It's as sensible as it's going to get. At least if the electorate vote again to Leave, now knowing what Leave means and looks like, it would be a somewhat informed decision and a far more legitimate expression of democracy. Also, if the second referendum where to be binding unlike the first, the electoral commission will actually have some teeth to ensure people play within the rules.
Really? I know next to nothing about the supreme court but guessed in cases like this they would make a ruling when English and Scots law conflict. Thought it was always the same judges too for some reason.
I'd imagine the executive is still bound by Scots law as much as English law on constitutional matters - in times like this I wish I still knew law students
Scottish appeal court judges have declared that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful.
The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the powers to interfere in the prime minister’s political decision to prorogue parliament.
Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MPs and peers argued Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was illegal and in breach of the constitution, as it was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and action on Brexit.
The British government will appeal against the Scottish appeal court’s decision, which also contradicts a decision in Johnson’s favour by senior English judges last week, at the supreme court.
The supreme court has already scheduled an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and English cases for 17 September, alongside a third challenge brought in the courts in Belfast.
It's like a rerun of the civil war, with the Scots intervening to save Parliament from an overreaching executive.
Did the English court decision come from evidence produced by the government? That's what the Scottish case pushed heavily and its clear that it was done to stop parliament scrutinising government behaviour.
It's not about being bound to Scottish law, because ultimately the case is going to the UKSC.
My assumption is they'd have to consider it on the basis of Scots Law, though? I'm keen to read more on the implications on this from lawyer-y types.It's not about being bound to Scottish law, because ultimately the case is going to the UKSC.
What I'm interested in is whether the UKSC, will keep a narrow focus on the judgment, (prorogation stymies Parliament), or whether they'll generally focus on prorogation overall.
Shit, looks like I was misreading: the matter being referred to the UKSC, is a final decision on interdiction (prohibiting prorogation). But as part of that, UKSC will look at the judgment handed, and therefore whether it agrees.
In the government response to the anti-prorogation petition they said: