Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171721092500791296

Enzokk

GLaDOS wrote: »

An English Court ruled the prorogation legal did they not?

How does that work?

I can only offer you a twitter thread to try and explain,

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717511991255040?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171718312176304128?s=20

So the law in Scotland is different than England and thus you would find two different rulings. People in the know seemed to anticipate it, at least they say so now. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort it out.

Joylon Maugham mentioned that it is only appropriate that the courts are able to wade in and call this unlawful if they mislead the Queen, imagine if they lost the case. That would mean any future PM could lie to the Queen and ask to prorogue parliament for years to avoid scrutiny.


Edit - Post above is just a continuation of tweets in my post.

GLaDOS

Enzokk wrote: »

I can only offer you a twitter thread to try and explain,

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171717511991255040?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171718312176304128?s=20

So the law in Scotland is different than England and thus you would find two different rulings. People in the know seemed to anticipate it, at least they say so now. It will be up to the Supreme Court to sort it out.

Joylon Maugham mentioned that it is only appropriate that the courts are able to wade in and call this unlawful if they mislead the Queen, imagine if they lost the case. That would mean any future PM could lie to the Queen and ask to prorogue parliament for years to avoid scrutiny.


Edit - Post above is just a continuation of tweets in my post.

Thanks, thats bonkers

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

The Scottish Court has found that Johnson lied to the Queen. That is another bow for the opposition once an election is called. He is not beyond lying to the Queen, do you as an ordinary person think he is not lying to you?

Good luck to him getting a majority.

That's the Scottish Tories wiped out.

lawred2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's the Scottish Tories wiped out.

They were already wiped out in reality.

GM228

GLaDOS wrote: »

An English Court ruled the prorogation legal did they not?

How does that work?

Yes, but so did the Scottish Court of Session, which has now been overturned on appeal today.

The English High Court decision has been given leave to appeal also.

And then we also still await the decision of the NI High Court.

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

They were already wiped out in reality.

They were. The won't even get a reference now.

Dubh Geannain

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This Season 4 teaser is something.

This might be the best season yet!

There's a leak apparently and Fionn mac Cumhaill's labour costs have inflated a billion fold since his first bridge. So, they will now be looking to drain the swamp.

Just a leak mind you, so once they fix that the draining will be handy enough.

josip

How can Westminster be subject to 2 separate legal systems?

LeinsterDub

josip wrote: »

How can Westminster be subject to 2 separate legal systems?

It's actually 3 as NI is separate also.

BonnieSituation

josip wrote: »

How can Westminster be subject to 2 separate legal systems?

As part of both Acts of Union in 1707 and 1801, both Scotland and Ireland got to keep their separate legal systems.

Ireland isn't as distinct from England's as Scotland's is.

Scotland's is more akin to a hybrid Netherlands/France system.

"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

This is all pretty interesting since it was ruled unlawful in the highest court in Scotland, but lawful in the second highest court in England. I'm sure it won't reopen, though.

J Mysterio

UK is in such a mess right now. Constitutional crisis deepens.

bob mcbob

josip wrote: »

How can Westminster be subject to 2 separate legal systems?

In the Act of Union (1707) it was recognised that Scottish law (and education) systems amongst other things were fundamentally different from Englands. It was agreed in the Act of Union that Scotland would continue with their own systems.

Water John

Some opinion seems to be that Parliament could now reconvene. If the HOC wasn't available to them, all the opposition parties could assemble in the building across the road.
Probability is the Supreme Court will rule the other way.

gooch2k9

So now Brexit has developed into a battle of the judiciaries?

Water John

One can now see the importance of Dominic Grieve's Humble Address to Parliament. Those documents are supposed to be available today.

VinLieger

Water John wrote: »

One can now see the importance of Dominic Grieve's Humble Address to Parliament. Those documents are supposed to be available today.

Yeah about that.....


https://mobile.twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1171691247351795712

josip

bob mcbob wrote: »

In the Act of Union (1707) it was recognised that Scottish law (and education) systems amongst other things were fundamentally different from Englands. It was agreed in the Act of Union that Scotland would continue with their own systems.

