Parliament suspension illegal..

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:01 am

elwaclaret wrote:Glad you find the potential end of our democratic system a source of amusement. Says it all

The source of my amusement is the absolute ******** you come out with on here.

Did these constitutional experts you saw on tv appear on the same show as Ian Hislop saying the backstop is nonsense, or the documentary that explained that austerity was never necessary because of some war debts ending?

The really scary thing is that you’ve alluded to being involved in higher education despite having no idea what you’re talking about on virtually every subject.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:02 am

Lord Beamish wrote:Wow! I always knew you were pro-Brexit, but I never had you as as rabid as Wrongo.

He's not pro-brexit, he's a socialist remainer who just takes an academic and objective view of everything

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:02 am

elwaclaret wrote:Glad you find the potential end of our democratic system a source of amusement. Says it all

Everybody else is taking it the way its supposed to be Elwa.

Yesterday strengthened our democratic institutions.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

Greenmile wrote:The source of my amusement is the absolute ******** you come out with on here.

Did these constitutional experts you saw on tv appear on the same show as Ian Hislop saying the backstop is nonsense, or the documentary that explained that austerity was never necessary because of some war debts ending?

The really scary thing is that you’ve alluded to being involved in higher education despite having no idea what you’re talking about on virtually every subject.

No they were on BBC news twenty four, explaining this is High Politics not high Law. The goalposts have changed. We need to vote for our Supreme Court to have elections to even make it back as far as a Federal democracy. The very reason I voted Brexit in the first place.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

elwaclaret wrote:

The Supreme Court didn't involve itself, and this is no "power grab". Johnson tried to game the system, and the system put him back in his place.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:12 am

AndrewJB wrote:The Supreme Court didn't involve itself, and this is no "power grab". Johnson tried to game the system, and the system put him back in his place.

No the Supreme Court resorted to law passed before the Glorious revolution, before our modern democracy... ultimate power was then the Kings, now it’s belongs to the court. How does that not take us away from the Democracy?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:16 am

More of an accurate take

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9865 ... efea5f5359" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously elwa, where are you getting your info from?

We've had this argument before about something else and I remember you being less than keen to back it up then?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:18 am

elwaclaret wrote:No they were on BBC news twenty four, explaining this is High Politics not high Law. The goalposts have changed. We need to vote for our Supreme Court to have elections to even make it back as far as a Federal democracy. The very reason I voted Brexit in the first place.

You voted Brexit, to abolish the UK supreme court and make it electable?

You might have mentioned that before.

Why only mention it now?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:23 am

elwaclaret wrote:No the Supreme Court resorted to law passed before the Glorious revolution, before our modern democracy... all the power was then the Kings, now it’s belongs to the court.

Johnson crossed the line. He abused his executive powers. The system works when everyone agrees to play by the rules, and Johnson chose to act against this.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:23 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:More of an accurate take

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9865 ... efea5f5359" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seriously elwa, where are you getting your info from?

We've had this argument before about something else and I remember you being less than keen to back it up then?

You are a history graduate... surely you can see this potentially goes way above a spat about Brexit and party politics. This is the **** that causes Civil Wars to start. Just how does the law dictate to Parliament in our constitution? parliament is the LAW, they can arrest Johnstone themselves, if they feel that strongly, but they haven’t they have delegated the power of Parliament to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not elected... they are by the very definition of the word NOT democratic... they are not elected by popular vote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:27 am

elwaclaret wrote:You are a history graduate... surely you can see this potentially goes way above a spat about Brexit and party politics. This is the **** that causes Civil Wars to start. Just how does the law dictate to Parliament in our constitution? parliament is the LAW, they can arrest Johnstone themselves, if they feel that strongly, but they haven’t they have delegated the power of Parliament to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not elected... they are by the very definition of the word NOT democratic... they are not elected by popular vote.

Yes, which is why I can see why your point makes little sense.

The whole point of studying history is that you learn about how things work, don't work, and how things escalate/escalate on how things are done.

No one is expected to read the whole judgement, but the five crucial takes from it are summed up by a constitutional lawyer in my post #149.

We need an independent judiciary at this moment in time, more than ever.

We do not need an elected one, especially when most people seem to base their opinions on stuff like this from flawed data at best and downright lies at worst.

Take a step back from this whole Brexit **** show.

Yesterday was our constitutional safeguards working as designed. It really is that simple.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:27 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You voted Brexit, to abolish the UK supreme court and make it electable?

You might have mentioned that before.

Why only mention it now?

I have stated consistently that the reason I voted leave, because I did not want to be dragged into a Europe hell bent on federalism. Too late, we just need democracy back. We can stay in Europe for me as thing stand... Labour, Liberal or Tory means nothing. The courts now dictate there is nothing left of our system to fight for.

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:30 am

On my ballot paper it only had 'leave' and 'remain' options. I fee swindled. Everyone else seems to have had a whole raft of things they were 'actually' voting for.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:30 am

elwaclaret wrote:I have stated consistently that the reason I voted leave, because I did not want to be dragged into a Europe hell bent on federalism. Too late, we just need democracy back. We can stay in Europe for me as thing stand... Labour, Liberal or Tory means nothing. The courts now dictate there is nothing left of our system to fight for.

FFS

We have a veto.

We have the best deal possible with our unique position.

And the courts have upheld parliaments will over an executive trying to rule without a majority in parliament.

To put it even more simply

The courts you are ranting about stopped an attempt for absolute power by one man in his tracks.

If you don't think that is a good thing, then your ideas of "democracy" is flawed.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:36 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:FFS

We have a veto.

We have the best deal possible with our unique position.

And the courts have upheld parliaments will over an executive trying to rule without a majority in parliament.

To put it even more simply

The courts you are ranting about stopped an attempt for absolute power by one man in his tracks.

If you don't think that is a good thing, then your ideas of "democracy" is flawed.

But it is not the Supreme courts place.... that is the point. It IS and always has been in Parliaments own hands... they are the elected houses of Law makers ffs....

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:38 am

elwaclaret wrote:But it is not the Supreme courts place.... that is the point. It IS and always has been in Parliaments own hands... they are the elected houses of Law makers ffs....

It is!

Its is in the very first paragraph of their judgement whether the claim was valid using them in the first place.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:42 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:It is!

Its is in the very first paragraph of their judgement whether the claim was valid using them in the first place.

Ok like I said last night as I thought about the repercussions I am far more interested in this ruling than any form of Brexit. It did not stop historians pointing out the same problem last night. Guess time will give us the definitive answer.

Edit - for predictive text error.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:47 am

elwaclaret wrote:Ok like I said last night as I thought about the repercussions I am far more interested in this ruling than any form of Brexit. It did not stop historians pointing out the same problem last night. Guess time will give us the definitive answer.

Edit - for predictive text error.

You are wrong.

The judgement dealt with that in its first paragraph of its judgement.

It is working as designed.

It is upholding our system of parliamentary democracy.

It is stopping an over reach of power by the executive.

It is that simple

And everyone should agree that is a good thing

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are wrong.

The judgement dealt with that in its first paragraph of its judgement.

It is working as designed.

It is upholding our system of parliamentary democracy.

It is stopping an over reach of power by the executive.

It is that simple

If you say so. I maintain Parliament has jurisdiction in Parliament, not the Lawyers... they have their own power. They have upset the constitution by ruling in Parliaments place. Put parliament itself in the hands in a promoted executive not an elected one.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:56 am

elwaclaret wrote:If you say so. I maintain Parliament has jurisdiction in Parliament, not the Lawyers... they have their own power. They have upset the constitution by ruling in Parliaments place. Put parliament itself in the hands in a promoted executive not an elected one.

I urge you to read the link I put in post #149.

(It is not me saying so Elwa, its is what legal experts are saying)

Yesterday I was absolutely bricking it before 1030 because of the implications if they found for the government.

Today I'm bouncing of the walls, because even if we have the worst Brexit possible, the UK constitution passed its latest test.

My worry now is that the UK government won't accept this as what it is, and continue to try to pretend they can ignore Parliament and that would kick off another huge row (which they will lose) just to avoid looking weak to voters.

Culmclaret · Post by **Culmclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:58 am

Oh dear! We have three bits of Government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. In this case the judiciary has prevented the executive from misusing its powers to the detriment of the legislature The legislature is accountable to the people and the executive is accountable to legislature. In proroguing the legislature the executive has exercised a power which does not derive from the legislature to prevent it sitting and it is perfectly legitimate for the court to rule that in this particular instance the power has been misused because the reason for it was insufficient. As others have said this will be an important judgment long after Brexit is forgotten. All constitutional lawyers accept that prerogative powers have limits and that the mechanism for testing these limits is the judiciary. In reality an executive with a majority in the legislature can legislate its way through almost anything and thus trump the judiciary but this executive has a majority of minus 43 so in political terms the curbing of its power can hardly be described as anti democratic.

