Westminstenders: Constitutional History

[RedToothBrush]

The Supreme Court case continues
(ruling possible Friday but likely Monday)

The new NI proposal is bollocks and Johnson didn't get why until it was discussed in Europe.

There was a press conference in Luxembourg which looks good for Johnson.

Johnsons approval ratings are up.

And we are making no obvious progress to anything but no deal...

Telegraph also reports that 18 of the 21 Tor rebels would refuse to vote for Corbyn as interim PM,
even to avoid No Deal

So they sacrificed their careers to prevent No Deal,
but a few days of Corbyn, just to get an extension and a GE before Brexit
is more dangerous than No Deal ....

So are they demanding Ken Clarke or the WA vote ?

... that's if BJ evades legal constraints, or just ploughs straight through them, as in the Buzzfeed article

Peter Foster@pmdfoster

A U.K. civil servant speaks in gravest terms about threat no deal poses to Northern Ireland.
Listen.
Brave to speak so clearly.

RTÉ News@rtenews

The leading civil servant in Northern Ireland has warned that the impact of a no-deal Brexit would be grave politically, economically and societally

www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0920/1077167-brexit-dundalk/

a few days of Corbyn, just to get an extension and a GE before Brexit is more dangerous than No Deal

There’s no such thing as “a few days of Corbyn”. His own MPs have been trying to get rid of him for four years, without success! Once the old loon and the far left get their hands on the government, they’ll cling on for all they’re worth, using the same kinds of dirty tricks they’ve employed to ensure their stranglehold over the Labour party. Thanks but no thanks.

After over a decade of austerity and the Tories I think a few would feel the same the other way around tbf. It's like something got stuck on our shoe several fields ago and we've been plodding on uncomfortably desperately looking for a good branch to scrape it off on.

No surprises at all re Humphries - as we've said it was very clear the minute he allowed Farage air time to rant and rave unchallenged and how vile he has been to experts, contributing hugely to the dumbing down of our countries' journalism. The BBC should have seen that one coming as it's a green light for them to be held hostage into Tory worship with Leavers now able to say Humphries is proof they are anti-Brexit (unable to understand libralism to the end).

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/eu_referendum_2016_/3698361-Westminstenders-Silly-Season?watched=1
New thread

Yolo I am sorry. I doubt many people, especially Bozo and his dark adviser, who haven’t experienced it, understand how dire the situation is for the NHS picking up the pieces of the social care crisis. All those old ladies in our ward went home, only one had a carer who came in (and she stopped wailing when she was there). Having had a FIL see out his days with dementia in an excellent home, the level of staffing and expertise that enabled him to live out his days safely and with dignity and care was much greater than the NHS was or should be able to provide, let alone letting those old ladies home without adequate support to probably fall again. But then, precisely because it is a hidden crisis, why would they care? No votes in it. People are so ignorant of the reality that May was pilloried for a “dementia tax” that already exists.......

@DGRossetti
English verdict: uphold-Scottish verdict uphold
English verdict: uphold-Scottish verdict overturn
English verdict: overturn-Scottish verdict uphold
English verdict: overturn-Scottish verdict overturn

I think whatever happens the UK Supreme Court will probably hold that Scots and English law are the same. Most of the case law cited in the Scottish case was English anyway. Also, English case law borrows from Scots law often enough too. Remember the case about the snail in the bottle - Donoghue v Stevenson? Scottish.

That being so, the court will decide both cases the same way, probably against Boris I reckon.. I can sense it in the wind coming from the lawyers' mouths

What is interesting, from a legal perspective, is that traditionally, prerogative cases were decided on whether they interfered with the will of Parliament as expressed in statutes passed by it. The Miller case is an example of that. What's being argued in this case is that Johnson acted unlawfully because his reasons for requesting the Queen to use her prerogative powers weren't lawful and also that Parliament needs to sit all the time to scrutinise government. I suspect those arguments will succeed, but in fact they're quite .. err.. novel.