Westministenders: Boris Johnson Broke The Law

[RedToothBrush]

ITS OFFICIAL
The Highest Court in the Land has ruled that Boris Johnson has broken the law.

Parliament is Sovereign.

Despite the calls for his resignation it is highly unlikely he will under the current political climate.

It must be stressed that the judgement was UNAMINOUS and went further than most expected, and took the hardest possible line again the government

The power now lies with the Speakers of the Lords and Commons to decide when Parliament reopens.

It also means that all the bills which were ended by proroguation are now back in play.

Expect a full backlash from the hard right attacking the courts are going full on 'enemies of the people'. This will be NASTY

The strength of this ruling does pretty much rule out another proroguation as the courts are liable to throw it out immediately if they try it on again.

Johnson is in New York. He needs to get on a plane very quickly.

Thanks Red, makes sense

I'm guessing this 'No law was broken' is going to be the talking point

No law was broken. There was no law that gave authority to do this. The Govt is not a citizen who can do anything that is not against the law. It is a public body that can only exercise powers granted to it, and in this case there was no such power.

presumably they can't make us pay

Of course they can't. However 'we' want a trade deal with the EU - the price of that deal will be settlement of debts, protection of rights etc - basically the 3 core tenets of the WA.

Of course we could continue without any deal with our geographically closest and economically most significant partner but why would we?

I expect this thread will be full by bedtime (7.30 in this house).
What an exciting day!

DG Rosetti
Senior judges and academic lawyers have been talking for the last couple of years since the referendum about how much bigger and more complex the practical legal implications of implementing Brexit are e.g. do we still follow ECJ precedents, what about cases relying on ECJ precedents.

The Remain campaign was rubbish. If they had properly spelt out the options and implications re leaving the EU they might not have lost. They focussed on painting the leave campaigners in a negative light.

Cummings is liable to try and lie low for at least a few days. (I think he'll also survive tbh)
Really? I thought Johnson might throw him under the bus.

FeminismandWomensFights, I just finished watching that. It's a seriously good piece of TV. And yes, the modern parallels are astonishing.

Sorry, no political insight to offer here, but just needed to log on to say FUCK YOU BORIS.

Katy Searle
@KatySearle
·
2m
Corbyn speech at 4pm today. Tom Watson will get a slot tomorrow.

Poor Tom, left at the conference when everybody else has gone back to Westminster.

Look, he's crawling up my wall
Black and hairy, very small
Now he's up above my head
Hanging by a little thread

Boris the spider
Boris the spider

Now he's dropped on to the floor
Heading for the bedroom door
Maybe he's as scared as me
Where's he gone now, I can't see

Boris the spider
Boris the spider

Creepy, crawly, creepy, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly

There he is wrapped in a ball
Doesn't seem to move at all
Perhaps he's dead, I'll just make sure
Pick this book up off the floor

Boris the spider
Boris the spider

Creepy, crawly, creepy, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly

He's come to a sticky end
Don't think he will ever mend
Never more will he crawl round
He's embedded in the ground

Boris the spider
Boris the spider

“Boris the Spider” was written after Entwistle [The Who] had been out drinking with The Rolling Stones' bass guitarist, Bill Wyman. They were making up funny names for animals when Entwistle came up with “Boris the Spider”. The song was written by Entwistle in six minutes and is considered a horror song.

Also like other legal cases the loser will pay the winners' costs.

Pannick, at least, was working pro bono.

Despite The Times claiming his rate was £250 / hr and the head of Ipso commenting (in a now deleted Tweet) that £250 / hr was such a reduction in the rate that it was as good as for free.

Once an Act has received Royal Assent I struggle to see how that could be challenged. It had already passed both HoP

I agree. I think this is extreme clutching at straws.

The lyrics for Boris the Spider are hilarious in the context of broach diplomacy.

@Peregrina I think there is a difference. It was clear that Gina Miller had a sound case last time. This time the nuances were such that it was more a matter of the Supreme Court deciding where to draw the line. It is more of a creative act, because there is no legal precedent for judicial intervention in the procedure of prorogation and no law establishing a legal convention around prorogation. As a result this case felt much more politically partisan and I think many people felt annoyed that Gina Miller's wealth and public status have enabled her to fast track the legal process.

I thought the long prorogation was ill judged, but I do think a normal prorogation was necessary and I did think it was legal. Despite a desire to defer to Lady Hale's superior knowledge of the law, I worry about the implications. We now have a defunct executive who, thanks to David Cameron's clumsy fixed term parliament act, cannot call a general election. It is clear we need an election and that, until we do, Parliament are wasting everyone's time.

"Where is Boris?"

Currently hiding under a duvet in a New York hotel.

Still unclear as to exactly which law he broke

DOH! Can you not at least look up the legal dictionary definition of “unlawful”?

Tom Watson
@tom_watson
·
2m
It’s right that Jeremy’s speech has been moved to this afternoon. I will be with all Labour colleagues in Parliament tomorrow. I’ll have to save the speech until the next conference.

Chuka: "He has a majority of minus 43"

Kate McCann @KateEMcCann
Wow.Labour say Watson will close conf tomorrow-he refuses!”This is a momentous day. It’s right that Jeremy closes the conference this afternoon.I’ll be in London tomorrow to hold our law breaking Prime Minister to account.I’ll save the speech I was going to make until next year.”

@Thegrasscouldbegreener

I am excited actually because this really will motivate the leave side to stop sitting and waiting for this country to do the right thing.

The next stage of this is not going to be as civilised, I think we can be quite sure of that. The establishment does not rob the people of their democracy in any made up court hearing coup and get away with it.

I find it strange that it sounds like you actually want civil unrest and carnage. Seems strange to me why anyone would get excited by that. It's always disappointing for people to think this way.
Small minded and frankly, thuggish.

Above all else the Supreme Justices are supposed to remain impartial and neutral. We have a politicised Judiciary now.

I am not worried.

I assume Boris Johnson will make another request to the Queen with different wording, and continue as before. This will not change the fact we are leaving in just a few weeks.

It has however severely damaged the creditability of the Judiciary, and for this I am furious. They brought us all into disrepute, our impartiality has been compromised and I fear the back lash will be truly enormous.

Regarding counsel working pro bono - it is nevertheless possible (and usually desirable) for the court to make a pro bono costs order so that the losing party contributes an appropriate sum - approximating to what the successful party’s fees would have been - to the Access to Justice Foundation, facilitating support for those unable to afford legal advice and representation.

In a nice twist, the 2012 statutory amendment allowing the Supreme Court to make such orders was promulgated in the House of Lords by one Lord Pannick QC.

Placemarking

I thought Johnson might throw him under the bus.

You would think so, but if Cummings is anywhere near as intelligent / cunning as many people credit him to be, Cummings would surely have an 'insurance policy' (aka major dirt) against Johnson's famous opportunism?

*I should have said lawyers (not just counsel) working pro bono, though I don’t know whether the solicitors did in this case.