This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Teddy Eagle  25 Sep 19 9.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
So the 11 most senior Judges in the land erred in Law? The Attorney General did.
|
|
Willo  South coast - west of Brighton. 25 Sep 19 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
So the 11 most senior Judges in the land erred in Law? They took a different view to the High Court judges. The High Court formed the opinion that those appealing against the prorogation were seeking to expand the legal concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty in order to invite the judicial arm of the state to exercise unidentified power over the Executive. The Supreme Court has broken new constitutional ground, and exercised that “unidentified power”.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 10.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
So the 11 most senior Judges in the land erred in Law? There was no law or precedent, they made it up as they went. They literally second guessed the PM and involved themselves in politics. I warrant everyone of them was a remainer.....the elites have it coming one way or the other.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 25 Sep 19 10.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There was no law or precedent, they made it up as they went. They literally second guessed the PM and involved themselves in politics. I warrant everyone of them was a remainer.....the elites have it coming one way or the other.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 10.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
That's your level Steely. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 10.08am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 25 Sep 19 10.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There was no law or precedent, they made it up as they went. They literally second guessed the PM and involved themselves in politics. I warrant everyone of them was a remainer.....the elites have it coming one way or the other.
How utterly absurd haha. You qualify as a Johnson 'limbless chicken'...
|
|
| chris123 hove actually 25 Sep 19 10.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
So the 11 most senior Judges in the land erred in Law? The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division did then.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
How utterly absurd haha. You qualify as a Johnson 'limbless chicken'... Still not an argument. Steely, you embody the 'left are just emotion' meme.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Midlands Eagle 25 Sep 19 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Many of them are in their seventies so it's not surprising as they may well be senile
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 25 Sep 19 10.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Many of them are in their seventies so it's not surprising as they may well be senile You’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest there M E. Let’s await the first indignant response.
|
|
| DanH SW2 25 Sep 19 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There was no law or precedent, they made it up as they went. They literally second guessed the PM and involved themselves in politics. I warrant everyone of them was a remainer.....the elites have it coming one way or the other.
For someone that wants solely for British law to rule over us you seem to have a complete disregard for how it actually operates.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Sep 19 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
For someone that wants solely for British law to rule over us you seem to have a complete disregard for how it actually operates. So in your mind, if British law effectively works to keep EU power in place then that's fine and dandy. Well sure, that fits your political cucking but it's not for me. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Sep 2019 10.54am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
 becky over the moon 25 Sep 19 11.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
For someone that wants solely for British law to rule over us you seem to have a complete disregard for how it actually operates. English Law can only overrule Parliament if Parliament has broken the Law, otherwise the precedent is for Parliament to be above the Law.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 25 Sep 19 11.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
English Law can only overrule Parliament if Parliament has broken the Law, otherwise the precedent is for Parliament to be above the Law. We have only a partially codified Legal system. Where there is no codification precedent and fairness are assessed through the Courts Presumably you now advocate a change to a Napoleonic system.
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 11.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Not semantics at all: Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as "not authorized by law, illegal." Illegal is defined as "forbidden by law, unlawful" Since there is nothing on the statute books about prorogation, or what may be considered an acceptable period of prorogation, it cannot possibly be illegal. Since what Boris has done has not broken any Law, and given that HM the Queen gave her assent to his actions,and HM the Queen being above the Law as she IS the Law, one actually wonders whether the Supreme Court's judgement in this matter is enforceable. It is absolutely semantics. The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally. The only way to change the law is through Parliament and I doubt very much whether there is much support there for such a change at the moment. So semantics and enforceable it is.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Midlands Eagle 25 Sep 19 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally. Yes there is but I can't see the Government wanting to go there
|
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Sep 19 11.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by W12
So if remain win a second referendum why would we not claim that you didn’t know what you were voting for? For example, a European army of greater powers transferred to Brussels? Seems a lot more likely than project fear. Simple. You wouldn't be voting for either. The UK retains sovereignty and control over whether it participates in such things.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
palace_in_frogland  In a broken dream 25 Sep 19 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
Yes there is but I can't see the Government wanting to go there The ultimate paradox?
|
|
| chris123 hove actually 25 Sep 19 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is absolutely semantics. The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally. The only way to change the law is through Parliament and I doubt very much whether there is much support there for such a change at the moment. So semantics and enforceable it is. I think Becky was commenting on your failure to distinguish between illegal and unlawful. They are not the same, although you thought the issue semantic.
|
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Sep 19 11.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is absolutely semantics. The highest Court in the UK has spoken. You can put whatever twist you want to on it as a way of justifying your own position, as Johnson and his bunch are now doing, but there is nowhere else now to go, legally. The only way to change the law is through Parliament and I doubt very much whether there is much support there for such a change at the moment. So semantics and enforceable it is. The highest court has not spoken as the highest court is the Houses of Parliament. The Privvy Council would be the highest court.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.