Fartsniffage wrote:Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Ok, perhaps I was a little overzealous earlier, since most of the time it’s the courts holding the government to the laws already passed by Parliament. But this is one of those situations that the London high court thought was political, or too political for them to interfere, since it seems like the courts writing the laws rather then interpreting them.
And we're back to a Scottish court disagreeing. If it is true that the government lied to the sovereign then we're really in tricky waters. And it really seems like that might be the case.
I am confused by this, the sovereign provides a prorogue of Parliament at the request of the government for any reason because the sovereigns power to grant a prorogue has become a formality under current UK constitutional law much like royal assent. The Scottish court is saying the government lied and tricked the sovereign into granting a prorogue that the Sovereign is duty bound grant regardless of the reason, therefore the proroguement is unconstitutional ?
That is some a degree of formalism that is amazing.
It also appears the Scottish court is inviting a Constitutional crisis to solve an issue that has already been resolved by Parliament passing a law requiring the PM to request an extension of the EU.