I could never understand the outrage on this judgement. If the shoe were on the other foot, the outraged mob would be delighted. Imagine a PM Corbyn pressing the prorogation button at the outset of a Russia-US war to avoid intervention, and having a precedent set that the executive can prorogue whenever it wants for whatever reason and for however long.
@charlieminaj2
4 жыл бұрын
Lady hale voted to remain in the Eu, she stepped outside her jurisdiction in voting Boris broke the law, he didn’t🙃😊
@johnbull9195
4 жыл бұрын
Butcher Starkey takes no prisoners!
@Mark_Dyer1
4 жыл бұрын
IAIN: We now know that LADY HALE 'boasted' of her achievement, during a Private School 'Speech Day', and award ceremony; so we may, surely, recognise that 'her ladyship' felt rather triumphant in her achievements. And you claim she was impartial and objective?
@nickpheonixify
4 жыл бұрын
the courts have no place in telling the queen what she can and can not do. SHE made the choice to prorogue parliament after talking to the prime minister and as the highest authority of the land it can not or at least should not be overturned. this attempted power play should be more than enough reason to disband the supreme court and returt the authority to the law lords of the house of lords.
@Grymbaldknight
4 жыл бұрын
1) The "Case of Proclamations" (1611) said that "The king has no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him", and basically says that the monarch cannot arbitrarily criminalise things (without the approval of parliament). This is unrelated because: a) The Queen was permitted by law to prorogue parliament (and, indeed, does so regularly), so the salient quote has no relevance. b) The Queen wasn't inventing any new laws. Royal Proclamation and Prorogation are not the same thing; just because the quote contains the word "prerogative", and does not make it related to prorogation. c) The case in question discussed whether the king was allowed to personally forbid the construction of new buildings in London, or the production of things like wheat. It has absolutely nothing to do with proroguing parliament. 2) The decision of the Supreme Court to un-prorogue parliament was, as such, a decision made upon the basis of the opinion of the court to create a new precedent from scratch. It was not based upon any prior precedent or rooted in anything legally binding; the court did this on their own initiative. As Dr Starkey rightly says, it is very worrying that the court has elected to wade in on a political matter where no legal foundation exists to support their decision. 3) The Supreme Court has proven that it is able to assess any action the government undertakes, and can arbitrarily overturn it if they so desire. This gives them the power to effectively "veto" any parliamentary or executive decision, and create new precedents with which to bind the government. Given that the Supreme Court is an unelected body, this is extremely worrying. 4) The actions of the Supreme Court are darkly ironic. They cite the "Case of Proclamations" in support of their decisions, yet their decisions arbitrarily criminalise the actions of the monarch and the prime minister... even though that case says that this is an unlawful power that the monarch cannot be granted.
@elizabethtaylor9321
4 жыл бұрын
11 judges , all the same conclusion , come on , an establishment fit up from start to finish .
@susancurtis1651
4 жыл бұрын
Just being a member of the British public and nothing to do with the law I didn’t even know we had a Supreme Court . In fact I thought that the Supreme Court was in the USA. If we didn’t need a Supreme Court for decades probably centuries why do we need (and the expense of) one now? Secondly, Have any of those Supreme Court Judges ever been employed by the EU or on their pay rolll ? Have they previously or do they receive any monies from the EU particularly in the form of salaries, expenses, stipends, grants or benefits as has been suggested ? Thirdly, I would like to know which laws they were using in this case. Was it English law or EU laws they applied ? Allegedly 9 of the 11 judges had been either in the employ and or some had allegedly received stipends from the EU. If this is the case then obviously the verdict was unsafe and should be overturned as this would appear to be a bias.
@splodgenessabounds150
4 жыл бұрын
I like how David Starkey talks; of historical precedent; of how the French are the French and the English are not; and especially of how Westminster (and all that led to it) is primarily the *English* Parliament and that it is primarily *English* common law that informs it and the Judiciary. The Brexit vote is also indissolubly linked with the push for devolution.The Scottish now have their own parliament; Scotland (and N. Ireland) overwhelmingly voted 'Remain' while the English (bar a few electorates in and around London) and the Welsh (bar a few electorates) voted 'Leave'. If referenda really are about acknowledging the majority will of the people, the divorce papers between England (and Wales) and Scotland (and N. Ireland) need to be served and signed before the end of the month (October). That way, two allied purposes are served: those nations that most object to rule from Westminster *and* wish to Remain can have their independence and their EU membership, simultaneously, the people of those nations that have had enough of the EU can figure out their own political future without interference from dissemblers. One (necessary) consequence might be the expulsion from Westminster of all Scottish MP's - I'd pay good money to see that. Good riddance to the bloody lot of 'em. TL;DR Go all in, or go home.
@michaelcarroll9195
4 жыл бұрын
Naïve Dale, unbelievable for someone steeped in the Westminster bubble.
