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.

There has to be a fall guy And in my jaundiced view it always has to be the lawyer. I've seen it happen several times. Non-lawyers make mistakes but it's the lawyer's fault for not knowing about it/not advising on it/not advising the right way/advising the right way but being ignored but it's their fault for being ignored/whatever.

The real problem is we have a Monarch who has become over the centuries a cipher. The country is ruled in their name, we owe them allegiance, but they are a bankrupt institution. Quite properly unable to act with any degree of independence because they are not elected.

So "the government" has slowly acquired the powers of the Monarch. And - until today - had managed to evade the responsibilities of the Monarch. Which if allowed to continue would have led to the worst of all outcomes.

If the Monarch has no power in this situation, the court has to step in (which is my Ladybird book of constitutional affairs level of understanding).

An elected head of state (by whatever name and means) would have the legitimacy to have either rejected the prorogation request, or at least take independent advice, separate from the executive making the request.

Pretty certain I raised the possibility of the Monarchy becoming embroiled in this well over a year ago - and predicted that if it were to happen, Brexiteers would suddenly remember how they had always been republicans, as well as in favour of no deal, and manning the mulberries at Juno beach on D-Day.

DGR did you get a response as to the most supreme court in the land yet

No, I had to answer my own question (parliament). But leavers can be excused, so much shite to spout, so few fingers ...

The bottom line is that the judgment of the Supreme Court seems to be all about the sovereignty of parliament.The judges failed to address the issue of the sovereignty of the people, even though that is really the main issue.

Consequently, they have spawned a constitutional monstrosity: they have taken power away from a government that is trying to honour the will of the people, and given it to a parliament that is trying to subvert the will of the people.

The principle of the sovereignty of the people urgently needs to be enshrined in law.Then it would no longer be possible for judges to disregard it in such a cavalier fashion.

Dan Bloom✔@danbloom1

Understand Jeremy Corbyn's Labour conference speech will last just 20 minutes or so - down from about an hour.

Labour aides are stripping out carefully-planned policy announcements
and will be saving them for another time when they'll actually be able to get some press coverage.

You can’t “respectfully disagree” with the unanimous judgment of the @UKSupremeCourt

Oh, Boris can. And is. Like all criminals.

Thegrass

Lets be honest If one was ever in doubt there is a deep state running our great country, then look no further to the events of the last few weeks, when Bercow allowed remainers to sieze power culminating in 12 Remain judges, judging for remain today.

It is an absolute outrage - and although you may feel the supreme court is the last word, I beg to differ. They have prostituted their creditability to the EU Commission and left this country in tatters.

You are a poor man's satirist. And you can't spell either. And you're lazy.

Won't pairing be in effect ?

Pairing is a gentlemans agreement and has to be agreed by both parties - thus it has to be in both party's interests. And there was that incident in a close vote where one of the 'gentlemen' in question acted like a tosser and deliberately broke the agreement so no one trusts the other now. And there was that time when one particular wanker decided to shut the whole place down, which has really rather pissed off the other.

I think we are definitely into a gloves off situation.

I'm trying hard not to laugh at the idea of pairing right now.

In other news, this is great.

Really.

And, even if it comes to PV before GE (bloody hell, I hope so,) Starmer will be a key driver in the form of that PV.

So this masters:

The judges failed to address the issue of the sovereignty of the people

What the fuck does that even mean ?

Pretty certain I raised the possibility of the Monarchy becoming embroiled in this well over a year ago - and predicted that if it were to happen, Brexiteers would suddenly remember how they had always been republicans, as well as in favour of no deal, and manning the mulberries at Juno beach on D-Day.

I think there were a few of us who said they'd go after the Monarchy next. And I think it was longer than a year ago.

Keep posting Thegrass

You're pure comedy gold. You know, the sovereign kind.

Question:

"What is democracy? And how does it work?"

Go.

I wonder how Buckland claims the government plans to cut crime when his department can't even keep the courts functioning?

I can think of a few MP's who would be delighted to be paired with a Tory after previous experiences!

Pairing is a gentlemans agreement and has to be agreed by both parties - thus it has to be in both party's interests. And there was that incident in a close vote where one of the 'gentlemen' in question acted like a tosser and deliberately broke the agreement so no one trusts the other now. And there was that time when one particular wanker decided to shut the whole place down, which has really rather pissed off the other.

Didn't they kiss and make up over that "misunderstanding" ? Especially given how precarious Theresa Mays support was ?

I know pairing is a "gentlemans agreement", but the danger of upping the ante and discarding such conventions is it can just as easily come back to bite you hard. Which a minority Labour government might discover ?

Cummings was off on 31 Oct anyway..

What the fuck does that even mean ?

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

I believe the SC made reference to the fact we have a representative democracy not a direct one. You get to elect an MP to represent you, referenda are not binding on Parliament unless they legislate in the Act establishing the referendum to be bound by it.

Note - the Brexit referendum was not legally binding on its own.

I wonder how Buckland claims the government plans to cut crime when his department can't even keep a criminal out of no. 10 ?

The judges failed to address the issue of the sovereignty of the people

I think this means I don't like parliamentary democracy and I object to having a functioning legal system.

I think there were a few of us who said they'd go after the Monarchy next. And I think it was longer than a year ago.

Again, I wonder how the Tory faithful feel about that ?

The judges failed to address the issue of the sovereignty of the people

What sovereignty? Sovereignty derived through a democratically elected Parliament? Or sovereignty derived through a non-binding advisory vote?

The judges failed to address the issue of the sovereignty of the people

What the fuck does that even mean

Maybe that they didn't think Parliament was important? Oh, wait...

"the sovereignty of the people"

In the UK, we are not ruled by referenda, if that is what you mean

Under our Constitution, Parliament is supreme
and can choose to block bills or actions by the govt

Everyone, even the PM, is subject to the rule of law

The 2016 referendum was deliberately not made legally binding - to avoid Leave being required to gain a minimum threshhold of votes to win

However, even a legally binding referendum could still be over-ridden afterwards by Parliament passing a bill to do so