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.

If you think I’m wrong, that’s fine. I’d be interested to hear why. Leaping up and down shrieking about egos and made up qualifications doesn’t suggest that discussion is what you’re interested in, though.

Thing is - as I understand it there is no court of appeal above them......
Well there is one, but it'd take the ironies if ironies for it to go there

I'm hideously behind on this thread but wonder if anyone else has linked to these yet:

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/223679208508

That's very enterprising and quick.

Oh Lloyd you're pure comedy gold. Sovereign.

Hmmm. People really very are uncomfortable with disagreement here at the moment, aren’t they?

Has this been mentioned yet?

(More bad news for Johnson.)

@OhLookHeKickedTheBall parliament? Or privy council?

I think they’ve bolloksed it because they’ve handed a great piece of ammunition to those who want to say the judiciary is unduly politicised

Forgive me, I'm not a lawyer. But my understanding is that these 11 judges were ruling on an issue of constitutional law (or lack thereof), not on a political issue. This wasn't about Brexit, this was about whether it was lawful to prorogue parliament for the length of time Boris wanted to prorogue it for. The judges found that it wasn't.

If people think this has given them 'ammunition' regarding the politicisation of the judiciary, surely they have misunderstood the facts of the ruling?

@Thegrasscouldbegreener has gone very quiet

mrsl think more European in flavour

If you think I’m wrong, that’s fine. I’d be interested to hear why. Leaping up and down shrieking about egos and made up qualifications doesn’t suggest that discussion is what you’re interested in, though.

Your reasoning please, legally argued, with authorities etc., as to bollockificatiion. Persuade us.

The SC explicitly found that the question of the lawfulness of prorogation was justiciable, and not political.

So the referendum in both Northern Ireland and Ireland to accept the Good Friday Agreement was nonsense then BCF?

The referendum on the GF Agreement was a confirmatory referendum on legislation that had already been drawn up and was supported by the government.

The reason that the referendum on Brexit has been such a mess is that people voted against the status quo without agreeing what they wanted instead.

Where does the BBC get these people from?

Thegrasscouldbegreener has gone very quiet

It's past bedtime in Asia.

Grass is busy working. Herself up into a tizz.

It ain't over. Johnson lost today. Until the Tories dump him, we are stuck with him and all his twisty bollocks.

@Thegrasscouldbegreener has gone very quiet

Three hours ahead in St Petersburg. They've all knocked off for the day at the troll factory.

The debate about the limits of judicial oversight of decisions of government has been going on for a very long time. I am not one of those who agree with the criticism that the judiciary has gone too far. But it is a criticism that is made, sometimes in good faith and sometimes not. This will fuel that criticism, I think, and you can see how it will be positioned by those with certain agendas.

People really very are uncomfortable with disagreement here at the moment

I think they’ve bolloksed it because they’ve handed a great piece of ammunition to those who want to say the judiciary is unduly politicised. I think the outcomes could be very damaging.

Well, now I know you're not a lawyer. A lawyer knows that judgments are made on the basis of what is in front of them, NOT what the PR might look like

There is no part of the constitution that says "you should... unless it will go down badly in the Mail".

dipshit.

Well, I’m a lawyer, so reading court judgements is something I’m used to, and I’ve seen plenty of cases get decided in ways which are wrong - or unexpected, if you prefer.

From 11 unanimous Supreme Court judges? Somehow I doubt it.

If the government consider that the Supreme Court has overstepped and is commenting in political matters, they can of course bring forward legislation to clarify the situation. They could even prepare a proper written constitution if they really want to.

Getting anything through Parliament without a majority will be tricky, and of course legislation can be amended by subsequent governments.

I think they’ve bolloksed it because they’ve handed a great piece of ammunition to those who want to say the judiciary is unduly politicised. I think the outcomes could be very damaging.

So what were they supposed to do - ignore the law for political reasons?

We have a wholly illegitimate assembly, in which 85% of MPs were elected on a Leave manifesto, yet 85% of MPs are for Remain.

We have MPs who have changed parties -sometimes more than once - without doing their constituents the courtesy of standing for by-election.

We have politicians demanding a second referendum before the first has been implemented - yet declaring that they would reject the result of that second vote if it went against them - yet voting against a general election - yet claiming to uphold democracy.

We now have activist judges, taking sides in a political dispute.

We have a biased, activist Speaker making a mockery of his constitutional position.

And we have backbench MPs in charge of foreign policy!

An unelected EU apparatchik stands up at a British political party conference, declares that the EU should become an empire - and receives rapturous applause.

This is the damage Remainers, by refusing to accept the 2016 result, have done to our democracy.

We must have a general election.

The debate about the limits of judicial oversight of decisions of government has been going on for a very long time. I am not one of those who agree with the criticism that the judiciary has gone too far. But it is a criticism that is made, sometimes in good faith and sometimes not. This will fuel that criticism, I think, and you can see how it will be positioned by those with certain agendas.
Waffle.
If you are a lawyer, write this as a legal argument.
With authorities.