@richardeastman9846
4 жыл бұрын
The courts of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Peoples' Republic of China during its Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution had unanimous judge rulings like this all the time and people on radio and the newspapers cpnfirmed that unanimity guaranteed infallable reading of law and social justice. In the U.S. no Supreme Courtappointment is approved by the Senate who does not meet the approval of the financial and corporate oligarchy quite independently of current party squabbles. The appointees must protect the interests, the profits for which the ruling class have positioned themselves to reap. If the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is anything like that then in the case about the legality of Privy Council advising the proroguing of Parliament on grounds completley unprecedented an honest, independent and politicly savvy person would not be as all-fire quick to rule out a fixed crony kangaroo Supreme Court to back up the City when the interests are being challenged by a breakput of real pulism in Westminster.
@clauderebello2850
4 жыл бұрын
Paradoxically..!! WE are trying to bring JUDICIAL POWERS.. back home.. BREXIT..!! and our JUDICIARY.. are HAND IN HAND WITH LEFTISTS(BLAIRITES).. which is worse of TWO EVILS..??!! PARDON ME..!!
@firebladecymru
4 жыл бұрын
Brilliant, Dr David Starkey certainly knows what he is talking about. We are suffering from the stupid decision of the Blair government to create a Supreme Court and Cameron’s fixed term parliament act. The governments legal advice and performance during the hearing was very poor.
@liamkeane998
4 жыл бұрын
As always, Starkey speaks truth.
@joshuaparrott2458
4 жыл бұрын
Interesting.
@bmarkyt132
4 жыл бұрын
They are determined to stop Brexit. Dr Starkey spot on, The High Court got it right.
@jimcraig6523
4 жыл бұрын
"The law has no regard over the prorogation" may be true as a political act in it's narrowest sense but the effect of such prorogation where its aim is to undermine the sovereignty of parliament and stop its participation in the democratic process makes it justiciable. An unlawful action is one where it is held that such action is held to be immoral or ethically unsuitable as opposed to one which is forbidden by law which makes it illegal. As such the court's decision, to any fair-minded person, must be correct. The Court stated, “laws enacted by the Crown in Parliament are the supreme form of law in our legal system, with which everyone, including the Government, must comply” which forms part of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. One such example, as the Court pointed out, is that prerogative power may not be used in ways that are incompatible with legislation enacted by Parliament a principle established in the seventeenth century in the Case of Proclamations (1611) famously applied in the twentieth century in De Keyser [1920] and in 2016 in Miller concerning the triggering of the Article 50 withdrawal process. This leads naturally sovereignty of Parliament as the court stated “would … be undermined as the foundational principle of our constitution if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its legislative authority for as long as it pleased”. This does not mean that the Court could or should rule, at the level of detail, on what is and is not an acceptable period of prorogation. What it does mean, however, is that it would be incompatible with parliamentary sovereignty for the executive to have legally unfettered authority to prorogue Parliament.
@ronpeel1878
4 жыл бұрын
WHEN THE HIGH COURT MAKES LAWS, PARLIAMENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT ... THAT IS HOW DICTATORSHIP BEGIN.
@ronpeel1878
4 жыл бұрын
"Leave your political opinions at the door " ... a naieve view, me thinks.
@ninathomas92
4 жыл бұрын
Gina Miller uses George Soros Money you muppet
@Tridhos
4 жыл бұрын
So now David Starkey knows more about the law than the members of the Supreme Court. A former failed Tory candidate who once criticised Michael Howard probably not right wing enough for him. Still Brexit will not affect Starkey he is rich enough to weather the storm.
@marcokite
4 жыл бұрын
yes he does Tridhos...i note you don't mention the High Court ruling (Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and President of Queens Bench Div) - i think they know what they're talking about
@MadM0nte
4 жыл бұрын
"The courts leave leave their politics at the door." *cough* Dankula *cough* Tommy Robinson
@hammerjohn7679
4 жыл бұрын
It is a plot, wake up you twat
@dolandlydia
4 жыл бұрын
No, no one looks up to you guys at all. On the same high esteem level as the USA. I am an american.
@andrewking277
4 жыл бұрын
A lot of Boris fans here.
@pippipster6767
4 жыл бұрын
Court is not infallible. It contains humans. Humans are fallible. This ‘do not question the court’ approach is infantile.
@iantegrity6192
4 жыл бұрын
Supreme Court is a Kangaroo Court invented by Tony Blair in 2005. Tony Blair swept away 1400 years of history and law. We have a Court filled with Elitist's giving Banana Republic decisions. A bunch of backslapping Elitist's overriding the true Court's of the land, and the People.
@syedadeelhussain2691
4 жыл бұрын
SUPREME COURT is the Apex legal Institution in the UK. It has the right to interpret executive made laws, actions and policies. Actually, people in the UK still don't comprehend the role (checks and balances) played by the judiciary, elsewhere, especially, more so, in a constitutional monarchy. This is a NOVEL EXPERIENCE!
@boykovasilev8834
4 жыл бұрын
Stop talking and leave!!!!
