Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

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 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.

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.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

Well I wasn't aware of that. That puts a different spin on it then.

darem93 wrote: »

What an absolutely absurd statement from No 10. So they're basically saying the Scottish courts aren't as legitimate as the English ones because they didn't rule in their favour? With each passing day they confirm everything the SNP have been saying about Scotland's place in the so called "union of equals".

Also fair play to Joanna and the SNP in general. They have played an absolute blinder throughout this entire fiasco.

And in fact the English Court decided that they didn't have [not the word, but close enough I hope] jurisdiction to rule on the matter and kicked it straight to the Supreme Court. So it didn't actually 'lose' there, just got bumped up a level. So that's two out of three going to the Supreme Court, the third (Ni) has still to rule.

David Allen Green was on James O'Brien's show just there and he made the interesting point that if a senior civil servant or Minister had put their name to a memo of some sort, giving out genuine reasons for the prorogation, the case would have failed. But (he posited) they wouldn't do this because such a reason would more than likely have proven to be a lie. And that's where the WhatsApp messages etc. come in, because they are out in the wild and more than likely prove otherwise than any such memo/statement would state. Perjury trap writ large.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

You could almost say that the way to avoid such confusion and disagreements within a union is to have a centralised court which jurisdication over each part and interprets the law equally across the different members.

But that is obviously never going to happen!

it doesnt its a trumpian fantasy to keep the dup happy

As I have it, yes Scottish Law and English Law is different when it comes to constitutional questions. It seems like in Scotland they are more open to questioning constitutional matters and is not as bound by past decisions as courts in England.

It will now be up to the Supreme Court to reconcile the two opinions basically between Scotland and England and decide what is the correct course of action. The makeup of the court has 2 Scottish Judges so you can be sure that they will not be short of expertise on Scottish Law. Luckily the judges selection to the court is not influenced by the PM of the day and they are by law not allowed to recommend a different name than the one nominated by the selection committee.

Enzokk wrote: »

As I have it, yes Scottish Law and English Law is different when it comes to constitutional questions. It seems like in Scotland they are more open to questioning constitutional matters and is not as bound by past decisions as courts in England.

It will now be up to the Supreme Court to reconcile the two opinions basically between Scotland and England and decide what is the correct course of action. The makeup of the court has 2 Scottish Judges so you can be sure that they will not be short of expertise on Scottish Law. Luckily the judges selection to the court is not influenced by the PM of the day and they are by law not allowed to recommend a different name than the one nominated by the selection committee.

The optics of the Scottish court's decision being dismissed in London will suit the SNP just fine.

prawnsambo wrote: »

And in fact the English Court decided that they didn't have [not the word, but close enough I hope] jurisdiction to rule on the matter and kicked it straight to the Supreme Court. So it didn't actually 'lose' there, just got bumped up a level. So that's two out of three going to the Supreme Court, the third (Ni) has still to rule.

David Allen Green was on James O'Brien's show just there and he made the interesting point that if a senior civil servant or Minister had put their name to a memo of some sort, giving out genuine reasons for the prorogation, the case would have failed. But (he posited) they wouldn't do this because such a reason would more than likely have proven to be a lie. And that's where the WhatsApp messages etc. come in, because they are out in the wild and more than likely prove otherwise than any such memo/statement would state. Perjury trap writ large.

Yes, David Allen Green has been very prominent on the missing witness statement and what it means. He likens it to the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog not barking and raising suspicion. I think it is clear that Grieve has seen the documents that confirm that people in government were talking about proroguing parliament for other reasons long before they said they thought about it and thus no-one was willing to put their name to a statement disputing the truth.

Green is also very dismissive of Cummings, especially that he is some sort of genius. He said as much in the interview, they are so incompetent that they cannot even break the convention of the constitution without looking like mugs.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You could almost say that the way to avoid such confusion and disagreements within a union is to have a centralised court which jurisdication over each part and interprets the law equally across the different members.

But that is obviously never going to happen!

That's why they created the UK Supreme Court in 2009.

Previously the highest court was the Law Lords.

So no civil servant signed off on the reason for prorogation of Parliament because they would have been signing a lie. Grieve knows this.
Their is thus serious evidence that the PM misled the Queen. I did ask about that at the time.
If the evidence is provided to Parliament today, that should be available to the Courts.

DOCARCH wrote: »

Supreme court will hear all appeals, the Scotland one, the NI one and the England one, as one case, early next week.

Notwithstanding the supreme court appeal hearing, the Queen could open re-open parliament by royal decree.

Brexit....the gift that keeps giving! If it was not so serious, it would be .

I honestly hope she does reopen it just as a subtle way of saying "piss off" to Boris for his shenanigans.

Water John wrote: »

So no civil servant signed off on the reason for prorogation of Parliament because they would have been signing a lie. Grieve knows this.
Their is thus serious evidence that the PM misled the Queen. I did ask about that at the time.
If the evidence is provided to Parliament today, that should be available to the Courts.

This whole excersice from the start has been based solely on lies, deciet, corrupt money, russian trolling and poisonous idiots with no interest in anything except themselves. It would be epic on so many levels if this ultimately leads to an A50 withdrawal and a significant investigation into all this as well as serious reform of their political structures AND reigning in deceptive media outlets to prevent anything like this happening again but the more this goes on the more I get the feeling there wont be a Brexit as it looks like the whole corrupt house of cards is starting to disintegrate under the weight of its own deception.

Call me Al wrote: »

If it does reopen on the back of this ruling it wili be a real kick in the ar$e for Johnson's SPADs.

Aside from this it's fascinating to see the Brexit nationalists on Twitter turning their arrogant focus, spite, and insults from Ireland and its citizens over to Scotland, its people and its laws.

Do they like anyone? I've seen them attack Ireland, Scotland, France and Germany regularly.

Trump being their right wing dictator of choice of course.