BOJO. The end.

[sinkov]

I have told you Sinkov, I am not an expert on law. I'll try to send you the full ruling so you can decide if the eleven supreme court judges got it right.
The question is why did Boris shut Parliament down for five weeks? At this critical time? You obviously disagree but the bloke is not to be trusted and if Parliament is shut down for no good reason, does it not raise suspicions?
Why did he do it?
Normally there is a vote in Parliament to request a recess for party conferences. That is the way it has always been done. (Now the Tories will have to make this request for their conference next week)
You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff. There is plenty of other unfinished business to do as well you know. Believe it or not, it is not all about Brexit.

Don't bother sending the ruling 59, I've read it. There is no indication that Boris has broken any law, and there can't be because he hasn't. What I find extremely suspicious 59 is that these 11 judges were unanimous in their decision. This is astonishing, I've been reading various legal experts on this prorogation and most seemed to think it wasn't justiciable, there was some disagreement, but opinion was divided, there was certainly no unanimity on the subject. Yet these 11 all independently came to the same conclusion, that it was unlawful ? On a prorogation of which the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queens Bench Division, those last three sitting in the High Court, and Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, had all declared they were quite satisfied that it was perfectly lawful.

So I'm not arguing the case myself 59, I know nowt, but are all these eminent legal experts wrong as well, do they also know nowt ? Incidentally you were talking about the highest court in the land, but the Lord Chief Justice outranks every one of those eleven Supreme Court justices, and now they're telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about either. No wonder they were unanimous, they knew they were making an audacious power grab quite arbitrarily, simply because they could, and like mutineers on a ship, there could be no dissenters, they were working on the principal that if we don't stand together, we'll hang together.

"The question is why did Boris shut Parliament down for five weeks? At this critical time? You obviously disagree but the bloke is not to be trusted and if Parliament is shut down for no good reason, does it not raise suspicions?"

Of course I can't answer that 59, but I can have a guess. For a start it would normally be shut down in September anyway, so only four days would be lost, not five weeks, although the Supreme Court decided that those lost four days had an 'extreme' effect on Parliament's ability to do it's job, conveniently overlooking the fact they'd had three and a half years already to block Brexit, the Benn Bill had passed, and Parliament could bring down the government at any time of their choosing. But never mind that, I think it was threats by Remoan MPs to vote down the recess and keep Parliament in session that inspired the prorogation, and to a certain extent it has more or less succeeded.

"You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff"

That's illogical, if Parliament is prorogued Boris can't try any dodgy stuff, so you want an end to prorogation so you can stop him doing stuff he couldn't do if Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes I can see why you're a LibDem mon ami.

[outwoodclaret]

Don't bother sending the ruling 59, I've read it. There is no indication that Boris has broken any law, and there can't be because he hasn't. What I find extremely suspicious 59 is that these 11 judges were unanimous in their decision. This is astonishing, I've been reading various legal experts on this prorogation and most seemed to think it wasn't justiciable, there was some disagreement, but opinion was divided, there was certainly no unanimity on the subject. Yet these 11 all independently came to the same conclusion, that it was unlawful ? On a prorogation of which the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queens Bench Division, those last three sitting in the High Court, and Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, had all declared they were quite satisfied that it was perfectly lawful.

So I'm not arguing the case myself 59, I know nowt, but are all these eminent legal experts wrong as well, do they also know nowt ? Incidentally you were talking about the highest court in the land, but the Lord Chief Justice outranks every one of those eleven Supreme Court justices, and now they're telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about either. No wonder they were unanimous, they knew they were making an audacious power grab quite arbitrarily, simply because they could, and like mutineers on a ship, there could be no dissenters, they were working on the principal that if we don't stand together, we'll hang together.

"The question is why did Boris shut Parliament down for five weeks? At this critical time? You obviously disagree but the bloke is not to be trusted and if Parliament is shut down for no good reason, does it not raise suspicions?"

Of course I can't answer that 59, but I can have a guess. For a start it would normally be shut down in September anyway, so only four days would be lost, not five weeks, although the Supreme Court decided that those lost four days had an 'extreme' effect on Parliament's ability to do it's job, conveniently overlooking the fact they'd had three and a half years already to block Brexit, the Benn Bill had passed, and Parliament could bring down the government at any time of their choosing. But never mind that, I think it was threats by Remoan MPs to vote down the recess and keep Parliament in session that inspired the prorogation, and to a certain extent it has more or less succeeded.

"You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff"

That's illogical, if Parliament is prorogued Boris can't try any dodgy stuff, so you want an end to prorogation so you can stop him doing stuff he couldn't do if Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes I can see why you're a LibDem mon ami.