And before anybody says anything I voted for Brexit and would do again

taio · Post by **taio** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:59 am

I'm surprised any reasonable person - whatever side of the Brexit argument they are on - could feel that proroguing parliament in such circumstances was a reasonable thing to do irrespective of the Supreme Court's judgement.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:01 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I urge you to read the link I put in post #149.

(It is not me saying so Elwa, its is what legal experts are saying)

Yesterday I was absolutely bricking it before 1030 because of the implications if they found for the government.

Today I'm bouncing of the walls, because even if we have the worst Brexit possible, the UK constitution passed its latest test.

My worry now is that the UK government won't accept this as what it is, and continue to try to pretend they can ignore Parliament and that would kick off another huge row (which they will lose) just to avoid looking weak to voters.

And with respect, and I mean respect.... how can an unelected body of Lawyers, telling Parliament how to proceed not interfereing in democracy? We have an unelected overseer to parliament, a controlling executive... the Supreme Court now.

That is Federalism... or will be when we are forced to vote the Supreme Court to democratic power.

Edit - addition of last sentence.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:01 am

I notice Farage is desperate for Boris to go, his one and only shot could be a Tory party without Boris and the hardcore Tory leave voters switch to Farage in a chaotic election

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:03 am

elwaclaret wrote:And with respect, and I mean respect.... how can an unelected body of Lawyers, telling Parliament how to proceed not interfereing in democracy? We have an unelected overseer to parliament, a controlling executive... the Supreme Court now.

Who are these “lawyers” you keep going on about?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:05 am

Greenmile wrote:Who are these “lawyers” you keep going on about?

The Law Lords. They are promoted to the position not elected... it is historically speaking HUGE.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:06 am

elwaclaret wrote:And with respect, and I mean respect.... how can an unelected body of Lawyers, telling Parliament how to proceed not interfereing in democracy? We have an unelected overseer to parliament, a controlling executive... the Supreme Court now.

That is Federalism... or will be when we are forced to vote the Supreme Court to democratic power.

Edit - addition of last sentence.

They aren't telling Parliament how to proceed.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:07 am

elwaclaret wrote:The Law Lords. They are promoted to the position not elected... it is historically speaking HUGE.

They’re judges, not lawyers though, aren’t they? (genuine question)

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:11 am

Greenmile wrote:They’re judges, not lawyers though, aren’t they? (genuine question)

They study law... become barristers and then Judges etc. There is not election by the people who in our system constitutionally run the country by mandate... Government( not THE Government), including the law of the land. This changed yesterday.

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:11 am

taio wrote:I'm surprised any reasonable person - whatever side of the Brexit argument they are on - could feel that proroguing parliament in such circumstances was a reasonable thing to do irrespective of the Supreme Court's judgement.

I would imagine their view is that the end justifies the means. They feel that Parliament has been obstructive and that Johnson was right to take them on in anyway he could. Others see it as an undermining of Parliament’s trust with an obvious motive behind it. It is amazing how much of all this comes down to trust. Johnson broke a sort of unwritten understanding. We trust the courts to do the right thing. We put faith in the House of Lords to save us from over reaching by Parliament. We trust that we are given the right information on which to base our decisions. Take away the trust and life gets very difficult.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:14 am

elwaclaret wrote:And with respect, and I mean respect.... how can an unelected body of Lawyers, telling Parliament how to proceed not interfereing in democracy? We have an unelected overseer to parliament, a controlling executive... the Supreme Court now.

That is Federalism... or will be when we are forced to vote the Supreme Court to democratic power.

Edit - addition of last sentence.

What on earth does that even mean?

The executive and the Parliament are two separate entities. Thats kinda the whole point.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:14 am

elwaclaret wrote:The Law Lords. They are promoted to the position not elected... it is historically speaking HUGE.

As a historian, it isn't HUGE.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:20 am

There are a lot of Brexiteers on here who are agreeing that the shutting down of parliament was illegal.

Thats HUGE.

As I've said before, if we try to Brexit without doing it properly, then nothing is going to solve this, but if we do it right, using the current checks and balances, then we might come out of this alright as a country.

Of course, I understand the point of view that might mean Brexit is cancelled, but if it is, then at least its been done the right way (and by definition, Brexit if it happens has been done the right way)

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:24 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:What on earth does that even mean?

The executive and the Parliament are two separate entities. Thats kinda the whole point.

