Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 178 comments are related to the topic:
live streaming from supreme court....
live streaming from supreme court....
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
"we'll make new laws"??? we'll just break them
 |
|
By:
silly post from santarin
|
|
By:
They can make as many laws up as they like makes absolutely no difference to me, I'll go out and break every single one of them for s***s and giggles
|
|
By:
He’s the sort of guy who doesn’t like democracy
or understand it |
|
By:
no answers to relief, lol
tomorrow.... |
|
By:
Laws mean absolutely nothing
They can be ignored |
|
By:
Don't pay the tv tax.
|
|
By:
Laws are quite important , every rule and custom is not without its value
In a civilised society |
|
By:
But there is no doubt remainers are on a very dangerous road
If they fail to respect the referendum result Very dangerous indeed |
|
By:
But Lord Wilson, comes back at Sir James, mentioning the lack of a witness statement from the prime minister.
"No one has come forward from your side to say this is true. We're just given the documents... floating around. "Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say, this is true, these are the true reasons for what was done?" |
|
By:
One court rules it unlawful the other court says its not
Might as well admit what it is, a facking pantomime |
|
By:
Aidan O’Neill QC, who represents Joanna Cherry and others who took the government to court in Scotland, goes next.
He says he wants to make two points now. He will start making his main presentation after lunch. On “relief”, he says he would like to be consulted. And he says in Scotland ministers do give witness statements in cases like this. He refers to a case about prisoners slopping out, and another public procurement. He says it was Boris Johnson who took the decision. He says a witness statement could mean the PM having to tell the truth, and the whole truth, under oath. |
|
By:
A concept that he has only a passing familiarity with …….
|
|
By:
Aiden O Neil? I could be wrong but I'm guessing he's no a Rangers supporter.
|
|
By:
Lewis Goodall
✔ @lewis_goodall Honestly this is fabulous stuff. Anyone who is remotely interested in our constitution, politics and legal system should tune into this. It is the perfect erudition of so many of the big themes which have been so contested for the last few years and before. |
|
By:
i find mr oneill quite abrasive in his delivery, not sure thats a good style
|
|
By:
Why is he shouting at the judges , I hope he keeps it up they seem to be loving it ,
|
|
By:
The barren rocks of Aiden.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WS34258cchc |
|
By:
His passionate advocacy shines through
|
|
By:
One look at his name is all you need to know , anti British
|
|
By:
"I say to this court ... stand up for the truth, stand up for reason, stand up for unity in diversity, stand up for parliament, stand up for democracy by dismissing this government’s appeal and uphold a constitution governed by laws and not the passing whims of men.
We’ve got hear the mother of parliaments being shut down by the father of lies. Rather than allowing lies to triumph, listen to the angels of your better nature and rule that this prorogation is unlawful and an abuse of power which has been entrusted to the government. This government is showing itself unworthy of our trust as it uses the powers of its office in a manner that is corrosive of the constitution and destructive of the system of parliamentary representative democracy on which our union polity is founded. Enough is enough. Dismiss this appeal, and let them know that. That’s what truth speaking to power sounds like." |
|
By:
Imagine having the gall to stand up in court and come out with tripe like that
 doubtless he’s a remainer they’re shameless |
|
By:
And the way to stand up for democracy by trying to neutralise the biggest democratic vote in the history of British politics.
|
|
By:
The biggest democratic vote in the history of British politics.
What does that actually mean? Other than that the population of the UK continues to rise over time, it doesn't actually say very much. |
|
By:
17.4 million for leaving 16.1 million Losers.
|
|
By:
interventions tomorrow
should be more fun why all the brexit stuff on the thread?....seems like panic bj says it has nowt to do with brexit.... |
|
By:
James Wolffe QC, the lord advocate, the Scottish government’s chief law officer, has just started making his statement on behalf of the Scottish government and has said:
"It is a fundamental principle of the UK’s constitutional democracy that the executive is accountable to parliament – that the government’s policies and actions are subject to scrutiny in parliament by the elected representatives of the people. That principle – the principle of responsible government – is no less fundamental to our constitution than the legal doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament. It applies to the relations between the UK government and the UK parliament, and is reflected in the constitutional arrangements set out in the devolution statutes. The purposes served by that principle include: (i) subjecting the policies of the executive to consideration by the representatives of the people; (ii) promoting transparency of executive action by requiring the government to report, explain and defend its actions; and (iii) protecting citizens from the arbitrary exercise of executive power. In a society governed by the rule of law, that constitutional principle must be, and is, recognised by the law." |
|
By:
Ronan Lavery QC is now speaking at the supreme court on behalf of Raymond McCord, who brought a legal challenge against the government’s Brexit policy in Northern Ireland.
Getting a lot of knock backs from the justices  |
|
By:
Getting a real telling off now
 |
|
By:
11.40am: Mike Fordham QC speaks on behalf of the Welsh government.
Starting a wee bit early .... |
|
By:
Michael Fordham QC is one of the UK's leading public lawyers, with a broad practice that spans civil liberties, environmental law and immigration, with a particular focus on EU & competition law. He represents claimants, defendants and interested parties and acts across the entire range of public law.
Mike has written legal opinions relied on by: the Constitutional Affairs Committee (legal aid reform; asylum and judicial review); the Work and Pensions Committee (health and safety enforcement policy); and the All-Party Working Group on Rendition (extraordinary rendition). An article Mike wrote in 2003 led to the Law Commission’s 2006-2009 working and consultation papers on monetary remedies against public authorities. |
|
By:
David Allen Green
@davidallengreen Fordham is the author of the most detailed practitioner guide on judicial review He may be only barrister to have read and considered every single judicial review case ever Ubergeek Hence why this is case-heavy |
|
By:
In his written submission Fordham says there are five reasons why the PM’s decision to prorogue parliament is justiciable. The high court in England concluded that it wasn’t.
Here are Fordham’s five reasons. First, because the analysis of justiciability should be integrated with consideration of the legal merits and not addressed in rigid isolation from them ... Secondly, because the principled scope of judicial review, foundationally underpinned by courts identifying what the rule of law requires, secures that executive action be accountable for its compatibility (a) with contextually calibrated public law standards and in particular (b) with established constitutional principles and values ... Thirdly, because “political” subject-matter is, by reference to established constitutional values, a basis for principled judicial restraint – where the applicability of grounds for judicial review may be cautiously and contextually calibrated – but it is not a basis for executive immunity and judicial abdication ... Fourthly, because the divisional court was incorrect (DC judgment §67) to rely on the case of Bobb v Manning [2006] UKPC 22, where the prime minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago was “entitled to exercise his informed and political judgment” in deciding not to call for a dissolution of parliament, as supporting its conclusion on the non-justiciability of such decisions … Fifthly, because it is unsound to rest an adverse conclusion on justiciability upon whether the exercise of the power affects an individual ... |
|
By:
Fordham using lotes of case law ... the best arguments there are when deciding the legality of the appeal and comes across very impressively
Could be very persuasive when the Lordships retire to consider their decision |
|
By:
Totally different style from the emotive arguments presented yesterday by Aidan O’Neil.
|
|
By:
Extract from Lord Garnier's submission.
Highlights why it is important that proroguation cannot be imposed at will. 4. If that conclusion were correct, the consequence would be that there is nothing in law to prevent a Prime Minister from proroguing Parliament in any circumstances or for any reason. 5. In the context of constitutional settlement in which Parliament is acknowledged to be sovereign, that would be a remarkable position for the courts to endorse. It would follow that the courts would not intervene even if, for example: 5.1 Parliament wished to abolish the power of prorogation, and a Bill to that effect passed both Houses, but before it could receive Royal Assent the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament so as to prevent it from becoming law; 5.2 a Prime Minister philosophically opposed to the idea of a standing army prorogued Parliament during the period leading up to the statutory expiry of the relevant Armed Forces Act, with the result that the Act expired and the armed forces were required to disband; or, 5.3 a Prime Minister prorogued Parliament before the outcome of a confidence vote which his whips had calculated he would lose, for no reason other than to prevent it from being recorded that he had lost the confidence of the House such that he would need to resign. Forget the Brexit drama, the decision of the court has consequences well beyond the Brexit issue. |
|
By:
pannick is still a bit boring, but seems fairly up to the job
|
|
By:
Garners submission doesn’t make sense , I’ve expkajned why elsewhere
|
|
By:
and now we await the decision of the 11...
|
|
By:
the judges have asked some decent questions
lady hale is a bit of a star. |