FabSwingers.com forum: the supreme court case

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

so did anyone watch.....

how do you think day 1 went.....

actually was impressed by lord pannick for the miller team.... kept it plain and simple and actually didn't get very wordy at all...

I thought it would struggle to understand the nuiances.. but he stayed so calm and assured and made it easy to keep up...

wasn't as impressed with lord keen for the government... did struggle in places this afternoon, i did think it went against them they they couldn't assure we wouldn't just go over their heads and do it again a fair amount of distrust in the pm, especially since he has refused to write a sworn affidavit

i think today was a win for the claiments....

tomorrow is the reverse...... government go first in the morning, the cherry team go in the afternoon....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

Waste of time and money ....Boris is one jump ahead ..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iscreet_divorced_guyMan
over a year ago

central

I didn’t watch any of it, but I read about it online,

What I think is shocking is that BoJo has been saying for the past three weeks that parliament was prorogued to allow for the preparation of a queens speech to outline the Governments agenda for the next parliamentary session, whereas Lord Keen said today that it is a purely political tool, to avoid scrutiny, and then cited examples where this was previously done, in 1924 and 1948!

So either Lord Keen is lying or BoJo is lying!

I’m not about Lird Keens form and his relationship with the truth, but everyone knows what BoJos relationship with the truth is!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"so did anyone watch.....

how do you think day 1 went.....

actually was impressed by lord pannick for the miller team.... kept it plain and simple and actually didn't get very wordy at all...

I thought it would struggle to understand the nuiances.. but he stayed so calm and assured and made it easy to keep up...

i think today was a win for the claiments....

tomorrow is the reverse...... government go first in the morning, the cherry team go in the afternoon...."
.

I have calculated there's an 86% chance whatever your say is wrong purely by going of your history in predictions.

I'll be back on Thursday to either say I told you so or blimey your right.. Trust me it's not the latter

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the biggest problem is going to be whether or not the Supreme court has any juristiction over parliamentary protocol and procedures. I reckon it's a difficult one to call

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"so did anyone watch.....

how do you think day 1 went.....

actually was impressed by lord pannick for the miller team.... kept it plain and simple and actually didn't get very wordy at all...

I thought it would struggle to understand the nuiances.. but he stayed so calm and assured and made it easy to keep up...

i think today was a win for the claiments....

tomorrow is the reverse...... government go first in the morning, the cherry team go in the afternoon.....

I have calculated there's an 86% chance whatever your say is wrong purely by going of your history in predictions.

I'll be back on Thursday to either say I told you so or blimey your right.. Trust me it's not the latter

Another meaningless contribution to the thread just to make a personal attack?

Why do you even bother?

The OP is looking to debate an important subject of the day and writes out a detailed overview. The best you can offer is to have ago at him?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"I think the biggest problem is going to be whether or not the Supreme court has any juristiction over parliamentary protocol and procedures. I reckon it's a difficult one to call"

That is the nub of it really.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Says it’s too close to call either way.

What will happen if the English legal system decides for prorogation today and the Scottish court has already declared it illegal (not read much on it tbh)? Each system is independent of the other...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Waste of time and money ....Boris is one jump ahead .."

How? Can you explain?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"Says it’s too close to call either way.

What will happen if the English legal system decides for prorogation today and the Scottish court has already declared it illegal (not read much on it tbh)? Each system is independent of the other..."

Parliament of the UK is where both derive their legitimacy from.

The function of Parliament is the same in both jurisdictions, albeit with different interpretation on occasion.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

been a fascinating watch this morning (day off work)

i also felt sorry for eadie .. as he was trying to argue one thing, the reason for prorouging was perfectly normal, whilst basically the PM and his ministers are telling the public something else

so it feel like they came up with a compromise where is was just about short enough so they could come up with the excuse but long enough to try and deter things not going their way....

the exchange about oversight during the time sensitive prorouge period was fascinating as by definition there is no parliament, but then the governement don't want courts involved either

also the fact there are no witness statements been produced by the PM, senior ministers or advisors as evidence to the thinking makes the job he is trying to sell difficult when we all know the reason... and we know this because of the stuff they had to produce for the scottish case (the memos between nikki de costa and the PM)

it was a sterling effort to try and sell talking out of both sides of the mouths... don't think the judges bought it though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

o'neill has been very entertaining so far.... not sure he is really helping the cause thought! needs to get into the substance...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"so did anyone watch.....

how do you think day 1 went.....

actually was impressed by lord pannick for the miller team.... kept it plain and simple and actually didn't get very wordy at all...

