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.

Why is a lawyer mixing up the legal implications with the political implications of the ruling?

Understanding the difference between legal effect and political effect is a pretty basis principle here.

So we have a “lawyer” here (might well be - the liberalisation and expansion of the Law college system means that there are many more with qualifications than there are articles / pupilages for them to gain experience and progress careers so if they aren’t the cleverest they go off to do in house stuff for business if they are lucky - used to reading court judgements but no experience or opportunity to progress their understanding of the Law. ) defending the use of argument in determining their view of the Supreme Court judgement? Do they not think that the Supreme Court Justices did not spend a considerable amount of time debating every point of law very conscious of their role as the champions of the rule of law as a check and balance to the government and parliament? And reached a unanimous judgement. It’s not as if we have a PM who has acted politically in making an effective display of having no regard for rule of law.

Meanwhile in Hong Kong lawyers have taken to the streets to defend rule of law in the face of a sovereign government that rules by law, as all tyrants do.

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.

Thank you, deeply, for my first good laugh of the day

Notes from their mum was it? Forgot the gym kit?

That is an interesting question, @Thegrasscouldbegreener, but I think you're being unnecessarily alarmist. We're not ruled by the justiciary: but they have just said that the executive has to be ruled by laws they themselves have made. Re-establishing law is part of the balance and checks against any one party (meaning group, not political) gaining total power.

MPs are representatives, not delegates

They are voted by the public to represent the public, not sure where you got the word delegates from, clearly missing the point as usual Choc.

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.

Ooof, that 'effectively' is doing some pretty heavy lifting in that sentence, isn't it?

The British sense of fair play is so in built that we quietly carry on trusting our Govenment to carry out the results of a vote as per their Election promises

But what results? Because no--one ever asked the voters whether they want to leave on a no-deal basis, in fact the Leave campaign repeatedly assured us that that would never happen. So how would Johnson's threat to leave without a deal amount to carrying out the results of a vote?

MPs represent all the people in their constituency, not just the ones who voted for them, and they do so by exercising their judgement during their strictly limited term of office after which they must submit themselves for re-election or sod off.

“Heavy lifting”
Gosh the box of cliches is getting ravaged this evening isn’t it

I am in a similar line although not the same, and I agree. We are all aghast here.

Somehow I doubt it, grass. No-one with proper legal training could show such little understanding of the position of the court, the effects of the judgment, or (in particular) the fact that this decision has nothing to do with Brexit.

Dark Please no! Sorry but look at my last post. Rule by law is what happens in China, they use the law as they see fit to do exactly what they want. Rule of law means that the law as it is established by act of Parliament, case law and precedent has to be abused by, even by the Prime Minister. Rule of law was exactly what Cunning Cummings cunning plan is after.....

abided by though he thinks it is there to be abused ....

Sorry, Lloyd, I guess if I was a lawyer I'd be a lot more precise in my language...

The Chinese like to bang on about the Rule of Law, by which they mean the rule of government.

The Rule of Law requires an independent judiciary and a democratic political culture where the majority rule is restrained by need for the consent of the minority.

(Ooooh, s'like doing undergrad essays all over again.)

OK that's legal language I wasn't aware of, thanks. Still happy.

I’m joining in the abuse to see if it’s fun,
Maud. I guess if you’ve nothing better to do, right?
Fortunately I do. Enjoy

placemats I have a different view to you on referendums and I expressed my reasons
I disagree fundamentally with holding referendums, especially under the UK constitution

That's not digging a hole
I've noticed before that you are sometimes intolerant when people legitimately have different views to you

Since the late 1980s, I've lived mostly in Germany, where referendums are banned - in a constitution the UK helped write - and they are regarded with disgust as the tool of demagogues
I have listened to their reasons why

I voted as an 18year-old in the 1975 referendum and I was unhappy about the principle even then,
that I should help decide such a complex issue

I also realised then that many people had even less idea than I had about what the Common Market was and where it would go
e.g. Some now claim that they were conned in 1975 because "ever closer union" was hidden, whereas even I knew of that

However, as regards our current hole, unless a party wins a GE on a Revoke platform,
then MPs need some way to undo the political consequences of the badly flawed 2016 referendum
Hence why I think it legitimate for Labour to offer this

So I can very reluctantly accept a referendum to reverse a flawed one, but totally disagree on any further referendums on new issues

Other than for the 3 smaller UK nations whose Parliaments / assemblies don't have the powers of Westminster to decide such issues themselves.

Thing is I suspect a unanimous decision was unamimous for a reason. And not because of the political views of the Supreme Court being similar.

I am still of the view that the Common Law tends to be self-correcting, but I don't think all the ramifications of today's judgment are visible yet. It is worth remembering that the Supreme Court is a relatively new creation (established 10 years ago), before which the House of Lords would have considered a judicial review. It has relatively few powers, but over the last decade there has definitely been what some people might describe as mission creep. Today's ruling will definitely put fuel on that fire for those who are concerned about this and whose primary interest in constitutional law, rather than Brexit.

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.

You were asked. @LloydBraun, why in legal terms you claim that the judgment is legally wrong. The very fact that this is all you can produce in response demonstrates that you simply aren't applying any form of legal analysis to the judgment.

The plain fact is that the government case was that their decision had nothing to do with Brexit, so this came down to an issue of constitutional law. The Supreme Court couldn't swerve making a decision on a case that was put before them; so on that basis any decision they made could have been interpreted as a political one. However, by hanging the judgment very clearly on strict constitutional law principles, the reality is that they've avoided that bear trap.

Lloyd you ain't no lawyer bruv

You think you've been 'abused'?

People have questioned your credentials because your posts are quite odd.

You've also been asked genuine questions which you've declined to answer.

I really don't give a toss whether you're an actual real live lawyer or not and I don't expect anyone else does either. But abuse, it ain't.

Ton I really do not need to answer to you. It is easy to to be insulting when your case for remain has folded, and there are no positives to stay in the EU Institution, so it follows that people with such low intellect sink to insulting others, for they have no ability to do anything else.