Scotland rules prorogue 'unlawful'

[cheesytoasties]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

We are living in crazy times.

A former judge of the supreme court, Lord Sumption, has said this afternoon, "I have no doubt that politically this was a disgraceful thing to do and what tends to happen is that you change the law in response to a sufficiently appalling example of abuse."

But if parliament is prorogued you can't do that. Generally courts have taken a dim view when defendants (i.e. the government) make restitution impossible by their actions (e.g. spending all the loot before it can be returned ...). How - and if - that doctrine applies here will be an interesting political-legal-constitutional question.

So sumption makes assumption law will change on assumption that prorogation was assumed to be correct assumption

Opposition have taken control. Does that not mean that they are the dictator?

I won't even bother answering that if you can't see the difference.

I won't even bother answering that if you can't see the difference

So why bother posting

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court did overrule the provocation, what would happen?MP's would come back to parliament , they would all condemn Boris as being unfit to govern .... then when he called for an election they would vote to keep him in power by denying that election.That would make Boris more popular.

They can find him in contempt of parliament, whilst often that's just a token thing, it can include imprisonment as a punishment.

Equally, he could be prosecuted under the misuse while in public office offence. Which can result in life imprisonment.

Surely if the Supreme Court found Johnson had broken the law, he couldn’t be PM anymore? Or doesn’t it work like that?

So why bother posting

Freedom of speech, i can say what i like when i like within the bounds of MN rules.... you won't prorogue me ;)

@TheSandman, I know all that! I was replying to Babdoc, who didn't understand why Scotland has any say in Westminster.

@ProfessorSlocombe et al the courts are most definitely biased (but normally towards government bodies). Just look at all the decisions made for “policy” reasons. Especially when it comes torts and tax. The judiciary needs an overhaul.

Equally, he could be prosecuted under the misuse while in public office offence. Which can result in life imprisonment

Primary purpose of government is to preserve democracy. More voted leave than remain. Denying the majority goes against the majority.

Before the concept of voting was developed, differences of opinion were solved by violence with last person standing deemed to be correct.

Also the wording of the Benn Act allows the EU to choose the length of any extension of Article 50. So if EU said Brexit shall be postponed by 100 years, Boris would have to accept.

That means that EU controls how long the UK taxpayers fund the £1 billion UK pays the EU every month

Primary purpose of government is to preserve democracy. More voted leave than remain. Denying the majority goes against the majority.

We have a parliamentary democracy not a direct democracy.

Democracy isn't as crude as 'majority wins'. Defending the rights of the few is actually important.

The referendum was advisory not binding.

Constitutional change can require a supermajority rather than a simple majority to prevent this kind of nonsense happening.

Should we organise a rota to deal with Mystery's derailing, factual inaccuracies and 'humour'? I'll take an hour in the early afternoon. Save everyone's time and mental energy.

Bias is everywhere.

If you believe that, we may as well abandon the entire court system. The fact remains that no-one has offered the tiniest jot of evidence that these judges were biased, and the mere fact that they live in a part of the country where a majority supported the Remain faction does not make them biased.

Gina Miller tried the same action in English court and lost.

And? The claimants in the Scottish case also lost at first instance.

How does Scotland have any say in the proroguing of the Westminster parliament? It’s surely not a devolved issue?

Here are a few clues: the Westminster Parliament is discussing Brexit. Scottish MPs sit in the Houses of Parliament. Scotland is directly affected by Brexit. The Queen rules Scotland as well as England.

Primary purpose of government is to preserve democracy.

Is that written down anywhere, or just something that sounds good ?

I guess it's easy enough to produce the legal cite for it from somewhere.

Or (as is the case) is it just what some people think the job of government is ?

The job of government is to govern. And that is that. Feel free to argue amongst yourselves how it governs. But that's it's job. Nothing else. Democracy doesn't even come into it (which a scouring of all the legal textbooks you can find will confirm).

There were more votes to leave than remain in 2016

Based on a Leave campaign so fraudulent that the Government admitted that, had it been a binding vote, it would have had to be set aside.

The actual views of the English and Scottish Judges didn't seem that different.
The difference seemed to be that the Scots felt that they could make a legal decision on BJ proroguing Parliament for political reasons and the English felt that currently this was a political matter.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court kept to the idea it was a political issue which required fresh law making.
Either way it highlights BJ lied to Parliament and the queen.

What about Wales and NI?

I'm a lawyer. The judgment today is quite fascinating. Civil law can be rather subjective, so it can be exceptionally hard to predict judgments in advance.

The Judges next week will make their own decision on the facts and evidence before them. And the decision of the Court in the first instance won't influence them at all.

I'd love to go and observe next week. Oh to be there to witness history in the making!

What about Wales and NI?

How so ? Wales is a principality of England (much as they might hate it) and bound by the same laws and legal system.

Northern Ireland became a province when the Republic was formed and inherited the same legal system with some differences but is not a separate country. Whereas Scotland most assuredly is with it's own legal system which has been accepted as part of the UKs constitutional makeup. And if it isn't people will have a lot more to worry about than piffling prorogation arguments.

What about Wales and NI?

What about them?

Yep my cousin is a former barrister and circuit judge, thinks this (all of brexit) will be taught for centuries to come.

Probably in the "How not to Govern" chapter.

LBC predictably full of irate voices complaing about biased Scottish judges telling the English government what it can and can't do.

LBC: It's a waste of electricity. Just switch it off.

How so ? Wales is a principality of England (much as they might hate it) and bound by the same laws and legal system.

Northern Ireland became a province when the Republic was formed and inherited the same legal system with some differences but is not a separate country. Whereas Scotland most assuredly is with it's own legal system which has been accepted as part of the UKs constitutional makeup.

I got into a massive row on here once about the definition of Wales and NI being separate countries or not. Are they really described as provinces? I know obviously that Westminster is where their MP's stand but on this other thread there were many differing views. It was a thread about how many different countries you'd visited and people were/were not including Wales, England, NI and Scotland as separate (or not) countries.

If they are not separate countries how come we divide the Brexit vote into the 4 separate 'areas'? Scotland and NI remain, Wales and England leave? Why don't just England and Scotland count if NI and Wales are just provinces? Just want to understand.

There are three distinct legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom: England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Each has its own legal system, distinct history and origins. Wikipedia

The United Kingdom is a state made up of the historic countries of England, Wales and Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland. BBC

There are differences between the legal systems and the political systems which add to the complications.

Wales has a devolved assembly but shares a legal system with England.
Scotland has a parliament and a separate legal system.
The Northern Ireland Assembly is the devolved legislature for Northern Ireland but obviously isn't currently functioning. NI has separate legal jurisdiction within the United Kingdom established in 1921.

It isn't straight forward @Thereisasystem