Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

[DealorNoDeal]

Is the maximum not 12 ?

There are 12 judges but I think there's only ever an odd number on the panel.

The Gina Miller A50 case had 11 judges, and that was the first time since the Supreme Court was created that 11 judges had been on a panel.

[malvolio]

Full judgement now published here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...9.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For those asking what law had actually been broken (plus case law supporting the judgement) this is from the original submission to the court:

Context is everything...

That law was passed by James II, and probably initiated by Charles II, both of whom got exiled when Parliament executed their father and handed power over to Cromwell's team. It is about protecting what was then an absolute monarchy from Parliament, not the other way round.

Plus the actual period of proroguement (?) is about 4 days more than would have been in place for the party conferences anyway, so all this wailing about usurping power and democratic process is just so much horsefeathers. They have had three years to prevent a no-deal Brexit, after all, but were two interested in playin silly buggers.

[TestMangler]

Context is everything...

That law was passed by James II, and probably initiated by Charles II, both of whom got exiled when Parliament executed their father and handed power over to Cromwell's team. It is about protecting what was then an absolute monarchy from Parliament, not the other way round.

Plus the actual period of proroguement (?) is about 4 days more than would have been in place for the party conferences anyway, so all this wailing about usurping power and democratic process is just so much horsefeathers. They have had three years to prevent a no-deal Brexit, after all, but were two interested in playin silly buggers.

[meridian]

Plus the actual period of proroguement (?) is about 4 days more than would have been in place for the party conferences anyway...

We’ll never know, Parliament didn’t get the chance to vote on the period of recess for conference season.

[Old Greg]

Context is everything...

That law was passed by James II, and probably initiated by Charles II, both of whom got exiled when Parliament executed their father and handed power over to Cromwell's team. It is about protecting what was then an absolute monarchy from Parliament, not the other way round.

Plus the actual period of proroguement (?) is about 4 days more than would have been in place for the party conferences anyway, so all this wailing about usurping power and democratic process is just so much horsefeathers. They have had three years to prevent a no-deal Brexit, after all, but were two interested in playin silly buggers.

Parliament is normally in recess for the conference season, not prorogued. This is the longest prorogation since 1930.

[malvolio]

Parliament is normally in recess for the conference season, not prorogued. This is the longest prorogation since 1930.

The House is in recess now. How do you suppose a non-scheduled recess is created...?

Anyway, that is irrelevant. The Scottish ruling is based on the judges' interpretation of the reasons Boris gave the Queen. Since that meeting - indeed any such meeting - was not minuted, nobody other than the PM and the Queen knows what was said. So on what basis did the judges decide it was illegal? Judgements are not supposed to be based on supposition, only on proven fact.

[scooterscot]

Judgements are not supposed to be based on supposition, only on proven fact.

Of course. Nonetheless, not one of us here believes that this prorogation has anything to do with preparing new parliamentary session. If it indeed were the case then why push for a general election?

The PM's arguments has more holes than a fishing net.

[Old Greg]

The House is in recess now. How do you suppose a non-scheduled recess is created...?

Anyway, that is irrelevant. The Scottish ruling is based on the judges' interpretation of the reasons Boris gave the Queen. Since that meeting - indeed any such meeting - was not minuted, nobody other than the PM and the Queen knows what was said. So on what basis did the judges decide it was illegal? Judgements are not supposed to be based on supposition, only on proven fact.

Facts are actually relevant in this case. Prorogation is controlled by the executive. Recess is controlled by Parliament. Parliament could decide against a recess.

If this was a civil case, not a criminal case, I am guessing (not knowing much about Scottish law) that the judgment was reached on a burden of proof of balance of probabilities.

So given the timing of the prorogation in relation to Brexit date and the duration (longest since 1930), and the political context, what conclusion can be sensibly drawn other than that this was intended to stymie parliamentary debate and oversight?

[fullyautomatix]

Context is everything...

That law was passed by James II, and probably initiated by Charles II, both of whom got exiled when Parliament executed their father and handed power over to Cromwell's team. It is about protecting what was then an absolute monarchy from Parliament, not the other way round.

Plus the actual period of proroguement (?) is about 4 days more than would have been in place for the party conferences anyway, so all this wailing about usurping power and democratic process is just so much horsefeathers. They have had three years to prevent a no-deal Brexit, after all, but were two interested in playin silly buggers.

EU granted an extension and said don’t waste it. Torres spent the time fighting a leadership contest.

[Old Greg]

EU granted an extension and said don’t waste it. Torres spent the time fighting a leadership contest.

Your signature is starting to make sense.