Absolutely brilliant post sinkov. The Supreme Court is independent in this country (Trump gets to nominate his own Supreme Court judges!) but they were making up this law on the hoof. The opposition are really a disgrace. Baying for Johnson’s resignation but afraid of putting themselves before the Electorate. The worst of these by a country mile is Corbyn. How this friend of IRA/Hamas/Hezbollah can put himself forward as our PM is an insult.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

Don't bother sending the ruling 59, I've read it. There is no indication that Boris has broken any law, and there can't be because he hasn't. What I find extremely suspicious 59 is that these 11 judges were unanimous in their decision. This is astonishing, I've been reading various legal experts on this prorogation and most seemed to think it wasn't justiciable, there was some disagreement, but opinion was divided, there was certainly no unanimity on the subject. Yet these 11 all independently came to the same conclusion, that it was unlawful ? On a prorogation of which the Attorney General, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Queens Bench Division, those last three sitting in the High Court, and Lord Sumption, a retired Supreme Court judge, had all declared they were quite satisfied that it was perfectly lawful.

So I'm not arguing the case myself 59, I know nowt, but are all these eminent legal experts wrong as well, do they also know nowt ? Incidentally you were talking about the highest court in the land, but the Lord Chief Justice outranks every one of those eleven Supreme Court justices, and now they're telling him he doesn't know what he's talking about either. No wonder they were unanimous, they knew they were making an audacious power grab quite arbitrarily, simply because they could, and like mutineers on a ship, there could be no dissenters, they were working on the principal that if we don't stand together, we'll hang together.

"The question is why did Boris shut Parliament down for five weeks? At this critical time? You obviously disagree but the bloke is not to be trusted and if Parliament is shut down for no good reason, does it not raise suspicions?"

Of course I can't answer that 59, but I can have a guess. For a start it would normally be shut down in September anyway, so only four days would be lost, not five weeks, although the Supreme Court decided that those lost four days had an 'extreme' effect on Parliament's ability to do it's job, conveniently overlooking the fact they'd had three and a half years already to block Brexit, the Benn Bill had passed, and Parliament could bring down the government at any time of their choosing. But never mind that, I think it was threats by Remoan MPs to vote down the recess and keep Parliament in session that inspired the prorogation, and to a certain extent it has more or less succeeded.

"You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff"

That's illogical, if Parliament is prorogued Boris can't try any dodgy stuff, so you want an end to prorogation so you can stop him doing stuff he couldn't do if Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes I can see why you're a LibDem mon ami.

Spot on sinkov. Fancy a job in the House of Commons?

[sinkov]

Spot on sinkov. Fancy a job in the House of Commons?

Not really BT, don't think I could stand the stench.

[1959_60]

"You ask what Parliament can do now. Well, they will be able to act if Boris tries any dodgy stuff"

That's illogical, if Parliament is prorogued Boris can't try any dodgy stuff, so you want an end to prorogation so you can stop him doing stuff he couldn't do if Parliament was prorogued. Sometimes I can see why you're a LibDem mon ami.[/QUOTE]

Do you know what the impact of prorogation actually means Sinkov?

Parliament (both houses and all it's committees) are closed down. Bills that were going through are simply lost. And Boris wanted this to be the case for five weeks at a crucial time. Other stuff was (and is now since they have returned) happening.
If Parliament was prorogued then the Government can still make decisions - but these decisions are not subject to scrutiny. I'm sorry, but most of Parliament do not trust Boris enough to give him this unfettered power - especially in the run up to 31st October.

Here is what it actually means...

"While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate and pass legislation.
Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members of either House
ask written or oral questions of Ministers. They may not meet and take evidence in
committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost
and will have to start again from scratch in the next session of Parliament. In certain
circumstances, individual Bills may be “carried over” into the next session and pick
up where they left off. The Government remains in office and can exercise its powers
to make delegated legislation and bring it into force. It may also exercise all the
other powers which the law permits."


If anyone is interested I'll put the full court ruling up.

[sinkov]

"Do you know what the impact of prorogation actually means Sinkov?

Parliament (both houses and all it's committees) are closed down. Bills that were going through are simply lost. And Boris wanted this to be the case for five weeks at a crucial time. Other stuff was (and is now since they have returned) happening.
If Parliament was prorogued then the Government can still make decisions - but these decisions are not subject to scrutiny. I'm sorry, but most of Parliament do not trust Boris enough to give him this unfettered power - especially in the run up to 31st October.

Here is what it actually means...

"While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate and pass legislation.
Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members of either House
ask written or oral questions of Ministers. They may not meet and take evidence in
committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost
and will have to start again from scratch in the next session of Parliament. In certain
circumstances, individual Bills may be “carried over” into the next session and pick
up where they left off. The Government remains in office and can exercise its powers
to make delegated legislation and bring it into force. It may also exercise all the
other powers which the law permits."


If anyone is interested I'll put the full court ruling up."

Just to put it into perspective 59, in 2018 between 24 July and 9 October the house was in session only from the 4th to 13th September. The rest of the time it was closed for business as our MPs took a six week summer break and a three week break for the Conference season. So Boris shuts it down to give them an extra four days holiday this year and they're hysterical, foaming at the mouth. Methinks they do protest too much.

They didn't seem too concerned about doing feck all for nine weeks at this time last year, so why is doing feck all for nine weeks and four days such an outrage this year ?