This is how I read it...

So has an unelected body not interviewed by passing judgement on a matter for Parliament... Parliament’s businesses? Parliament should use the law to make Parliament, and be advised by the Supreme Court as to how to implement their wishes. Parliament does not defer to the Law, they are suppose to impose the law in Parliament and on the Courts.... parliament needs to arrest the Prime Minister, for the Law not to interfere in the constitution.

Siddo · Post by **Siddo** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:38 am

elwaclaret wrote:This is how I read it...

So has an unelected body not interviewed by passing judgement on a matter for Parliament... Parliament’s businesses? Parliament should use the law to make Parliament, and be advised by the Supreme Court as to how to implement their wishes. Parliament does not defer to the Law, they are suppose to impose the law in Parliament and on the Courts.... parliament needs to arrest the Prime Minister, for the Law not to interfere in the constitution.

I've just promoted you above Wrongo and his alter ego Elizabeth as the poster who gets every discussion incorrect and is totally unwilling to see what is right in front of you.
Honestly, you are embarrassing yourself.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:06 pm

Siddo wrote:I've just promoted you above Wrongo and his alter ego Elizabeth as the poster who gets every discussion incorrect and is totally unwilling to see what is right in front of you.
Honestly, you are embarrassing yourself.

Ok

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:There are a lot of Brexiteers on here who are agreeing that the prologulation of parliament was illegal.

No there aren't. And if they are, they're wrong.

Although I'd love to see Parliament prologulated, to be fair

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:09 pm

thatdberight wrote:No there aren't. And if they are, they're wrong.

Although I'd love to see Parliament prologulated, to be fair

Terrible choice of words blamed on spell check!

I'll change it!

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:13 pm

thatdberight wrote:No there aren't.

It is not a matter of it is illegal or not. It is for Parliament to enforce the rules in Parliament. Not the Legal profession. It is for Parliament to remove the prime minister... by means in their direct power and control... that is the democracy. If the law can be used to judge parliament, Parliament by definition becomes subservient.

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:13 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Terrible choice of words blamed on spell check!

I'll change it!

Don't forget whilst you're at it. It was unlawful not illegal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:16 pm

RMutt wrote:Don't forget whilst you're at it. It was unlawful not illegal.

I'm 100% sure both are not a good look for a government committed to the rule of law.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:29 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I'm 100% sure both are not a good look for a government committed to the rule of law.

Britain’s government is the House of Commons and House of Lords... not what we call THE Government.... they are in parliament to GOVERN the country... including the Legal profession... not defer to it.

Murderers could appeal to Government against the Law... it was for Government to confirm or reject the death sentence for example.... not any more.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:37 pm

elwaclaret wrote:Britain’s government is the House of Commons and House of Lords... not what we call THE Government.... they are in parliament to GOVERN the country... including the Legal profession... not defer to it.

Murderers could appeal to Government against the Law... it was for Government to confirm or reject the death sentence for example.... not any more.

This is what you should be saying

"It is grotesque to suggest that the judges “invented” this principle of parliamentary sovereignty. They have simply upheld the core founding principle of our entire constitution - that our democracy is based on a directly elected parliament and parliament is sovereign."

(Rory Stewart MP 25/09/19)

And

https://twitter.com/RevelLaw/status/117 ... 64/photo/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Lady Hale QC (I think) 24/09/19)

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:47 pm

: image.jpeg (61.22 KiB) Viewed 2455 times

When you and your bruva from anuva muva are getting your mysogenistic arses kicked by women in authority on the same day...

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:14 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:This is what you should be saying

"It is grotesque to suggest that the judges “invented” this principle of parliamentary sovereignty. They have simply upheld the core founding principle of our entire constitution - that our democracy is based on a directly elected parliament and parliament is sovereign."

(Rory Stewart MP 25/09/19)

And

https://twitter.com/RevelLaw/status/117 ... 64/photo/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Lady Hale QC (I think) 24/09/19)

I fully understand the situation regarding Brexit.... and quite frankly it is of far less interest to me than the constitution. While I’m no fan of the leader of the commons, his shock reaction and words to the effect of a constitutional coup is not aimed just at brexit. It is a genuine admission everything has changed...

android · Post by **android** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:59 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are wrong.

The judgement dealt with that in its first paragraph of its judgement.

It is working as designed.

It is upholding our system of parliamentary democracy.

It is stopping an over reach of power by the executive.

It is that simple

And everyone should agree that is a good thing

Am I allowed to be a little bit troubled by the judgment?

