to remind yourself why we need it.

GracesGranMK3 Tue 17-Sep-19 19:05:47

I actually think it's worse than that varian. They don't even care what is truthful and what isn't if it doesn't fit in with there view of the world. Cut down the language into catchphrases so nothing has a meaning and it can always be repeated by any brainwashed advocate of those who are taking over. Very 1984.

That's true of all of us to some extent which is why we should never assume, or be too puffed up with our own importance to listen to the boring stuff but it seems to be where half the country is at the moment.

winterwhite Tue 17-Sep-19 20:02:08

DH has been glued to Sky News on his computer. From what I gather emphasis today is on how far the Govt can go in suspending parliament for political advantage. No one is pretending to believe the line about preparing for the queen’s speech. Or, therefore, that BJ did not mislead the queen.

MarthaBeck Tue 17-Sep-19 20:02:38

You mean support the deceit and criminal activities and end up with a Yellow Hammer scenario? How dare you inflict that on those of us did not succumb to all the lies and brainwash propaganda?
My family deserves better than suffering because of down right stupidity of others making.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 07:47:22

I so agree with this comment

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall

I loved watching the Supreme Court today and I couldn’t quite figure out why. And then I realised. It was like the grown ups were in charge again. It’s been a long while.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 08:21:12

That is exactly how I felt watching it Whitewave.

jura2 Wed 18-Sep-19 09:51:25

'Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. '

ah yes - shennagans - Johnson's ones are certainly putting us at huge risk, all of us, you and yours included- and the GREAT Britain we all love. Shennagans indeed- how dare you.

GrannyGravy13 Wed 18-Sep-19 09:59:09

Does anyone know where Gina Miller is getting her funding for this case from?

varian Wed 18-Sep-19 10:07:59

I don't think there can be many folk who actually believe BJ's claim that his reason for proroguing parliament was just to prepare a Queens Speech- nothing to do with brexit- nothing to do with taking back control from our elected MPs who might ask questions he couldn't answer.

Neither the English or NI courts have exonerated him. They just said the question was a political one, not a matter for the law, whereas the Scottish court, having decided it was a matter for the law, ruled that BJ was guilty of misleading the Queen about his reasons for the prorogation and so the prorogation was illegal and Parliament should be immediately recalled.

The decision to be made by the UK Supreme Court will have a huge effect in shaping the future of our democracy.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 10:16:41

One thing that almost certainly will make a difference to the final conclusion should the court decide that the case is indeed something the Supreme Court should judge, is the fact that if Johnson wins, he can prorogue to his hearts content, getting rid of Parliament every time he thinks a contentious issue is imminent.

Lovetopaint037 Wed 18-Sep-19 10:18:07

The trouble is that if the court upholds the pm and not Parliament it will create a precedent that means that further Prime Ministers can silence Parliament just as easily. Our constitution is being torn apart by the worst Prime Minister in living memory. And what for? A selfish, ego trip taken by an incompetent and totally unfit, lying journalist who thinks in headlines and not in detail. As for the idiotic Conservative members who voted him in........I am speechless.

jura2 Wed 18-Sep-19 10:29:00

WWmk2 : 'if Johnson wins, he can prorogue to his hearts content, getting rid of Parliament every time he thinks a contentious issue is imminent.'

exactly, and of course any other PM in the future, Johnson's supporters should remember that. It could well fly right back in their face with a new PM in the future.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 11:29:14

There are do many considerations for the court to take into account and are being. For instance they are questioning whether, if certain decisions are made would it mean that another PM could prorogue parliament for a year thus sniffling debate?

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 11:30:31

Sorry should have read the previous posts more closely.

lemongrove Wed 18-Sep-19 12:01:29

I don’t think that could actually happen ( proroging Parliament to anyones’ hearts content, as the ‘official reason’
Behind this one is to prepare for the Queen’s Speech.
How would it be justified for other reasons?
Of course John Major did it to put off the cash for questions scandal.
All it needs in future surely, is for Parliament to pass a law against suspension....it could be done in days if they wanted to, just like the law passed that Johnson should ask for an extension in the event of no deal was.

humptydumpty Wed 18-Sep-19 12:12:51

Sorry if this has already been said, but in this instance there wasn't time to pass such a law, as the priority was to stop (in principal unfortunately) BJ from going ahead with No Deal on Oct 31.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 12:13:08

lemon that would be the next step after/if the courts rule that this prorogue is illegal.

Then parliament can give consideration to a much needed written constitution including rules regarding proroguing.

The point is is can’t be justified for any reason. That is the argument.

lemongrove Wed 18-Sep-19 12:18:40

Even if the supreme court rules that the proroguing was done legally, Parliament can still decide to get a law passed quickly against anyone doing it again, when they are back in Westminster.
A written constitution may not be necessary in that case.

suziewoozie Wed 18-Sep-19 12:22:43

Written constitutions are not the answer to everything unfortunately. There are advantages to not having it all in writing ( but obviously disadvantages too). Not clear cut imo

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 12:42:46

There is no witness statement to say that this was the reason lemongrove. They are asking questions about this currently..

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 12:45:05

I don't think a written constitution is necessary. This case should clarify.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 12:50:42

Our constitution is not entirely unwritten. It has allowed for relatively smooth progressive changes to make the constitution.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 12:51:50

How about "to be made" rather than make. Sorry.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 14:26:35

Aidan O’Neill is impressive.

Looks like the court is going to accept the case is justiceable.

First step passed.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 14:55:15

Exactly

Jo Maugham QC

A man with a mandate from 160,000 seeks to suspend a Parliament with a mandate from 46 million because it opposes his will. Parliament is the supreme body in our constitution but cannot stop him and so the Courts must. That's it.

mcem Wed 18-Sep-19 15:25:34

Liking O'Neill's robust, no-nonsense approach!L
Just hope it's not too robust for the judges!
Meanwhile Eadie looks like a grumpy stuffed shirt.

Urmstongran Wed 18-Sep-19 15:43:49

Well I liked Allison Pearson’s column today. It started:

“I met Clare at a Telegraph event and liked her immediately. She introduced herself as a solicitor who had voted Leave and was married to a judge. “Not many like me in my circle,” she laughed.

Clare said she had kept quiet at many dinners where the judges present had expressed contempt for Brexit and for the “morons” who voted for it. It’s fair to say their Honours were aggrieved by the referendum result.

“You see, they’ve always got what they wanted, their whole lives,” Clare explained, “and suddenly they didn’t.”

Explains the mindset of many.
😊

growstuff Wed 18-Sep-19 15:52:25

Certainly explains the mindset of Johnson, who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag! grin

jura2 Wed 18-Sep-19 15:54:35

Urmstongran- many have explained here, that his is way beyond Brexit- but about the right or not, for a PM to prorogue to 'shut up' our Sovereign Parliament.

Be careful of what you wish for, as, I'll repeat- if it is judged to be acceptable and correct procedure, for a PM to get rid of opposition- in any situation in the future- then it could certainly bite those like you - in future times. If it is acceptable for Johnson, it is acceptable for all in future- including your friend Corbyn, or whomever, whatever their 'mindset'. Can't you see?

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 16:04:22

ug the supreme is judging on this particular prorogation and the reasons given. They are asked to give consideration that the people’s representative in parliament are being prevented from holding the executive to account.

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 16:11:55

Saying all that though, I’m not holding my breath

jura2 Wed 18-Sep-19 16:16:34

this prorogation - but setting a principle.

Elegran Wed 18-Sep-19 16:45:34

The judges have a mindset that the law is important. That is where they differ from buccaneering mavericks who are after instant gratification of their adventurous wishes, risking breaking laws in the process.

What is also important is the history behind past interpretations of individual laws. In British law-courts, past judgements and the interpretations used to reach those judgements are cited in future cases involving the same issues.

So if the buccaneers get way with flouting a law, that goes into the records and becomes a legitimate quote for someone wishing to flout the same law for what may be a very sinister purpose.

What if a would-be sole dictator who would like to make a great deal of money out of his leadership were to try to have a law passed that said that he personally was entitled to receive the estate of anyone who died intestate in the UK.

Suppose also that if it appeared that members of Parliament didn't seem inclined to vote to pass that and make it law, he were to decide to prorogue Parliament indefinitely until he had applied enough behind-the-scenes pressure on individuals to consent to vote it.

Suppose too that there was a lot of good and necessary legislation that wasn't getting passed while Parliament was prorogued, and MPs were getting worried about there being no effective Parliamentary presence in the country.

With a precedent of a Prime Minister proroguing Parliament while the clock ticked toward the deadline of Brexit, and while MPs were unable to discuss it as they wished until it was too late (or to discuss anything else) the would-be dictator could quote that to seek approval for his acquisitive plan.

mcem Wed 18-Sep-19 16:49:33

A complicated and far-reaching constitutional issue reduced to the level of the goodies wearing the white hats while the baddies wear black ones!

DoraMarr Wed 18-Sep-19 17:37:48

A complicated and far-reaching constitutional issue reduced to half- truths on buses.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 18:03:28

Hmmm. I was so enjoying a thread without the malicious gossip. Such a shame.

I have been out this afternoon but looking forward to hearing the judges next week, having watched it all up until lunch time today. All I can say is thank heavens for experts.

varian Wed 18-Sep-19 18:17:15

A quote from the Supreme Court referred to "the mother of parliaments" and "the father of lies".

Who could that possibly be?

Fennel Wed 18-Sep-19 18:23:45

So the main decision up to now is that this is an appropriate case to be decided in the law courts?
ie it's an exception from the principle that law courts can't get involved in political matters?
ie this is primarily a legal matter?

Fennel Wed 18-Sep-19 18:25:15

ps I ask because I haven't been following up to now, not to cause trouble!

Whitewavemark2 Wed 18-Sep-19 18:31:23

Yes Fennel. It seems that the government has conceded the point though. We shall wait to here what the Supreme Court says, but it is expect that they will consider the case to be justiceable

varian Wed 18-Sep-19 18:59:08

I suppose that we should be prepared for a judgement that says "this is not justiceable"

In other words "we all know BJ lied to the queen but we can't do anything about it"

In which case any tyrant or dictator who cheats his way into 10 Downing Street can do exactly what he wants without recourse to parliament.

GracesGranMK3 Wed 18-Sep-19 19:51:36

Not sure if I would have put it that way Fennel. The lawyers are nicely careful about their wording. The courts job is to decide if the proroguing of parliament was lawful. The first step in this is to decide if this is a matter of law - on which they can pronounce, or a matter of politics on which they can't.

It is not, as you put it, whether it is "an exception from the principle that law courts can't get involved in political matters?"

Putting it like that makes it sound as if the are partial in a particular way. They are concerned with the law.

If it is justiciable then they need to decided on the finding of the Scottish case and the English case.

I would suggest anyone who believes our judiciary is becoming politicised should watch some of the case.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 07:08:24

Andrew Adonis
@Andrew_Adonis

John Major gives evidence today to the Supreme Court

Johnson, who caused the suspension of Parliament, won’t even provide a witness statement, let alone appear

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 07:16:37

Andrew Adonis

John Major deserves great credit for calling out Johnson’s lies & dangerously unconstitutional action

Think about it: an ex Tory prime minister appearing in the Supreme Court to condemn his successor for lying and abusing the constitution!

Anja Thu 19-Sep-19 07:58:04

Whether or not this challenge is upheld it is fascinating to watch the Supreme Court in action.

GracesGranMK3 Thu 19-Sep-19 09:35:37

Isn't it just, Anja. Oh that our journalists had legal training. I can read a "story" in a book when I want to. I really don't need the mash up between relevant fact, irrelevant fact and fiction that our press pours out. It's no wonder more and more politicians are refusing their interviews.

Elegran Thu 19-Sep-19 09:55:07

Watching the grownups at work!

