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, @06:58PM (2 children)
People that voted to leave plus people that did not vote, thus accepted the outcome of the election. This gives us 70% of electorate, give or take 5% as I did not check the actual numbers.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @09:32PM
No, you really did not.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @03:03PM
And those people that did not vote would presumably all count in favour of remaining if the outcome of the referendum had been 49%-51% the other way?
I accept that including abstainers in totals of "people who didn't vote fox X" is technically correct (but a misleading use of statistics), but I don't see how they can be counted in favour of a particular outcome.
Even if you claim that "if you don't vote, then you're accepting the status quo", that would mean they'd have been siding with not leaving. And Parliament didn't set any stipulations of "a majority in favour, plus X% of the total electorate", like they did [in Scotland in 1979 [wikipedia.org].
It's fair to say that those that don't vote must accept the result, even if they don't support it. But you can't go as far as saying that they all support it too.
(I can think of a certain Prime Minister who's recently been telling people he accepts a certain result, even though he doesn't support it.)