Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westministenders: Boris Johnson Broke The Law

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 24/09/2019 11:05

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
Tonnerre · 24/09/2019 17:59

Brexiters: We want Parliamentary sovereignty.
Supreme Court: OK then.
Brexiters: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

placemats · 24/09/2019 17:59

Can I make a plea, because I'm about to eat my dinner, that we stop with the Johnson and bollocks in the same sentence.

Envy definitely NOT envy.

ClashCityRocker · 24/09/2019 18:00

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer!

As a non-lawyer who has very little knowledge of constitutional law, I would perhaps feel uncomfortable if the judgement was more divided rather than unaminous, and the wording less strong.

I do think there may be undesirable consequences to this, but what's the alternative? From a total lay-person perspective there was plenty of evidence that the sole purpose of suspending parliament was to prevent MPs from bringing forward legislation that the PM didn't agree with. The fact that the suspension failed to do that is never here nor there.

I think, actually, in terms of the outcome of Brexit it won't have a huge impact either way - perhaps naively.

In terms of protecting democracy though, the ruling is priceless - had prerogation succeeded in achieving Boris' aims, I would worry that it would be used in such a manner more and more often.

BigChocFrenzy · 24/09/2019 18:00

"The referendum on a different voting system, other than FPTP, was a nonsense then? BCF? Yes

The referendum to remain or leave the EU was a nonsense then? BCF? " Yes

placemats

imo, those 2 decisions should have been made only by an elected government

It is always a risk with a referendum that it returns a result which Parliament then cannot or will not carry out
Then we get the current crisis, in which Leavers feel cheated

Referendums are banned under the German constitution precisely because of how they can be misused by populist demagogues to subvert democracy

Voters have for years had a choice to vote for a UKIP govt, but until Cameron announced his referendum plans in 2015, the EU was only of importance to about 5% of people as an issue in opinion polls
During the campaign, populists whipped up a frenzy by using pent-up frustration about other issues and highly sophisticated targeted psyops against groups of voters

Nothing has changed since then to make referendums safer

There was also disgraceful manipulation by Cameron on changing the FPTP system, both on the choice of system and during the campaign.
He conned the LDems disgracefully

Also in my post, I said that refs in Scotland / Wales / NI were justified because their Parliaments assemblies could not decide on Independence
I should have added e.g. in the case of NI, on international treatiest too

I don't comment on refs in other countries like Ireland or Switzerland, because their constitutions are set up specifically to incorporate referendums and carry them out properly, but the UK is not

However, even Switzerand has had problems with referendums:
Having to cancel the result of one, due to misleading / lacking information during the campaign
The people voting against FOM had trade consequences which Parliament refused - in which case they should not have given people the choice

MaudBaileysGreenTurban · 24/09/2019 18:00

But Lloyd, you said in your first post that you thought the ruling was 'just wrong'.

That's not the same thing as worrying that the ruling will be deliberately misinterpreted to support certain agendas (which I agree with and is already happening).

LloydBraun · 24/09/2019 18:01

I’m not saying they bollocksed it on purpose, aethelstan. I agree they should make the decision regardless of how it might look. But the effect is damaging nonetheless.
I find the level of outrage here really quite incredible. It’s a diifference of view. Why the need for abuse? I’m pretty sure the SC can take it, you know.

Tonnerre · 24/09/2019 18:03

Sadly Lady Hale has dragged the Judiciary into disrepute, and moreover has now set a deadly precedent.

Precisely how? Can you explain what, in legal terms, is wrong with the judgment? And also why you are singling out Lady Hale when she was giving the unanimous judgments of the most senior judges in the land?

Suppose that tomorrow Johnson announced that he'd had a divine revelation and realised that we needed to stay in the EU and prorogued Parliament to enable him to reverse anything without any awkward questions. Would you not be quite happy that there would be a precedent that says he cannot do that?

If the most hardened remainers recognise that this is a step too far

Why is this a leave/remain issue, given that the Government were absolutely insistent that the decision to prorogue had nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit?

LloydBraun · 24/09/2019 18:03

Notareallawyer - what I wrote wasn’t legal argument. It’s an opinion.
Clue is in your name, I guess? Law student, right?

placemats · 24/09/2019 18:04

BCF

Put. The. Spade. Down.

NotaRealLawyer · 24/09/2019 18:05

Notareallawyer - what I wrote wasn’t legal argument. It’s an opinion.
Clue is in your name, I guess? Law student, right?

So wrong.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 24/09/2019 18:06

Lloyd
Senior judges have expressed concern about judges being dragged into quasi-political issues due to Parliament failing to hold the Executive to account effectively. So that is a real issue.

However, my starting point has to be that no power is unfettered and if the Executive acts in a way that prevents proper constitutional checks and balances then the courts must act.

