Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

The words ‘honourable’ and those Remainer MP’s do not belong in the same sentence, in my opinion.

Just as I now feel with Jo Swinson as leader that the word ‘Democrat’ ought to be removed from the Liberal party!

Brexit ought to have got done sooner. Remainers became emboldened. And then feisty and shouty.

Both sides are entrenched now.

This festering boil needs lancing. Enough now.

Democracy means a democratic vote where the winners carry the day. Grandelinquent (Sat 21-Sep-19 18:17:23)

Constant repetition on your opinion will not make it true. Democracies are run under the law and by precedent, not by Grandelinquent's opinion of how it should be.

Yes, in a General Election we have a first past the post system but that is only on part of our democracy. It is indeed "not perfect" but that is partly because so many people do not have knowledge of how it actually works and think their opinion is worth more than that of those for whom it has been a life-time study.

A law was passed to hold a referendum. That referendum was not made binding on parliament by parliament. So they could choose whether to or not to carry it out. We also know, as highlighted by Sørensen, that elected officials are not required to fulfil promises made .... This is because, as I have said before, we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. It may not suit you currently but there will be and have been many times when it has been better for MPs to change thier minds once the information they have changes.

So far there has been no offence against our democratic system and we are still living in a democracy. The speaker is neutral in that they give up any party membership they have previously held and remain "politically" impartial. Once again you are allowing your opinion to over-ride fact. Parliament is senior to the government and must be allowed to scrutinise the work of the executive (government) and to oppose where it deems necessary. We have had a government which has tried to stop this happening. It is the speaker's job to ensure that parliament can carry out its role.

Taking control of the business in parliament was only possible because of the Bills brought forward and because the government is so weak. It may be unusual but there is nothing undemocratic about it.

As far as I am aware (someone else may well know more about this) parliament has not "outlawed a WTO deal" they have put in a law to stop the UK leaving with no agreed deal and instructing the executive to ask for an extension to Article 50. This is a law. If the Prime Minister decides not to obey the law it will be him who is attacking our democracy.

How the EU has behaved is more opinion and nothing to do with our democracy.

Whilst prorogation does involve issues of politics, it is also an executive power. The government advises the Queen to issue an Order in Council to prorogue parliament. Like all executive powers, it is subject to legal limits. No limits would risk undermining the rule of law.

I find it quite outrageous the lengths that some of our GNettters will go to to try and say their views and opinions are higher than the law. You do not feel it is wrong to put forward your opinions on this - and that is all they are. They are very rarely backed by fact. You are also quite prepared to libel our MP's, institutions and civil service without one iota of evidence other than your opinion. Why then would it be wrong to get a legal opinion from the highest court in the land against someone you feel is playing fast and loose with our democracy?

I would always hope that parliament doesn’t do anything to harm our country when an alternative is better.

There isn’t a single person in the entire world as far as I can see who thinks the Brexit won’t harm the UK

Everyone who brought the case was an ardent Remainer. The judges aren’t daft. They know there’s an ulterior motive here (to stop Brexit). Boris even offered an election (not the action of a dictator!). Urmstongran Sun 22-Sep-19 09:28:17

That is so irrelevant. The judges - rather more knowledgable than any of us - are looking at points of law, not silly point-scoring.

Good posts lately gg3

Agreed, Wwmk2 . Good posts GGMk2

"Everyone who brought the case was an ardent Remainer." Somehow I can't see any ardent Brexiteers joining a move against gagging discussion which they thought might - just might - go against Brexit at the 11th hour.

Perhaps they could have been moved by sympathy for those who would be affected by other planned legislation being sent right back to the beginning. It doesn't seem as though any were, though.

Thank you both

Agree about the very fine quality of many posts on this thread - would like to add a shout out to Elegran as well.

And me? shout to elegran that is

Urmstongran, I believe the Liberal Democrats have been renamed the ILLiberal NONDemocrats. Could this be true . .

I thought these might be useful references when the Supreme Court gives its judgement.

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)
Case ID: UKSC 2019/0192

Case summary
Issue(s)
Whether the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts; and
If the decision is justiciable and the appeal is not academic, whether that advice was lawful.
Facts
On 31 October 2019 the United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the European Union, following the notification of its intention to withdraw pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. On 28 August 2019, on the advice of the Prime Minister, Her Majesty the Queen made an Order in Council providing that Parliament be prorogued on a day no earlier than 9 September 2019 and no later than 12 September 2019, until Monday 14 October 2019. The Prime Minister issued a press release stating that the purpose of the prorogation was to introduce a new legislative programme to Parliament at a Queen’s Speech to take place on 14 October 2019. Parliament was subsequently prorogued on 9 September 2019. The appellant issued proceedings for judicial review on the grounds that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was an abuse of power and beyond the proper constitutional limits of the common law prerogative of prorogation.

Judgment appealed
[2019] EWHC 2381 (QB)

Parties
Appellant(s)
Gina Miller

Respondent(s)
The Prime Minister

Intervener(s)
The Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish Government
Raymond McCord
Counsel General for Wales
Sir John Major KG, CH
Baroness Chakrabarti CBE, PC
Public Law Project

Appeal
Justices
Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales

Hearing start date
17 Sep 2019

Hearing finish date
19 Sep 2019

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

And the Scottish Appeal:

Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)
Case ID: UKSC 2019/0193

Case summary

Issue(s)

Whether the challenge to the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is justiciable in the courts.
Whether the appeal is in any event academic, given Parliamentary sittings before the UK’s exit from the EU on 31 October 2019?
If the appeal is justiciable, whether the Prime Minister’s advice was lawful.

Facts

The Inner House held that the issue of prorogation was, in the circumstances, justiciable. When the reasons for the prorogation that has occurred were considered they demonstrated that the true reason for the prorogation was to reduce the time for Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit and thus prevent Parliament from performing its central role in scrutinising Government action.

Judgment appealed

2019] CSOH 70

Parties

Appellant(s)

Advocate General for Scotland

Respondent(s)

Joanna Cherry QC MP and 78 others

Intervener(s)

The Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish Government
Raymond McCord
Counsel General for Wales
Sir John Major KG, CH
Baroness Chakrabarti CBE, PC
Public Law Project

Appeal Justices

Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Kerr, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales

Hearing start date
17 Sep 2019

Hearing finish date
19 Sep 2019

Blimey gg3 you’ve done your homework!

Big thank you

Do we know who voted against the Miller appeal last time.

From the Guardian today.

Boris Johnson would have no option but to recall MPs to Westminster if the supreme court rules he misled the Queen, senior legal sources told the Observer yesterday.

There is a growing belief in the legal community that the court will find against the government when it hands down its momentous verdict on Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament.

The prospect of the court finding against the prime minister has left the UK heading towards a “constitutional eruption of volcanic proportions”, according to another senior legal figure who asked not to be named. He said he also believed the case would go against the government.

Before the case, few thought the court would determine that Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament for five weeks would be found unlawful. But over the course of the three-day hearing opinion has dramatically shifted.

“The dominant feeling among informed observers is that the government is on the ropes and it’s going to lose,” said Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London.

... ... ...

Experts were quick to identify three aspects of the case that should trouble the government. First, the judges spent a large portion of their time exploring possible remedies – what they might determine must happen if they find against the prime minister. In other cases, judges seldom devote effort to discussing remedies if they are not seriously considering finding in favour of the complainant, legal sources say.

Second, Hale’s forensic questioning of the government’s lawyer, Lord Keen, suggested she was dubious about the arguments he was presenting. Third, the fact that the court has yet to deliver a decision should send alarm bells ringing. In the words of one legal expert, “the fact they haven’t given a decision now with reasons to follow would tend to suggest the government is going to lose at some level. If they were going to find for the government, why bother stringing it out?”

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/22/supreme-court-verdict-boris-johnson-prorogation

Blimey gg3 you’ve done your homework!

Like many of us, I would guess, I am more at home with legal fact than newspaper fiction

Yes I’m the same. Something you can trust

Trying hard to catch up after missing a couple of days but not quite there yet.
However I do want to say that I am appalled that anyone should virtually write off the alleged lies to the Queen! The dishonesty of the PM is of less importance than brexit?
With such utter disregard for the real meaning of democracy I am now firmly of the opinion that such views should be loudly condemned and completely ignored.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2019/2381.html

That shows the judgement in full but I can't see any split on the voting.

Even they are saying:

It is now well established, and was common ground before us, that decisions and actions of the Executive are not immune from judicial review merely because they were carried out pursuant to an exercise of the Royal Prerogative. That was settled by the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374 ("CCSU"), in which it was held that the controlling factor in determining whether the exercise of prerogative is subject to review by the courts is not its source but its subject matter.

(My highlighting)

If I had the money I’d chose Lord Pannick to defend me.

I think I’m in love ???

mcem I’m with you there

I agree mcem and I know just what you mean Whitewave.

Shout out too to Elegran (I’m not a complete Neanderthal) for her elegant and non combative posts.
?

It is a pleasure to debate with you.

When you say Perhaps they could have been moved by sympathy for those who would be affected by other planned legislation being sent right back to the beginning. It doesn't seem as though any were, though.

It occurs to me though that perhaps their petitions had gotten so much further than the norm this parliamentary session anyway, just because of the sheer, uninterrupted length of it!

So yes, disappointing for them, but the party was going to end sometime, wasn’t it?

Being a cynic, I won't believe it until it happens. As they say, "It aint over till the fat lady sings."
I hope and continue to pray that you're all right.

So you elevate your appalling posts to the same level as elegran's and claim that you contribute to the debate.
Get real!