I get the principle of the government not having completely unlimited prorogation powers. So far so good.

It's the Brexit aspects of the judgment that trouble me. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is an inescapable fact that the judgment was Brexit related. These were the "one-off" circumstances with the "extreme effects" of the lead up to 31 October on which the judgment hinged. It is clear that the effects COULD have been extreme if parliament was prevented from passing a withdrawal agreement or stopping a no deal exit or whatever. The case would be much clearer if the no deal Bill had not been passed. But it was passed so what are the ACTUAL effects of parliament not sitting? It seems to me that parliament has already done the only thing it is determined to do (stop/delay Brexit or stop a no deal Brexit if you are persuaded by that argument).

Maybe people really need to hear the Scottish geezer tell us another 30 times that the Scottish people did not vote for Brexit or the Liberal Democrat leader tell the government another 20 times that they are not listening to the voice of the people (ho ho) but I don't! What is going to be gained by this zombie parliament sitting whilst simultaneously having zero confidence in the PM and by their inaction demonstrating full confidence in the PM!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:12 pm

elwaclaret wrote:No the Supreme Court resorted to law passed before the Glorious revolution, before our modern democracy... ultimate power was then the Kings, now it’s belongs to the court. How does that not take us away from the Democracy?

Out of curiosity, if, after the 2017 elections, May had opted to prorogue Parliament for two years to ensure that Brexit happened would you have been fine with that? Would your view have been that this was parliament's choice and so be it?

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:39 pm

aggi wrote:Out of curiosity, if, after the 2017 elections, May had opted to prorogue Parliament for two years to ensure that Brexit happened would you have been fine with that? Would your view have been that this was parliament's choice and so be it?

No I would have expected Parliament to do it’s job... not defer the decision to an unelected executive body. They did it for a big brexit show, not for Parliamentary power to go so far as sending Johnson to prison for refusing Parliamentary decisions using Parliaments not the Laws power.

The law is a separate pillar of the constitution... that is the problem. Parliament decide the law, not the law instruct parliament. It is all arse about face.

Parliament will from now on be subservient to the Supreme Court.

The only way to prevent it is if BJ resigns (unlikely, I would have thought), or if Parliament removes him, not the court... the Courts don’t hold power in Parliament... Parliament (every MP) does through being democratically elected to govern and decide what is and is not To be done regarding the law.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 3:34 pm

elwaclaret wrote:No I would have expected Parliament to do it’s job... not defer the decision to an unelected executive body. They did it for a big brexit show, not for Parliamentary power to go so far as sending Johnson to prison for refusing Parliamentary decisions using Parliaments not the Laws power.

The law is a separate pillar of the constitution... that is the problem. Parliament decide the law, not the law instruct parliament. It is all arse about face.

Parliament will from now on be subservient to the Supreme Court.

The only way to prevent it is if BJ resigns (unlikely, I would have thought), or if Parliament removes him, not the court... the Courts don’t hold power in Parliament... Parliament (every MP) does through being democratically elected to govern and decide what is and is not To be done regarding the law.

Parliament has no power to stop prorogation, what did you expect it to do?

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:14 pm

elwaclaret wrote:No I would have expected Parliament to do it’s job... not defer the decision to an unelected executive body. They did it for a big brexit show, not for Parliamentary power to go so far as sending Johnson to prison for refusing Parliamentary decisions using Parliaments not the Laws power.

The law is a separate pillar of the constitution... that is the problem. Parliament decide the law, not the law instruct parliament. It is all arse about face.

Parliament will from now on be subservient to the Supreme Court.

The only way to prevent it is if BJ resigns (unlikely, I would have thought), or if Parliament removes him, not the court... the Courts don’t hold power in Parliament... Parliament (every MP) does through being democratically elected to govern and decide what is and is not To be done regarding the law.

Parliament did not defer any decisions to anybody. They were prevented from doing their job by the government.
Parliament did not ask the courts to judge the matter....private individuals (with substantial cash resources) did that.
The supreme court ruled that the government was wrong to do so and thus that parliament could continue to sit and debate.
In childishly simple terms

We (the people) elect our MPs.
Our MPs ultimately make our laws.
All of us (including MPs, the Government and indeed the members of the supreme court) must obey those laws.
The supreme court's role in the last week has been to interpret the law and explain to all of us what it means.
Parliament is NOT subservient to the supreme court.

But why am I wasting my time?......logic went out of fashion with the invention of the internet.