The challenge facing Corbyn is triggering a VOC vote without setting in chain an early GE.
Quite
Given the 14 day window for another government to form, followed by a 4/5 week campaign, the GE can't be until November now, can it?
Can it?
Tehcnically, it can, just.
You only need the 14-day window after a VoNC. A dissolution motion could move straight to the election period. If that were tabled today, the election could be held on Oct 31.
And, the counting would be in the small hours of 1st November, overshooting the Brexit deadline and any the formation of any new Government by a matter of hours.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
Oh, don't panic everyone. Eleven of the most senior judges in the land (including a couple who found against Miller in a dissenting judgment, so can't for one second be accused of Remain bias) have unanimously roasted the Government and PM personally. But Britain's preeminent judicial scholar, B Johnson Esq., has opined that they are wrong, so that settles it.
Ah, but even though the dissenters on A50 were hailed by hyufd they are now just being labelled as lefty die hard remainers.
"Breaking the Law", FFS! It's hardly like punching someone in the street, where the illegality is obvious beforehand. Instead, it took 3 court cases - with the English court, significantly from a political perspective, declining to intervene in the government's decision - before the action was declared illegal retrospectively.
I think Boris will take an inevitable hit in the polls for "losing", but the man in the street will also not fail to notice how Parliament, the Speaker, and now the Courts are blatantly stacked against what they voted for...
We disagree on many things, but I agree with you on this.
It is not about breaking the law, since he clearly believed as PM he had the arbitrary power to prorogue for any reason, and for however long he chose - indeed the government lawyers argued exactly that during the court case.
That it is now clear he was entirely wrong on the law does not allow one to say that he deliberately flouted the law (however much one might despise his actions as undemocratic). It's pretty clear though that he is a liar.
Were he to try to repeat the same process, it would be a clearly illegal act.
Amazing times. My thoughts: 1. Shagger will double down and keep Cummings 2. Parliament will find Shagger in Contempt of Parliament and remove him from office via a VONC 3. Parliament will appoint a Labour grandee to run an emergency government to agree a Long Extension with the EU 4. No election until the spring and even then it will be down to exhaustion rather than plan 5. In that election we will witness something extraordinary. The country is polarising at an extraordinary rate, leaving little room for the two old grand parties. There will be a Tory (ERG) / Brexit non-aggression pact, just as there will be a LibDem / Labour (People's Vote) pact, both of which are roundly attacked by the front benches. 6. The LibDems will form the new government propped up by People's Vote MPs, with Brexit / ERG the official opposition. Both the official Conservative and Labour Parties are reduced to rumps.
OK, so I'm going out on a limb with 6. But I do believe that we are now divided as a nation past the point where people will compromise enough to vote for divided and confused positions - and as the Tories won't back No deal they are seen as confused and compromised by leavers. Which means a tsunami away from both into the two extreme positions.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
You think the Queen will allow political judges to be appointed by partisan governments.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
If, having read the judgment, you're saying you think the court was wrong in law, you need to explain why you think that. You need to point out their errors.
Saying that all 11 judges were actuated by political bias is about the silliest suggestion I've ever seen you make - and that's saying something!
Shes done more for democracy than the hordes of 'bring back control' Brexiteers.
Whisper it quietly, but IMO Joanna Cherry is emerging as a very credible alternative leader to Nicola - she is also much more cautious on some of the more divisive SNP policies such as the Gender Recognition legislation.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
Having read the judgment (I agree with others’ comments on this thread that it’s a fantastic clear piece of writing) I really struggle to see any steps in the reasoning that can be categorised as left-liberal or political. Of course you can always argue that a ruling that a politician’s actions are illegal is political by virtue of thwarting those actions, but if you follow that to its logical conclusion then you would conclude that politicians should be free to break any law they choose unfettered by the courts - that seems a risky place to end up.
Which parts of the judgment did you feel showed the left, liberal and political tendencies and how would a ‘conservative’ justice have ruled differently on those points?
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
As usual you have not addressed the point. I agree it is likely inevitable but you have no proof of their political leanings other than you dont like the decision.
By your logic if theyd found in favour of the government they would be clearly right leaning conservatives and all 11 should be replaced. They cannot win.
And Since I gave reasons why I could see and accept the government winning you cannot claim that my view is because I like the decision.
Come back to me when the Supreme Court agrees with a Conservative Government
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
No sane conservative would have boosted Corbyn's chances like this.
To suggest they should rule on the law based on whether it aids a political cause insults their professionalism. I said the same when people praised the court of session for standing up for scotland, as it implicit said they should be criticised for not doing so if they'd ruled the other way.
We sure learn who believed in sm independent judiciary on these occasions. And it's far fewer than I'd prefer.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
You think the Queen will allow political judges to be appointed by partisan governments.
Dream on.
Jezza will send her into exile in his second term so it's a mute point.
The challenge facing Corbyn is triggering a VOC vote without setting in chain an early GE.
Quite
Given the 14 day window for another government to form, followed by a 4/5 week campaign, the GE can't be until November now, can it?
Can it?
Tehcnically, it can, just.
You only need the 14-day window after a VoNC. A dissolution motion could move straight to the election period. If that were tabled today, the election could be held on Oct 31.
And, the counting would be in the small hours of 1st November, overshooting the Brexit deadline and any the formation of any new Government by a matter of hours.
