Astonishing decision by the Scottish Court. I didn't foresee a situation where we now have the English and Scottish courts making conflicting rulings on the same point. How will the Supreme Court unravel this? The SC even if sitting in London will as I understand it determine the Scots appeal on basis of Scottish law as at first instance but I really dont know how they deal with the possibility of conflicting rulings on the same point with UK wide effect.
Emergency Hearing in SC on 17th...obvs not much of an emergency then.
It does take time to prepare these things even when people will have wargamed this scenario. Its pretty damn fast, would we really want them meeting, say, Saturday?
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.
That is wrong because the Court made no order pending a decision by the Supreme Court next week. A surprising result. It will be interesting to see their reasoning and compare that with the reasoning of the High Court judgment refusing the application when that becomes available.
Does the Court not need to give permission for HMG to appeal to UKSC, please? I haven't found anything to clarify this.
There's been a terminal collapse of polite fictions lately. So SC, Scots Law or English Law? Which is best? You decide.
English & Welsh law rules.
Scots Law has that nasty ‘not proven’ status which goes against natural justice that the state has to prove your guilt not that you have to prove your innocence.
Another clear consequence (regardless of the appeal) is the fanciful idea that Boris could lose a VONC, squat at no 10 refusing others the chance to test the confidence of the House is now completely for the birds. The Queen will have the bailiffs on speed dial waiting to get rid of the charlatan.
Emergency Hearing in SC on 17th...obvs not much of an emergency then.
A Very British Emergency.
"Let me finish my tea, darling, and then I'll come out and panic with you properly."
I think I read somewhere that they had to get all the judges back from various holidays
If the SC upholds this judgement, the important effects will surely be two-fold:
1. It prevents a future PM (e.g. Corbyn, Farage?) abusing the prorogation. 2. It reinforces the Loser Boris meme.
The actual effect on parliament over the next few weeks is likely to be minimal - the clock is already tick-tocking down to the 19th Oct when Boris has to extend or resign.
After the Court of Session decision I'm inviting the Prime Minister to Auchentennach Castle for a stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure and for the pleasure of the Hereditary Keeper of the Privy Tools of the Dungeon.
Fine pies will be on the menu immediately afterwards?
Indeed.
A new line s also in the offing - The BREXIT Pie - Takes over three years to eat and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth before a stomach churning final evacuation of the bowels.
Another sure fire winner from Auchentennach Fine Pies.
If the SC upholds presumably they only get back the 4 days after conferences as under existing plans, had prorogation not occurred, parliament would be in recess?
If the SC upholds presumably they only get back the 4 days after conferences as under existing plans, had prorogation not occurred, parliament would be in recess?
The recess had not been voted on yet as far as I’m aware. Hence the outrage.
If the SC upholds presumably they only get back the 4 days after conferences as under existing plans, had prorogation not occurred, parliament would be in recess?
... only if the HoC approved the conference recesses. That might be much less likely now.
Another clear consequence (regardless of the appeal) is the fanciful idea that Boris could lose a VONC, squat at no 10 refusing others the chance to test the confidence of the House is now completely for the birds. The Queen will have the bailiffs on speed dial waiting to get rid of the charlatan.
IANAL. So, if they rule it was indeed illegal under Scots Law, yet legal under English Law, what happens? Permission was granted in Scotland, illegal, but enacted in England, legal.
Another case of the Palace on the phone to Downing Street. "The Queen will see the Prime Minister at 3pm" 'I'm sorry, the PM's diary is full, and he's out of London' 'You don't understand. The Queen WILL see the PM at 3pm'
And HMTQ will stand for the whole meeting while Boris shifts uneasily from one foot to the other.
After the Court of Session decision I'm inviting the Prime Minister to Auchentennach Castle for a stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure and for the pleasure of the Hereditary Keeper of the Privy Tools of the Dungeon.
Fine pies will be on the menu immediately afterwards?
Indeed.
A new line s also in the offing - The BREXIT Pie - Takes over three years to eat and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth before a stomach churning final evacuation of the bowels.
Another sure fire winner from Auchentennach Fine Pies.
I think that BREXIT Pie might well turn out to be physically inedible.
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.
LibDems face a dilemma.
Would they prefer 100 seats and a majority Tory government and leave the EU. or 30 seats and a minority Lab government and a chance to remain in the EU?
IANAL. So, if they rule it was indeed illegal under Scots Law, yet legal under English Law, what happens? Permission was granted in Scotland, illegal, but enacted in England, legal.
If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
Agreed. It is a very bad look having Scottish legal decisions overturned by a court in London given they are supposed to.be separate legal systems.
It's a pyramid system, not a separate system.
