On 25/09/2019 09:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

We have already seen he will use illegal prorogue to try and stifle
debate and he will use an election to do the same.

Not illegal as it broke no law. Just declared unlawful on the grounds
that no law allows it.

Didnt they hark back to some 400 year old bill of rights to claim it was
illegal to frustrate the will of parliament?

And the case hinged on the fact that prorogation is deemed not to have
happened within parliament, since it involves the Lords and the Queen,
so was in fact 'justiciable'.

No motive need be ascribed. The act itself breached that law.

The legal implications are still being mulled over.


That is, we are now adopting the same ****ty
legal precept that the continentals use - guilty til proved innocent,
and you can only do things that the law permits, rather than be
forbidden to do that which the law forbids, with everything else
permitted.



--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)