Join for free
Reply
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 11 > Last »
Bread's Avatar
Bread
Senior Member
Bread is offline
Sudbury, United Kingdom
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 4,100
Bread is male  Bread has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 10:16 AM
1

The Prorogation Court Case

I've been watching this with great interest on the news and heard most of Sir James Eadie's explanations on why the proroguing by the government was not unlawful.

Some key points I picked up were :

1. Parliament could have put a clause in the Benn Bill to prevent the proroguing of Parliament until after October 31st - they did not.

2.Parliament could have put forward a separate bill to prevent the government proroguing parliament until after October 31st - they did not

3. Parliament has had over 3 years to debate Brexit which is more than enough time and considerably longer than the prorogation period.

4. Parliamentary cannot be recalled when in recess (during the conference season) by the Prime Minister or anyone else - this is not the same as the House of Lords which was an incorrect accusation by Miller/Major on their side. It is effectively the same as prorogation and has the same restrictions.

5. If prorogation was done after the conference season, there would be less time for Parliament to sit than if it were done on September 9th (which is when it was done). It would mean Parliament would not sit until after the 19th October (after the 5 days of debate on the Queens Speech).

6. The Benn Bill was passed through Parliament and Royal Assent before the prorogation began so (the prorogation) was not used to prevent the bill from passing.

Just some of the points I've picked up on the case. I don't think Miller/Major have a cat in hells chance to win this and if they don't this could open the door to Boris to prorogue again from the 19th October until the 6th November.

On the Miller side, their argument is that the prorogation was deliberately used to run the clock down to reduce the time needed for parliamentary debate. The problem with this (as far as I can determine) is that this is not a legal question at all, it is a political one because there is no legislation in law that determines what "sufficient time" should be.

I guess we will see later but, even if the prorogation was lawful and the court rules that there was political gain by doing it, Parliament would not necessarily need to be "un-prorogued" as it would be only an advisory statement from the courts.

Interested in your thoughts.....
Reply With Quote
Puddle Duck's Avatar
Puddle Duck
Senior Member
Puddle Duck is offline
Cheshire. UK
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,125
Puddle Duck is female  Puddle Duck has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 10:29 AM
2

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Should your first sentence not be 'unlawful' rather than 'lawful' ?

Yes, I watch with great interest yesterday. Fascinating stuff put forward by Sir James Eadie . As I posted on another topic last night, I can't say I got to grips with the QC O'Neill acting on behalf of Joanna Cherry MP.
He seemed to have the same old chip about the England Scotland divide and going back to historical periods between 400 and 800 yrs ago. Lost track then.

Anyway, I think Gina Miller will be given sharp shift (hope I'm right) but note she being a millionairess was calling yet again for public funds last night, to pay for this case. She needs a few messages to get through to her.
Reply With Quote
Patriot1967
Member
Patriot1967 is offline
East Anglia
Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 52
Patriot1967 is male 
 
19-09-2019, 10:32 AM
3

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

I’m working during the day, so haven’t been able to follow the case as it progresses. So grateful to hear those points.

One thing stands out immediately though; the fact that Parliament didn’t legislate to stop prorogation, despite having the time.
To my mind, this bears out the verdict of the high court against GM; that it is a political issue, not a legal one.
Interesting to see if the Supreme Court upholds this particular strand
Reply With Quote
Puddle Duck's Avatar
Puddle Duck
Senior Member
Puddle Duck is offline
Cheshire. UK
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,125
Puddle Duck is female  Puddle Duck has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 10:55 AM
4

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Live coverage this morning:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49751323
Reply With Quote
Bread's Avatar
Bread
Senior Member
Bread is offline
Sudbury, United Kingdom
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 4,100
Bread is male  Bread has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 11:12 AM
5

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck ->
Should your first sentence not be 'unlawful' rather than 'lawful' ?

Yes, I watch with great interest yesterday. Fascinating stuff put forward by Sir James Eadie . As I posted on another topic last night, I can't say I got to grips with the QC O'Neill acting on behalf of Joanna Cherry MP.
He seemed to have the same old chip about the England Scotland divide and going back to historical periods between 400 and 800 yrs ago. Lost track then.

Anyway, I think Gina Miller will be given sharp shift (hope I'm right) but note she being a millionairess was calling yet again for public funds last night, to pay for this case. She needs a few messages to get through to her.
Well spotted ... thanks
Reply With Quote
Bread's Avatar
Bread
Senior Member
Bread is offline
Sudbury, United Kingdom
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 4,100
Bread is male  Bread has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 11:25 AM
6

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Originally Posted by Patriot1967 ->
Iím working during the day, so havenít been able to follow the case as it progresses. So grateful to hear those points.

