UK's Supreme Court rules Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament is unlawful | Street Signs Europe
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 вер 2019
- Britain's top court said Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament just weeks before Brexit is unlawful.
Many Bothans died to bring us this information about prorogation. 😥
Lock him up , Lock him up , Lock him up ...
Good morning Supreme Court 🇬🇧 Thank you very much for the feedback and support. I hope that Carlos III and his family leave us in peace.
Hmmm mmmm. The jig is up, Boris. Only Trump can get away with bold-faced lies.
Mhm.
Why is this judge serving her overlord masters in EU? Can somebody explain. It is so clear this is not about the rule of law or democracy.
I'm glad that the UK's justice system functions properly. Here in the USA justice is being held hostage by a fascist dictator and his brownshirted lackeys.
@@georgeb.wolffsohn30 you are right trump is a fascist dictators who put libtards like you in concentration camps. Try wearing a MAGA hat in US and you will find who the real brown shirts are? The judge is only serving her EU masters and nothing to do with democracy and the rule of law.
@@streetfighter1853 They work and are paid by Her Majesty`s Government you Trump Turnip.
Why is the UK run by grannies 😂
The Queen
Theresa May
Baroness Hale
Baroness Evans
Anna Sourbry
Half of the House of Lords
Dianne Abbott
Harriet Harman
Amber Rudd
It’s ridiculous 😂
I know it's a bit late, but:
Theresa May was elected by the public, as was Abbot, Harman and Rudd. You could also say some of the House of Lords are indirectly elected because the government, which is elected, has the ability to appoint Lords. So it's not ridiculous, people voted for this.
@Carl Yelland Indeed, but I must say that it is discriminatory against men because a literal Act of Parliament made it discriminatory against men until a set year.
The British are natural mama's boys.
This is a prime example.of a misguided tendency, in this country, to think that courts are infallible.
SpiderGran says no to prorogue. Need we worry ?
No because super royal gran the queen has allwoed bjo a secnd prorougue
yessssss
Nooooo...qieen allows secnd prorogue
Can anyone explain wth we decided to leave in the first place like what are we getting out of it...
We want our freedom to be a democratic self governing country.
Nothing.
@@lennydale92 In russia?
@@zipz8423 no, in the UK
@@lennydale92 But you dont live in the UK.
BORIS. Tell them “ we should work weekends as well” to debate Brexit ?
How many will give up their weekends for something so urgent??
Mrs. Harry Potter has spoken: The British Democracy is back! Boris and the mighty monarchy and the Queen can go home - they are not the British People - they have even no right to speak for the British people! What does this mean? Now, this is not the end of Boris and the Brexit. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
The British people voted to leave the fucking EU. This supreme court is delaying our democratic decision by handing the decision to a parliament that has failed to do anything for the past 3 years.
@@lennydale92 Parliament are sovereign, not 17 million fuckwits.
Deal with it.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
What a joke.
@scoUK just said, sorry lords, we're out of here :)
No law was broken. John Major gave written evidence that a prorogation should only last about 5 days and his evidence was unchallenged. The supreme court therefore took the view that a longer prorogation was unlawful. However, when Major was PM he prorogued parliament for much longer than Boris and for his own political reasons. That fact was not presented in evidence, a failing of the government barristers. Major misled the supreme court and that led to a wrong supreme court judgment. Major should be held to account for that and the supreme court should overturn the judgment.
Denis Nash, this is about Boris Johnson not John Major, that happened more than 20 years ago and is not relevant in this case.
Even if that was to be the case, it would have been the stronger facts that Parliament was held against its will and therefore, that executive breached parliamentary sovereignty since it was the collective decision of the executive, not parliament. Therefore, it can’t be argued that this was a parliamentary decision more of a executive decision.
In which in the future Parliament must approve those decisions before it is enacted by the executive.
@@aviatorsound914 Lady Hale made that point. The executive is there to execute the decisions of Parliament. However prorogation is part of the Royal Prerogative and Her Majesty enacted the prorogation on the advice of Boris Johnson which is the normal procedure. I don't think any court can challenge a Royal decision so the prorogation was lawful and the Supreme Court acted outside its remit. Furthermore the finding that Boris' advice was unlawful was wrong because the court was misled by John Major and in any case it was illegal, by the Bill of Rights 1688, to challenge Boris' petition to the Queen.
This ruling isn't based on points of law, it's based on a political motivation & even a blind man can see through it.
A Brexiter Blind man.
@@zipz8423 impartial blind man
@@Bewareofthedog69 No, the SC ruled on Constitutional convention it was a Civil hearing not a criminal case.
@@zipz8423 who said anything about a criminal case? Dont put words in my mouth.
@@zipz8423 Did you hear her say what part of the law was broken? Neither did I, courts deal in law. They cannot declare something unlawful because they don't like it, they have to assess the legislation on the books which they did not. Its an illegitimate ruling from an illegitimate court and is actually making the case her majesty is lower in authority to itself.
The judge deciding on what is politically correct and what is not. We don’t need a government anymore. Where is the UK democracy we once knew?
There's a separation of power which is parliament, executive and judiciary. Executive which are elected by the people can do whatever they want to according to law passed by the parliament. However,in this case, the decision made is against the law and this the judiciary have the right to justify it unlawful. Democracy doesn't mean the government can do anything unlawful and it certainly doesn't mean they can do whatever they want not being questioned by the parliament ( which is also elected by the people to scrutinize the executive)
You should learn about governmental custom more serious.