I thought it would struggle to understand the nuiances.. but he stayed so calm and assured and made it easy to keep up...

i think today was a win for the claiments....

tomorrow is the reverse...... government go first in the morning, the cherry team go in the afternoon.....

I have calculated there's an 86% chance whatever your say is wrong purely by going of your history in predictions.

I'll be back on Thursday to either say I told you so or blimey your right.. Trust me it's not the latter

Another meaningless contribution to the thread just to make a personal attack?

Why do you even bother?

The OP is looking to debate an important subject of the day and writes out a detailed overview. The best you can offer is to have ago at him?"
.

Ooh sorry a biased meaningless personal interpretation of court proceedings.

Ok I'll join in, I thought the other side was just super and will sweep aside the remoaners with wit and superlatives.

Meh

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

It is not a legal act covered by judges ...Will be kicked out...wait and see

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This is a parliament matter, what's up with the useless wankers can't they sort it out themselves. No have to go crying to the courts costing thousands, they had the chance to call an election and pass a bill for the date to be set in stone. But the cowards know they couldn't win.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

That's quite some rant.

Rather ironic that we are in this mess because of a campaign to assert the sovereignty of Parliament.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is a parliament matter, what's up with the useless wankers can't they sort it out themselves. No have to go crying to the courts costing thousands, they had the chance to call an election and pass a bill for the date to be set in stone. But the cowards know they couldn't win. "

This is not cowardice but a well-planned tactic about which your blonde hero has no idea. His fall is near.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ary_ArgyllMan
over a year ago

Argyll

"Says it’s too close to call either way.

The Scottish court is not independent on this issue - the Scottish court sits above the original English court so their judgement stands at present but the Supreme Court sits above both, so their judgement will be final. This is because this issue relates to the UK Government which includes all four nations in the Union - it is not a devolved matter.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

"so did anyone watch.....

how do you think day 1 went.....

actually was impressed by lord pannick for the miller team.... kept it plain and simple and actually didn't get very wordy at all...

I thought it would struggle to understand the nuiances.. but he stayed so calm and assured and made it easy to keep up...

i think today was a win for the claiments....

tomorrow is the reverse...... government go first in the morning, the cherry team go in the afternoon...."
Have to agre with your assessment f Lord Pannick h was very impressive,better than the government guy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"Says it’s too close to call either way.

The Supreme Court is superior to both the Scottish Court of Session and the English High Court. It's ruling on the matter will be definitive throughout the UK.

As it stands now, because the matter is a UK wide matter and the Scottish Court of Session is deemed a superior Court to the English High Court, unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Government is in breach of the law.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster

The Court of Session is not superior to the English High Court but was able to rule on the prorogation case because of Inherent jurisdiction, which is a doctrine of English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

Not quite... the way it is is a 3 tier system... high court, court of appeal, Supreme Court...

The decision made by the Scottish court of appeal trumps the decision made in the English high court

But the miller case was given leave to skip the court of appeal stage ... which is why both cases ended up at the Supreme Court at the same time

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not quite... the way it is is a 3 tier system... high court, court of appeal, Supreme Court...

The decision made by the Scottish court of appeal trumps the decision made in the English high court

But the miller case was given leave to skip the court of appeal stage ... which is why both cases ended up at the Supreme Court at the same time "
.

I don't think that's correct, Scots criminal law is separate to the supreme court, the English high court is ruling under English law and the Scots high court is ruling under Scots law, in civil cases like this the supreme court over rides both, however the supreme courts judgements can be overruled by parliament meaning even if the supreme court finds in favour of the government they can over ride it, wether they will or not we'll see and of course we're still in the EU so effectively you could take it to the European court which has superiority over the UK supreme court, that could be interesting

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In effect what the remoaners have done is set the UK court system in opposition with each other by once again refusing to consent to losing (they lost in the English high court so decided to try the Scottish high court) thus when the supreme court finds in favour of the government everybody in Scotland goes aha see the English have it in for us.

The reality is remoaners are just as capable of breaking up the Union if it suits there political gains as the brexiters.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The European Court adjudicated on matters of EU law. What EU law is involved here?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

"In effect what the remoaners have done is set the UK court system in opposition with each other by once again refusing to consent to losing (they lost in the English high court so decided to try the Scottish high court) thus when the supreme court finds in favour of the government everybody in Scotland goes aha see the English have it in for us.

The reality is remoaners are just as capable of breaking up the Union if it suits there political gains as the brexiters.

False.

The case started in Scotland because the equivalent court in England was on holiday.

Miller lodged her claim AFTER Cherry et al lodged theirs.

Do keep up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The reality is remoaners are just as capable of breaking up the Union if it suits there political gains as the brexiters.

False.

The case started in Scotland because the equivalent court in England was on holiday.

Miller lodged her claim AFTER Cherry et al lodged theirs.

Do keep up.

"
.

Ooh dear, more weasel words.

Why don't you just except your morals are no different to there's, your just coming from a different side?.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

The reality is remoaners are just as capable of breaking up the Union if it suits there political gains as the brexiters.

False.

The case started in Scotland because the equivalent court in England was on holiday.

Miller lodged her claim AFTER Cherry et al lodged theirs.

Do keep up.

Ooh dear, more weasel words.

Why don't you just except your morals are no different to there's, your just coming from a different side?.

Since when did pointing out the actual facts become weasel words?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

The reality is remoaners are just as capable of breaking up the Union if it suits there political gains as the brexiters.

They were completely different cases.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My favourite quote so far .

“The mother of parliaments has been shut down by the father of lies “

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Since when did pointing out the actual facts become weasel words?

Probably when the sherry bottle is out

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Since when did pointing out the actual facts become weasel words?

Probably when the sherry bottle is out

Somehow I doubt he drinks sherry....now if you said red bull I think you might be nearer the mark

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

Since when did pointing out the actual facts become weasel words?

Probably when the sherry bottle is out

We had another character, now UNLOS who had a habit of raging after a couple of drinks.

Remember him?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Lol I thought he was permanently in a state of rage lol

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"My favourite quote so far .

“The mother of parliaments has been shut down by the father of lies “

Best one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Since when did pointing out the actual facts become weasel words?

Probably when the sherry bottle is out

We had another character, now UNLOS who had a habit of raging after a couple of drinks.

Remember him?"

Yes I do. His name was completely at odds with his posts (peace*****)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have found it rather amusing that Sir John Major's argument was that Boris Johnson has prorogued parliament to prevent parliament from debating on brexit.

Pot calling the kettle black there.

John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 amidst the cash for questions scandal - to prevent parliamentary scrutiny.

I don't recall anyone taking his government to court over it.

As for Boris though, parliament was able to push through a brexit motion before prorogation began - and in any case, parliament would not currently be sitting due to the annual party conference season.

Hypothetical question here, had Boris not prorogued, would all of the political parties cancelled their conferences? I doubt it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster

In 1996 Parliament was in recess from 25 July to 14 October (it wasn’t until 2003 that Parliament sat in September). Major still decided to prorogue for 7 days three days after returning, ostensibly to have a Queens Speech. Meaning parliament didn’t sit for a full three months.

Mid to late 1996 was rather fraught time for Major, with the cash for access scandal already in full swing (Hamilton and Greer withdrew their libel action on 30 September 1996). So a three-month break in parliament was a welcome relief from difficult questions.

He then prorogued Parliament the following year as soon as he could before the General Election to avoid the publication of the Cash for Questions report until after the GE, which he subsequently lost.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago

Huddersfield /derby cinemas

If the court decides it is a political rather than legal matter perhaps the following quotes maybe of interest ,,,,,,,,, " I think it would be a terrible thing , that , having said we should have more power in our country and trust our institutions more , to shut the doors on parliament"- Michael Gove ,,,,,,,,,, " it is a ridiculous suggestion to consider proroguing parliament " -- Amber Rudd ,,,,,,,,,, " that goes against everything that those men who waded into those beaches , fought and died for and I will not have it" -- Matt Hancock ,,,,,,,, " you don't deliver democracy by trashing democracy we are not seeking a dictator for out country " --Sajid Javid ,,,,,,, " I am not attracted to antiquated divices like proroguing parliament " -- Boris Johnson ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, to help anyone who hasn't followed the court case diligently these are quotes from the side in favour of proroguing parliament

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread