Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

If it was, surely it ceased to be advisory when parliament triggered Article 50

Parliament didn't trigger A50, the government did. There is a difference between parliament and the government.

Parliament voted to give May permission to trigger A50; the Miller court case which required this was to prevent the May using Henry VIII powers which would have bypassed the approval of parliament. I don't think anyone at that time could possibly have foretold what an absolute balls up the tories were going to make of the leaving process...

The referendum *never ceased to be advisory*; that was its legal status and its legal status has never been altered.

It's such a shame that no-one on the Leavers' side seems to explain these facts to them. It would really help their understanding of how parliament and the legal system works.

The issue surely is,
Did The Government deliberately mislead (lie to) the Queen
and
Was it a deliberate move to restrict parliamentary scrutiny.

Recalling parliament is now pretty pointless but there is plenty of evidence that every action was designed to stop debate, for which there should be some kind of sanction, or do we really want future episodes of this manipulation.

I don’t think the results will be known until next Mon or Tue.
I did watch a little at lunchtime, but it was like watching paint dry.

Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. If May hadn't mucked about we would be out of the EU by now probably with a reasonable deal - all we see is her smirking in the Hoc and others. Thank god parliament is prorogued so we don't have to see any more of it.

I find it fascinating and love the way the arguments get developed

Let's get something clear - Parliament has only been prorogued for an extra 4 or 5 days as the suspension was due to take place anyway. (Tue 17-Sep-19 13:15:40)

Why do people who want to leave tell lies, JenniferEccles?

If you had put "as far as I am aware" or "I thought", it would be fine, but no you believe your version is a fact without even checking out whether it is or it isn't because, of course, leavers know so much more than the experts.

Over the period of the conferences, Parliament usually goes into recess. It is not prorogued. Parliament has control while it is in recess. Some business continues while it is in recess. Parliament could be recalled while it is in recess.

By making the whole five weeks the period when Parliament was prorogued Johnson took away the power of parliament. As the man said in the court case today, the executive (the government) is the junior partner in parliament; parliament (the MPs) is the senior partner. Basically, Johnson has taken power he should not have from parliament by devious means. You are right it is not a coup, but it is overreaching of the powers of the Prime Minister. It is sly, it is lying and it is underhand. All the things I am beginning to associate with leavers of the Johnson ilk.

From what I gather the last bit of the case will be on Thursday when the "interveners", the lord advocate for the Scottish government, Raymond McCord, the counsel general for Wales, Sir John Major, Baroness Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, and the Public Law Project will have time. I seem to remember them saying John Major has 20 minutes.

We may get an outline of their outline ruling this week - Friday possibly, from what the experts were saying but the full detail will probably not be available until the beginning of next week.

From my post - Tue 17-Sep-19 18:40:00

It should have shown the quote from Jennifer Eccles, i.e., Let's get something clear - Parliament has only been prorogued for an extra 4 or 5 days as the suspension was due to take place anyway.

The liars may be exceedingly guillible or they may know very well what is going on but chose to repeat the lies because they would never dare admit the truth.

Tue 17-Sep-19 17:47:42
Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. (Tue 17-Sep-19 17:47:42)

Gone off the rule of law have you, Avalon? I suggest you re-read that famous Martin Niemoller poem just to remind yourself why we need it.

I actually think it's worse than that varian. They don't even care what is truthful and what isn't if it doesn't fit in with there view of the world. Cut down the language into catchphrases so nothing has a meaning and it can always be repeated by any brainwashed advocate of those who are taking over. Very 1984.

That's true of all of us to some extent which is why we should never assume, or be too puffed up with our own importance to listen to the boring stuff but it seems to be where half the country is at the moment.

DH has been glued to Sky News on his computer. From what I gather emphasis today is on how far the Govt can go in suspending parliament for political advantage. No one is pretending to believe the line about preparing for the queen’s speech. Or, therefore, that BJ did not mislead the queen.

You mean support the deceit and criminal activities and end up with a Yellow Hammer scenario? How dare you inflict that on those of us did not succumb to all the lies and brainwash propaganda?
My family deserves better than suffering because of down right stupidity of others making.

I so agree with this comment

Lewis Goodall
@lewis_goodall

I loved watching the Supreme Court today and I couldn’t quite figure out why. And then I realised. It was like the grown ups were in charge again. It’s been a long while.

That is exactly how I felt watching it Whitewave.

'Same old, same old! I and many others are sick of all the shennagans. '

ah yes - shennagans - Johnson's ones are certainly putting us at huge risk, all of us, you and yours included- and the GREAT Britain we all love. Shennagans indeed- how dare you.

Does anyone know where Gina Miller is getting her funding for this case from?

I don't think there can be many folk who actually believe BJ's claim that his reason for proroguing parliament was just to prepare a Queens Speech- nothing to do with brexit- nothing to do with taking back control from our elected MPs who might ask questions he couldn't answer.

Neither the English or NI courts have exonerated him. They just said the question was a political one, not a matter for the law, whereas the Scottish court, having decided it was a matter for the law, ruled that BJ was guilty of misleading the Queen about his reasons for the prorogation and so the prorogation was illegal and Parliament should be immediately recalled.

The decision to be made by the UK Supreme Court will have a huge effect in shaping the future of our democracy.

One thing that almost certainly will make a difference to the final conclusion should the court decide that the case is indeed something the Supreme Court should judge, is the fact that if Johnson wins, he can prorogue to his hearts content, getting rid of Parliament every time he thinks a contentious issue is imminent.

The trouble is that if the court upholds the pm and not Parliament it will create a precedent that means that further Prime Ministers can silence Parliament just as easily. Our constitution is being torn apart by the worst Prime Minister in living memory. And what for? A selfish, ego trip taken by an incompetent and totally unfit, lying journalist who thinks in headlines and not in detail. As for the idiotic Conservative members who voted him in........I am speechless.

WWmk2 : 'if Johnson wins, he can prorogue to his hearts content, getting rid of Parliament every time he thinks a contentious issue is imminent.'

exactly, and of course any other PM in the future, Johnson's supporters should remember that. It could well fly right back in their face with a new PM in the future.

There are do many considerations for the court to take into account and are being. For instance they are questioning whether, if certain decisions are made would it mean that another PM could prorogue parliament for a year thus sniffling debate?

Sorry should have read the previous posts more closely.

I don’t think that could actually happen ( proroging Parliament to anyones’ hearts content, as the ‘official reason’
Behind this one is to prepare for the Queen’s Speech.
How would it be justified for other reasons?
Of course John Major did it to put off the cash for questions scandal.
All it needs in future surely, is for Parliament to pass a law against suspension....it could be done in days if they wanted to, just like the law passed that Johnson should ask for an extension in the event of no deal was.

Sorry if this has already been said, but in this instance there wasn't time to pass such a law, as the priority was to stop (in principal unfortunately) BJ from going ahead with No Deal on Oct 31.