Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

I doubt it

Anyone recall a recent thread about the smug smile being wiped off Gina Miller's face?
Wonder if the poster thinks differently after today's verdict or if she has yet developed any understanding at all of the judicial process?

Been out all day for hosp appointment - wow oh wow. Best news in a VERY long time- and this goes way beyond Brexit.
Gina Miller is such an amazing, brave woman. Wow

Sorry, you're right, MOnica. I was thinking of something else.

(Am in a bit of a bother about something today :-( )

Always, of course, that Parliament will agree a deal... but I think now that enough LP MPs will get behind one.

In the New Statesman

‘In the court’s unanimous decision, Lady Hale was clear that the Prime Minister had suspended parliament unlawfully – but her judgment carefully sidestepped the question of whether Boris Johnson had lied to the Queen, which would be an immediate case for resigning.’

The spider brooch is hellish Urm ......in any case, I just found the real deal sitting as large as life on my ironing pile basket (where it knew it could live undisturbed during my recent holiday!?)
I certainly do not think the judges were biased in any way, they just dealt with the legalities of the matter.
Am guessing Johnson always knew it was a gamble that could go either way.
What he may do now ( although he says he won’t) is resign, but remain leader of the Conservative party, an interim government will have to be formed under Corbyn, an extension to Jan with the EU agreed, then a GE.
Whichever party wins it’s likely to be a hung parliament.
If Johnson won ( bigtime) then we would probably leave with a deal in Jan, if Corbyn won ( bigtime) then the same.
If Johnson chooses not to resign, then he could forge on and get a deal by mid October, then we leave on Oct 31st.

MP’s on Twitter are wondering if they can all get hold of a tee shirt in time to wear to the HoC tomorrow!

£4K already in Shelter’s coffers (good cause).

I’d rather have the real deal ha!

The Supreme Court was set up, so that cases could be tried in the UK, without having to go to the European Court.

I do not think so. The highest court in the country used to be the Judicial committee of the House of Lords with only Law Lords sitting. The Supreme Court was formed as part of a modernisation of the legal system to separate the judicial role of the House of Lords from its legislative role and fulfills exactly the same role (and still with some of the same law lords) as the House of Lords committee did.

I’d rather have the (very) expensive brooch than the tee shirt! Finances wouldn’t allow it. I wonder how much the actual brooch cost?

While Lady Hale was speaking, someoneon GN admired her spider brooch and said "I want one!" Well, now you can order a black T-shirt with glitery spider on the shoulder, with 30% of the price going to a Shelter.
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223679208508

Whitewave is correct. The Supreme Court was set up, so that cases could be tried in the UK, without having to go to the European Court.

Classic Dom, as John Crace might say!

After reading tweets that the High court decision was made because of the political bias of the judges, I have checked up on which party was in power at the time each judge joined the Supreme Court - which might have shown a biased in their political views
I found that there was an almost even balance between appointments under Labour and Conservative (or Coalition) ministries. The judgment was unanimous, whatever the political mood when they were appointed - so judicial bias is one hare that won't run.

No they can’t abtshame

They have no sovereignty over us

Well [growstuff] I suppose technically the government could appeal to the European Court. Now that could be entertaining

Cummings not so clever as he thinks himself to be

I wonder what would have happened if the case had been heard before the European Court.

The irony of the situation is that the Supreme Court was a construct produced to weaken influence of the European Court. This was a concession to those who wanted to prepare the country for the hoped for future Brexit.

If Brexit does not occur or it does occur in a very soft form, it will be in no small part due to this legal, none political, judgement.

The courts cannot to be ignored by any person no matter how superior or inferior they feel they are, or are.

In an interview in New York, Johnson has just said, "I’ll be honest with you, it’s not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament, or in the courts. Obviously getting a deal is not made much easier against this background. But we’re going to get on and do it."

How does he work that one out?

According to him, prorogation wasn't anything to do with making Brexit easier. It was supposed to be about preparing for the Queen's Speech.

James O'Brien
@mrjamesob
·
Brexit latest: We have to leave because parliament is too sovereign, British judges have too much power and 17.4 million people voted for a PM to behave unlawfully.

The Queen was not co-erced. She stuck to the rules that govern her position as a constitutional monarch.

That Boris didn't is an entirely separate issue.

Boris effectively admitting he misled the queen by saying a lot of people want to frustrate Brexit. Er... he said prorogation was all about the Queen's Speech

John Crace

Latest on Boris: "Asked if he would apologise, Mr Johnson said he did not think the ruling was "the right decision"" - so he knows better than the supreme court.. well, of course he does!

So tell me leavers.

Where does sovereignty lie?