Because the question is not if Parliament is suspended (prorogued--listened to a Churchill scholar last week so I know the word.), but if Brexit.In view of today's Supreme Court ruling on the suspension of Parliament, why isn't anyone mentioning treason yet ?
Then, remove him from office with no confidence vote. There is no impeachment of the Prime Minister. As to what the court decided, you had more of a split when lower courts heard the case so the result is not entirely clear to all who look at it. Unlike the U.S. where the Supreme Court has declared the Supreme Court has final say in all matters, the UK Supremes are a creation of Parliament and don't get to tell Parliament what to do. (That's not entirely true, it depends. Which is why the question is not that easy.)To misguide the queen to such extent as to unlawfully cease the business of parliament for, to quote directly from the supreme court ruling " no good reason" sounds more like a disregard for the constitution to me, not a"political difference" did I even mention hanging ?
We live through interesting times my friend. I'm having a sabbatical of sorts from work at the moment and I've been watching the resumption of the house of commons this morning. There are some very interesting legal and constitutional points being discussed. Geoffrey Cox the Attorney General is making an excellent job of defending his position.https://spectator.us/judgment-day-danger-courts-politics/
We have a government that has lost a working majority and is being forced by legislation to act against its own central policy. We have a House of Commons that nonetheless refuses to withdraw confidence in the government or allow a general election. We have the Queen who, in Balmoral a few weeks before, granted through her privy council an order to prorogue parliament: a politically controversial decision but in one way a standard procedure. And we have a great many lawyers now seeking to reverse that prorogation by court order.
In the recent past, it would have been laughable to think this could be secured through the courts. But as we have seen, anything is possible — which is why the Supreme Court has this week been asked to consider whether the prime minister acted lawfully when he advised the Queen to prorogue parliament. This is what makes it, in effect, a question about who governs. It’s a question that involves almost all the working parts of the UK’s unwritten constitution. It cuts to the heart of how our democracy functions, with relationships between crown, government and parliament all in the spotlight, not to mention differences between Scottish and English courts. It is the constitutional equivalent of a perfect storm.
Lol Nice one ! Personally I'd be happy with either sane or sensible but I wont be holding my breath.Brexit, Hotel California style, yeah, you can check out (anytime), but you just can never leave,
I suspect someone has already started with the house of commons water supply sometime yesterday. Yes I believe we are well and truly fucked. what worries me more than the braying donkeys of Westminster is the acquisition of potential new trade partners. As you say we are a laughing stock...I need to get ready to go out and collect a half ounce...hopefully sufficient to forget that any of this is happening for real lolif we could dose Britain's water supply with good dose of Psilocybin
I'm pretty sure we're fucked either way.
I suspect someone has already started with the house of commons water supply sometime yesterday. Yes I believe we are well and truly fucked. what worries me more than the braying donkeys of Westminster is the acquisition of potential new trade partners. As you say we are a laughing stock...I need to get ready to go out and collect a half ounce...hopefully sufficient to forget that any of this is happening for real lol
My Friend,
As they say sometimes, "The fucking you get, ain't even worth the fucking you get!"
This nonsense is indeed a 'prime and pristine' example of that adage!
Not saying, Just saying, Without saying,
Pure Peace