One thing stands out immediately though; the fact that Parliament didnít legislate to stop prorogation, despite having the time.
To my mind, this bears out the verdict of the high court against GM; that it is a political issue, not a legal one.
Interesting to see if the Supreme Court upholds this particular strand
Parliament has made a complete pigs ear of this. They had the chance to nail this down and blew it. Apparently there were many angry exchanges by Kier Starmer and Corbyn because the extension wasn't requested immediately...

Two things make me wonder if Boris has the upper hand over all of this.

1. The Benn Bill did not force Boris to ask for an extension before the 19th October only on that date (if he has no deal), so there is enough time for the government to either put forward legislation to repeal it, or go to the supreme court to get it overturned because it is unlawful.

However, as an alternative, if Boris comes back with the shitty withdrawal bill (mostly unchanged) on the 19th October, he does not need to seek the extension. Even if its debated on, say the 20th and then voted down, he only needs to request the extension on the 19th.

2. No bill to prevent the proroguing of parliament was put forward to prevent this 5 week closure.

Something is rumbling away in the background and I "think" it could be a supreme court ruling on the Benn Bill to repeal it because it is unconstitutional because it removes the Queens and the Prime Ministers prerogative during international trade negotiations, and, as a result only received royal assent and not Queens Consent (thanks to Bercow) and would require filibustering in the HoL and 3 readings etc).

The bringing back of the Withdrawal Bill might "just" be a way to satisfy the requirements of the Benn Bill, but then get voted down in Parliament not require the PM to seek an extension.... remember after the proroguing of parliament, the PM can bring old legislation previously not voted through into the new session.

I have a funny feeling this might have something to do with why leavers are so upon in arms at the prorogation.

It's going to be interesting the next few weeks thats for sure.
Reply With Quote
shropshiregirl's Avatar
shropshiregirl
Chatterbox
shropshiregirl is offline
Shropshire
Joined: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,565
shropshiregirl is female  shropshiregirl has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 11:50 AM
7

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

I've just been watching proceedings this morning. QC's speaking on behalf of Scottish, Welsh and N.I Governments. Looks as though the Northen Ireland QC (Remain) kept getting told off by several of the Judges for bringing up political matters. (chip on the shoulder stuff). He was repeatedly told the case is solely concerning proroguing of Parliament only. Good for them.
Reply With Quote
Longdogs's Avatar
Longdogs
Chatterbox
Longdogs is offline
England
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 32,877
Longdogs is male  Longdogs has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 01:06 PM
8

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Ok, this is the second time I've seen the word Progroration on here today. Can anyone tell us what it means or is it just the latest media buzzword? Google just brings up German results for some reason.
Reply With Quote
Bread's Avatar
Bread
Senior Member
Bread is offline
Sudbury, United Kingdom
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 4,100
Bread is male  Bread has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 01:12 PM
9

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Originally Posted by Longdogs ->
Ok, this is the second time I've seen the word Progroration on here today. Can anyone tell us what it means or is it just the latest media buzzword? Google just brings up German results for some reason.
It means Parliament is suspended until the Queen re-opens it with a Queens Speech.

It starts a new session so old bills can be re-presented, ones in progress before the prorogation must be re-started and the government gets to hear the Queens concerns and thoughts. During the prorogation, Parliament is effectively shut and no bills or laws are passed until the new session starts when the Queen opens it with her speech.
Reply With Quote
Longdogs's Avatar
Longdogs
Chatterbox
Longdogs is offline
England
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 32,877
Longdogs is male  Longdogs has posted at least 25 times and has been a member for 3 months or more 
 
19-09-2019, 01:15 PM
10

Re: The Prorogation Court Case

Originally Posted by Bread ->
It means Parliament is suspended until the Queen re-opens it with a Queens Speech.

It starts a new session so old bills can be re-presented, ones in progress before the prorogation must be re-started and the government gets to hear the Queens concerns and thoughts. During the prorogation, Parliament is effectively shut and no bills or laws are passed until the new session starts when the Queen opens it with her speech.
Ah, thanks Bread. I have never heard that before. I wonder why results are German? Anyway, perhaps that's another thread.

Cheers!
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 11 > Last »

Thread Tools


© Copyright 2009, Over50sForum   Contact Us | Over 50s Forum! | Archive | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Top

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.