So where do we go from here then?
Just listening to Breakfast TV:
A commentator says that the precedence is now set that the authority of Parliament is greater than the PMs authority. Therefore if the Queen feels that the PM hasn't got the backing of Parliament, she can rightfully decline the PMs advice.
Does that answer my earlier question regarding that? Interesting change in the perception of the role of the monarchy...
Unfortunately the government cannot govern as it can be outvoted in any business it tries to pass.
If you cant govern you should should hold a new general election to get a party that can.
Boris cannot do that and it must be one of the first cases of its kind where a government cant govern and cannot call for a new election.
To me what Boris did was wrong but was given the wrong advice it seems.
To me what the political party's in the house of commons are doing not giving the Tory party the right to resign is also wrong but in there case legal.
A comment from some lord or another outside the houses of parliament today stated that the supreme court judges made up a new law to deliver their verdict.
True or not I don't know.Boris and some of his cabinet say that the supreme court's verdict was wrong but as you cant appeal it stands.
It has to be wrong that the Tory party or any party cannot call for a new election. In theory the House of commons could run the government until the next general election is due.
it is not going to happen but I suppose it could. it is probably the only way that labour can hold on to a bit of power without being elected.
There are lots of votes to be snapped up by the torys and the brexit party when the next general election comes. labour voters and lib dem supporters that voted to leave will be looking for another party to vote for. So interesting times ahead.
And if we dont leave on the 31st heaven only knows when we will.
One way or another we have to go not sometimes in the future but now. Deal or no deal.
It's all come down to trust, or lack of trust, in trusting that the PM will hold an election before or after the 31st...
The Attorney General in the last hour has berated the opposition MPs in the last hour over not calling for a confidence vote, but the government can't be trusted to not take advantage of it!
Govanx1 said "A comment from some lord or another outside the houses of parliament today stated that the supreme court judges made up a new law to deliver their verdict."
The SC cannot make 'new' law, only Parliament can do such a thing, and they obviously didn't as they weren't even sitting! Judges can only interpret the law.
Gina Miller was important, but I think the main cause was Ms Cherry QC, an SNP MP, who raised the main case in the Scottish Court of Session, who's ruling was then agreed by our Supreme court, rather than agreeing with the English High court. Why does it appear that Scots have so much influence over us, and we give them so much of our money already? Time to either give them independence, or declare independence for England?
Why am I getting the impression that Dunk would introduce the Scottish independence question into any thread topic, even if it was about the virtues of tinned tomatoes...?
Maybe because he's fed up with subsidising them and watching them make a fool of us in our courts?
The SC ruling was to interpret existing law, and had no Scottish direct input. They looked at a Government appeal against the Scottish Court of Session verdict and an appeal by Miller against the verdict of the English Appeal Court. The SC found that although prorogation is lawful, in this case the length of it was excessive and designed to stifle Parliamentary debate on a huge constitutional issue.
Also, in the U.K. we have statute law made in Parliament and interpreted by the higher courts, but we also have common law. This latter is occasionally modified by the Courts. If the Government doesn’t like the result, then an Act of Parliament can be passed to overrule it
I bow to your better knowledge regarding statute and common law - every day is a learning experience for me.
I thought, because of the constant reference to Ms Cherry in the House of Commons, that she had been a prime mover in the case? Perhaps I misheard.
(I still think we should not be subsidising the Scots.)
It was confirmed in the house of Commons yesterday that a new law or laws were made to reach the final verdict.
I would imagine the supreme court can make new laws or judgements when required.
It is not part of the House of commons who has there own laws.
But of course i could be wrong.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.