(OT) Suspending Parliament was unlawful.

Anyone with half a brain cell can see that his actions being unlawful means he would've decieved the Queen. I do admit that I forgot that some people need to have everything spelt out for them, sorry.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'

Unlawful means that 'no law exists' to follow that action. In other words the Executive didn't have the lawful power to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks but there was no law at the time to stop him from doing so.

Now a common law (the Supreme Court Judgement) exists which prevents a PM from proroguing Parliament for an 'unreasonable time'. So if Boris did it again he WOULD be acting illegally and deceiving the Queen. However, last time he was acting from the point of precedent (i.e. John Major 1997) and was not deceiving anyone.

Hope this explanation educates the other half of your brain cell

Anyone with half a brain cell can see that his actions being unlawful means he would've decieved the Queen. I do admit that I forgot that some people need to have everything spelt out for them, sorry.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'

Unlawful means that 'no law exists' to follow that action. In other words the Executive didn't have the lawful power to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks but there was no law at the time to stop him from doing so.

Now a common law (the Supreme Court Judgement) exists which prevents a PM from proroguing Parliament for an 'unreasonable time'. So if Boris did it again he WOULD be acting illegally and deceiving the Queen. However, last time he was acting from the point of precedent (i.e. John Major 1997) and was not deceiving anyone.

Hope this explanation educates the other half of your brain cell

I think you may be wasting your time trying to educate Josh. The very reason the Supreme Court became involved is because there was no law on the statute books to say if the PM had broken any rules. The advice given to him was that he was acting perfectly within his rights, while those challenging him believed otherwise. Even Gina Miller did not expect to win her case, but the outcome could not have been forecast because just the same as leaving the EU, this was a first with no precedence. As you say, anyone taking similar action in the future will be acting illegally rather than unlawfully. If the law had already existed and been broken by Boris, he would not be the PM today which may not be a bad thing.

Just been ruled which now means Mr Johnson is the first pm to lose his first 6 votes and to have been found to lie to the Queen.
I can't see how anyone can support the person who has committed treason and illegally shut down democracy so will he be be kicked out?

He's fighting the remoaner establishment Parliament, Speaker, Judges, Civil Service, BBC and most of the media, the people v's parliament, it's working a treat wait till the election

Back To Parliament - Still A Mess

can someone explain to me what any of this means, as i have no idea whats going on, whats his punishment etc

Ignore Josh's hysterics. This is Civil Law not Criminal Law which people often get confused about. That is why the Chairman of the Supreme Court was talking about 'remedies'. What she means by that is putting right a 'tort' (a sought of Civil crime) or in other words a 'wrong'. The person 'wronged' against in this case was the Queen and by extension Parliament.

Therefore the 'remedy' is to un-prorogue allow MP's to sit again and scrutinise the Government's work.

Boris despite Josh's nonsense will not be hauled off to the Tower of London

Hey let's have a party. The Government of our country has acted unlawfully. It's not criminal law you so its perfectly OK.
BTW if 11 judges did not believe Bonkers Boris lies about the reasons for proroguing, that means that he did lie to the queen does it not?

can someone explain to me what any of this means, as i have no idea whats going on, whats his punishment etc

Ignore Josh's hysterics. This is Civil Law not Criminal Law which people often get confused about. That is why the Chairman of the Supreme Court was talking about 'remedies'. What she means by that is putting right a 'tort' (a sought of Civil crime) or in other words a 'wrong'. The person 'wronged' against in this case was the Queen and by extension Parliament.

Therefore the 'remedy' is to un-prorogue allow MP's to sit again and scrutinise the Government's work.

Boris despite Josh's nonsense will not be hauled off to the Tower of London

Hey let's have a party. The Government of our country has acted unlawfully. It's not criminal law you so its perfectly OK.
BTW if 11 judges did not believe Bonkers Boris lies about the reasons for proroguing, that means that he did lie to the queen does it not?

Don't put words in my mouth I did-not state that because the Government had breached Civil Law that was perfectly alright. I simply pointed out the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law which people often get confused about.

As for lying to the Queen you are Judging Boris retrospectively. The Supreme Court did-not exist in 1997 when John Major prorogued Parliament for 41 days and therefore set a precedence. Boris wished to prorogue Parliament for less time than that and also it coincided with Parliament being in recess due to Party conferences.

