SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.
Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."
[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.
Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
That's true for North Korean elections too, I suppose.
When I was in college in the 80's, a group of people were forming a gay/lesbian group (you see, back in the day we didn't have all those other extra letters to figure out) and there were some who didn't feel that the group should be entitled to a share of the student fees as all other official college groups got. It being a small college, some people were uncomfortable with this whole idea. The woman organizing the group had the brilliant idea to declare "blue jeans support days" where she declared that on a particular day if you wear blue jeans then you support them. It was very amusing to see so many insecure people wearing dress slacks and dresses on that day. I personally wore jeans because that was pretty much my entire wardrobe, and I really didn't give two shits about the whole issue. So my silence was consent?
If you come out with what I think is a stupid or half-baked idea, wrap it up in a referendum that doesn't legally mean anything, you're telling me that if I don't feel bothered to vote against it that really means I'm in favor of it? Was it incumbent upon me back then to have to bother to dress one way or another because I was somehow required to take a side on an issue that I had, essentially, no voice in the outcome?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:51PM
Whether you vote or not, you will be counted. Yes, you may have to go out and vote "NO" if you want to prevent a disaster.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 25 2019, @06:54PM
Addendum:
I would prefer the "NO" vote be the default, so that a non-vote would a real vote against all candidates on the ballot. That would make things a bit more honest.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..