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.

he has indeed broken the law.

I thought they made it clear that he hasn't actually broken the law (so can't be prosecuted for anything) but his actions were unlawful.

scaryteacher he has indeed broken the law
Which law?

Any lawyers? Is there a difference between something being unlawful and illegal? Is on criminal and one civil?

I was a little surprised 'contempt of parliament' seemed completely toothless and meant absolutely nothing in reality.

Why should MPs vote just in line with what their constituents voted anyway? They are there to represent ALL their constituents not just those who voted leave.
Elle this literally makes no sense. Elected MPs shouldn't ignore the views of the majority because they personally agree with the minority. If they did that, they wouldn't be representing ALL their constituents.

Like it or not, Boris is the legally elected PM (even though he wasn't voted for by us,) of the legally elected party. I don't think it aids democracy to have a government of national unity of it's headed by Corbyn and comprised of people that the population have deliberately not chosen to run the country.
If Corbyn wants to be PM he should ask us via the ballot box.

Frankly I think our MPs have brought this sorry situation on themselves.

By that logic a Tory (or ex Tory?) COULD lead a government of national unity?

He won’t resign - he has Geoffrey Cox as his fall guy. Boris will say he acted in good faith based on government legal advice

Mark Elliott does a good job of explaining why the prorogation was unlawful in his regular blog - Public Law for Everyone: publiclawforeveryone.com/

Yes, I think a Tory could potentially. I really don't think a leader could come from a non elected party and still have any claim to legitimacy or democracy.
It's very telling that as awful as BJ is, the opposition still won't go into an election because they fear they won't win.

Aderyn, MPs don't vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents anyway, not least because they have no means of ascertaining what they are: they vote in accordance with the party whip. And no-one can claim that what the majority in an individual constituency voted well over three years ago is automatically an accurate reflection of the constituents' current views - especially on issues like no deal.

@TabbyMumz, the Supreme Court finding, like that of any court, means that Johnson acted unlawfully. It didn't become unlawful afterwards by some mysterious process resulting from the Supreme Court decision. There seems to be a weird sort of understanding building up that it's necessary to identify a law that says you mustn't prorogue Parliament for your own political ends, but that's not correct; the point is that, if a Prime Minister decides to take unprecedented action like this, it's up to him to show that the law permits it.

To be honest, did anyone ever really believe that Johnson's actions were OK? Even his own allies were stoutly denying beforehand that he would ever do such a thing, because it was so obviously wrong. If you 're in any doubt about it, you only have to think about the fact that, if they find he was right, there is nothing whatsoever to stop a future PM proroguing for weeks, months or years to get his wishes through without any pesky questioning from Parliament.

the opposition still won't go into an election because they fear they won't win

Do you actually listen to any interviews or reports? The opposition won't go into an election until they are sure Johnson can't crash us out on no deal. All opposition parties want an election!

Ordinarily an MP won't know what the majority of constituents thinks about a particular issue. Brexit is exceptional though - it is possible to know whether your constituency was majority remain or leave and I truly believe an MP has a moral obligation to behave in accordance with that, until such time as we have a GE which informs them that opinion has changed.

No MP campaigns on a pledge to ignore the wishes of their constituents - their job is literally to represent us, not dictate. We elect people whose views most closely align with our own and then we mostly trust them to get on with it, but wrt Brexit they've been given direct instruction from the electorate and parliament cannot ignore this while simultaneously talking about democracy and objecting to prorogation. Everyone thinks BJ is a wanker, but parliament really hasn't helped itself over the past few years.
Add into that the pre Brexit general mistrust of politicians who have been perceived as self serving (expenses scandal etc) and that's how BJ will stay in power because he is at least being seen as someone who is delivering the will of the majority. Parliament is currently perceived as an anti democratic attempt to block Brexit.

@Cinammoncake

'It's great to have had so many responses and votes. Looking pretty solidly 80/20 in favour of him resigning from MN!"
You do realise that just because a majority on this one forum want him to resign, it won't actually influence him into resigning don't you?

It's what happens in real life that really matters, not what happens in MN world.

Listening to the radio, it’s amazing how many ‘voxpop’ interviewees want to be ruled by an executive with no oversight by parliament or the Supreme Court, as long as Johnson ‘delivers brexit’ - the 21st century equivalent to ‘as long as the buses run on time’. It’s as if they’ve never heard of Mussolini et al

They have no idea of the consequences of allowing a PM to get away with what Johnson is doing.

You do realise that just because a majority on this one forum want him to resign, it won't actually influence him into resigning don't you?It's what happens in real life that really matters, not what happens in MN world

You think OP is that stupid?! How patronising!
Of course she knows that ffs!

I think all parties say they want an election. I don't think any one of them has confidence that they would win one. As it stands they can say anything and are under no obligation to follow through with anything better, while being able to lay all the blame on the Tories.
This is a situation which has no outcome that will satisfy the majority and every party knows it's a poisoned chalice to be in power now.
Remember, during the campaign, Corbyn was very reluctant to state his own position clearly. It doesn't inspire faith.

MPs are there to exercise their judgement on our behalf, not do what a fleeting majority at any one time might think.

Thank God.

If you 're in any doubt about it, you only have to think about the fact that, if they find he was right, there is nothing whatsoever to stop a future PM proroguing for weeks, months or years to get his wishes through without any pesky questioning from Parliament.
The trouble is that without a proper written constitution, this is all built on the shifting sands of convention. Previous Prime ministers, notably the astoundingly hypocritical John Major have indeed used prorogation for political expediency.

Or in the words of Edmund Burke

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Quite glad of this as things stand for all kinds of reasons, including things like our now outlawed capital punishment.

@Tonnerre

"Aderyn, MPs don't vote in accordance with the wishes of their constituents anyway, not least because they have no means of ascertaining what they are: they vote in accordance with the party whip."
They know how many of their constituents voted remain versus how many voted to leave. To adopt a position of remaining when a majority of their constituents voted to leave the EU is not democratic. To adopt a position of leaving where a majority of their constituents voted to remain in the EU is not democratic.

"And no-one can claim that what the majority in an individual constituency voted well over three years ago is automatically an accurate reflection of the constituents' current views - especially on issues like no deal."
It does not matter what the constituents' current views are. What matters is that the 2016 vote is respected and implemented.

I agree that MPs have no idea what their constituents' views are on leaving the EU without a deal. They certainly had no idea what the public would even vote for in the EU referendum.

MPs are there to exercise their judgement on our behalf, not do what a fleeting majority at any one time might think.
This is true but it's giving us a problem as having the referendum (and particularly not getting the expected answer) is giving us a problem.
It's not helped by out First Past the Post electoral system as a lot of people's views (and votes) are simply disregarded. The Lib Dems and UKIP have had at various times a large vote and disproportionately small representation in parliament.

If everyone dislikes Boris Johnson, why wont they allow a General Election.
I think the Labour party would win outright.

No, they are there to represent us. Usually this involves using their personal judgement since it isn't possible to run every decision past the electorate. However, they have been told very clearly what their constituents want wrt Brexit and it is their job to represent that. Not decide they they personally don't like that choice and so will ignore it.
You don't know that this is a 'fleeting majority'. That's what we have GE for, so that our representatives are made aware of our priorities and whether they have altered since the last one.

(some) MPs have always famously been out of step with constituents on certain issues (the death penalty is often cited but Hunting, abortion and same-sex marriage are others).

"The UK Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the choice to suspend parliament for five weeks was ‘unlawful’, and that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen was ‘justiciable’."

Unlawful’ is an adjective which describes when something is not permitted by or conforming to the law.
Meanwhile, something that is ‘illegal’ is forbidden by law.
If something is ‘justiciable’, that means it is capable of being challenged in the courts.