As he was acting within 'precedence' set by John Major he had every right to believe he was acting 'lawfully'. The Supreme Court have now past a Judgement (and created a 'common law') that proroguing of Parliament for a period of more than a few days to introduce a Queens speech is illegal.

So Boris would only be 'breaking the law' if he was to prorogue Parliament for more than a few days now, not when he did it in September when this common law didn't exist. What remainers like you are doing again is putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with the square root of f**k all

can someone explain to me what any of this means, as i have no idea whats going on, whats his punishment etc

Ignore Josh's hysterics. This is Civil Law not Criminal Law which people often get confused about. That is why the Chairman of the Supreme Court was talking about 'remedies'. What she means by that is putting right a 'tort' (a sought of Civil crime) or in other words a 'wrong'. The person 'wronged' against in this case was the Queen and by extension Parliament.

Therefore the 'remedy' is to un-prorogue allow MP's to sit again and scrutinise the Government's work.

Boris despite Josh's nonsense will not be hauled off to the Tower of London

Hey let's have a party. The Government of our country has acted unlawfully. It's not criminal law you so its perfectly OK.
BTW if 11 judges did not believe Bonkers Boris lies about the reasons for proroguing, that means that he did lie to the queen does it not?

Don't put words in my mouth I did-not state that because the Government had breached Civil Law that was perfectly alright. I simply pointed out the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law which people often get confused about.

As for lying to the Queen you are Judging Boris retrospectively. The Supreme Court did-not exist in 1997 when John Major prorogued Parliament for 41 days and therefore set a precedence. Boris wished to prorogue Parliament for less time than that and also it coincided with Parliament being in recess due to Party conferences.

As he was acting within 'precedence' set by John Major he had every right to believe he was acting 'lawfully'. The Supreme Court have now past a Judgement (and created a 'common law') that proroguing of Parliament for a period of more than a few days to introduce a Queens speech is illegal.

So Boris would only be 'breaking the law' if he was to prorogue Parliament for more than a few days now, not when he did it in September when this common law didn't exist. What remainers like you are doing again is putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with the square root of f**k all

You are wasting your time trying to educate remain fans on anything as they always see things in one way and that's remainers are always right!

Anyone with half a brain cell can see that his actions being unlawful means he would've decieved the Queen. I do admit that I forgot that some people need to have everything spelt out for them, sorry.

Anyone with half a brain cell knows the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'

Unlawful means that 'no law exists' to follow that action. In other words the Executive didn't have the lawful power to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks but there was no law at the time to stop him from doing so.

Now a common law (the Supreme Court Judgement) exists which prevents a PM from proroguing Parliament for an 'unreasonable time'. So if Boris did it again he WOULD be acting illegally and deceiving the Queen. However, last time he was acting from the point of precedent (i.e. John Major 1997) and was not deceiving anyone.

Hope this explanation educates the other half of your brain cell

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

I believe this whole "Unlawful" ruling is totally political in motivation and lets face it when it comes to ruling for self interest this is right up there. For Judges and the rest of the legal brotherhood the EU provides a very nice gravy train with BIG BIG monies available.

What made me laugh about this ruling was the Judges say " the Speaker and Lord Speaker immediately re-call both houses to enable each House to meet as soon as possible “to decide upon a way forward”. I always thought that it was the "Government who pointed out the "Way Forward" usually through a Queens Speech and then the role of Parliament was to keep the government accountable.

As I say a "Ruling" based on self interest as these Judges want nothing more than a free ticket onto the EU Gravy Train. It absolutely stinks.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting. [/quote]


Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.[/quote]



Roll on our chance to hold parliament to account.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Roll on our chance to hold parliament to account.[/quote]

And roll on our chance of holding these Judges to account as in my opinion it's about time we, "The Electorate" have the right to approve their appointment and control their removal.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.[/quote]


Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else [/quote]


Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

And roll on our chance of holding these Judges to account as in my opinion it's about time we, "The Electorate" have the right to approve their appointment and control their removal.

That is a day I would love to see

And roll on our chance of holding these Judges to account as in my opinion it's about time we, "The Electorate" have the right to approve their appointment and control their removal.

That is a day I would love to see

You will see the City winning the champions league before that takes place.

And roll on our chance of holding these Judges to account as in my opinion it's about time we, "The Electorate" have the right to approve their appointment and control their removal.

That is a day I would love to see

You will see the City winning the champions league before that takes place.

I'll take that right now

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.[/quote]


Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

And roll on our chance of holding these Judges to account as in my opinion it's about time we, "The Electorate" have the right to approve their appointment and control their removal.

That is a day I would love to see

You will see the City winning the champions league before that takes place.

I'll take that right now

Supreme court can be dispanded if a majority government passes law to abolish it! Bit like house lords so don't be surprised if it happens if boris gets large enough majority on next election?

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point. [/quote]


No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.[/quote]


Maybe so but what I wrote was factual but it was not so long would get bored halfway through reading it? Suspect only person to read it will be you.....

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.

Maybe so but what I wrote was factual but it was not so long would get bored halfway through reading it? Suspect only person to read it will be you.....[/quote]

It was factual but taken out of context to suit your purpose which is ok on a football forum I guess.

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.

Maybe so but what I wrote was factual but it was not so long would get bored halfway through reading it? Suspect only person to read it will be you.....

It was factual but taken out of context to suit your purpose which is ok on a football forum I guess.[/quote]


What context I've no idea as just an article I saw didnt suit any purpose or context ? you made it into something else with your war and peace response that must have taken you ages to put to together and find!
Anyway just to show how far remain campaign will go now a junior journalist says in 1999 yes 1999 boris is supposed to have touched her thigh under a table at a lunch funny how she remembers now ?

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.

Maybe so but what I wrote was factual but it was not so long would get bored halfway through reading it? Suspect only person to read it will be you.....

It was factual but taken out of context to suit your purpose which is ok on a football forum I guess.

What context I've no idea as just an article I saw didnt suit any purpose or context ? you made it into something else with your war and peace response that must have taken you ages to put to together and find!
Anyway just to show how far remain campaign will go now a junior journalist says in 1999 yes 1999 boris is supposed to have touched her thigh under a table at a lunch funny how she remembers now ? [/quote]

Whats all this tripe got to do what we were talking about.You tried to legitimise your position by taking something out of context,I've called you out.Sorry my response wasn't a one liner.

can someone explain to me what any of this means, as i have no idea whats going on, whats his punishment etc

Ignore Josh's hysterics. This is Civil Law not Criminal Law which people often get confused about. That is why the Chairman of the Supreme Court was talking about 'remedies'. What she means by that is putting right a 'tort' (a sought of Civil crime) or in other words a 'wrong'. The person 'wronged' against in this case was the Queen and by extension Parliament.

Therefore the 'remedy' is to un-prorogue allow MP's to sit again and scrutinise the Government's work.

Boris despite Josh's nonsense will not be hauled off to the Tower of London

Hey let's have a party. The Government of our country has acted unlawfully. It's not criminal law you so its perfectly OK.
BTW if 11 judges did not believe Bonkers Boris lies about the reasons for proroguing, that means that he did lie to the queen does it not?

And there's me thinking the square root of f**k all was the space between your ears.
Don't put words in my mouth I did-not state that because the Government had breached Civil Law that was perfectly alright. I simply pointed out the difference between Criminal Law and Civil Law which people often get confused about.

As for lying to the Queen you are Judging Boris retrospectively. The Supreme Court did-not exist in 1997 when John Major prorogued Parliament for 41 days and therefore set a precedence. Boris wished to prorogue Parliament for less time than that and also it coincided with Parliament being in recess due to Party conferences.

As he was acting within 'precedence' set by John Major he had every right to believe he was acting 'lawfully'. The Supreme Court have now past a Judgement (and created a 'common law') that proroguing of Parliament for a period of more than a few days to introduce a Queens speech is illegal.

So Boris would only be 'breaking the law' if he was to prorogue Parliament for more than a few days now, not when he did it in September when this common law didn't exist. What remainers like you are doing again is putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with the square root of f**k all

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else

Taken out of context in this argument.What follows is part of the judgement.