A long prorogation without justification at a time when Parliamentary scrutiny is required as significant legislation is needed before 31st Oct is an abuse of power by the Executive. 5/8 of the remaining time to Brexit was to be lost under the prorogation.

RedToothBrush · 24/09/2019 18:06

Pretty sure that even if Lloyd is a lawyer, Lloyd is not a constitutional lawyer.

If there is one thing I've learnt from being around people who are lawyers, is the ability to tell the difference between one making a good argument and one making a rather poor job of an argument by shouting 'Well I'm a lawyer don't you know'.

If you have to shout about your qualifications rather than focus on the argument at hand, then you are pushing your status rather than the merit of your argument.

I also know that lawyers tend to dislike it, when non-lawyers are don't back down at the 'I'm a lawyer don't know you' and are instead met with an intelligent argument at their level (or indeed above) without intimidation.

OP posts:
Tonnerre · 24/09/2019 18:06

The courts have just backed remain over leave

No, they haven't, @mummmy2017. The government was adamant that the prorogue decision was nothing to do with Brexit. So what the courts have just backed is proper Parliamentary democracy and sovereignty, which after all is something that the Leave campaign alleged they want.

MockersthefeMANist · 24/09/2019 18:07

Witchy Woman Lady Hale set her spider on the other judges and made them all do her evil bidding. Wuhahahahah!

BigChocFrenzy · 24/09/2019 18:07

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

MPs are representatives, not delegates
î.e. They are supposed to vote the way they think best for their constituents and the country
They are never bound by the party manifesto

Also, MPs give their own views in their election literature, which may differ from the party line

MPs are not bound by party allegiance either - their oath of loyalty as an MP is only to the Queen:

"I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."

(atheists & agnostics can omit "God")

DarkAtEndOfUk · 24/09/2019 18:08

Just in and catching up with the days events. I may have to change my username. We have rule by law back I see.
StarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmileStarSmile

I'm quite pleased by that. And also, quite pleased to see the judgement of the internet as shown by BBC comments is so far settling in at maybe 5:2 in favour of the judges, assuming no bot involvement.

MaudBaileysGreenTurban · 24/09/2019 18:08

Hi Lloyd - could you elaborate on your first comment that the ruling was 'just wrong'?

John1971 · 24/09/2019 18:08

Johnson is finished. No doubt another public school millionaire will be along shortly

AthelstaneTheUnready · 24/09/2019 18:08

LloydBraun, yes, sorry, shouldn't have name called.

It's a little weird to say you haven't read it, but it's wrong, but it's right but looks bad to say so...

Sounds like you just don't like it, never mind reasons.

lonelyplanetmum · 24/09/2019 18:09

Imagine...

A future green government prorogues to prevent parliamentary opposition to a complete car ban.

Imagine

A future socialist government prorogues to prevent opposition to seizure of all privately owned property worth over £300,000

Imagine

A future right wing government prorogues to prevent parliamentary opposition to a plan disallowing healthcare to anyone who can't pay upfront.

tobee · 24/09/2019 18:09

If they throw Cummings in the canal no worries because he'll get up fine

Thegrasscouldbegreener · 24/09/2019 18:10

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

I am in a similar line although not the same, and I agree. We are all aghast here.
Further more, we are supposed to be above politics, we are supposed to be in an absolute position of neutrality and impartiality.

To come to such a judgement is seismic, not for the same reason some think on the forum, but because we are effectively being ruled by unelected court representatives, that are not held to account by the public and can not be removed by the public. Along the lines of fragile countries where the government is removed and the courts and army takes over the country. I don't see a difference actually. A coup is a coup no matter how nicely is done.

I sensed there was a problem when the other SJs did not turn up, and just sent in written notes. This was very unusual too.

prettybird · 24/09/2019 18:10

mrslaughan - like you, I have moments of thinking fuck it, let them have their No Deal and suffer the consequences as I have a stockpile, am comfortably off and will be relatively insulated, plus from my perspective, the added benefit of it probably bringing about Scottish independence more quickly Smile. But like you, I then give myself a shake and can't bring myself to wish it actively on those that really will suffer as a consequence and who didn't necessarily vote for it (and even on those who voted for it in ignorance in the true sense of the word as a protest against austerity) Sad

MockersthefeMANist · 24/09/2019 18:11

That MPs are representatives and not delegates is a foundation of Conservative political philosophy, as set out by Edmund Burke:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

LloydBraun · 24/09/2019 18:11

Well, I offered the information I was a lawyer because I was asked what I did. This was followed by an onslaught which I have to say strikes me as more than a bit nutty.
Anyway, I’ve clearly pissed on the party - we’re not in the mood for other views this evening. Fair enough.
Thanks for apology aethelstan - you’re not the only one getting a little bit carried away!