The High Court never said the suspension was lawful, did they? They said it wasn't their place to judge whether it was or wasn't.Geoffrey Cox says the "definitive" legal advice he gave to the PM about the suspension of Parliament was supplied to the Supreme Court.
He jokes that he "took a close interest in the case".
He says the advice was given in "good faith" and that the government believed its actions were "lawful and constitutional".
He says he accepts the Supreme Court's ruling and says the issue is "settled" although he stresses that different lawyers took different views on the issue - a reference to the earlier High Court ruling that the suspension was lawful.
The opposite of dictator is not 'block everything that isnt the status quo'.We should dissolve the courts and parliament and let Farage be dictator.
That's what Job is basically saying.
Fucking moron, read some history.
I don't know why you're getting so stroppy about it - the prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit, after all.Now that they've prostituted out the supreme court to get 3 extra days of parliament.
Those fuckers had better well actually turn up...because the usual empty chambers wont look too good.
Its pretty irrelevent now.
The fact that Tony Blairs little project has now seized political power is just quite simply beyond belief.
As I have said if the EU ref has done one thing..its destroying the system as it eats itself.
One is dead the other a fantasyWhy didnt you just go for hitler or devourer of the universe.
anti democratic authoritarianism.
Heres the Australian version of Foxs Tucker interviewing Spiked over brexit.
Its funny how Aussie Sky news is the complete opposite of the UK version.
View: https://youtu.be/4EmtYOFeCJo
The constitutional position is simple
It is not open to the government, by Order in Council or side letter or a message written on the side of a startled cow, to do a thing which circumvents or frustrates a statute
Public law 101, 1968 case of Padfield
And any attempt at such tomfoolery can and would be quashed by the High Court on the basic Padfield constitutional principle within a couple of days, if not a few hours
Principle so basic it would not need to go to Supreme Court
"What about this to side-step the Benn Act?
"Side letter to EU?"
- No, Padfield, constitutional law 101, government cannot frustrate statute
"Order in Council?"
- No, Padfield
"What about..."
- No, Padfield
"Emergency powers?"
- Still no
General purpose tweet
- No, for even more legal reasons
To any piece of the form "Has [x] discovered a way round the Benn Act?"
The initial answer is "No, Padfield"
Only if the piece explains how the 1968 case of Padfield is also sidestepped, then the piece is legally worthless briefed by the legally amateur
The Benn Act is an Act of Parliament
As such, there is nothing a government can do to frustrate or circumvent the Act - side letters, Orders in Council or otherwise
If the Benn Act an impediment, they can only seek to amend or repeal it
And that is through Parliament
And it is impossible to imagine a situation where an "emergency" powers would allow a government to amend the Benn Act as a direct and proportionate way of mitigating an emergency, but even so, that would need to be put before parliament promptly for approval
Well yes..but they do it to ridicule them..not even give an ounce to their argument.Huh? Sky news and the BBC also interview loons for their opinions.