If it was 'all perfectly normal and nothing to do with Brexit', why was legal advice required at all? Have previous progations needed legal advice? They lied to the Queen and lied to the country.
It's just more of the Remain elite using privileged positions to push forward their agenda of stopping or emasculating Brexit imo. If Sumption says it's fine lines, I'll listen to him
And extension was granted due to the Tories not being able to agree on how the uk should leave. If they had, we would be gone by now. Jeremy corbyn isnt my comrade mate. I think hes quite a weak leader. I have an average life with a disabled wife that the Tories have done everything to make even more difficult. I just hate the Tories. I'm not even a massive labour fan to be fair. I'm also not a fan of law as you aren't either otherwise you would accept what just happened in OUR system, not the EU's. You are a hypocrite mate, theres nothing wrong with that as its through confusion and believing propaganda hence my sympathy for you.
Are you really saying that the unanimous Supreme Court judgment was based on a desire to stop Brexit?
So your acknowledging that Boris lied to everyone when he said he prorogued parliment due to the queens speech. Hallelujah! Finally a bit of honesty
No, but motivation did not come into the Supreme Court ruling. It said prorogation was unlawful because it prevented Parliament carrying out normal functions without justification. It was narrow, and a fine line, since an elected government has the right to prorogue Parliament. The unelected SC has moved into new territory.
Sweet jesus, but you insist that they were motivated by remaining. Cant have it both ways goldy. Maybe in your head you can though.
I hope you right, but don't share your confidence, firstly about getting an extension, or secondly on the result of a GE, with a fragmented opposition with Labour officially bench sitting.
Yes, or water it down. If you listen to Sumption, Boris pushed conventions with the prorogation, and the SC pushed precedent by ruling it unlawful
Your Brexit paranoia is getting out of hand, Goldie. The judgment was an example of the checks and balances in our unwritten constitution working as they should. Johnson and co. lied to the Queen, lied to the country and tried to shut down parliament to force through No Deal. The court correctly said that this was unlawful. We live in a parliamentary democracy, the executive cannot be allowed to bypass parliament. The judges made a constitutional judgment, not a political one.
In Boris we trust https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-chickens-boris-johnsons-un-speech-in-quotes
It's widely accepted there was a political element to the SC's decision, Strolls, and the Scottish Court. There is now a debate whether such powerful judges should be elected as they are in the US
If you're right, there'll be absolutely no inquest into judges controlling the Executive. I think there will be ramifications, possibly for the relatively newly created Supreme Court itself. But there we are, that's just my view. We'll see
It is my impression that the country is broadly split in three loose groups: Those that voted Remain, will not accept the Referendum result and will stop at nothing to avoid leaving the EU. Those that voted Remain but respect the outcome of the Referendum, accept that we must leave the EU as a consequence, but will not countenance a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Those that voted Leave, would prefer a deal, but are prepared to leave without one. Is there anybody on the thread that voted leave, but will not accept no deal... or has actually changed their minds altogether?
Judges don't control the executive, it's parliament's job to hold the executive to account. The only reason the courts got involved was because Johnson tried to bypass parliament.
