To think that sensible conservatives will not be able to vote for boris after his recent behaviour?

[berringer]

Really? After lying and shutting down democracy and his disgusting performance in parliament today. Surely you can’t vote conservative now unless you’re a very small demographic that they are seemingly targeting. Surely they will lose much of their core vote now . Most folk who vote conservative aren’t are decent, law abiding people. Boris Johnson’s behaviour surely offends the majority?

He used the word surrender. Christ on a bike it wasn't even that bad. I've heard 10 times worse!

He knew what he was doing. Surrender suggests an action in combat! It’s also used in this way in NI - ‘no surrender’ as a battle cry to keep a conflict going since 1690! He’s spent too much time with Arlene of the DUP

Parliament has been repeatedly interfering with the Government's job of negotiating Brexit.

That's not true. May's team negotiated it without parliament's input, so most of the three years was taken up by the tories not consulting parliament anyway. Johnson is now claiming parliament is stopping him negotiating somehow when it isn't, and he's not doing much negotiating or putting anything forward anyway, because he doesn't seem to have a plan

That's why Boris prorogued it,
That's not what he said, he said it's because of the Queen's speech

yet now he's the fall guy.
Not sure how you think so. He misled the Queen, but that's his fault nobody elses

hat's not true. May's team negotiated it without parliament's input, so most of the three years was taken up by the tories not consulting parliament anyway

THIS. If there was one thing, I would say to Boris if I could, it would be this.

It's the Government's job to negotiate international treaties and agreements because it's the government.

Despite this, we have had legislation and attempts at legislation to control how and what the government negotiates. This is abnormal.

In the UK the government governs with the support of Parliament. However, this is now being taken to mean that Parliament can put its sticky beak into government business whenever it chooses. This also is abnormal.

Parliament gets to ratify treaties. It can vote against them. Entirely normal. But if it's as serious a matter as this, well see my next comment.

If Parliament doesn't like Boris, the constitutional solution is to hold a general election. We now have the absurd spectacle of Boris actually being kept in office by a bunch of people who say he's incompetent. The lack of self-awareness is also... abnormal.

And by the way, I happen to agree that Boris is not competent to be PM.

Tom
The prorogative cannot be exercised in a way that amends or repeals statutes. It is not an unfettered right to act. This was part of the first Miller case. It becomes tricky if a failure to exercise the prorogative to as for an extension has the effect of breaching the Benn Act.

Why would Parliament agree to a GE or have a VONC on a timetable that increases the risk of a no deal Brexit.

The prorogative cannot be exercised in a way that amends or repeals statutes. It is not an unfettered right to act. This was part of the first Miller case. It becomes tricky if a failure to exercise the prorogative to as for an extension has the effect of breaching the Benn Act.

I agree. However, that wasn't the reason the SC gave. Its reason was that it prevented "Parliamentary scrutiny" - see paras 55 onwards. This is, in terms of legal principle, err.. new ground.

I am referring to the first Miller case in 2017 not the more recent one

Para 48 for example
48. Thus, consistently with Parliamentary sovereignty, a prerogative power however well-established may be curtailed or abrogated by statute. Indeed, as Professor Wade explained, most of the powers which made up the Royal prerogative have been curtailed or abrogated in this way. The statutory curtailment or abrogation may be by express words or, as has been more common, by necessary implication. It is inherent in its residual nature that a prerogative power will be displaced in a field which becomes occupied by a corresponding power conferred or regulated by statute.

Conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds. Look at the way Johnson and Trump conduct their own lives

Yeah, but I'm referring to the recent one, which is what this is all about.

The 2017 Miller case was a completely orthodox application of the rule that the Crown can't use a prerogative power if doing so frustrates the will of Parliament as expressed by statute.

The recent Miller/Cherry decision didn't rely on this reasoning. It took a new approach. That's what took Cox and others by surprise.

Tom, why do you think a judgement that upholds Parliamentary scrutiny is new ground? The main function of Parliament is to challenge and examine the work of the Government and hold it to account, Every analysis I’ve read from constitutional lawyers agree that it is not new ground, the judgement simply asserted the rule of law and separation of powers. David Allen Green explains it very well.

I agree with Limited

The Constitution is a balance of rights and powers - the so called checks and balances. Parliamentary Scrutiny has always been a cornerstone of that.

What the SC did was make it clear that the power to prorogue is not unfettered and unlimited and cannot be used to frustrate the Constitutional role of Parliament. This is not new. This is a statement of absolutely fundamental Constitutional Law.

