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.

I'm not a lawyer, just to super clear.
I do think that there are some constitutional challenges that have been thrown up in relation to the monarchy and the government and the courts may have had to set down in judgment what the monarch might have dealt with in the past.
I'm thinking back to how much more active Queen Victoria was politically compared to our current queen.
Having a figure head leader and no written constitution seems to work best when everyone is playing by unspoken rules and traditions, it seems to struggle when these are broken.
I am slightly surprised by how little political power the monarchy actually seems to have but I probably wasn't paying enough attention.

My 16-year-old who has done two week's worth of Politics A-level has a better grasp of Burkean principles than grass does, tbh.

I wonder which head will roll first.
Geoffrey Cox; Attorney General will probably go first.
There is talk that JRM will have to take one for the team.

Also, if Bojo tries to leave without a deal, he’ll be back in court for breaking the law. Even Farage has been on the news saying the 31 Oct date is
Fingers crossed for an election, Labour Victory, new PV.
Corbyn sounded good in his ( brought forward) closing speech.

Judges are required to base their decisions on the law
and not back off for fear of upsetting politicians or a section of public opinion

LloydBraun I accept this court decision may further anger hard Leavers, but it was totally right that the Supreme Court did not allow itself to be put off by this

I admit I had some concern that a few judges might back off, because of the pressure, but I did them an injustice
They all did their legal duty and ignored politics

Anyway, the hardcore Brexiters spouting conspiracy theories now ... already believed in them long before this case.

So -

• the Opposition parties declare the PM unfit but will not allow a motion leading to a General Election;

• the legislature is now trespassing on the prerogative of the executive;

• the Supreme Court has intervened in politics contrary to the settlement observed since 1689.

A sorry mess.

"they have been instructed to exit the EU,"

MPs cannot be "instructed" - only delegates can be instructed, not representatives

We keep coming back to the the duty of an MP to be a representative

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/09/24/celebrate-gina-millers-right-bring-case-would-locked-parts-europe/

This article written by arch Brexiteer Ambrose Evans Pritchard gives me hope
“Oddly enough for a Brexiteer, I feel almost exhilarated by the Supreme Court’s action. We are settling matters of enormous constitutional importance through the proper institutions.”

I'm on Ubuntu and look down on you.

Judges are required to base their decisions on the law

Boris Johnson did not break the law, apart from the one Hale has just made up.

They all did their legal duty

They have in fact dragged the entire Judiciary into this unholy mess.

What's with all the fake lawyers on here? It's just weird.

Is it a new breed of attempted Mumsnetsplaining? Fuck knows

Boris Johnson did not break the law, apart from the one Hale has just made up
Explain how Lady Hale " made up a law"?
It is not constitutionally possible.

It's just pitiful

What's with all the fake lawyers on here?

Suspect a few baristas who think they're barristers.

Thegrass

You seem to be running out of steam.
Many lawyers had predicted a finding of justiciable and unlawful (including on these threads). So either we all are under Lady Hale’s magic spell or it was the outcome required by our constitutional law.

To repeat what my (lawyer) friend wrote yesterday (he was one of the lawyers at my old work and I used to go to him frequently for advice). He went to one of the "ancient" Unis, albeit c30 years ago ) which dual qualifies in both Scots and English Law. So from a Scots Law perspective, it would appear that even at undergraduate level, the issue was clearer

Fortunately, it would appear that the Lord and Lady Justices have now clarified that part of constitutional law so that it no longer relies, informally, on "chaps being good chaps and playing by the established custom and practice." - so that prorogation can no longer be used by rogue governments (of any colour) for political purposes.

This is what he wrote yesterday:

At university I was taught in constitutional law lectures that parliamentary sovereignty is a uniquely English legal concept. Because it is not part of our law our judges did what they did, in accordance with long established law. The English courts did likewise. There's the problem. Now if English law to date is right then it exposes the problem that the constitution relies on chaps being good chaps and playing by the established custom and practice. However when you get people in power he care nothing for these customs and realise there are no formal rules to limit their powers then they'll do whatever they like. They could suspend parliament until the next election. And then again after that election. Hell they could suspend it permanently. That's where we stand right now.

And to think we all thought the constitutional law lectures were dry, dusty and of Little practical application.

"They have in fact dragged the entire Judiciary into this unholy mess."

They have to consider their legal duty without fear, regardles of whether it means judges get the "Enemies of the People" bollocks from the usual semi-fascist sources

Fortunately, I had my user name way before this, and refuse to change it.
In my other life, however, I am Jurgen Klopp. Sorry, no autographs..

The court that IS sovereign?

The decline of 'good chap' -ism is longstanding. Lord Hailsham (the previous one, not Hugless Dogg, the current viscount) was wanring of the rise of elective dictatorship in the 1970s.

No
11 justices have determined that the Monarch based her decision on duff advice from the PM she is entitled to trust.

BCF:

You didn't answer the question on the referendum regarding the Good Friday Agreement, that included two countries.

And quite frankly, you have lived in a different country, as have I, in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The voting system is different. Rightly so.

The voting system is different in this country when it comes to the EU elections.

You have your view, obviously based on your lived experience.

I'm not disagreeing with you, however your reply was somewhat tetchy, to say the least.

Many lawyers had predicted a finding of justiciable
Indeed the Court of Session had already done so I believe.