@cleanwillie1307
4 жыл бұрын
The idea that there is no conspiracy is specious. You do not have to have an explicitly stated conspiracy to have the same effect. If you have people who all think alike in positions of power who can stretch the authority of their positions to further their shared goal, you have the exact same effect as if those people HAD sat down and agreed to do it. Here in the US we are calling that the "deep state", people who are burrowed into the organs of power who have a common mindset and are willing to use, and yes even abuse, their positions in the furtherance of those commonly held views and their resulting policies.
@francismcmenamin982
4 жыл бұрын
All of a sudden a lot of Brexiteers are worrying about what other countries are thinking about 'us'! Do you mean 'Brexiteers'? The mindless ones!
@grimjim100
4 жыл бұрын
Gina Miller used Soros' money!
@m77ast
4 жыл бұрын
Incredible wisdom and impartial knowledge of the subject area. Amateur legislative inventing law as they go along. This cannot be allowed to continue. After Brexit is delivered - I’m up for sending Gina Miller back to her home country - let her take those leaders to court with her millions. Just joking. It’s one of the great things about living in a democracy. The fault is with the corrupt judges.
@loztagain8278
4 жыл бұрын
BTFO
@A1DJPaul
4 жыл бұрын
NO ONE Ever voted for Miller. & She is a Nobody. She had the same right to vote as we all did. She Has no right to interfere.
@A1DJPaul
4 жыл бұрын
The Court was Wrong. They Were against the people. The Courts are there For the People. & Peoples sovereignty. Treason ?
@John-mz8rj
4 жыл бұрын
Supreme Parliament. major suspended parliament for his own gaine. Are you for real?
@jacc88888
4 жыл бұрын
Gosh, If only our country had people like Starkey helping run the show. He would really help expose and stop the snakes who are undermining our democracy.
@babayaga9443
4 жыл бұрын
ASK TOMMY ROBINSON IF THE COURTS ARE IMPARTIAL....WE HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN THE COURTS OR PARLIAMENT........
@paulstevenson200
4 жыл бұрын
"Johnson did not tell the truth to the Queen." Unfortunately Mr Dale you need to do your research. Para 15 of the judgement: "We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do not know what conversation, if any, passed between the assembled Privy Counsellors before or after the meeting. We do not know what the Queen was told and cannot draw any conclusions about it. So by their own admission "m'learned friends" made a decision in absence of any evidence. You are either a bloody fool or downright thick if you cannot see through this.
@KevTheImpaler
4 жыл бұрын
I wonder what would have happened if Boris had said his reasons for proroguing Parliament were that the Speaker was biased, and had changed Parliamentary procedures to allow the Opposition to take control of the order paper to force the government to act against its judgement in a way never possible before. Then the SC would have still cancelled the prorogation, but not because the PM had lied, but because they did not think the reason was valid. That would have been a more obvious political intervention. Now it is not clear whether a prime minister can prorogue Parliament for any reason. Parliament needs a new session because they can't bring (in theory) the same bill forward in the same session. It is conference season with a general election coming soon, but now the Conservatives cannot concentrate on their conference. Those are valid reasons for proroguing Parliament, although maybe not for as long as it was prorogued. But, if you get eleven Supreme Court judges, dressed up in their gowns, to look over an issue of such national importance, they're not going to say "There's nothing for us to do here. Precedent is clear." Any lower court has to look at precedent or at what written law there is, because if they don't, they risk getting slapped down by a higher court in an appeal. The Supreme Court can look at other general legal principles and decide to prioritize those.
@MrSwanseajames
4 жыл бұрын
It takes most people years to build a case. This one happens by a millionaire remainers in weeks. Of course its all legit.
@dogwithwigwamz.7320
4 жыл бұрын
Brextards want The Laws of this Land to prevail in this land - and here it is told to you by those whom have lawful Authority to tell you what the Law is. And still you object.
@marcokite
4 жыл бұрын
you seem to have missed the point...no law was broken
@deirdretrotman2104
4 жыл бұрын
Oh come on mate! Apparently 9 of them get stipends from the EU - not just that but they have used their positions to usurp power.
@ShoshiPlatypus
4 жыл бұрын
People should listen to David Starkey. He talks more sense than anybody at the moment! He really understands history, and without that, you cannot understand the present, or what is likely to happen in the future. That is why history is no longer being taught in our schools. The establishment do not want the next generation to understand what is going on, but if we do not, we are headed for absolute chaos.
@georgemcclelland7709
4 жыл бұрын
David Starkey is enchanted by the sound of his own voice...he will not be remembered....
@freespeech2374
4 жыл бұрын
If you are English be ready to fight at the drop of a hat we are in very dangerous times are constituion and the English people are under attack we are the biggest threat to them always have been and always will be we
@MisterstereoOso
4 жыл бұрын
Oh yeh & John Major prorogued PARLIARMENT the last time...bloody hypocrite !
@MisterstereoOso
4 жыл бұрын
Couldn’t disagree with you more Mr. Dale...
@freespeech2374
4 жыл бұрын
Its a attack against the English they hate everything about us
Пікірлер