"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.
Would it not be reasonable to assume from:
Refusal to allow cabinet members to see the legal advice Refusal to tell the court the reasons for the prorogation
that it is very likely (if not beyond reasonable doubt) that he knew his actions were against the law?
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.
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
This is the right thing to do. Carry on as normal, fly back tomorrow and then do a speech in Downing Street saying 'I fully expect there to be a VOC in Parliament later today and, should the frustrators of brexit win it, they will call an election'.
It throws the spotlight back on Corbyn - if he doesn't then lodge a VOC he is going to look very stupid.
How can the opposition credibly refuse a VoNC now?
It would look utterly absurd.
They need somehow by hook or by crook to get to the point whereby a GE before 31st Oct is impossible. After that they don't care. When is 25 working days? Does it give it another week or so?
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?
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.
Or some other such nonsense.
On your fourth word in, it ceased to be relevant to dear leader Boris.
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.
He has 10 hrs and 35 minutes.
Ain’t. Going. To. Happen.
I'm already looking forward to the next brexit deadline, with all the rushed legislation that entails
I really don't think Johnson is going to resign. Firstly we all know how ultra-ambitious he is, but secondly he'll also know that just being PM is worth atleast 5-10% on his personal approval ratings (compare his ratings now to what they were in June).
I think his and Cummings' "wargames" for an election were always predicated on him being PM during the campaign. If he's not able to do that, then a complete U-turn on Brexit (agreeing the extension, declaring No Deal dead in the water, just trying to pass May's deal) is more likely than resignation.
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
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.
Another possibility. Vonc passes but an alternative conservative minority government can command confidence - under Hunt perhaps?
I think the basic equation is that no current or plausible future party leader will be able to command confidence because of the harm that it does to the other parties. Maybe Corbyn as an absolute last resort to avert no deal but even then I’m not sure. Probably three choices are going to be a Labour ‘grandee’ (can’t be conservative because they’ve failed, so goes to next largest party); Ken Clarke as father of house and avowedly Europhile; or as an outlier, Bercow on 1 November.
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.
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 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.
You’re right. But the EU, is stuck too, thanks (with delicious irony) to their own overreach. They expressly said they wanted to give us a deal that was so bad, “in the end the British will prefer to stay”. Well, that is now close to happening.
The only way they can kick us out is by refusing an extension, throwing us and them into the horrors of No Deal, but in those circumstances the E.U. would be deemed responsible for all the economic and political pain, just as the E.U. tips towards recession.
No Deal could easily precipitate another euro crisis, it is so destabilising.
They can’t risk it, much as they might wish to. They’re stuck with us as long as our political crisis lasts. What a miserable state of affairs. A huge failure of statecraft, indeed.
This is the right thing to do. Carry on as normal, fly back tomorrow and then do a speech in Downing Street saying 'I fully expect there to be a VOC in Parliament later today and, should the frustrators of brexit win it, they will call an election'.
It throws the spotlight back on Corbyn - if he doesn't then lodge a VOC he is going to look very stupid.
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
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.
Greece and Italy and others not political basket cases?? The EU is happy for Europe to be a gaggle of basket cases rubbing along together.
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?
why not its a cast iron judicial position now ?
It's cast-iron legally, but not cast-iron politically, because it gets her even further involved in political controversy (unless Labour agrees to a short prorogation).
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
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
Tosh, the ruling deals neatly with this & there is no constitutional crisis for the monarch.
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
I'm sure the palace's displeasure has been made known.
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).
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.
Greece and Italy and others not political basket cases?? The EU is happy for Europe to be a gaggle of basket cases rubbing along together.
Their political problems are not about whether they should remain members of the EU though are they? It's a different kind of basket case!
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
I'm sure the palace's displeasure has been made known.
Well it was for Cameron, the palace hasn't opined on this yet.
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".
Yes, then we have Queen's Speech on 2nd October, perhaps, about two weeks earlier than under the original prorogation.
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
She would be cheered on by half the country. As for the other half, they twat around covered in Union Jacks pretending to be Queen and Country patriots, so for them to immediately switch to being republicans would be a bit, erm, foreign.
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?
The palace (in its only comment today) said that is has, and will continue to act on the advice of ministers. So yes, it is.
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".
Yes, then we have Queen's Speech on 2nd October, perhaps, about two weeks earlier than under the original prorogation.
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
Well yes, it's not a get out of jail free card for Johnson but it does move stuff on a little.
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
She would be cheered on by half the country. As for the other half, they twat around covered in Union Jacks pretending to be Queen and Country patriots, so for them to immediately switch to being republicans would be a bit, erm, foreign.
Fortunately as indicated by @Nigelb comment the palace has a good deal more sense than this.
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".
Yes, then we have Queen's Speech on 2nd October, perhaps, about two weeks earlier than under the original prorogation.
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
Why five days? Just prorogue it over the weekend if there must be a QS.
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
It makes sense that if we are to have a supreme court that there needs to be a transparent process for appointment rather than the traditional British way of 'good chaps (and chapesses)'. I don't think it will happen immediately but there will be growing pressure to open up the opaqueness of the judiciary and that means parliamentary appointments I would think. I don't think it will happen immediately, as today's judgment shows tinkering with the Constitution can take years for the effects to come to light, but it is a logical endpoint and the status quo is hard to defend (though I think it produces good outcomes).
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.
Or some other such nonsense.
Mr Johnson, Why did you resign being prime minister, when you want to be prime minister?
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
Of course, this ruling ties the hands of PM Corbyn just as much as PM Johnson.
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
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".
Yes, then we have Queen's Speech on 2nd October, perhaps, about two weeks earlier than under the original prorogation.
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
Why five days? Just prorogue it over the weekend if there must be a QS.
It’s likely written already, so that Bozo can (could have) put nuggets into his leader speech.
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 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.
You’re right. But thession.
No Deal could easily precipitate another euro crisis, it is so destabilising.
They can’t risk it, much as they might wish to. They’re stuck with us as long as our political crisis lasts. What a miserable state of affairs. A huge failure of statecraft, indeed.
Yes and with Germany heading to the doldrums economically another Euro crisis cant be ruled out.
Likewise Erdogan is demanding ( justly imo ) another huge slab of cash to fund the 4 million refugees in Turkey or else he gives Mrs Merkel her wish.
Currently its difficult to know which is the frying pan and which is the fire.
If the anti-Brexit campaign is so sure of its ground, why wont it fight an election?
Another Brexiter who misunderstands British politics. There is no anti-Brexit campaign that can fight an election. There is the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Brexit Party, and a bunch of tiny guys (Greens, UKIP, etc).
The only "anti-Brexit" party is the Liberal Democrats (and the Greens but who cares) and I'm sure they would like a GE now. But there are no other "anti-Brexit" parties.
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
I suspect they are mostly Cameroon/Blairite types.
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".
Yes, then we have Queen's Speech on 2nd October, perhaps, about two weeks earlier than under the original prorogation.
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
Johnson could have had the Queen's Speech on 6th September had he wanted "to get on with it"!
This was my favourite part of the judgement: it's almost meta. A blank sheet of paper minority government. Indeed!
This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
Of course, this ruling ties the hands of PM Corbyn just as much as PM Johnson.
Indeed. It would be absurd if a future PM can just shut down parliament if they are losing votes. How is this contentious?
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.
Thanks.
The problem is, I have little knowledge of the law (and especially this area), and am in no position to work out what is 'justiciable' or not - and I guess I'm probably with >95% of the population on this. I therefore either go with what the SC justices conclusions, on what my favoured opposing talking heads are saying, or just my own biases.
I'm personally siding with today's judgement, as it seemed more coherent than the arguments against. But that's as a decided non-expert...
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
I'm sure the palace's displeasure has been made known.
Well it was for Cameron, the palace hasn't opined on this yet.
Opposition parties agreed no election til after brexit extention secured. I don't see any reason for changing that agreement, no one want to compromise on Brexit. Censure motion or no confidence but not per FTPA wordings seem more likely, but little effect.
Boris can decide when to write letter asking for extension so does he announce he has done this and it is now up to EU and immediately call for vote for an early election? Voting this down or abstaining in order to have VONC just a little later possibly looks like playing games? So official VONC may not happen? I am thinking probably not: they should vote down another call for early election in case EU say no so that they have chance to vote for revoke rather than no deal. So looks like wait til EU agree extention, then is it vote for early election or VONC? Boris has more control of timetable?
Any other considerations for whether it is a vote for early election or VONC?
Will the PM be at PMQs tommorow or does he have to go straight to the Tower of London?
The Sovereign retains the power to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. He or She serves at the pleasure of the monarch. He acted illegally and improperly, dragging her into a massive constitutional crisis.
She should sack him.
That would pretty much guarantee the end of the monarchy, so I think not.
She would be cheered on by half the country. As for the other half, they twat around covered in Union Jacks pretending to be Queen and Country patriots, so for them to immediately switch to being republicans would be a bit, erm, foreign.
Fortunately as indicated by @Nigelb comment the palace has a good deal more sense than this.
Agreed, but what I'd give to be a fly on the wall the next time Boris goes to see HRM!
If the anti-Brexit campaign is so sure of its ground, why wont it fight an election?
It will, on terrain of its choosing. Not at the chosen timing of an unelected Prime Minister that has never won a vote.
The Conservatives have been refusing another election ever since the 2017 election, then for a few weeks they have decided it was in their favour to have an election.
Why should everyone jump when the Conservatives want an election if they don't when the shoe is on the other foot, for a far longer period as well.
I think we should have one after we get an extension but Conservatives whining about it have very little ground to stand on.
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone down the rhetoric, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
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
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 whilst this is a political decision it is not a partisan one. This was, as the SC were at pains to explain, not about Brexit. It was about the powers of the PM in proroguing parliament. This will constrain all future PMs, Lab or Con, Remainer or Leaver. This isn't like the US where an anti choice judge gets an appointment so you know where they are on the issue forever. This was a decision in power belonging to parliament, not the executive, because parliament gets the mandate from the people and government gets a mandate from parliament.
My point was there are are some on here and many more on ConHome calling for (or predicting in a threatening manner) “political appointment of judges”, when we almost certainly have a bunch of mostly Tories appointed already. They are hardly likely to be Corbyn supporters, after all.
I suspect they are mostly Cameroon/Blairite types.
Most probably they cover a wide range of political beliefs and regard justice as more important than their personal views.
The next step could well be Johnson calling a VONC in himself.
Outraged Brexiteers will point out how ridiculous it is that the oppostion vote confidence, whilst completely ignoring that it is equally ridiculous that the govt is voting no confidence in itself.
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.
Or some other such nonsense.
Mr Johnson, Why did you resign being prime minister, when you want to be prime minister?
Yeah, tis difficult: "Well, not wanting to enact the Surrender Bill, but also not wanting to break the law personally, I thought the only way forward would be a tactical retreat. Just like Dunkirk, we had to go backwards to go forwards. Really, since Corbyn has become Prime Minister Remoaners have all flocked behind him, with the SNP and Liberal Undemocrats propping him up, when really it should be a choice for voters at home watching this what we should do. I am asking for you to vote for the Conservatives. May lost our majority, and I will get it back, to enact a true Brexit, unlike the snivelling lot we have in now". Add some Greek or Latin or whatever.
The other good thing about being LOTO is you can dodge debates and no one will care. Corbyn won't want a TV debate if he is PM, so Johnson would get away without having to do one too. Perfect way to try and stop Farage getting coverage.
We are watching classical music fans congratulate each other on agreeing that classical music is the best, and that the country will surely agree with them too
Eager to avoid boxing themselves in like the PM, Labour have just voted to go net carbon zero by 2030. That would mean about a hundred months to get rid of all petrol and diesel cars, all gas heating, 20% less meat and milk, [insert solution here] for shipping and aviation.
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone the rhetotic, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
If there is another six day prorogation doesn't that take us almost back to where we were originally? Those lawyers are laughing their way to the bank.
If the anti-Brexit campaign is so sure of its ground, why wont it fight an election?
It will, on terrain of its choosing. Not at the chosen timing of an unelected Prime Minister that has never won a vote.
The Conservatives have been refusing another election ever since the 2017 election, then for a few weeks they have decided it was in their favour to have an election.
Why should everyone jump when the Conservatives want an election if they don't when the shoe is on the other foot, for a far longer period as well.
I think we should have one after we get an extension but Conservatives whining about it have very little ground to stand on.
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone the rhetotic, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
Is this satire?
Remainers have defeated Boris and Brexit in the Supreme Court. The war is far from over but this battle shows things are definitely going the Remainers’ way.
This will be remembered the same way El Alamein was remembered after WW2.
Johnson acted illegally to improperly prorogue parliament. Parliament wants to keep sitting through Halloween to ensure No Deal is averted. So I would expect an emergency debate on a motion that the PM be found in Contempt of Parliament. That paves the way to an emergency government.
They Will Not call an election until All Souls Day at the earliest. Which means a December election. WHich nobody wants. So it'll slip into 2020, and if you're waiting out the weather that surely means late April or May
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
What an absurd, petulant, counterfactual waste of space of a comment. The Supreme Court sided with the Government on the benefits cap as recently as May.
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone down the rhetoric, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
You would have thought so but will there be an attempt to no confidence him before he can re prorogue?
Eager to avoid boxing themselves in like the PM, Labour have just voted to go net carbon zero by 2030. That would mean about a hundred months to get rid of all petrol and diesel cars, all gas heating, 20% less meat and milk, [insert solution here] for shipping and aviation.
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone the rhetotic, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
Is this satire?
Remainers have defeated Boris and Brexit in the Supreme Court. The war is far from over but this battle shows things are definitely going the Remainers’ way.
This will be remembered the same way El Alamein was remembered after WW2.
Oh, I agree it shows things are going their way, thanks to the disastrous missteps of Boris. But the practical effect of this particular case isn't that significant (as @RobD has just pointed out), and the circus will move on. I was describing how Boris can minimise the damage.
Interesting slip of the tongue in Rudds interview. Nothing concrete but she sounded like she was about to talk about some or all of the '21' being back under the whip and corrected herself and just said she hoped no 10 would see the sense of consensus and cooperation etc.
Johnson acted illegally to improperly prorogue parliament. Parliament wants to keep sitting through Halloween to ensure No Deal is averted. So I would expect an emergency debate on a motion that the PM be found in Contempt of Parliament. That paves the way to an emergency government.
They Will Not call an election until All Souls Day at the earliest. Which means a December election. WHich nobody wants. So it'll slip into 2020, and if you're waiting out the weather that surely means late April or May
Who would benefit from waiting out the weather?
Obviously the most committed vote will hold up - which is the Brexiteers But rural and elderly vote may be harder to get out - which is the Brexiteers
Instinctively very bad weather could be good for remain, seasonably normal winter weather good for leave?
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone down the rhetoric, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
You would have thought so but will there be an attempt to no confidence him before he can re prorogue?
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone down the rhetoric, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
You would have thought so but will there be an attempt to no confidence him before he can re prorogue?
No, because that could lead to a no-deal crash out over a GE period.
Eager to avoid boxing themselves in like the PM, Labour have just voted to go net carbon zero by 2030. That would mean about a hundred months to get rid of all petrol and diesel cars, all gas heating, 20% less meat and milk, [insert solution here] for shipping and aviation.
Good luck.
Planting 6 million trees.
I think they are MM ones
not that Im against that, but where are we going to get 6+ million saplings from ?
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.
This is a democracy? Really?
It's a very good point. Parliament will return tomorrow and do what? Unless the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to VoNC and try and take control themselves, there is little point to Parliament sitting anyway.
The current LotO is not up to the job, by a VERY VERY long way, and so far, excepting some remarks by Ken Clarke, there seems to be no other opposition leader a majority would get behind.
We need an election, just to sort out Parliament, let alone Brexit (we may need a 2nd Ref for that - we probably need both).
Johnson acted illegally to improperly prorogue parliament. Parliament wants to keep sitting through Halloween to ensure No Deal is averted. So I would expect an emergency debate on a motion that the PM be found in Contempt of Parliament. That paves the way to an emergency government.
They Will Not call an election until All Souls Day at the earliest. Which means a December election. WHich nobody wants. So it'll slip into 2020, and if you're waiting out the weather that surely means late April or May
A GNU gets the extension right now, if they fart about with silly stunts they deserve to face defeat and receive that which they do not want. VONC or be quiet, rebels
The judgement specifically makes reference to 4-6 days. That's why I (And Steve Baker) are quoting this as a route for the Gov't to a QS.
Yes, if Boris has any sense he will tone the rhetotic, instruct the @HYUFDs of this world to cut out the garbage about Quisling Remainiac judges, accept the result of the case with good grace, and re-prorogue parliament legally for a few days over the Tory conference period. He can then have his shiny new session and his flagship Queen's Speech to flesh out his Conference promises.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
Is this satire?
Remainers have defeated Boris and Brexit in the Supreme Court. The war is far from over but this battle shows things are definitely going the Remainers’ way.
This will be remembered the same way El Alamein was remembered after WW2.
Comments
Refusal to allow cabinet members to see the legal advice
Refusal to tell the court the reasons for the prorogation
that it is very likely (if not beyond reasonable doubt) that he knew his actions were against the law?
Though judgment is, and has always been the majority usage, they both have a very long history:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=judgment,+judgement&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,judgment;,c0;.t1;,judgement;,c0#t1;,judgment;,c0;.t1;,judgement;,c0
It throws the spotlight back on Corbyn - if he doesn't then lodge a VOC he is going to look very stupid.
I think his and Cummings' "wargames" for an election were always predicated on him being PM during the campaign. If he's not able to do that, then a complete U-turn on Brexit (agreeing the extension, declaring No Deal dead in the water, just trying to pass May's deal) is more likely than resignation.
Suspect they'll go the contempt route - damages Johnson but doesn't result in an election.
It moves the balance of power away from the executive back towards Parliament. But not all that much.
The only way they can kick us out is by refusing an extension, throwing us and them into the horrors of No Deal, but in those circumstances the E.U. would be deemed responsible for all the economic and political pain, just as the E.U. tips towards recession.
No Deal could easily precipitate another euro crisis, it is so destabilising.
They can’t risk it, much as they might wish to. They’re stuck with us as long as our political crisis lasts. What a miserable state of affairs. A huge failure of statecraft, indeed.
She should sack him.
http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-r-da-ors-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-pensions-2019-uksc-21-part-one/
JUDGMNT doesn’t read right to me?
Parliament then has time to ask questions to ministers about those proposals for alternative arrangements, etc.
So yes, it is.
Likewise Erdogan is demanding ( justly imo ) another huge slab of cash to fund the 4 million refugees in Turkey or else he gives Mrs Merkel her wish.
Currently its difficult to know which is the frying pan and which is the fire.
The only "anti-Brexit" party is the Liberal Democrats (and the Greens but who cares) and I'm sure they would like a GE now. But there are no other "anti-Brexit" parties.
This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.
The problem is, I have little knowledge of the law (and especially this area), and am in no position to work out what is 'justiciable' or not - and I guess I'm probably with >95% of the population on this. I therefore either go with what the SC justices conclusions, on what my favoured opposing talking heads are saying, or just my own biases.
I'm personally siding with today's judgement, as it seemed more coherent than the arguments against. But that's as a decided non-expert...
Boris can decide when to write letter asking for extension so does he announce he has done this and it is now up to EU and immediately call for vote for an early election? Voting this down or abstaining in order to have VONC just a little later possibly looks like playing games? So official VONC may not happen? I am thinking probably not: they should vote down another call for early election in case EU say no so that they have chance to vote for revoke rather than no deal. So looks like wait til EU agree extention, then is it vote for early election or VONC? Boris has more control of timetable?
Any other considerations for whether it is a vote for early election or VONC?
https://twitter.com/joeyfjones/status/1176480971908100097?s=20
Why should everyone jump when the Conservatives want an election if they don't when the shoe is on the other foot, for a far longer period as well.
I think we should have one after we get an extension but Conservatives whining about it have very little ground to stand on.
If he does this, this whole constitutional crisis and embarrassment will soon be forgotten except by lawyers.
Outraged Brexiteers will point out how ridiculous it is that the oppostion vote confidence, whilst completely ignoring that it is equally ridiculous that the govt is voting no confidence in itself.
The other good thing about being LOTO is you can dodge debates and no one will care. Corbyn won't want a TV debate if he is PM, so Johnson would get away without having to do one too. Perfect way to try and stop Farage getting coverage.
Jester is a liar that cannot be trusted
Has Tory Swinson stopped Brexit yet?
Good luck.
Remainers have defeated Boris and Brexit in the Supreme Court. The war is far from over but this battle shows things are definitely going the Remainers’ way.
This will be remembered the same way El Alamein was remembered after WW2.
They Will Not call an election until All Souls Day at the earliest. Which means a December election. WHich nobody wants. So it'll slip into 2020, and if you're waiting out the weather that surely means late April or May
I think they are MM ones
Edit: Ronan Lavery QC, I believe.
Obviously the most committed vote will hold up - which is the Brexiteers
But rural and elderly vote may be harder to get out - which is the Brexiteers
Instinctively very bad weather could be good for remain, seasonably normal winter weather good for leave?
Unless the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to VoNC and try and take control themselves, there is little point to Parliament sitting anyway.
The current LotO is not up to the job, by a VERY VERY long way, and so far, excepting some remarks by Ken Clarke, there seems to be no other opposition leader a majority would get behind.
We need an election, just to sort out Parliament, let alone Brexit (we may need a 2nd Ref for that - we probably need both).