Supreme Court to give historic Parliament suspension ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Odd that they don’t seem to teach the ramifications of the Glorious Revolution at Eton.
 
It’s all about the timing. If Johnson had requested a short recess of a few days, as in normal for these kinds of in-session “resets”, then there would be nothing to talk about it. But if course that wouldn’t have had the effect of limiting Parliament’s ability to debate brexit and make a Hard Brexit more likely.

It’s hard to see how Johnson can survive this. If his own party doesn’t eat him alive, the October 31st deadline will put pressure on the Opposition and Tory rebels to coalesce around a new leader and throw him from office. It also gives the Queen some capacity to refuse his request for another prorogation.
 
Johnson, so far as I can judge from his outward personal qualities (or rather, the lack thereof), is not likely to resign, even though the highest court in the land has ruled that he gave unlawful advice to Her Majesty with the effect of styming parliamentary democracy.

In any normal premiership, something greatly lesser in importance than this would be lethal.

But I agree that it places him in an invidious position with his cabinet and backbenchers. I don’t see him surviving now either, especially after 31st October when we fail to leave the EU with or without a deal (courtesy of the Benn Act mandating an extension to Article 50).

He will, thus, have failed to implement his signal policy - quite apart from this unlawful suspension of parliament and the implication, politically, that he misled the Queen and Commons.

Nigel Farage has already swooped in for the kill:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176436372045029376

So the Brexit Party looks set to exploit Johnson’s ridiculous attempt to unlawfully suppress parliamentary scrutiny and fundamental weakness in not getting Brexit through by the 31st October.

Which is why Johnson desperately wanted a general election before October 31st.
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
“ The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification has been put before the court .”

That’s what you call a whopper .
Click to expand...
Yep.
Vouthon said:
(unfortunately I missed the broadcast of this judgment live, how could I have missed watching live the most important judgment in, like , 300 years!?)
Click to expand...
I received permission to prorogue my duties (cleaning the windows) at 10.30 so I could hear it live. 🙂
 
In terms of Johnson’s future, Corbyn’s Labour has helped him, though, by refusing to take a clear stance on Brexit at party conference.

Hopefully, we can rely on Farage to split the Brexit vote now enough for another hung parliament. Bleak.
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
It’s interesting to me that while both the Court of Secession in Scotland and the Supreme Court of the UK both ruled (contrary to the English High Court ruling) that prorogation was justiciable and in this exceptional circumstance unlawful with the effect of styming parliament, a difference between the two legal systems in this case has been shown: Scots law took motive into account as part of its judgment (that Johnson had “ improper purpose of stymieing parliament ” contrary to what he told the Sovereign), whereas the UK constitutional law considered only the effect (to unlawfully shut down parliamentary democracy without reasonable justification).

The outcome is the same but the nuance here appears to signify a slightly distinct legal reasoning (if I’m looking at the two judgments rightly).
Click to expand...
If I got it right, the court was saying it did not need to consider motive, only effect. Whether that means it felt it shouldn’t consider motive you will know better than I do.
 
Lou2U said:
Be interesting to see how Johnson chooses to word his statement.
Click to expand...
I fear the worst and anticipate Orban-style populist-authoritarian “people vs elite” rhetoric.

I pray I’m pleasantly surprised. I’m not hopeful though.
 
Last edited:
Johnson’s response to the court judgment:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176471946776784902

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

He won’t be resigning.

Orbanism.

Exactly as I expected, unfortunately.

Even Farage has the sense to see that this is beyond the pale.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176474329862877185

There is no precedent for a Prime Minister’s authority to be so eviscerated.

He advised the Queen to commit an unlawful act to silence her own parliament.

A bit of responsibility for his actions might be nice once in a while.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176475530620805120

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176475649772531712

Johnson said the prorogation was not about frustrating scrutiny of Brexit but just holding a normal Queens speech.

Now he is implying, in a roundabout way, that judges overturning his unlawful prorogation that had nothing to do with Brexit are effectively trying to frustrate Brexit.

Why do populist-nationalist-authoritarians all seem to have an inherent logic bypass? It’s so condescending to their support base.
 
Last edited:
So he has the utmost respect for the judiciary, but he also thinks that they got it wrong. I think what he’s saying is that he believes that he understands the law better than eleven Supreme Court justices.
 
In his two months in power, Boris Johnson has lost his first six Commons votes, broken the law by suspending Parliament and misled the monarch.

Even for a politician who seems to enjoy breaking the rules, that is a serious charge that, only two months into office, even the most brazen Johnson backer cannot simply shrug off.

www.bbc.co.uk

Supreme Court: Where does defeat leave Boris Johnson?

Before everything gets swept up in a force 10 political storm, stop for a moment to think about what has just happened.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
We are no longer living in a normal world. Theresa May:
  • Lost her majority in an unnecessary general election
  • Formed a government by entering into an alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party, which has not traditionally been an ally of the Conservative Party and is not considered a mainstream political party
  • Suffered the greatest defeat ever in a vote in the House of Commons
  • Was the first prime minister ever to be found to be in contempt of Parliament
  • Commanded the confidence of only 63 percent of her own MPs
In a normal world Theresa May would have resigned months or even years before she eventually did. In a normal world, Boris Johnson would have resigned within hours of the Supreme Court judgement. In the world in which we now live he could remain as prime minister for weeks or even months, although, equally, he could be out of office by tomorrow night.
 
Vouthon said:
It’s interesting to me that while both the Court of Secession in Scotland and the Supreme Court of the UK both ruled (contrary to the English High Court ruling) that prorogation was justiciable and in this exceptional circumstance unlawful with the effect of styming parliament, a difference between the two legal systems in this case has been shown: Scots law took motive into account as part of its judgment (that Johnson had “ improper purpose of stymieing parliament ” contrary to what he told the Sovereign), whereas the UK constitutional law considered only the effect (to unlawfully shut down parliamentary democracy without reasonable justification).
Click to expand...
The full judgement seems to me to suggest that the Supreme Court felt it didn’t need to consider motive since the PM’s advice was unlawful anyway, although the court does say later that it has no way of telling what the PM’s motive was (a suggestion with which one might disagree).

Paragraph 53 begins:
In addition to challenging the Prime Minister’s advice on the basis of the effect of the prorogation which he requested, Mrs Miller and Ms Cherry also seek to challenge it on the basis of the Prime Minister’s motive in requesting it.
Click to expand...
and paragraph 54 says:
That ground of challenge raises some different questions, in relation to justiciability, from the ground based on the effects of prorogation on Parliament’s ability to legislate and to scrutinise governmental action. But it is appropriate first to decide whether the Prime Minister’s advice was lawful, considering the effects of the prorogation requested and applying the standard which we have set out. It is only if it was, that the justiciability of the alternative ground of challenge will need to be considered.
Click to expand...
Paragraph 61 begins:
It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been.
Click to expand...
It adds:
It follows that the decision was unlawful.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I put the Lady Hale speech giving the verdict of the Supreme Court on par with the Geoffrey Howe resignation speech in the House of Commons .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top