Jump to content

Parliament to be prorogued by 12th September


Confused52
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Observer II said:

Sorry Con, I got it off comments on Yahoo - so it may be fake !    But I do recall on the news that someone was attempting a court case of this type, presumably it will be deemed a matter of high politics rather than the law ?.

Following a longer look such a case has no chance at all because of this:

"That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament."

taken from the 1688 English Bill of Rights. You will realise that this prevents any court proceeding against Parliament including the action you reported. The Bill  was passed by William and Mary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Best tell that to the BBC 

What the BBC continually do on their website is to make a headline from their chosen player's statements. Gullible readers then think it is a statement of truth when a more careful reading will show it was merely an assertion by one party. If there is any imbalance in the opinions, which is always in the BBC's preferred direction, they change the piece to give balance just before they archive it in the evening. That way complaints are judged against the balanced version and not what was put out for most of the day. The other tool they use is to put an unrepresentative headline as a link in one story to another. The newssniffer.co.uk website archives the multiple stories as separate and balanced stories so that the unbalance is in the ephemeral links that are not recorded. They have been doing it for years.

The reporting on the four sessions of the case has been significantly different with less enthusiasm about the cases made by Lord Keen and Sir James Eadie, which is unsurprising since they are instructed by the hated "Toree party". At least yesterday Sky was giving a more balanced picture of what was actually said. It is rather lazy as the actual written cases put by the lawyers are already available on the Supreme Court website so you can make your own mind up.

Addressing the point about prorogation not being illegal directly, of course it can't be - the Queen does it, and she cannot be challenged in her own courts. The reason she does not drive or carry money.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Observer II said:

Prorogation occurs about this time every year, which allows for the Party Conferences and preparation for the Queen's speech at at the opening of a new Parliament,  so this appears to be much ado about nothing - engineered by Remoaners.

The Queens Speech is usually in May or June since 2010 and the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Prior to that it was in November or following a General Election. The politicians holiday for conferences is usually a recess voted for separately by the two houses of parliament rather than a prorogation which is imposed by the Government.

Davy, you are quite right. Given that he prorogued Parliament for the express purpose of stopping debate about the expenses scandal. That is what you call cheek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Boris advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament he was under no obligation to give any reason for doing it to her, so he won't have done. In which case he can't have lied about it, he was only doing his job which is advising the Queen of an action to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, asperity said:

When Boris advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament he was under no obligation to give any reason for doing it to her, so he won't have done. In which case he can't have lied about it, he was only doing his job which is advising the Queen of an action to take.

The case is not about whether he lied to the Queen. It is about whether asking for Parliament to be prorogued can only be for a proper purpose and whether deciding that question is even a matter for the courts. The answer is due, orally at any rate, at 1030 tomorrow morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 12:05 AM, Stallard12 said:

Guy Faulks, where are you when needed, if only to end this unending circular topic ! 

The topic is not really circular so much as spiral because one side keep breaking the constitution in novel ways in their ever increasing desperation, just like Trump and the impeachment nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Confused52 said:

The topic is not really circular so much as spiral because one side keep breaking the constitution in novel ways in their ever increasing desperation, just like Trump and the impeachment nonsense.

This sprang to mind for some reason:

https://youtu.be/WEhS9Y9HYjU

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems everyone of the Judges voted for Remain,  so were clearly unable to seperate their personal political political preferences from an objective legal judgement .   Ultimately, this can only serve to undermine public confidence in democracy and the rule of law, when the law itself is brought into disrepute.  So now we're left with a Parliament determined to stop Brexit, but won't admit it.   A Parliament that won't hold a vote of no confidence in the PM and bring about a G/Election.  All intended to ignore the will of the people in a referendum.  Clearly the worst Parliament since Oliver Cromwell cleaned it out .

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now Parliament can go back and debate - well debate just what? They've been, allegedly, debating for the last 3 1/2 years without being able to agree on anything. Until Boris and the EU mafia come up with some sort of a deal for them to debate then this has been a complete waste of time and of our money. And even then we will find that there is no agreement. Sack the lot, have a General Election and elect some honest people to the house. And while we're at it get rid of the HoL and the so called Supreme Court. A complete change is called for, these charlatans have been getting away with it for far too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ian said:

Perhaps the people should bring a case against Parliament for failing to deliver the referendum result from 3 years ago and activating Article 50.

The political system of the UK is proven to be an absolute joke in the eyes of Europe.

The Bill of Rights prevent that being possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point, Labour will have to fight a G/Election, which imo they will lose big time, and I think they know it, hence their avoidance of an election. However, no matter how long they delay an election, their antics won't be forgotten or forgiven by Leave voters.  As and when we do elect a new "Leave" Parliament; presumably that Parliament can overide/ammend all previous blocking legislation and secure Brexit with or without a deal ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...