Not going to happen.
I wasn't looking at the practical consequences, just whether an election could be held in October.
FWIW, I think it's *highly* unlikely that Oct 31 will be the Brexit deadline by Oct 31.
But then it's also highly unlikely that the Commons will pass a dissolution motion tomorrow.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
If this was prorogation past October 31st that might be different, this was not and I imagine the current court would side with Corbyn on most issues anyway
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
HYUFD, you know this binds future PMs (unless the commons changes the law to allow itself to be prorogued)? So it doesn't just stop Johnson now. It stops any PM in the future from proroguing parliament whenever they may be losing. Like, how a democracy might work? And that Parliament can pass a law whenever it likes giving the power to a PM to do that, and a court would accept that. It is only because a PM has so obviously tried to thwart the will of the Commons this happened.
Amazing times. My thoughts: 1. Shagger will double down and keep Cummings 2. Parliament will find Shagger in Contempt of Parliament and remove him from office via a VONC 3. Parliament will appoint a Labour grandee to run an emergency government to agree a Long Extension with the EU 4. No election until the spring and even then it will be down to exhaustion rather than plan 5. In that election we will witness something extraordinary. The country is polarising at an extraordinary rate, leaving little room for the two old grand parties. There will be a Tory (ERG) / Brexit non-aggression pact, just as there will be a LibDem / Labour (People's Vote) pact, both of which are roundly attacked by the front benches. 6. The LibDems will form the new government propped up by People's Vote MPs, with Brexit / ERG the official opposition. Both the official Conservative and Labour Parties are reduced to rumps.
OK, so I'm going out on a limb with 6. But I do believe that we are now divided as a nation past the point where people will compromise enough to vote for divided and confused positions - and as the Tories won't back No deal they are seen as confused and compromised by leavers. Which means a tsunami away from both into the two extreme positions.
Not so much going out of a limb with number 6 as having all of them amputated !!
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
But because of our tradition of "apolitical" judges, these ones have essentially had free reign to torpedo the Government over an otherwise inconsequential matter.
Judges should not be allowed to render decisions of such colossal political effect.
It seems somewhat curious that you are so certain that the judges got it wrong, and yet boast that you haven't actually read the judgement.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
He and Cummings now have the narrative they want, they doing everything possible to deliver the will of the people against the diehard Remainers in Parliament and the judiciary who want to extend again and ultimately likely revoke. The more that narrative continues the more they squeeze the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while Remainers split between the LDs and Corbyn Labour.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
Wrong provided Boris does not extend and resigns as PM and takes the Tories into opposition on a Brexit Deal or No Deal platform Leavers will largely stay behind him
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
If this was prorogation past October 31st that might be different, this was not and I imagine the current court would side with Corbyn on most issues anyway
The court has made a constitutional judgement, not a political judgement. You are losing it, but I see you're just promoting the same nonsense line being pushed by the usual Johnson surrogates in the media like Mr Eugenics here.
For those attacking the supreme court justices and today's judgement:
How did they get it wrong, in law?
IANAL, and would be fascinated to know. As I said (just) before the judgement was revealed, it seemed to this layman to have fairly logical connections from the background to its conclusion. I know that's not everything in the law, but it would be good to know.
Or, as IANAL, perhaps I've misunderstood things.
The strongest argument, which was the High Court's original decision, is that prorogation is not justiciable and that this was a breach o Article 9 of the Bill of Rights: 'the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
The SC would argue that they were upholding this clause by defending parliament against a malign executive while the government could argue that prorogation, as an act of the monarch (the Crown in parliament), is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not justiciable by the courts.
Essentially, the government's argument was that this was high politics and the courts have no place in this. Before everyone gets 20-20 with hindsight, its worth noting that many legal experts thought that Miller's case had no chance precisely because of this.
"Breaking the Law", FFS! It's hardly like punching someone in the street, where the illegality is obvious beforehand. Instead, it took 3 court cases - with the English court, significantly from a political perspective, declining to intervene in the government's decision - before the action was declared illegal retrospectively.
I think Boris will take an inevitable hit in the polls for "losing", but the man in the street will also not fail to notice how Parliament, the Speaker, and now the Courts are blatantly stacked against what they voted for...
We disagree on many things, but I agree with you on this.
It is not about breaking the law, since he clearly believed as PM he had the arbitrary power to prorogue for any reason, and for however long he chose - indeed the government lawyers argued exactly that during the court case.
That it is now clear he was entirely wrong on the law does not allow one to say that he deliberately flouted the law (however much one might despise his actions as undemocratic). It's pretty clear though that he is a liar.
Were he to try to repeat the same process, it would be a clearly illegal act.
Why should we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think he was acting illegally? He is clearly stating that it is still government policy to act illegally (in leaving on the 31st Oct even with No Deal).
Amazing times. My thoughts: 1. Shagger will double down and keep Cummings
Point 1 re Dominic Cummings -- isn't he due to step down shortly in any case, for undisclosed medical reasons? Cynics would say that makes him the perfect sacrifice.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
The only question now is whether Boris conclude a deal, ask for an extension under the Benn Act, or resign on the eve of October 31.
I rather suspect the latter.
If Johnson resigns just before 31st Oct but remains as leader for the following GE, he will be torn apart by journalists. "You chose to resign as PM, but now you want to be PM again!"
No Boris wants to stay leader to deliver the will of the people with a majority against the diehard Remainer traitors to democracy who make up most current MPs
LOL - the arch diehard Remainer projects in the vain hope that people might overlook the fact that you, HYUFD, are a diehard Remainer.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
He and Cummings now have the narrative they want, they doing everything possible to deliver the will of the people against the diehard Remainers in Parliament and the judiciary who want to extend again and ultimately likely revoke. The more that narrative continues the more they squeeze the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while Remainers split between the LDs and Corbyn Labour.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
I'm not sure he is. If he is seen as doing everything he can to leave on 31st and is thwarted by others he may still win a subsequent election. On the other hand, something else might do for him and there is also the question of Tory unity, manifesto position on Brexit and selection of candidates in such an election. There are so many dramatic forces at work with BOTH major parties in crisis that nobody can have any confidence about how this will all play out.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
You think the Queen will allow political judges to be appointed by partisan governments.
Dream on.
The Queen will appoint whatever judges the government, Lord Chancellor and Parliament of the day decide on yes
For those attacking the supreme court justices and today's judgement:
How did they get it wrong, in law?
IANAL, and would be fascinated to know. As I said (just) before the judgement was revealed, it seemed to this layman to have fairly logical connections from the background to its conclusion. I know that's not everything in the law, but it would be good to know.
Or, as IANAL, perhaps I've misunderstood things.
The strongest argument, which was the High Court's original decision, is that prorogation is not justiciable and that this was a breach o Article 9 of the Bill of Rights: 'the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
The SC would argue that they were upholding this clause by defending parliament against a malign executive while the government could argue that prorogation, as an act of the monarch (the Crown in parliament), is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not justiciable by the courts.
Essentially, the government's argument was that this was high politics and the courts have no place in this. Before everyone gets 20-20 with hindsight, its worth noting that many legal experts thought that Miller's case had no chance precisely because of this.
I think that’s a fair point.
Once it had been accepted that it was a matter for law, it was always likely that Boris would fall foul of it, since it was transparently obvious to everyone why parliament was suspended. That government sent their lawyer to court to deny the obvious, and declined to appear themselves, hardly helped their case.
On a bigger picture it is surely reassuring that there are some checks and balances in our system? Relying solely on the British character and sense of fair play as our only defence against dictatorship will only get us so far.
Is there anything in the ruling that would prohibit proroguing to allow a party conference to be held!
That would usually be done with a recess, that requires the consent of the Commons. Had the government had put forward a recess then a week prorogation for a QS, nobody would have battered an eyelid. The recess may not have happened; enough MPs were saying they didn't want it so they could do Brexit related work, but it was conventional and may have passed with the Labour Front Bench thinking it could work to their advantage. The prorogation and threat of more strong arm tactics is really what did Johnson in.
Brilliant couple of days for Labour, Watson's boys defeated on the conference floor, Boris' boys defeated in the courts.
The sun is shining*, the birds are singing (somewhere probably), music sounds just that bit sweeter, I've got a game of football later.
Life is beautiful
*Clouds and rain technically but all I see is glorious sunshine.
I'm finding it hard to keep count of the number of Comical Ali lookalikes on PB .....
You can usually tell by their insistence that Labour members agree with them and the hysteria produced when proved otherwise.
Although PBs reaction was completely trumped by the angry right wing columnist ripping up their columns about Corbyn's defeat at conference and about it being a dictatorship for Labour members to disagree with them. An altogether different kind of beautiful music to my ears!
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
As usual you have not addressed the point. I agree it is likely inevitable but you have no proof of their political leanings other than you dont like the decision.
By your logic if theyd found in favour of the government they would be clearly right leaning conservatives and all 11 should be replaced. They cannot win.
And Since I gave reasons why I could see and accept the government winning you cannot claim that my view is because I like the decision.
Come back to me when the Supreme Court agrees with a Conservative Government
You believe the court has never sided with the government? Not even since 2015 onwards?
It's from the same school of logic that determined that whereas for us a No Deal Brexit will be but a minor blip on a tranquil sea, the mere thought of it will bring the EU, humbled, to its knees.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
Dec 31st 2020 seems right, as that would be the end of transition.
What an interesting day it seems I have missed!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
"Breaking the Law", FFS! It's hardly like punching someone in the street, where the illegality is obvious beforehand. Instead, it took 3 court cases - with the English court, significantly from a political perspective, declining to intervene in the government's decision - before the action was declared illegal retrospectively.
I think Boris will take an inevitable hit in the polls for "losing", but the man in the street will also not fail to notice how Parliament, the Speaker, and now the Courts are blatantly stacked against what they voted for...
We disagree on many things, but I agree with you on this.
It is not about breaking the law, since he clearly believed as PM he had the arbitrary power to prorogue for any reason, and for however long he chose - indeed the government lawyers argued exactly that during the court case.
That it is now clear he was entirely wrong on the law does not allow one to say that he deliberately flouted the law (however much one might despise his actions as undemocratic). It's pretty clear though that he is a liar.
Were he to try to repeat the same process, it would be a clearly illegal act.
Why should we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt that he didn't think he was acting illegally? He is clearly stating that it is still government policy to act illegally (in leaving on the 31st Oct even with No Deal).
Because the Supreme Court similarly declined to express any such opinion.
I think him a liar with a degree of contempt for democracy, and his actions in proroguing for an extended period extremely cynical - but one has to recognise that prorogation was once (in 1930s and beforehand) used in just such an arbitrary manner to dispense with Parliament for months on end.
Our democracy has evolved in many ways since then, as has our constitution, but until this morning's judgment, it was not possible to say exactly what the law is.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
Dec 31st 2020 seems right, as that would be the end of transition.
What an interesting day it seems I have missed!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
He and Cummings now have the narrative they want, they doing everything possible to deliver the will of the people against the diehard Remainers in Parliament and the judiciary who want to extend again and ultimately likely revoke. The more that narrative continues the more they squeeze the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while Remainers split between the LDs and Corbyn Labour.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
I'm not sure he is. If he is seen as doing everything he can to leave on 31st and is thwarted by others he may still win a subsequent election. On the other hand, something else might do for him and there is also the question of Tory unity, manifesto position on Brexit and selection of candidates in such an election. There are so many dramatic forces at work with BOTH major parties in crisis that nobody can have any confidence about how this will all play out.
"Everything he can" is not good enough for many Leave voters. If he cannot do it he is a failure, end of. Some voters are not willing to accept excuses, rightly or wrongly. Let us say he drops 5 points to the BXP; suddenly things look very different and a Lab/LD/SNP is odds on rather than a Con lead one.
I still ask why Parliament is sitting. It has no intention of doing anything constructive. Amber Rudd speaks of doing something to break the logjam yet has no clear idea what.
What bill will be passed? Or even debated? The backbenchers will merely talk and big themselves up and at the same time hide from the electorate. They don't want any sort of Brexit and they fear a general election. They even fear a VONC.
Do MPs not realise how ridiculous they will look to hold the Prime Minister in contempt and yet maintain confidence in him, just so they can avoid their constituents having a say?
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
Dec 31st 2020 seems right, as that would be the end of transition.
What an interesting day it seems I have missed!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
No PMQs due to lack of notice - expect UQs and possible SO24 debate on who controls business later this week.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
You can pinpoint the moment when the case was decided. It was when Pannick was submitting in his opening about the PM's motives. Lady Hale stopped him and said 'is this about the motives or the effect' and from then on Pannick was always talking about 'motive or effect' of holding up Parliamentary scrutiny.
I'm paraphrasing, obviously, bit that was a soft signal from the bench that the ratio would be effect, not motive.
Pannick's written submissions were a bit light on this, just adding the words "and whatever the motive" in para 23.
Anyway, what I most want to say today is STOP PUTTING AN 'E' IN THE MIDDLE OF JUDGMENT
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
Dec 31st 2020 seems right, as that would be the end of transition.
What an interesting day it seems I have missed!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
I dont see how it can stand up that because the judges ruled this way it means we need political style judges, but if theyd ruled the other way it's fine.
It was a decision of political import either way. If someone is only steaming angry because it went one way and would be trumpeting the result if it went the other then they can be disregarded entirely.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
If this was prorogation past October 31st that might be different, this was not and I imagine the current court would side with Corbyn on most issues anyway
The court has made a constitutional judgement, not a political judgement. You are losing it, but I see you're just promoting the same nonsense line being pushed by the usual Johnson surrogates in the media like Mr Eugenics here.
The judiciary have handed back power to parliament to do what it will. If the government had a working majority, that wouldn't be an issue. It doesn't because the governing party failed to win an election. They never tried to get a working majority on this policy, hence 2 PMs losing so many votes. This is not a partisan decision by the courts, it binds all future PMs until or unless parliament chooses to pass a law stating otherwise.
"No evidence Leave. EU and Arron Banks broke law, says crime agency NCA to take no further action over £8m funding claims against Brexit campaign group"
In which case Banks has officially become a "fit and proper" person with whom to deal in forming a CON/BXP electoral pact...
Brilliant couple of days for Labour, Watson's boys defeated on the conference floor, Boris' boys defeated in the courts.
The sun is shining*, the birds are singing (somewhere probably), music sounds just that bit sweeter, I've got a game of football later.
Life is beautiful
*Clouds and rain technically but all I see is glorious sunshine.
I'm finding it hard to keep count of the number of Comical Ali lookalikes on PB .....
You can usually tell by their insistence that Labour members agree with them and the hysteria produced when proved otherwise.
Although PBs reaction was completely trumped by the angry right wing columnist ripping up their columns about Corbyn's defeat at conference and about it being a dictatorship for Labour members to disagree with them. An altogether different kind of beautiful music to my ears!
Your problem is you are listening to "beautiful music" to you own liking. The electorate don't enjoy the same sound as can be noted by Labour election results and present polling.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
There is absolutely no chance they will do that. They are playing this long, judging that the longer things go on the likeliest chance of Revoke.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
Probably four years. "Go away and stop bothering us until you have finally sorted yourselves out. We have more important issues to consider".
Of course, the only reason we're going to be bothering them now is because Macron decided to showboat a few months ago by vetoing the longer extension everyone else wanted.
The challenge facing Corbyn is triggering a VOC vote without setting in chain an early GE.
Quite
Given the 14 day window for another government to form, followed by a 4/5 week campaign, the GE can't be until November now, can it?
Can it?
Tehcnically, it can, just.
You only need the 14-day window after a VoNC. A dissolution motion could move straight to the election period. If that were tabled today, the election could be held on Oct 31.
And, the counting would be in the small hours of 1st November, overshooting the Brexit deadline and any the formation of any new Government by a matter of hours.
Not going to happen.
I wasn't looking at the practical consequences, just whether an election could be held in October.
FWIW, I think it's *highly* unlikely that Oct 31 will be the Brexit deadline by Oct 31.
But then it's also highly unlikely that the Commons will pass a dissolution motion tomorrow.
Dissolution would feel odd after the lengths we've gone to to cancel the prorogation (Gina Miller: "WTF? I've just walked over legal broken glass to get you lot back in the gaff... now sit there and make some bloody laws").
I think an election is triggered one way or another soon after an extension is granted. That might be at the request of BJ with Hilary Benn's gun at his head, or by Corbyn/Harman/Clarke/Swinson/Bercow/The Queen/whatever unlikely figure the HoC puts in at the last minute to stop him.
And I don't see a VONC before the Rebel Alliance have agreed on who's next and under what manifesto - a process which IMO has been made no easier by the LD and Lab conferences moving their parties further apart.
In short.. we still have the problem of the HoC knowing what it doesn't want, but not what it does.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
If this was prorogation past October 31st that might be different, this was not and I imagine the current court would side with Corbyn on most issues anyway
You are living in a complete fantasy world if you think political appointments to the Supreme Court are going to happen. Really, they aren't. You are desperate – and delusional.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
I am not so sure of your conclusion. The one thing this case does do to his advantage is show he is fighting like hell for Brexit. That makes it difficult for him to be viewed, as May came to be, as not really having his heart committed to Leaving.
I think he VONCs himself and forces parliament to either vote confidence in him or push for the election in the knowledge no stable government is possible
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
There is absolutely no chance they will do that. They are playing this long, judging that the longer things go on the likeliest chance of Revoke.
Revoke doesn't resolve things. It will be seen as so illegitimate by Leavers that the Tories will just keep on including manifesto pledges to Leave until they win a majority, with or without the Brexit Party.
I think he VONCs himself and forces parliament to either vote confidence in him or push for the election in the knowledge no stable government is possible
I think the next move is to reprorogue parliament for 5 days for a Queens Speech - The Gov't explicitly brought this up; I can't see in the judgement that the courts would have an issue with that. It "moves things forward".
Amazing times. My thoughts: 1. Shagger will double down and keep Cummings
Point 1 re Dominic Cummings -- isn't he due to step down shortly in any case, for undisclosed medical reasons? Cynics would say that makes him the perfect sacrifice.
He has already delayed an important operation once I believe – so yes, medical, but not 'unknown', reasons.
For those attacking the supreme court justices and today's judgement:
How did they get it wrong, in law?
IANAL, and would be fascinated to know. As I said (just) before the judgement was revealed, it seemed to this layman to have fairly logical connections from the background to its conclusion. I know that's not everything in the law, but it would be good to know.
Or, as IANAL, perhaps I've misunderstood things.
The strongest argument, which was the High Court's original decision, is that prorogation is not justiciable and that this was a breach o Article 9 of the Bill of Rights: 'the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
The SC would argue that they were upholding this clause by defending parliament against a malign executive while the government could argue that prorogation, as an act of the monarch (the Crown in parliament), is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not justiciable by the courts.
Essentially, the government's argument was that this was high politics and the courts have no place in this. Before everyone gets 20-20 with hindsight, its worth noting that many legal experts thought that Miller's case had no chance precisely because of this.
I think that’s a fair point.
Once it had been accepted that it was a matter for law, it was always likely that Boris would fall foul of it, since it was transparently obvious to everyone why parliament was suspended. That government sent their lawyer to court to deny the obvious, and declined to appear themselves, hardly helped their case.
On a bigger picture it is surely reassuring that there are some checks and balances in our system? Relying solely on the British character and sense of fair play as our only defence against dictatorship will only get us so far.
Bigger picture, I think it's probably a good thing that the judgement has defined the somewhat murky power of prorogation but bad that judges are entering the realm of high politics for, whatever the legal point may be, this is a decidedly political act. You can't really blame the judges for that, they were dragged into it, first by the PM's decision to use prorogation for political purposes (hardly the first time this has happened) and his opponents for seeking to have an act of high politics subject to judicial review. We can already see on here people demanding political appointments to the SC and that will be a bad outcome long term.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
There is absolutely no chance they will do that. They are playing this long, judging that the longer things go on the likeliest chance of Revoke.
Revoke doesn't resolve things. It will be seen as so illegitimate by Leavers that the Tories will just keep on including manifesto pledges to Leave until they win a majority, with or without the Brexit Party.
Revoke is suicidal. For the nation.
The only way out now is another referendum, appalling as that is.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
There is absolutely no chance they will do that. They are playing this long, judging that the longer things go on the likeliest chance of Revoke.
Revoke doesn't resolve things. It will be seen as so illegitimate by Leavers that the Tories will just keep on including manifesto pledges to Leave until they win a majority, with or without the Brexit Party.
Baker on sky supports 4 to 6 day prorogue over the Tory conference
HMQ will surely be wary of accepting any more requests to prorogue as shes already committed a crime on behalf of Boris Johnson?
It was a civil., not criminal, matter
I doubt the Palace will see the distinction...
Governments are found by the courts to have acted "illegally" in retrospect all the time. No one ever resigns, no Government falls, they just apologize and move on!
I think he VONCs himself and forces parliament to either vote confidence in him or push for the election in the knowledge no stable government is possible
I think the next move is to reprorogue parliament for 5 days for a Queens Speech - The Gov't explicitly brought this up; I can't see in the judgement that the courts would have an issue with that. It "moves things forward".
The courts wouldn't stop a 5-day prorogation, but it's surely not a cert that Liz would approve it now?
But because of our tradition of "apolitical" judges, these ones have essentially had free reign to torpedo the Government over an otherwise inconsequential matter.
Judges should not be allowed to render decisions of such colossal political effect.
It seems somewhat curious that you are so certain that the judges got it wrong, and yet boast that you haven't actually read the judgement.
You are again making the unreasonable request of asking him to read.
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable) but in the long term Boris will benefit.
He and Cummings now have the narrative they want, they doing everything possible to deliver the will of the people against the diehard Remainers in Parliament and the judiciary who want to extend again and ultimately likely revoke. The more that narrative continues the more they squeeze the Brexit Party vote in the Tories favour while Remainers split between the LDs and Corbyn Labour.
Plus of course Boris will resign as PM and lead the Tories into opposition on a Brexit with a Deal or No Deal ticket to continue the battle with the diehard Remainers in opposition rather than stay PM and agree to extend
I also do not see that this hurts Johnson. Perhaps it even helps. It feeds the "Me against the Remainer Establishment' narrative that (we are told) he is seeking to build.
Yes, Cummings is now ready to go for all out war against the diehard Remainer establishment at the next general election, this only wins Boris more Brexit Party voters
Ok. But can Boris actually arrange an election before October 31st? Because if he doesn't, and we remain in the EU past October 31st, he is dead politically.
I'm not sure he is. If he is seen as doing everything he can to leave on 31st and is thwarted by others he may still win a subsequent election. On the other hand, something else might do for him and there is also the question of Tory unity, manifesto position on Brexit and selection of candidates in such an election. There are so many dramatic forces at work with BOTH major parties in crisis that nobody can have any confidence about how this will all play out.
"Everything he can" is not good enough for many Leave voters. If he cannot do it he is a failure, end of. Some voters are not willing to accept excuses, rightly or wrongly. Let us say he drops 5 points to the BXP; suddenly things look very different and a Lab/LD/SNP is odds on rather than a Con lead one.
Unfortunately (my view) a strong leave platform Tory will not split the leave vote as much as revulsion at Corbyn will split remain & anti-Tory votes- even without BXP entering a formal pact. If you are a strong leaver voting BXP if the Tories are on a strong leave ticket would be almost insane (so ther will be some BXP votes).
Yes the diehard Remainers will enjoy their moment in the sun (though US style political appointments of Supreme Court justices are now inevitable)...
Why ?
The Supreme Court is now clearly a political body and more conservative judges need to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor
You have no proof that every member of the court does not vote conservative. It's very probable many of them do. Disagreement on the law does not indicate if they left or right.
This current court is now clearly left liberal and political in the way the Law Lords were not, political appointment of Supreme Court justices US style by the government of the day is now inevitable and necessary
What's left liberal about upholding parliamentary sovereignty against a desperate executive that lies to avoid scrutiny? Do you want Corbyn to have the same power?
If this was prorogation past October 31st that might be different, this was not and I imagine the current court would side with Corbyn on most issues anyway
You are living in a complete fantasy world if you think political appointments to the Supreme Court are going to happen. Really, they aren't. You are desperate – and delusional.
It may not happen immediatly but political appointments to the Supreme Court and an elected (in some way) House Of Lords are clearly coming as they are the inevitable end point to New Labours constituational reforms.
As ever with Blair he just "tinkered" in a way that would benefit himself and the Labour Party but sooner or later there will be a Conservative or Brexit Party majority government that will see these instituations through to their inevitable end point which will have to be demorcratic, elected and accountable.
But because of our tradition of "apolitical" judges, these ones have essentially had free reign to torpedo the Government over an otherwise inconsequential matter.
Judges should not be allowed to render decisions of such colossal political effect.
It seems somewhat curious that you are so certain that the judges got it wrong, and yet boast that you haven't actually read the judgement.
You are again making the unreasonable request of asking him to read.
I would think so. Johnson and his team were clever enough, not to put witness statements in. So they will not face perjury charges. Also I heard that no government lawers, were there , to hear the result. Which says a lot.
For those attacking the supreme court justices and today's judgement:
How did they get it wrong, in law?
IANAL, and would be fascinated to know. As I said (just) before the judgement was revealed, it seemed to this layman to have fairly logical connections from the background to its conclusion. Iw.
Or, as IANAL, perhaps I've misunderstood things.
The strongest argument, which was the High Court's original decision, is that prorogation is not justiciable and that this was a breach o Article 9 of the Bill of Rights: 'the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament'.
The SC would argue that they were upholding this clause by defending parliament against a malign executive while the government could argue that prorogation, as an act of the monarch (the Crown in parliament), is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not justiciable by the courts.
Essentially, the government's argument was that this was high politics and the courts have no place in this. Before everyone gets 20-20 with hindsight, its worth noting that many legal experts thought that Miller's case had no chance precisely because of this.
I think that’s a fair point.
Once it had been accepted that it was a matter for law, it was always likely that Boris would fall foul of it, since it was transparently obvious to everyone why parliament was suspended. That government sent their lawyer to court to deny the obvious, and declined to appear themselves, hardly helped their case.
On a bigger picture it is surely reassuring that there are some checks and balances in our system? Relying solely on the British character and sense of fair play as our only defence against dictatorship will only get us so far.
Bigger picture, I think it's probably a good thing that the judgement has defined the somewhat murky power of prorogation but bad that judges are entering the realm of high politics for, whatever the legal point may be, this is a decidedly political act. You can't really blame the judges for that, they were dragged into it, first by the PM's decision to use prorogation for political purposes (hardly the first time this has happened) and his opponents for seeking to have an act of high politics subject to judicial review. We can already see on here people demanding political appointments to the SC and that will be a bad outcome long term.
But political appointments on what basis?
We don’t, thankfully, have the cultural/religious issues dividing us that the Americans have.
A majority of the eleven judges were almost certainly Conservative voters, given the background from which they are drawn.
I think he VONCs himself and forces parliament to either vote confidence in him or push for the election in the knowledge no stable government is possible
No PM can reasonably VoNC themselves. If he doesn't have confidence in his own government, the government should resign and hand over No10 to Labour and Corbyn. If Corbyn is then VoNC'd, it would be interesting.
If I were Johnson *shudder* I would resign the government to Labour in defiance, refusing to ask for an extension. I would go be LOTO for a month or two, tell the Con party "look, I failed, but Labour won't succeed either, nor will they be popular in failure, let them play at government, let's beat Corbyn over the head weekly at PMQs and, when he finally comes close to something, let's VoNC him to try and get the SNP and LDs on record as supporting him or have a GE where we haven't been under the scrutiny of being the government". Hope they buy it (they probably wouldn't, but really, what else would they have to lose?). Hope to win a GE as the resurgent LOTO, former PM, who, for honour of Queen and Country and Brexit, never backed down, but retreated to only win a more astounding victory later.
From the lead: ”it’s now surely highly likely that we will have another general election before the A50 period expires ”
Isn’t this unlikely, and almost impossible, because of time? Unless David is saying an election will emerge from the next few days?
No - the Act that parliament passed before the False Prorogation means that the PM will almost certainly now have to request an A50 extension to Jan 2020 and has no power to reject it if offered.
The 31 October deadline is, for practical purposes, dead.
Only if the EU accept the case for an extension, surely? Extension until end of Jan 2020 doesn't give enough time for a referendum so it would have to be longer (probably end of March).
True - but if the EUCo offers a different date then the govt is obliged to agree to that too unless the Commons passes a motion rejecting it in the 2 days days following the summit.
Indeed but the point is that the power is now essentially in the hands of the EU rather than the UK. It is possible that the EU Council will reject the request. Parliament has always over-estimated its power in this situation. It can tell the PM what to do, it can't tell the EU what to do and there is a possibility that the EU may pull the plug and say make your mind up - it's no deal, deal as it stands or revoke by 31 Oct. I don't think that would be an unreasonable act on their part (though I doubt they'll do it).
There is absolutely no chance they will do that. They are playing this long, judging that the longer things go on the likeliest chance of Revoke.
I agree but I wonder how many of hem have really thought about the consequences of a revoke. In those circumstances, the UK will remain a political basket case for years damaging the EU and its agenda from the inside. The French are right on this - get the UK out as soon as possible.
I think he VONCs himself and forces parliament to either vote confidence in him or push for the election in the knowledge no stable government is possible
I think the next move is to reprorogue parliament for 5 days for a Queens Speech - The Gov't explicitly brought this up; I can't see in the judgement that the courts would have an issue with that. It "moves things forward".
The courts wouldn't stop a 5-day prorogation, but it's surely not a cert that Liz would approve it now?
She would, the one bod that might stop it is err... Bercow/Parliament !
It's from the same school of logic that determined that whereas for us a No Deal Brexit will be but a minor blip on a tranquil sea, the mere thought of it will bring the EU, humbled, to its knees.
Comments
Not going to happen.
It is not about breaking the law, since he clearly believed as PM he had the arbitrary power to prorogue for any reason, and for however long he chose - indeed the government lawyers argued exactly that during the court case.
That it is now clear he was entirely wrong on the law does not allow one to say that he deliberately flouted the law (however much one might despise his actions as undemocratic). It's pretty clear though that he is a liar.
Were he to try to repeat the same process, it would be a clearly illegal act.
1. Shagger will double down and keep Cummings
2. Parliament will find Shagger in Contempt of Parliament and remove him from office via a VONC
3. Parliament will appoint a Labour grandee to run an emergency government to agree a Long Extension with the EU
4. No election until the spring and even then it will be down to exhaustion rather than plan
5. In that election we will witness something extraordinary. The country is polarising at an extraordinary rate, leaving little room for the two old grand parties. There will be a Tory (ERG) / Brexit non-aggression pact, just as there will be a LibDem / Labour (People's Vote) pact, both of which are roundly attacked by the front benches.
6. The LibDems will form the new government propped up by People's Vote MPs, with Brexit / ERG the official opposition. Both the official Conservative and Labour Parties are reduced to rumps.
OK, so I'm going out on a limb with 6. But I do believe that we are now divided as a nation past the point where people will compromise enough to vote for divided and confused positions - and as the Tories won't back No deal they are seen as confused and compromised by leavers. Which means a tsunami away from both into the two extreme positions.
Dream on.
Saying that all 11 judges were actuated by political bias is about the silliest suggestion I've ever seen you make - and that's saying something!
Nothing to do with being my MP, of course.
.... crickets.
Ain’t. Going. To. Happen.
We sure learn who believed in sm independent judiciary on these occasions. And it's far fewer than I'd prefer.
FWIW, I think it's *highly* unlikely that Oct 31 will be the Brexit deadline by Oct 31.
But then it's also highly unlikely that the Commons will pass a dissolution motion tomorrow.
Will any of the Cabinet walk before he gets back?
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1176433526750765056
The SC would argue that they were upholding this clause by defending parliament against a malign executive while the government could argue that prorogation, as an act of the monarch (the Crown in parliament), is a proceeding in Parliament and therefore not justiciable by the courts.
Essentially, the government's argument was that this was high politics and the courts have no place in this. Before everyone gets 20-20 with hindsight, its worth noting that many legal experts thought that Miller's case had no chance precisely because of this.
It's priceless.
Once it had been accepted that it was a matter for law, it was always likely that Boris would fall foul of it, since it was transparently obvious to everyone why parliament was suspended. That government sent their lawyer to court to deny the obvious, and declined to appear themselves, hardly helped their case.
On a bigger picture it is surely reassuring that there are some checks and balances in our system? Relying solely on the British character and sense of fair play as our only defence against dictatorship will only get us so far.
Although PBs reaction was completely trumped by the angry right wing columnist ripping up their columns about Corbyn's defeat at conference and about it being a dictatorship for Labour members to disagree with them. An altogether different kind of beautiful music to my ears!
Remarkable.
What an interesting day it seems I have missed!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
I think him a liar with a degree of contempt for democracy, and his actions in proroguing for an extended period extremely cynical - but one has to recognise that prorogation was once (in 1930s and beforehand) used in just such an arbitrary manner to dispense with Parliament for months on end.
Our democracy has evolved in many ways since then, as has our constitution, but until this morning's judgment, it was not possible to say exactly what the law is.
What bill will be passed? Or even debated? The backbenchers will merely talk and big themselves up and at the same time hide from the electorate. They don't want any sort of Brexit and they fear a general election. They even fear a VONC.
This is a democracy? Really?
I'm paraphrasing, obviously, bit that was a soft signal from the bench that the ratio would be effect, not motive.
Pannick's written submissions were a bit light on this, just adding the words "and whatever the motive" in para 23.
Anyway, what I most want to say today is STOP PUTTING AN 'E' IN THE MIDDLE OF JUDGMENT
It was a decision of political import either way. If someone is only steaming angry because it went one way and would be trumpeting the result if it went the other then they can be disregarded entirely.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/sep/24/no-evidence-leave-eu-and-arron-banks-broke-law-says-agency-brexit
"No evidence Leave. EU and Arron Banks broke law, says crime agency
NCA to take no further action over £8m funding claims against Brexit campaign group"
In which case Banks has officially become a "fit and proper" person with whom to deal in forming a CON/BXP electoral pact...
I think an election is triggered one way or another soon after an extension is granted. That might be at the request of BJ with Hilary Benn's gun at his head, or by Corbyn/Harman/Clarke/Swinson/Bercow/The Queen/whatever unlikely figure the HoC puts in at the last minute to stop him.
And I don't see a VONC before the Rebel Alliance have agreed on who's next and under what manifesto - a process which IMO has been made no easier by the LD and Lab conferences moving their parties further apart.
In short.. we still have the problem of the HoC knowing what it doesn't want, but not what it does.
polls are irrelevant at this stage in the game
It "moves things forward".
The only way out now is another referendum, appalling as that is.
MPs really have lost the plot
It would look utterly absurd.
As ever with Blair he just "tinkered" in a way that would benefit himself and the Labour Party but sooner or later there will be a Conservative or Brexit Party majority government that will see these instituations through to their inevitable end point which will have to be demorcratic, elected and accountable.
Johnson and his team were clever enough, not to put witness statements in.
So they will not face perjury charges.
Also I heard that no government lawers, were there , to hear the result.
Which says a lot.
We don’t, thankfully, have the cultural/religious issues dividing us that the Americans have.
A majority of the eleven judges were almost certainly Conservative voters, given the background from which they are drawn.
If I were Johnson *shudder* I would resign the government to Labour in defiance, refusing to ask for an extension. I would go be LOTO for a month or two, tell the Con party "look, I failed, but Labour won't succeed either, nor will they be popular in failure, let them play at government, let's beat Corbyn over the head weekly at PMQs and, when he finally comes close to something, let's VoNC him to try and get the SNP and LDs on record as supporting him or have a GE where we haven't been under the scrutiny of being the government". Hope they buy it (they probably wouldn't, but really, what else would they have to lose?). Hope to win a GE as the resurgent LOTO, former PM, who, for honour of Queen and Country and Brexit, never backed down, but retreated to only win a more astounding victory later.
Or some other such nonsense.
youre asking a party which will campaign against its own position to act rationally.
I don’t think the justices remotely excluded the possibility of having a Queen’s speech..
...
...we have a parliament that is unable to be prorogued..