Which makes sense if the Scottish law applied only to Scotland.

But if any of the 3 legal systems differ in their verdict, then it's immediately a constitutional crisis?
But they no longer have a constitution worth speaking about since it has little or no legal foundation and depends on the government honouring precedents and conventions?
Precedents and conventions which the current Tories have no intention of following.
UK 2.0 is badly needed to replace UK 1.0.879

trellheim

getting very close to a bad constitutional crisis now in the UK . You can't walk a court judgment off


( IIRC Queen was in Balmoral when JRM got the prorogue )

Enzokk

VinLieger wrote: »

Yeah about that.....


https://mobile.twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1171691247351795712

That is ridiculous, she uses the analogy of possibly being hit by a car. People know if they walk outside cars will be driving as well. What she is saying is that you should tell people its okay to walk in the outside without telling them there will be cars and what the dangers are. At the same time they don't tell car drivers what the road rules are or that there will be pedestrians outside.

trellheim

Excerpts from the Judgment

The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.

The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.

All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/sep/11/brexit-latest-news-public-would-not-benefit-from-hearing-official-worst-case-no-deal-assumptions-says-leadsom-live-news?page=with:block-5d78c66b8f082514879f1f77#block-5d78c66b8f082514879f1f77

VinLieger

Okay so the reason the Scottish court ruled it illegal is due to how the Scottish law differs from English law, under what system will the Supreme court now be deliberating? Will they be looking to test it against what the Scottish court was looking at or will it be looking at it against English law?

prawnsambo

josip wrote: »

Which makes sense if the Scottish law applied only to Scotland.

But if any of the 3 legal systems differ in their verdict, then it's immediately a constitutional crisis?
But they no longer have a constitution worth speaking about since it has little or no legal foundation and depends on the government honouring precedents and conventions?
Precedents and conventions which the current Tories have no intention of following.
UK 2.0 is badly needed to replace UK 1.0.879

Except the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land. So if the highest court in Scotland makes a ruling, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court and overturned or confirmed. So it's not really a constitutional crisis.

Leroy42

And with no surprise what so ever No 10 has come out swinging at the Scottish courts.

UK, run by, for an solely in the interests of England it would appear.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553

josip

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay so the reason the Scottish court ruled it illegal is due to how the Scottish law differs from English law, under what system will the Supreme court now be deliberating? Will they be looking to test it against what the Scottish court was looking at or will it be looking at it against English law?

Separate legal systems and Scotland have their own Supreme Court.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Leroy42 wrote: »

UK, run by, for an solely in the interests of England it would appear.

Nothing new about that. Maybe Scotland needs to take back "control"?

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

And with no surprise what so ever No 10 has come out swinging at the Scottish courts.

UK, run by, for an solely in the interests of England it would appear.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553

Well they probably choose the Scottish courts because the Queen was in Scotland when she was asked to Prorogue parliament. If the Queen had been at sandringham and they went to the Scottish courts then you'd say they were chancing their arm.

Leroy42

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well they probably choose the Scottish courts because the Queen was in Scotland when she was asked to Prorogue parliament. If the Queen had been at sandringham and they went to the Scottish courts then you'd say they were chancing their arm.

Yeah, but can you imagine an Irish government coming out and saying they lost a case because the judge was from Donegal or Kerry or Dublin?

Its nuts. Sure appeal it if you wish but to call into question the ruling because they are from a different part of the union, thus implying that the union is not as united as they would wish.

BonnieSituation

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well they probably choose the Scottish courts because the Queen was in Scotland when she was asked to Prorogue parliament. If the Queen had been at sandringham and they went to the Scottish courts then you'd say they were chancing their arm.

Not at all.

All three systems have equivalence. And as Westminster is the national parliament for all three legal jurisdictions there's no weight to your statement.

That steps quite beyond the "West Lothian Question".:P

The case was taken in Belfast, London and Edinburgh; there were never going to be 3 identical judgements anyway.