live streaming from supreme court....

Thus, where the Prime Minister chooses to webcast videos under the title “The People’s PMQs” rather than face real and direct questioning in Parliament from the elected representatives of the people during Prime Minister’s Questions and other sittings of Parliament he is parodying, and so subverting, the true principle of his accountability to Parliament as protected and embodied under the constitution.

Are you criticising that Boris isn't being put under enough scrutinity by the hand-picked questions for People's PMQ?

the pm doesn't have to do anything he is told to do by parliament

it is for the pm to govern, not parliament

the peoples pmqs from luxembourg was cancelled when the pm ran away from the peoples questiond

remainers should be seen and not heard

the pm should be seen and heard, he shouldnt run away

no, we don't want to hear anything more from the pm thanks
we have already heard enough, leave oct 31, do or die

Boris Johnsom Desert Island Disc selections from October 2005

1. Beatles – Here Comes the Sun
2. Theme Tune for Test Match Special – Soul Limbo, Booker T and the MGs
3. Bach – Ich will hier bei dir stehen – Here would I stand beside thee
4. Rolling Stones – Start Me Up
5. Brahms – Finale of Brahms Variations on a theme by Haydn
6. Van Morrison – Brown Eyed Girl
7. The Clash – Pressure Drop
8. Opening of the last movement of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony

Surely he picked the wrong song by The Clash

beethovens 8 th might be a better choice too.....

9th even

beautiful music chosen by boris, when the notes stop and we have left then all will be peaceful again
if we don't leave the notes will stab too sharply

music is like that

When do we get to this bit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2G2sac9s34

Sep 18, 2019 -- 4:38AM, Angoose wrote:

Interesting to hear the Chief Justice state that the paperwork from the Scottish case is better arranged than the paperwork from the English case.Surely all badly arranged paperwork should be disregarded

Not able to keep tabs on it today but the above - any chance this looks like just a pat on the head for the Scottish court before throwing out their judgment ?

Hears two lawyers discussing the case last night on BBC News.

One of them stated that it is very difficult to draw conclusions from the questions and comments made by the various Justice's, they consciously ask difficult questions to both sides whilst being extremely careful to avoid being seen as showing favour to one side or the other.

Guy Verhofstadt tells MEPs "Juncker or Tusk can do a lot of things, but at least they cannot close the doors of our house"

That's why there are so many gimmigrants flooding the continent innitt!

Meanwhile …....


Chris Davies MEP
✔
@ChrisDaviesLD

European Parliament has just voted 544-126 in support of UK being given an article 50 extension should the request be made. #StopBrexit

A strong question from Lord Sales, the latest addition to the Supreme Court, on the reasons for prorogation, who asks: "If there are constitutional principles that are required to be policed, isn't it more appropriate for the court to do it rather than for the Queen to be sucked in?

a strong counter argument could be made for removing the queen from the requirement
to sign the paperwork.

but it does seem as if she is left in the lurch by government on many occasions, (not
just this government)

David Allen Green
@davidallengreen

Interesting that there is now not even any lip-service at the Supreme Court that the prorogation was for a new Queen's Speech
Government submissions seem to be that the prorogation power stands, whatever its purpose and effect

I have sent the wife out for some popcorn and some straws for remainians to clutch.

As long as it wasnt illegal , and it wasn’t
that’s fine

yeah, he wouldnt want to bring that up anyway, they've already proved the lie.

pretty sure others will.

They really haven’t a clue , this is a complete waste of time :)
Parliament was prorogued and there is nothing the remainers or courts can do

If the government hadn't attempted to subvert the accepted procedures of protocol we wouldn't have this issue of the Courts overriding Parliamentry process ... a sad state when a Gov't attempts to ride roughshod over democracy. They might win the legal argument but the use of prorogation is going to be used much more by Gov'ts in the future and it will erode the whole priciple of decency and honesty.

That will be the legacy of Bojo & Cummings  ... Brexit will be a footnote in history in comparison

That is a matter for the government in power
If you don’t like it vote them out

These afeard to have an election .

I don’t think the remainers like democracy

When they lose

the court can decide that they have power to act over prorogation, ...that seems to have increased in chance,from
start of the trial, as many loopholes and limitless powers have been exposed.

but then they may decide that on this occasion that enough notice was given, and procedure was correct.


???

Ah no yhtl , the only correct decision they can come to us that proragation was legal

That’s all

i was talking to geordie, its a sensible post to reply to

who could deny that

Unless you are going to say that boris should have been stopped ,forced
from proroguing
By whom exactly ?

they aint happy that nobody has signed off the documents as being honest and complete

thats the biggest government stumbling block

donny - lfc will be up in arms about the bias of the judiciary if the gov't lose

Lord Wilson acting some relevant comments ... "why are no material witnesses appearing on behalf of this government" ... was what they said about prorogation the truth ... of course we know the answer!
It might not be a foregone conclusion as to the decision the court might make

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

The exchange between Lady Black and Sir James Eadie - and the earlier intervention from Lord Sales - feel important.