Check and balance seems like something very oblivious to you. Democracy is all about check and balance, not about what the government can do whatever the hell they want.
To be fair, the basic concept of parliamentary sovereignty was breached since Parliament is sovereign and supreme, even before the executive. In which parliament can overturn executive decision at its own will.
If parliament doesn’t want to be suspended they can’t be suspended. Since the motion was put before parliament, it was rejected, so therefore it is unlawful.
@@aviatorsound914 you have parliamentary sovereignty (England/wales) and populous sovereignty (Scotland)
So basically the Supreme Court makes up the law as it goes along.
You may want to pick up an encyclopedia and look up what a court is and what it does.
@@Kalumbatsch judicial branches of government enforce existing laws, passed by legislators. The only law this judge referenced was EU law. No article of the Constitution was referenced and the only violation seems to be justified by "reasonable excuse." The power to prorogue Parliament belongs to the Monarch, on the advice of the Privy Council. So this judge is guessing that, HM Queen Elizabeth II broke the law.
The meaning of Prorogation is the royal prerogative. There is no "reasonable excuse" mentioned in the British constitution. In fact it caused the civil war when King Charles I prorogued the Parliament of England in 1628.
@@johnbrittingham4471 That's word salad. Read the judgement and/or the summary and try again. Don't pull stuff out of your ass. I'm sorry, I meant your arse.
@@Kalumbatsch Exactly what law did he break?
You mean the law that the Supreme Court has invented and then retrospectively said that he has broken?
Had to be a woman judge
And 10 other judges, two of which are women, in a unanimous decision. Dumbass.
@@Kalumbatsch There is virtually no difference between Brexiters and Deplorables. Both demographics are as dumb as dirt.
Supreme Court is getting involved in politics. Ready the ropes.
@@Raymint Well Remoaners gonna remoan.
@@Jack-uy7ie But it'll end in tears for Brexiteers.
Nope, just legal justice! Because it's their jobs! Woo!
@@Raymint Comprehend the ramifications of what you are supporting. I understand that there is a case to remain apart of a EU, albiet it favoured stealing cheap labour from poorer european countries and using them to benefit ourselves. (This is apparently a "pro") However trek through Greece, Spain or any eastern European country and you will see that their nations are not benefiting from this. All the EU should do is maintain peace between the nations of Europe and provide special consutaltion on matters when requested to by the Nations government. Not build an Empire.
Anyway my point is, all this will do for us peasants is instill a distrust in all aspects of the state. A Mandate from the people was given to Parliament. It must be fullfilled otherwise 10/15 years down the line we will have Far right and Far left parties fighting for control of the state.
@@Jack-uy7ie Transparency is key to democracy - data, facts - and the remain/leave campaigns were not led with facts (in fact I can hardly remember how the remain campaign was led, it was so weak).
The public, to this day, isn't privy to enough information to pass such a vote.
And, so far, those who know the most about our relationship with the EU (which doesn't include Boris Johnson if Andrew Neil had to correct him on Gatt 24. Politicians in general, at this point, we can only differ to economist and other experts of the like) advise against leaving the single market.
So, if we were to leave the single market, as per an ill advised mandate, and we peasants suffer the consequences - as detailed by a well advised fact sheet - then we would have only proven that democracy, as currently practiced, is flawed... which will CERTAINLY instill mistrust in all aspects of the state. Especially once we're made aware of who benefits from Brexit...
"Unlawfull because, it had the function of preventing parliament of carrying out its constitutional functions." So according to the UK supreme court, the constitutional function of the British parliament is to give the EU sovereignty over the people of the UK. The only law this judge referenced was EU law. Codified law bor case law was applied
You could not have been listening to the summary and obviously have not read the full judgement. Cases as far back as the Proclamations case of 1611 were cited.
@@ronlisk1911 The judgment has no standard for review, it had to be invented as it was being decided. It says so in the judgment:
"By what standard is the lawfulness of the advice to be judged?
38. In principle, if not always in practice, it is relatively straightforward to
determine the limits of a statutory power, since the power is defined by the text of
the statute. Since a prerogative power is not constituted by any document,
determining its limits is less straightforward."
39. Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The
Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the course
of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not
been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to
be capable of further development.
The judges gave case law to prove they had judicial review authority, but not directly related to the case they are reviewing. Take Case of Proclamation for example.
In nfact the opening statement makes that claim: " 1. It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on
what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. The issue is whether
the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th
August 2019 that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th
September until 14th October was lawful. It arises in circumstances which have
never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a “one off”.
So just to clarify there are no codifying laws and no legal precedents that support the judgment.
To further make my point I quote:
" 30. Before considering the question of justiciability, there are four points that we
should make clear at the outset. First, the power to order the prorogation of
Parliament is a prerogative power: that is to say, a power recognised by the common
law and exercised by the Crown, in this instance by the sovereign in person, acting
on advice, in accordance with modern constitutional practice. It is not suggested in
these appeals that Her Majesty was other than obliged by constitutional convention
to accept that advice. In the circumstances, we express no view on that matter. Period!
John that comment of yours was so devoid of logic, a braindead Chicken would be embarrassed.
@@johnbrittingham4471 The hearing had nothing to do with Brexit you Turnip.
@@zipz8423 You didn't read the judgment obviously. It was the only reason they found it was obstructing parliament.
The people voted to LEAVE! Keep going don't STOP!
I did not, nor did 66% of the voting electorate.
Traitors...
Go away Russian Bot.