Urmstongran Thu 19-Sep-19 10:10:58

But isn’t the prorogation of Parliament only for a few days? A recess of 3 weeks would happen for the party conference season.

Yes, a tactic by Boris and the Remainers are howling. But the Leavers are delighted. We want to get on with Brexit not keep having the HoC throw spanner’s in the works.

Remainers have had over 3 years to discuss and disagree with the government. Now they are furious that at the sharp end (which was always going to arrive) they have been out manoeuvred.

A whole load of deadlines are beginning to converge.

A lot is going on in the background. I do honestly believe Boris will get a deal.

Urmstongran Thu 19-Sep-19 10:12:18

spanners -

Predictive text!

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 10:16:22

ug no one is buying that argument.

We know that MPs were giving active consideration as to whether recess was sensible given the crises we are in.

So recess was very likely not to have taken place as Johnson knows, which is why he went for prorogue

humptydumpty Thu 19-Sep-19 10:23:27

Quite - a recess is not essential, there are far more important things at stake at the moment; your post was disingenuous, ug

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 10:25:44

Sir John Major’s submission to the Supreme Court published.

If High Court upheld: “the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament in any circumstances or for any reason.”

AllTheLs Thu 19-Sep-19 10:26:24

Does anybody know for a fact, or are we in unknown territory here?

If Boris doesn't ask for an extension and we leave the EU without a deal on 31st October he will, presumably, have broken the law. Now he may or may not be in trouble, but does that mean that we don't leave the EU without a deal because it was an unlawful procedure?

AllTheLs Thu 19-Sep-19 10:29:21

Sorry, about the above post. I meant to start a new topic with the heading 'What would happen if Boris ignored the law' but it all went wrong.

MaizieD Thu 19-Sep-19 10:40:32

It's a good question, AllThe Ls.

There is currently a case going through the Scottish courts asking, if Johnson won't ask for an extension, that another responsible person is required to do it.

Interesting to know how the EU would react if the Scottish case falls (which it is highly likely to) and Johnson crashes us out by ignoring the law.

MaizieD Thu 19-Sep-19 10:41:32

Sir John Major's submission here:

www.supremecourt.uk/docs/written-case-for-sir-john-major.pdf

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 10:46:29

Listening to Lord Wolfe, and his excellent submission, I’m not sure how the Supreme Court cannot agree.

suziewoozie Thu 19-Sep-19 10:50:12

Ug why can’t you understand the difference between a recess and proroguing? I’m truly baffled

MaizieD Thu 19-Sep-19 10:53:33

Ug's just parrotting Brexit Central, or whatever Brexity source she gets her soundbites from.

The sources know that most Leavers aren't terribly interested in facts or parliamentary democracy.

humptydumpty Thu 19-Sep-19 11:04:13

AllTheLs I posed just that question myself on another thread yesterday! Maybe it does need it's own thread? Not sure if anyone knows, tbh.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 11:39:08

If this is lost it will because the submissions from Scotland and Ireland in particular have not maintained a strictly unbiased submissions because they have strayed into the political field.

Not good

Smacked botties!!

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 11:40:23

alltheLs

Unchartered territory - god knows

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 11:44:24

For Scotland please read Cherry and MPs. I didn’t mean the Scottish government.

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 11:46:36

Lord Fordham for Welsh government, gets it.

Much better

mcem Thu 19-Sep-19 11:51:28

I'd point out that Lavery of NI was pulled up 3 times for doing just that Ww2 but I don't recall that O'Neill was. Admittedly I may simply have missed it!

Whitewavemark2 Thu 19-Sep-19 11:59:11

mcem I think after O’Neill’s submission and his historical reverie, which certainly bordered on straying into the political, together with the Irish submission this morning is making the Lords uncomfortable.

Lady Hale, pulled O’Neill up yesterday and the Lord who will always vote with the government also moaned.

Then today a lot of them indicated how uncomfortable they were with the Irish submission..

But just watch the Welsh submission, that is what they want.