63. The Government argues that we cannot answer that question, or declare the
prorogation null and of no effect, because to do so would be contrary to article 9 of
the Bill of Rights of 1688, an Act of the Parliament of England and Wales, or the
wider privileges of Parliament, relating to matters within its “exclusive cognisance”.
The prorogation itself, it is said, was “a proceeding in Parliament” which cannot be
impugned or questioned in any court. And reasoning back from that, neither can the
Order in Council which led to it.
64. Article 9 provides:
“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in
Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any
Court or Place out of Parlyament.”
The equivalent provision in the Claim of Right of 1689, an Act of the Parliament of
Scotland, is this:
Page 23
“That for redress of all greivances and for the amending
strenthneing and preserveing of the lawes Parliaments ought to
be frequently called and allowed to sit and the freedom of
speech and debate secured to the members.”
65. The first point to note is that these are Acts of Parliament. It is one of the
principal roles of the courts to interpret Acts of Parliament. A recent example of this
Court interpreting article 9 is R v Chaytor [2010] UKSC 52; [2011] 1 AC 684. The
case concerned the prosecution of several Members of Parliament for allegedly
making false expenses claims. They resisted this on the ground that those claims
were “proceedings in Parliament” which ought not to be “impeached or questioned”
in any court outside Parliament. An enlarged panel of nine Justices held
unanimously that MPs’ expenses claims were not “proceedings in Parliament” nor
were they in the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. There is a very full discussion
of the authorities in the judgments of Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry which need not be repeated here.
66. That case clearly establishes: (1) that it is for the court and not for Parliament
to determine the scope of Parliamentary privilege, whether under article 9 of the Bill
of Rights or matters within the “exclusive cognisance of Parliament”; (2) that the
principal matter to which article 9 is directed is “freedom of speech and debate in
the Houses of Parliament and in parliamentary committees. This is where the core
or essential business of Parliament takes place” (para 47). In considering whether
actions outside the Houses and committees are also covered, it is necessary to
consider the nature of their connection to those and whether denying the actions
privilege is likely to impact adversely on the core or essential business of Parliament;
(3) that “exclusive cognisance refers not simply to Parliament, but to the exclusive
right of each House to manage its own affairs without interference from the other or
from outside Parliament” (para 63); it was enjoyed by Parliament itself and not by
individual members and could be waived or relinquished; and extensive inroads had
been made into areas previously within exclusive cognisance.
67. Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice (25th ed 2019, para 13.12) is to similar
effect:
“The primary meaning of proceedings, as a technical
parliamentary term, which it had at least as early as the 17th
century, is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the
House in its collective capacity. While business which involves
actions and decisions of the House are clearly proceedings,
debate is an intrinsic part of that process which is recognised
by its inclusion in the formulation of article IX. An individual
member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also
Page 24
by various recognised forms of formal action, such as voting,
giving notice of a motion, or presenting a petition or report
from a committee, most of such actions being time-saving
substitutes for speaking.”
68. The prorogation itself takes place in the House of Lords and in the presence
of Members of both Houses. But it cannot sensibly be described as a “proceeding in
Parliament”. It is not a decision of either House of Parliament. Quite the contrary: it
is something which is imposed upon them from outside. It is not something upon
which the Members of Parliament can speak or vote. The Commissioners are not
acting in their capacity as members of the House of Lords but in their capacity as
Royal Commissioners carrying out the Queen’s bidding. They have no freedom of
speech. This is not the core or essential business of Parliament. Quite the contrary:
it brings that core or essential business of Parliament to an end.
69. This court is not, therefore, precluded by article 9 or by any wider
Parliamentary privilege from considering the validity of the prorogation itself. The
logical approach to that question is to start at the beginning, with the advice that led
to it. That advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to
give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R
(UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in
Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and
of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as
if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too
was unlawful, null and of no effect.

Mmmm read 1st paragraph then thought sorry fck it not reading war and peace! Or was that plan make it unreadable?
And said earlier no matter what is put down remain people are always right think this prove point.

No what it means is I try to be factual when I post.

Maybe so but what I wrote was factual but it was not so long would get bored halfway through reading it? Suspect only person to read it will be you.....

It was factual but taken out of context to suit your purpose which is ok on a football forum I guess.

What context I've no idea as just an article I saw didnt suit any purpose or context ? you made it into something else with your war and peace response that must have taken you ages to put to together and find!
Anyway just to show how far remain campaign will go now a junior journalist says in 1999 yes 1999 boris is supposed to have touched her thigh under a table at a lunch funny how she remembers now ?

