Boris Johnson should resign

[Cinammoncake]

He's lied to the Queen and shut down parliament illegally. He's not fit to be PM and should resign now.

@MustardScreams yes I’ve read that article, it’s a real eye opener isn’t it...

I can’t believe how people fall for his act. It’s embarrassingly bad.

I understand that some PMs can prorogue parliament when it suits them, but object to others doing the same.

I know Gina Miller is crowd funded, but you have to raise an awful lot of money to take the government to court. I wonder who is contributing - is that info available?

I know Gina Miller is crowd funded, but you have to raise an awful lot of money to take the government to court. I wonder who is contributing - is that info available?

There are a lot of pissed off people.

It doesn’t matter what other PMs have done. What matters is what this current one is doing and we judge him now.

Whatabouttery is no excuse.

Also why not ask about the hedge fund backers of Boris? The completely shady ones.

There are EU laws coming in which will mean they’ll have to be transparent about their tax affairs - their dodging will be off the charts I suspect.

They don’t want that found out hence the rush to Brexit.

Soros is backing Gina Miller - seams like a genuine guy

I think it does matter what other PMs have done, since this country has no written constitution and works on precedent.
I'm not defending Boris Johnson's motivations either. I think the conduct of all concerned has been shady.

How much money do you think needs raising to take the government to court aderyn?

I'd imagine quite a lot. You're not just going to get your local solicitor to represent you. And you'd have to have enough to cover costs if you lose, presumably.

How much is quite a lot?

I have just been reading about the time the Governor General of Australia, the Queen's representative, in 1975 dismissed the then Prime Minister (of Australia). The country's parliament was deadlocked and the Prime Minister could not govern.

I would be comfortable with the Queen dismissing Mr Johnson, especially as his advice to her has been deemed to be unlawful. Another Conservative MP would presumably then be asked to try to form a government (possibly Jeremy Hunt?).

I think it does matter what other PMs have done, since this country has no written constitution and works on precedent

So if a previous PM has acted unlawfully but that has not been tested legally - do we let all other PMs off the hook?

We cannot go back and change what previous PMs have done - we can only do something about what’s happened now.

Some of the legal work on the case was pro bono I think aderyn

I think it does matter what other PMs have done, since this country has no written constitution and works on precedent.
With respect, I think you're very muddled here. Our constitution doesn't 'work on precedent'.

Our Common Law system (which is one of several of the sources of the constitution) is based on concept of precedent, however, it feels like you don't really understand what that means.

In simple terms, lower courts are bound by the prior decisions of higher courts. Therefore, if a higher court makes a ruling on an issue, and an identical case later comes below a lower court, they must follow it.

Notwithstanding that John Major and BoJo's actions were factually different, there was no legal challenge to Major's suspension. Without a legal challenge, there's no court case, no judgment and no legal precedent.

And that's ignoring the fact that last week's judgment was made by the highest court in the land, who are not bound by precedent anyway.

Also, at the core of last week's judgment was that Boris' actions ran contrary to the core concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Major's didn't in any meaningful way - he wasn't trying to strip parliament of its voice and decision making power, rather he was playing politics with the timing of a report's release.

So even if the Boris ruling had come first, it may well not have set a precedent for a prorogation like Major's.

Fair enough. I understood it to be that if an action had already been taken by a PM without challenge, then the precedent was set for any other PM to do the same. That something was legal unless there was a specific ruling/law against it at the time.

No on both counts. You're close on the second point, but that's where the distinction between 'unlawful' and 'illegal' comes in (not in accordance with the law vs prohibited by law).

Boris' actions weren't prohibited by a particular law, but ran contrary to some of the foundational principles of constitutional law, particularly Parliamentary Sovereignty (to the point that those actions were invalid).

I don't know the ins and outs of Major's prorogation but I don't think it was designed (or had the effect of) undermining Parliamentary Sovereignty so that prorogation probably doesn't amount to a precedent even in a lay sense.

JM wasn't trying to undermine parliamentary sovereignty exactly but I don't see his actions as different to those of BJ in that they have each prorogued parliament for their own objectives. Which is hardly respectful of democracy. Major did it to delay the release of information that would have made Tory MPs look bad, until after a GE. To me that is as bad as BJ's behaviour, since it was denying the public key information about our MPs at a time when we had to choose whether those MPs retained their positions. If that wasn't illegal, it ought to have been. It's certainly not ethical behaviour from a PM.
It undermines parliament if you can't trust your elected representatives.

Since Major and Blair have both lied to the public, I don't believe either of them should be interfering now.

Soros is backing Gina Miller - seams like a genuine guy

Yep and he's got a history being really helpful to the UK too -

During the 1992 Black Wednesday currency crisis, when the UK withdrew from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, his short sale of US$10 billion worth of sterling made him a cool profit of $1billion. Black Wednesday is estimated to have cost the UK government £3.4billion.

Lol, really sorry, did not mean to quote all of that!! Let me report that post and try again.

JM wasn't trying to undermine parliamentary sovereignty exactly but I don't see his actions as different to those of BJ in that they have each prorogued parliament for their own objectives. Which is hardly respectful of democracy. Major did it to delay the release of information that would have made Tory MPs look bad, until after a GE. To me that is as bad as BJ's behaviour, since it was denying the public key information about our MPs at a time when we had to choose whether those MPs retained their positions. If that wasn't illegal, it ought to have been.

I hear you, neither prorogation was in the best interests of democracy, but the question before the court for Boris's prorogation was one of constitutional law. It was the fact that the prorogation ran contrary to the fundamental constitutional concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty that made it unlawful.

I don't think, had it been challenged, the court would have made a similar determination of Major's prorogation. Was it designed to delay (or have the effect of delaying) the release of information that might have helped inform the electorate? It seems so. Does that run contrary to a particular core constitutional principle? I don't see that it does.

George Soros is a massive philanthropist @familycourtq giving loads to charities.

Can’t say the same about Crispin Odey 🤷🏻‍♀️