They both go to a wider concept of parliamentary supremacy than the one the government is promoting.
The government in essence is telling the court that parliamentary sovereignty means the right to make/break laws and that’s about it.

Opponents say sovereignty also means the right to take any steps necessary to hold an allegedly dodgy prime minister to account.

lol any steps necessary
That’s ok and the elected government can also take
@“ zany steps necessary “. Good

i think the court has decided it can rule on the prorogation

i just dont see what johnson has done wrong except to lie to the queen, which can
be dealt with elsewhere without making the prorogation illegal.

I suspect that we'll end up with a ruling that doesn't declare the prorogation as illegal, but will state that the government MAY have acted with improper purpose and caution should be exercised to avoid the possibility of future improper purpose.

They may be a bit bolder with their wording, but it will essentially amount to no more than a rap on the knuckles.
Both sides will then claim it as a victory.

The government has unwavering power and there's some who defend it just because it their guy in the hot seat

Sorry but they have no power, absolutely zip, they might have "power" down there in westminster but you know how much that means in the real world? absolutely zilch

"we'll make new laws"

remainers pretending they know what boris said to the Queen now :(

"we'll make new laws"??? we'll just break them

silly post from santarin

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

He’s the sort of guy who doesn’t like democracy
or understand  it

no answers to relief, lol

tomorrow....

Laws mean absolutely nothing

They can be ignored

Don't pay the tv tax.

Laws are quite important , every rule and custom is not without its value
In a civilised society

But there is no doubt remainers are on a very dangerous road
If they fail to respect the referendum result
Very dangerous indeed

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?"

One court rules it unlawful the other court says its not

Might as well admit what it is, a facking pantomime

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.

A concept that he has only a passing familiarity with …….

Aiden O Neil? I could be wrong but I'm guessing he's no a Rangers supporter.

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.

i find mr oneill quite abrasive in his delivery, not sure thats a good style

Why is he shouting at the judges , I hope he keeps it up they seem to be loving it ,

The barren rocks of Aiden.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WS34258cchc

His passionate advocacy shines through

One look at his name is all you need to know , anti British

"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."

Imagine having the gall to stand up in court and come out with tripe like that

doubtless he’s a remainer they’re shameless

And the way to stand up for democracy by trying to neutralise the biggest democratic vote in the history of British politics.

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.

17.4 million for leaving 16.1 million Losers.

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....

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."

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

Getting a real telling off now

11.40am: Mike Fordham QC speaks on behalf of the Welsh government.

Starting a wee bit early ....

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.

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

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 ...

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

Totally different style from the emotive arguments presented yesterday by Aidan O’Neil.

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.

pannick is still a bit boring, but seems fairly up to the job

Garners submission doesn’t make sense   , I’ve expkajned  why elsewhere

and now we await the decision of the 11...

the judges have asked some decent questions


lady hale is a bit of a star.

they are all top dogs in their field, displaying a depth of understanding that is well beyond the majority of the general public

You’re confusing knowledge with understanding , they’re not the same thing

Lady Hale, president of the court, thanks the court staff and everyone else involved in the case.

She stresses what she said at the opening of the case - that this hearing will not decide whether or how the UK leaves the EU.
She says the court hopes to be able to publish its decision “early next week”.

Thank You lfc QC ... hen did you pass the bar

*when

Does she think we are going to be impressed by that amazing bit of wisdom

I didnt think lady hale spent all those years studying
Just to state the fking obvious ,
Oh well life is full of little dissipointments

Dominic Casciani
Home Affairs Correspondent

Lord Pannick is trying to insulate the judges from a “political" decision.
He argues that a simple legal declaration of unlawfulness would be enough for the Speakers of the Commons and Lords to know what to do next politically.

It keeps the judges out of politics.

That depends on the verdict they give

If it’s that no law was broken then that’s fine

If they determine anything else they will be be guilty of unlawful behaviour ( for whatever motives possibly political )
themselves

At the moment parliament is not due to reconvene until three weeks on Monday, 14 October.

If parliament does return next week, that would clash with the Labour party conference, which starts this weekend and runs until Wednesday, and with the Conservative party conference, which starts next weekend and runs until Wednesday 2 October.

lfc offering a somewhat lame rationale of the possible outcome ...

Please recall Parliament 

i think they will judge they can rule on this case,

they its likely they will be split,



parliament likely would return a week early on 7th or even 3rd, after tory conference, but it was not
prorogued for last years conferences...!!!

...then its likely...

Boris please just say you’ve changed your mind

Bring the fkers back

Pretty much guaranteed to be a split decision.

If there are some judges who don’t know or understand the law
and are incapable of logical thought and find anything other than not guilty

They must be looked at again if the Brexit party gets into power and they must be sacked for incompetence at least
Any thing else also ? Then prosecuted and sent to prison for a long time

Split decision

Oh nice. So we get the most boring outcome possible

These people are so boring, I don't think they realise how tiring they are to watch