1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Suspension of Parliament Illegal: Comments on BBC website!

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by CollieSlave, Sep 11, 2019.

  1. CollieSlave

    CollieSlave Well-Known Member

    After features on the BBC website where there is a heading for "Your Comments". This really brings the fanatics and screwballs out of the woodwork BUT also, of course, many sensible and perceptive comments. There are some really choice ones regarding this case!
    Like -
    "This was a Scottish court and has no jurisdiction over English matters". I thought Scotland was (for the moment at least) part of the UK. Apparently if you commit a crime in England you could not be tried in a Scottish court, according to this poster: snag Scottish criminal law is incorporated in the Statutes of the UK Government. Hard luck!
    "The judges were biased and were remainers". Oh, yes, our judiciary are as corrupt and biased as our Government.
    Best of all, "It's high time we elected our judges". I love this - can't you just see it? Boris or Rees Mogg as Lord Chief Justice?
    And someone pointed out to a strident Brexiteer, who despised the decision, that Brexit was all about "bringing back control" to the UK, particularly with regard to legal matters and the courts and that here was an example of UK control in action!
    (Later) I've just read a comment written in all seriousness that the Government should be in charge of judges and judges should be dismissed if they do not obey the Government. What sort of d**khead could advocate such a policy???
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    Trannifan, Catriona, peterba and 3 others like this.
  2. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    I saw a comment on twitter this morning where someone seriously said, "But the Queen is the law" missing the point entirely of the last few hundreds years of history and an entire civil war.
  3. AGW

    AGW Well-Known Member

    I know it's not the way of things......but wouldn't it be wonderful if BJ had to appeal to the EUCJ! If he won would he refuse to accept the judgement on principle?

  4. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    This is not over.
  6. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I'm sure we can all guess your views on the matter.
    peterba and steveandthedogs like this.
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member

    He's not wrong though, it is far from over. ;)
  8. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    I would prefer judges to agree even if the final decision did not go my way. The disagreements so far suggest that the law is not clear and we are looking at opinions rather than facts of law.
  9. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    All three judges agreed.

  10. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Only the Scottish ones.
    An English decision went the other way.
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    This is correct. The Scottish court applied Scottish law and the English court applied English law. The fun starts when the Supreme court hears the cases as they have to apply both sets of law equally. :confused:
    Trannifan, Catriona and Learning like this.
  12. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Maybe four sets rather than both. Are there not hearings in Wales and Northern Ireland? If not, then why not?
  13. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Ah, yes - but decision-making has not been the strong suit of the English, in recent years. ;)
    Zou and CollieSlave like this.
  14. Derek W

    Derek W Well-Known Member

    The first Judge in the first hearing in Scotland ruled in favour of the government.

    This is correct
  15. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Hmmm...let English MPs stay at home and Scottish MPs go to work if that is what the law says? It would certainly swing the parliamentary arithmetic and progress on many issues could then be made.
  16. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire UK, and so their judgement (Tuesday or Wednesday) is binding on the entire country. It has judges from each jurisdiction.
  17. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    I bet not an equal number though!
    peterba likes this.
  18. Derek W

    Derek W Well-Known Member

    There will be nine justices hearing the case, they are:

    • Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court
    • Lord Reed, Deputy President of the Supreme Court
    • Lord Kerr
    • Lord Wilson
    • Lord Carnwath
    • Lord Hodge
    • Lady Black
    • Lord Lloyd-Jones
    • Lord Sales
  19. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    No, in this instance I believe it's 9 judges, 2 Scottish, 1 Northern Irish. However, as I understand it, the English judges defer to the Scottish judges during the discussion on issues directly relating to Scottish law, and likewise Northern Irish law. So in essence, as a group, they come to an agreed (or majority) position on UK law, with deference to the jurisdictional judges for their own jurisdiction.

    In this instance, the Scottish courts have decided that the meat of the case is whether the reason for the prorogation was normal or cynical. The English court have looked at whether it's actually something they can rule on, rather than looking at the underlying reason for the prorogation.

    When they get together, no one's sure what the answer will be.
    daft_biker, peterba and Catriona like this.
  20. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    It'll be done proportional to population - five judges from England, half a judge from Scotland, a quarter from Wales and an eighth from NI. Only fair way to do it, really. :eek::D
    John Farrell and daft_biker like this.

Share This Page