Whats all this tripe got to do what we were talking about.You tried to legitimise your position by taking something out of context,I've called you out.Sorry my response wasn't a one liner.[/quote]




called me out for what? Putting up an article that actually was longer than yours but I truncated it to make it more palatable and easier to read? Sorry it wasnt as long as yours didn't know it was a requisite to make posts 3 thousand words long! Anyway as its tripe that's your opinion being a remainer not surprised by that comment, I shall desist from further reply as not to take up any more of your time as obviously its pointless ...

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a Remain PM were to ever use a similar prorogation to effect re-entry into the EU in the face of a leave Parliament. Now that would be interesting.

Easy.they wouldn't be allowed to prorogue parliament if it stopped them from holding the government to account.

Think you should read more about this unelected band of people? Bill of rights 1689 says proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside parliament ! Or simply put courts are forbidden from interfering with parliament! Judges said suspension wasnt a procedure of parliament?? Mmmm how many times have it
been suspended longer than boris wanted can tell you it's a lot over the centuries!!! On subject how can 11 people all agree to something when previous two set of judges didn't totally agree? Suppose to be imdependantly minded?

Of course you are right. They all came to be on the supreme court because one day in the future they would stop an out of control Conservative Government bulldoze a no deal Brexit. Amazing foresight by the Remain biased people who put them there. Problem is the term Brexit wasn't even invented. Truly amazing.
Ps just came across this article while looking at something else [/quote]

Rupert Lowe has pointed out that this ruling could open the door to a spectacular own goal by remain and the EU and has written to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the case.

Summary of his argument:

The supreme court judgement has already had a retrospective effect on at least one statute within UK

Royal Prerogative includes not just the power to prorogue but also the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and to make decisions in the EU council.

There is no legal requirement to distinguish between functions of Royal Prerogative because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the effect of exercising power that is relevant rather than the power specifically used. "a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive."

Theresa May on 11th April used Royal Prerogative to agree an Article 50 extension. This prevented parliament for a further 6 months from legislating on a whole range of issues covered by EU treaties. Theresa May's use of Royal Prerogative to request the extension, therefore, meets the same defined improper use of Royal Prerogative as outlined by the Supreme Court as it had the effect of preventing parliament of carrying out its legislative duty in these areas. Again as the ruling is that it is the effect of the power used and not which power used prorogation is legally deemed the same as other uses of Royal Prerogative.

As the ruling is that the prorogation is null and void this means that all actions would, therefore, be retrospectively repealed. The logic of the courts ruling is, therefore, the statutory instrument that pushed the deadline for Brexit to October should be retrospectively dismissed and we effectively left the EU on 12th April.

With this in mind, Lowe requested the EU advise on what measures they are taking to return the £1Bn per month the UK has paid to the EU since this date.

Don't think for a second he'll pull it off (don't think he does either really) but is a bloody wonderful idea and shows exactly how rushed court decisions by the Supreme Court could well bite them in the ass at some point.

Good video on it here https://youtu.be/8Bk1Tj2cpfg

Rupert Lowe has pointed out that this ruling could open the door to a spectacular own goal by remain and the EU and has written to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the case.

Summary of his argument:

The supreme court judgement has already had a retrospective effect on at least one statute within UK

Royal Prerogative includes not just the power to prorogue but also the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and to make decisions in the EU council.

There is no legal requirement to distinguish between functions of Royal Prerogative because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the effect of exercising power that is relevant rather than the power specifically used. "a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive."

Theresa May on 11th April used Royal Prerogative to agree an Article 50 extension. This prevented parliament for a further 6 months from legislating on a whole range of issues covered by EU treaties. Theresa May's use of Royal Prerogative to request the extension, therefore, meets the same defined improper use of Royal Prerogative as outlined by the Supreme Court as it had the effect of preventing parliament of carrying out its legislative duty in these areas. Again as the ruling is that it is the effect of the power used and not which power used prorogation is legally deemed the same as other uses of Royal Prerogative.

As the ruling is that the prorogation is null and void this means that all actions would, therefore, be retrospectively repealed. The logic of the courts ruling is, therefore, the statutory instrument that pushed the deadline for Brexit to October should be retrospectively dismissed and we effectively left the EU on 12th April.

With this in mind, Lowe requested the EU advise on what measures they are taking to return the £1Bn per month the UK has paid to the EU since this date.

Don't think for a second he'll pull it off (don't think he does either really) but is a bloody wonderful idea and shows exactly how rushed court decisions by the Supreme Court could well bite them in the ass at some point.

Good video on it here https://youtu.be/8Bk1Tj2cpfg

Bet these judges are praying boris doesnt have large majority if he wins an election because dont be surprised if he brings in a bill to get rid of them? Which any PM can do ! And we'll go back to old system after all supreme court is a Blair idea based on the usa system....

Rupert Lowe has pointed out that this ruling could open the door to a spectacular own goal by remain and the EU and has written to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the case.

Summary of his argument:

The supreme court judgement has already had a retrospective effect on at least one statute within UK

Royal Prerogative includes not just the power to prorogue but also the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and to make decisions in the EU council.

There is no legal requirement to distinguish between functions of Royal Prerogative because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the effect of exercising power that is relevant rather than the power specifically used. "a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive."

Theresa May on 11th April used Royal Prerogative to agree an Article 50 extension. This prevented parliament for a further 6 months from legislating on a whole range of issues covered by EU treaties. Theresa May's use of Royal Prerogative to request the extension, therefore, meets the same defined improper use of Royal Prerogative as outlined by the Supreme Court as it had the effect of preventing parliament of carrying out its legislative duty in these areas. Again as the ruling is that it is the effect of the power used and not which power used prorogation is legally deemed the same as other uses of Royal Prerogative.

As the ruling is that the prorogation is null and void this means that all actions would, therefore, be retrospectively repealed. The logic of the courts ruling is, therefore, the statutory instrument that pushed the deadline for Brexit to October should be retrospectively dismissed and we effectively left the EU on 12th April.

With this in mind, Lowe requested the EU advise on what measures they are taking to return the £1Bn per month the UK has paid to the EU since this date.

Don't think for a second he'll pull it off (don't think he does either really) but is a bloody wonderful idea and shows exactly how rushed court decisions by the Supreme Court could well bite them in the ass at some point.

Good video on it here https://youtu.be/8Bk1Tj2cpfg

Bet these judges are praying boris doesnt have large majority if he wins an election because dont be surprised if he brings in a bill to get rid of them? Which any PM can do ! And we'll go back to old system after all supreme court is a Blair idea based on the usa system....

I think it was the law lords before this bunch Allan.

Rupert Lowe has pointed out that this ruling could open the door to a spectacular own goal by remain and the EU and has written to the Chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee outlining the case.

Summary of his argument:

The supreme court judgement has already had a retrospective effect on at least one statute within UK

Royal Prerogative includes not just the power to prorogue but also the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and to make decisions in the EU council.

There is no legal requirement to distinguish between functions of Royal Prerogative because the Supreme Court has ruled that it is the effect of exercising power that is relevant rather than the power specifically used. "a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive."

Theresa May on 11th April used Royal Prerogative to agree an Article 50 extension. This prevented parliament for a further 6 months from legislating on a whole range of issues covered by EU treaties. Theresa May's use of Royal Prerogative to request the extension, therefore, meets the same defined improper use of Royal Prerogative as outlined by the Supreme Court as it had the effect of preventing parliament of carrying out its legislative duty in these areas. Again as the ruling is that it is the effect of the power used and not which power used prorogation is legally deemed the same as other uses of Royal Prerogative.

As the ruling is that the prorogation is null and void this means that all actions would, therefore, be retrospectively repealed. The logic of the courts ruling is, therefore, the statutory instrument that pushed the deadline for Brexit to October should be retrospectively dismissed and we effectively left the EU on 12th April.

With this in mind, Lowe requested the EU advise on what measures they are taking to return the £1Bn per month the UK has paid to the EU since this date.

Don't think for a second he'll pull it off (don't think he does either really) but is a bloody wonderful idea and shows exactly how rushed court decisions by the Supreme Court could well bite them in the ass at some point.

Good video on it here https://youtu.be/8Bk1Tj2cpfg

Bet these judges are praying boris doesnt have large majority if he wins an election because dont be surprised if he brings in a bill to get rid of them? Which any PM can do ! And we'll go back to old system after all supreme court is a Blair idea based on the usa system....

I think it was the law lords before this bunch Allan.

It was and they were impartial not like those 11 sheep! As said before how can all 11 agree when the 2 other courts couldn't? Very odd as it was not a clear cut decision by any strentch of imagination...