It is fixed with them puting the Scottish system subject to the English Supreme Court because they did not like Scotland having any say.. It will not go down well if overturned and will be more nails in the coffin of the union
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.
Try the Treaty of Union. Scots law has always been sovereign in its jurisdiction and this was preserved in the Treaty.
This does not seem to place London under Scottish Jurisdiction.
If the supreme court rules the BJ misled the Queen he has to resign. No ifs or buts. And those whatsapps are out there and already subject ot an order to disclose.
Another clear consequence (regardless of the appeal) is the fanciful idea that Boris could lose a VONC, squat at no 10 refusing others the chance to test the confidence of the House is now completely for the birds. The Queen will have the bailiffs on speed dial waiting to get rid of the charlatan.
Looking forward to this series of The Crown.
Well at least it wont be dull as ditchwater like the others.
Boris has decided to smash every record possible in his short tenure as Prime Minister. And I do now expect it to be short. Parliament seems clear to not want to discard its duties with regards to Brexit, and has a substantial number of deselected/newly moved/independent MPs who don't want a new election.
Serious question. Why does he need 330 - 340? Surely he needs something around 321 taking Sinn Fein and Speaker into account.
I think he would be quite content with 311 (the number May started with in 2017) who he could rely upon not to defy him on a vote on "no deal" that was deemed to be one of confidence. There are many Remainer Conservative MPs who still disagree with him, but none of the ones who were prepared to stick their head above the parapet would have been returned.
I think that's incorrect. I think there are still people in the Conservative Party, like Mrs May, who want a Deal. And I think while she'd be prepared to go for No Deal, if the EU refused to make concessions, I don't think she (or a host of other Conservative MPs) would be happy with No Deal as the only game in town.
311, given Northern Ireland is likely to return some Alliance MPs, is going to be insufficient for Boris to deliver any Deal. And unless the BXP get 30 odd seats, it is likely to be insufficien to deliver No Deal.
Two months ago, at the fag end of May's leadership, Conservative MPs were facing political oblivion with their party just having polled in single figures in the Euro elections. Johnson will be treated as a hero if he achieves the same numbers as May did and his stock in the party will only rise as a consequence.
The question is not whether some, including Remainers like May, want a certain outcome. It is whether they are prepared to sacrifice their political careers to achieve it. And we have just had a vote that told us who they were.
311 would be sufficient to backing leaving if necessary without an agreement first being in place, as there would be some DUP and probably a handful of BXP MPs that would give Johnson the majority of 1 he needs for that course. Your "cushion" would be no more than a bonus.
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
He's not correct on that - the court said parliament is still prorogued till the SC hears the matter.
And that's not correct. According to the summary judgment, the court didn't say that - it's just being inferred because the court order just declared prorogation was unlawful and null, but didn't go any further in enforcing the return of parliament.
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
So if the Supreme Court rules in favour of the government will the Daily Mail call them the enemies of the people?
1/50 Yes 4/1 Foreign enemies of the people! English rule now! 1000/1 Reasoned neutral description reporting what happened
The funnest one I have seen was Lib Dem Voice comparing Boris to everyone from Napoleon to Mussolini to the General who invaded the Spanish Parliament in (iirc) 1979. Supremely bonkers.
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.
True, but you could say the same about the SNP when they lost the original case or Gina Miller and John Major when they lose their case.
Wasn't the SNP but a cross-party group of MPs and peers (by definition not SNP).
I'd say Joanna Cherry made it all about the SNP (as usual)
It was Cherry that instigated it all and led it, she is right to make it about the SNP as it would never in a million years have happened without the SNP.
1 - What is the basis for the Court of Session to make rulings concerning the UK Parliament, given that it is not based in Scotland? I am thinking that it is some historic power under common law.
2 - Was Cummings actually declared in Contempt of Parliament? I have the Committee of Privileges report; however I thought it was down the Commons to do the deed, and I cannot find any motion etc. making it happen.
I have 2 down more to tantrumming by Mr Grieve to cover his own embarrassment - imo Select Committee Chairs hardly cover themselves with glory these days eg Margaret Hodge using the Treasury Committee as a platform for abusing witnesses. Ditto Frank Field.
Did you not get taught at school that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom
... with a jealously guarded separate legal system, and with a Court of Sessions to which English barriers do not have audience rights. Seems a bit spongiform.
I am interested to know the basis of their claim to Jurisdiction. I am sure that there is one.
Try the Treaty of Union. Scots law has always been sovereign in its jurisdiction and this was preserved in the Treaty.
This does not seem to place London under Scottish Jurisdiction.
