50-50 for me
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
gonetomorrow
Player Valuation: £80m
Supreme Court is live on the BBC website. I think it's the Gina Miller case at the moment seeing as she is sitting behind the lawyer who is speaking.
The last two minutes have summed up the problem - you can't prorogue parliament to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.
However, the reason Miller will lose this case is the burden of proof that Johnson prorogued parliament for the definite purpose of that avoidance of scrutiny. I think that's a very high evidential standard to pass - to prove the Prime Minister has, in essence, lied to the Queen.
I can't see any way the Supreme Court finds in favour of Miller here.
However, the reason Miller will lose this case is the burden of proof that Johnson prorogued parliament for the definite purpose of that avoidance of scrutiny. I think that's a very high evidential standard to pass - to prove the Prime Minister has, in essence, lied to the Queen.
I can't see any way the Supreme Court finds in favour of Miller here.
Funny, but the analogy doesn't quite work. In asking for a pint in a pub, there's an implicit understanding that you want it served in a container for consumption. Whereas with the referendum, there was no implicit understanding of what leaving the EU actually entailed.
... I do have a sense of humour, honest.
I'd did like the Lord Pannick reply to the Question about vote of No Confidence. "Government is accountable to Parliament for politics, Government accountable to the Court for the law".
Not sure I quite agree in this instance but it was a nice retort.
Thats not what they are rulling on though is it, its whether the high court can rule on whether it Johnson lied to get the Queen to prorouge Parliament.
But that's the core of the matter - the reason Johnson lied to the Queen.
If they could prove beyond doubt that Johnson prorogued parliament solely to avoid scrutiny from parliament, then that is definitely illegal and he would have lied to the Queen by saying otherwise.
Disgruntledgoat
Player Valuation: £50m
I too find her insufferable. But I'm prepared to overlook it in the service of the greater good.
The high court in Scotland already ruled that he did. The government appealed that to the supreme court on the grounds that the high court is outside it's remit in rulling on it. That's what is up for decision, as I understand it.
His best hope is that the decision is not set down until either gets a deal or the UK crashes out, nobody will care then.
She's done parliaments job for them through the whole thing.
As annoying as she is as a personality, she has been exceptional in being a counter to the bully boys on the Leave side.
Dharma
Player Valuation: £20m
He must be guilty of conspiring to do so, surely?
So I GET A WARNING FOR DEALING WITH YOU.You utter bell .I'LL TAKE THE BAN. BELLEND.
@Emlynsqueakyvoice I get a warning for you being a complete TIT. I'll take the ban .BELLEND.
- Status