Limitedsimba123,

Well, this is not quite constitutional law as I was taught it. I would say that the main function of Parliament is to pass statute law and grant taxes etc. It is the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition - ie, within Parliament - to challenge and examine the work of the government. After all, if the government can't command parliamentary support, it can't function. That when one has an election, which would be the normal course in the present situation. The opposition are playing politics with this principle, probably because they know they'll lose the election.

I think you may be over-interpreting my position somewhat. I don't think the Supreme Court judgment is something out of leftfield. However I think it's very easy to see why a good many senior lawyers (including the Attorney-General) got wrongfooted by the SC adding to the traditional principle (that prerogatives can't frustrate statute law) by saying that a prerogative also can't be used if the effect is to prevent parliamentary scrutiny without reasonable justification. It looks a little like statute-by-judge, to be honest.

And - ChazsBrilliantAttitude - that brings me to a concern I have about the judgment. The UK constitution actually doesn't have a strong separation of powers at all as in theory Parliament can do what it likes. Parliament has already passed an Act requiring BoJo the Clown to seek an extension and accept one if offered. There was an attempt to pass legislation allowing Parliament to command the government to negotiate one way or another simply by passing resolutions. In my view that's back-seat driving by Parliament, ie a big transgression into the government's domain and one that would cause a lot of squabbles (and make some lawyers very rich) if the UK had a written, codified constitution with a formal separation of powers. What the SC has done is give the green light to Parliament doing more of the same and I think that may be a mistake in the long run.

It's good to see Bojo get a kick in the pants, but I suspect that this judgment won't date well. Perhaps it'll get adopted in the other common-law jurisdictions but I suspect it'll be politely referred to and otherwise ignored.

I have to add that I think bojo behaved appallingly yesterday. However, a whole lot of people need to watch their language, and the lawyer who referred to him as the "father of lies" shouldn't have been allowed to get away with that in court.

Tom the SC made it clear that the circumstances here were exceptional, so it can't readily be applied elsewhere. Also, I'd assume the full judgement when it gets released will support that.

If Parliament doesn't like Boris, the constitutional solution is to hold a general election

I find it odd to refer to the PM as Boris anyway, but it's not about whether parliament 'likes him.' However many times it has been said, that they don't want to risk a GE before the 31st Oct deadline, in case it is used as a backdoor way to get a no deal exit through, this gets ignored. No doubt a GE will be called, after 31st Oct, or once the extension request has gone in. The reason is clearly because the government is not trusted, which is only to be expected after the prorogation.

The government is accountable to parliament. Which is the way it should be, otherwise it'd be a dictatorship.

Heaven forbid the prime minister should use words like surrender and capitulation, how disrespectful...

From the person whose comparing the Prime minister to a 5 year old...

@Cinammoncake, the full judgment is already available - supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

I wasn’t happy to vote for even before the latest escapades.

Fuck knows who I’ll vote for.

Heaven forbid the prime minister should use words like surrender and capitulation, how disrespectful...

It's stupid language, the language of war and conflict, entirely inappropriate and irrelevant to the UK's departure from the EU, designed to stir up hatred. On the day he had just been judged by the Supreme Court to have illegally shut down parliament, so also arrogant in the extreme

From the person whose comparing the Prime minister to a 5 year old... hmm

An MP explained to him that even her 5 year old knew how to apologise and had manners. Fair enough.

Why yes, of course the Prime Minister should be forbidden from using the resources of the English language to make his political case. His opponents, on the other hand, should be able to say anything, and use any tactics they like to thwart him.

Sounds really fair.

designed to stir up hatred

I just do not see this at all. slowthai's severed head of Boris, Stormzy's 'fuck boris' yes designed to stir up unrest. Referring to the 'surrender act' is typical political hyperbole and I've heard a lot worse.

I just do not see this at all. slowthai's severed head of Boris, Stormzy's 'fuck boris' yes designed to stir up unrest. Referring to the 'surrender act' is typical political hyperbole and I've heard a lot worse.

Well said - I haven’t seen Boris complain once about the tidal waves of violent invective he receives on a daily basis!

no, and no mention of it on Mumsnet either wondering why emoji

Are we really trying to suggest “fuck Boris” is equivalent to MPs and their families receiving death threats?

slowthai threw an effigy of Boris's severed head into the crowd at the Mercury Music Awards and the BBC showed it. They did try and cut it short and mumbled something about slowthai's own opinions but come on! If that's not violent towards Boris then I don't know what is. People thought it was great! Brilliant! So on trend and dangerous!

People are massively hypocritical