IANAL, but a government has to treat all four quarters of the UK legally. So if (a) Scots law is enshrined in the Treaty, and (b) HMG is acting illegally under Scots law ...
What this does show, whether SC overturn or not, is that just because you win a referendum does not mean overly clever plans on other things will work. JRM and co were so pleased with themselves and now what? I dont like Greives over complex plans and I dont like theirs either, but at least his usually work.
What's the point of the prorogation of parliament now, anyway? Johnson can't legally drive us over the cliff so the whole circus should be allowed back in the big top so that the useless fuckers can at least try and earn the money we give them.
What's the point of the prorogation of parliament now, anyway? Johnson can't legally drive us over the cliff so the whole circus should be allowed back in the big top so that the useless fuckers can at least try and earn the money we give them.
Perhaps the government would actually like to have a Queen's Speech?
"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
I'm sure it'll 'fire up the base'. But there'll be plenty of others for whom it adds to the evidence pile that he's a shifty bugger.
True, but you could say the same about the SNP when they lost the original case or Gina Miller and John Major when they lose their case.
Wasn't the SNP but a cross-party group of MPs and peers (by definition not SNP).
I'd say Joanna Cherry made it all about the SNP (as usual)
It was Cherry that instigated it all and led it, she is right to make it about the SNP as it would never in a million years have happened without the SNP.
In fairness there were Mr Maugham and about 75 politicians from Westminster - I forget how many are SNP MPs but plainly not as many as half. But it is certainly being regarded as being about the SNP by many folk, so they may as well take the credit as well as the blame.
In all seriousness, probably. Judges are enemies of the people like parliament, give Boris a majority so he can get Brexit done.
I'm biased against it but I think the rank incompetence of the government and, if upheld, lack of care about the law, will cost the Tories a few points at least
If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
It is quite gripping to see the entire concept of a British national identity disintegrating in realtime.
Also fascinating to see how many on PB cannot grasp the concept that Scots law, Scots MPs, etc. are (or should be) as equally valid as the others from the other kingdom, principality and province.
Correct. As a good Scouser but also a staunch Unionist, if it’s good enough for Scotland it’s good enough for the UK.
Trying to have the party conferences whilst Parliament is sitting would be, er, interesting.
I think it was exMP Nick_Palmer said on this forum that most MPs only turn up to the leader's speech or to give a speech themselves, and that most MPs would be quite relieved to have a good reason not to be at the conference.
If it now gets overturned in the UK Supreme Court that would be very good long term for Scottish independence.
Agreed. It is a very bad look having Scottish legal decisions overturned by a court in London given they are supposed to.be separate legal systems.
It's a pyramid system, not a separate system.
It is fixed with them puting the Scottish system subject to the English Supreme Court because they did not like Scotland having any say.. It will not go down well if overturned and will be more nails in the coffin of the union
It will be a legal decision based upon legal opinion, not politics. It is the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, not England. Nationalists will try and frame it as you have no doubt, but it would be more nationalist BS, but sure, there are gullible people who will fall for that line.
What's the point of the prorogation of parliament now, anyway? Johnson can't legally drive us over the cliff so the whole circus should be allowed back in the big top so that the useless fuckers can at least try and earn the money we give them.
Perhaps the government would actually like to have a Queen's Speech?
Does that mean we can get a GE after all! It could be good for dear leader Boris!
Yes. The proroguation is near-irrelevant now. Canceling it might even help Boris.
Those LD numbers should TERRIFY Labour. Swinson is charming and plausible. Labour are about to adopt several insane commie policies. Labour’s position on Brexit is calamitously incoherent.
In a volatile election it’s easy to see the Libs charging through and beating Labour on votes, and maybe even MPs.
LibDems face a dilemma.
Would they prefer 100 seats and a majority Tory government and leave the EU. or 30 seats and a minority Lab government and a chance to remain in the EU?
I definitely prefer the latter.
Can you be sure that it isn't also possible for 100 Lib Dem seats and a minority Lab government and a greater chance to remain in the EU?
There's been a terminal collapse of polite fictions lately. So SC, Scots Law or English Law? Which is best? You decide.
English & Welsh law rules.
Scots Law has that nasty ‘not proven’ status which goes against natural justice that the state has to prove your guilt not that you have to prove your innocence.
English law does the same thing in some circs. I think if you are imprisoned and then have your conviction overturned you get compensation for time in prison if you actually didn't do it, but not if we still know you really did it, it's just that we can no longer prove it.
What's the point of the prorogation of parliament now, anyway? Johnson can't legally drive us over the cliff so the whole circus should be allowed back in the big top so that the useless fuckers can at least try and earn the money we give them.
Perhaps the government would actually like to have a Queen's Speech?
What's she going to say? "My government doesn't have a majority and is about as useful as tits on a fish"? Face it, Brexit and the Tories are done. Time to move on.
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
BiB - Quite possibly. But it's worth saying that this can happen without such political machinations. Just look at the FTPA.
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
Isnt that for the courts to decide?
The Supreme Court, yes.
I don’t see how Scottish courts have jurisdiction over the Parliament of the whole UK. Only the Court of the whole UK does.
Similarly, I’d expect a Scottish court ruling to have supreme weight over Scottish law and the Scottish Parliament.
Boris has decided to smash every record possible in his short tenure as Prime Minister. And I do now expect it to be short. Parliament seems clear to not want to discard its duties with regards to Brexit, and has a substantial number of deselected/newly moved/independent MPs who don't want a new election.
Johnson will end up resigning the government
Let us hope so. "Government" suggests they are governing. They are not.
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
I disagree with you on the merits of that political decision, but let's put that to one side.
The bad political decision that Johnson made was a different one. It was to allow the bill to prevent no deal to go forward to Royal Assent, rather than delaying for a few days in order to allow it to get Royal Assent by default only as an automatic result of prorogation (as all bills which have completed their parliamentary stages do). Were prorogation to be ruled illegal, it would follow that there would still have been no granting of Royal Assent for the bill, and Johnson would technically still be free of his obligations under it.
Comments
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17894864.court-sessions-damning-statement-boris-johnsons-unlawful-decision/?ref=twtrec
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Scots Law has that nasty ‘not proven’ status which goes against natural justice that the state has to prove your guilt not that you have to prove your innocence.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1171720109842456577?s=21
His employers couldn't trust him
His wives couldn't trust him
The Queen can't trust him
Why would voters?
If the SC upholds this judgement, the important effects will surely be two-fold:
1. It prevents a future PM (e.g. Corbyn, Farage?) abusing the prorogation.
2. It reinforces the Loser Boris meme.
The actual effect on parliament over the next few weeks is likely to be minimal - the clock is already tick-tocking down to the 19th Oct when Boris has to extend or resign.
A new line s also in the offing - The BREXIT Pie - Takes over three years to eat and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth before a stomach churning final evacuation of the bowels.
Another sure fire winner from Auchentennach Fine Pies.
Whether that was right...
"The Queen will see the Prime Minister at 3pm"
'I'm sorry, the PM's diary is full, and he's out of London'
'You don't understand. The Queen WILL see the PM at 3pm'
And HMTQ will stand for the whole meeting while Boris shifts uneasily from one foot to the other.
Would they prefer 100 seats and a majority Tory government and leave the EU.
or 30 seats and a minority Lab government and a chance to remain in the EU?
I definitely prefer the latter.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17894864.court-sessions-damning-statement-boris-johnsons-unlawful-decision/?ref=twtrec
4/1 Foreign enemies of the people! English rule now!
1000/1 Reasoned neutral description reporting what happened
Are they sure about this?
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1171723369575845888?s=20
So Johnson has to ask the Queen to recall parliament?
And here I was thinking things would quieten down without parliament sitting...
Johnson will end up resigning the government
The question is not whether some, including Remainers like May, want a certain outcome. It is whether they are prepared to sacrifice their political careers to achieve it. And we have just had a vote that told us who they were.
311 would be sufficient to backing leaving if necessary without an agreement first being in place, as there would be some DUP and probably a handful of BXP MPs that would give Johnson the majority of 1 he needs for that course. Your "cushion" would be no more than a bonus.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
What a victory of the Action Of Union that would be.
"LibDems Ruling Here" .....
PB will be the last thing on my mind.
Court judgement quote:
"prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect"
Suggests that, yeah, parliament is no longer prorogued
A No Deal Brexit is the ultimate fantasy.
"The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
I'm biased against it but I think the rank incompetence of the government and, if upheld, lack of care about the law, will cost the Tories a few points at least
Face it, Brexit and the Tories are done. Time to move on.
I don’t see how Scottish courts have jurisdiction over the Parliament of the whole UK. Only the Court of the whole UK does.
Similarly, I’d expect a Scottish court ruling to have supreme weight over Scottish law and the Scottish Parliament.
The bad political decision that Johnson made was a different one. It was to allow the bill to prevent no deal to go forward to Royal Assent, rather than delaying for a few days in order to allow it to get Royal Assent by default only as an automatic result of prorogation (as all bills which have completed their parliamentary stages do). Were prorogation to be ruled illegal, it would follow that there would still have been no granting of Royal Assent for the bill, and Johnson would technically still be free of his obligations under it.