Suspending Parliament was unlawful, court rules

This is outrageous. Boris suspended Parliament so that he could go around pretending to be trying to get a deal so that he could then blame the EU when there isn't one. He can't possibly be expected to submit such an intelligent and noble process to the humiliating scrutiny of the plebes who represent us in the House, can he?

Reply 42

username402722

19

I am pleasantly surprised, especially that it was unanimous.

Mr Johnson should resign.

Reply 43

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

This is absolutely amazing news!

I think people with this view, the ecstatic joy about this are being exceptionally short sighted to its implications to future political decisions.

You may very well be on the receiving end of this beast that's just been unleashed, sooner than you may think.

Reply 44

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by Burton Bridge

I think people with this view, the ecstatic joy about this are being exceptionally short sighted to its implications to future political decisions.

You may very well be on the receiving end of this beast that's just been unleashed, sooner than you may think.

Nope, we are being happy that the law and democracy have been upheld and that Boris' act has rightfully been called out as illegal :biggrin:

Reply 45

Farhan.Hanif93

18

Original post by Burton Bridge

I think people with this view, the ecstatic joy about this are being exceptionally short sighted to its implications to future political decisions.

You may very well be on the receiving end of this beast that's just been unleashed, sooner than you may think.

You're most definitely overreacting. This does not set a precedent for the courts to wade into political affairs in future, as the settled case was not a political one. The courts are simply there to serve their regular function, and that is to prevent illegal practices from becoming commonplace in govt.

You should be celebrating this as a remarkable victory for our country's mechanisms, not inventing an imaginary slippery slope.

Reply 46

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Nope, we are being happy that the law and democracy have been upheld and that Boris' act has rightfully been called out as illegal :biggrin:

But is that totally true? I don't think so

Reply 47

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by Burton Bridge

But is that totally true? I don't think so

Yes. It's what the court has ruled and that decision is final :biggrin:

Reply 48

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Wired_1800

@nulli tertius, @fallen_acorns

What do you think? What happens next?

I think Robert Redford will play Lord Pannick and Dustin Hoffman will play Brenda Hale.

If you understand the reference; what finished Nixon was the 8-0 Supreme Court decision ordering him to hand over the tapes. Berger CJ wrote a portentous judgment for a unanimous court as Hale P has done.

I think the decision is wrong but the Government legal team, perhaps on instructions, handled this appallingly badly.

Reply 49

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Yes. It's what the court has ruled and that decision is final :biggrin:

Original post by Farhan.Hanif93

You're most definitely overreacting. This does not set a precedent for the courts to wade into political affairs in future, as the settled case was not a political one. The courts are simply there to serve their regular function, and that is to prevent illegal practices from becoming commonplace in govt.

You should be celebrating this as a remarkable victory for our country's mechanisms, not inventing an imaginary slippery slope.

Time will tell if I'm correct or incorrect, I hope I'm incorrect and you are right but I don't think so at the moment.

Democracy is certainly not being served by the majority of parliament, that's unequivocally true. Borris is the only PM in history to be accused of shutting down democracy by asking for a general democratic election!

I'm no fan of borris but I fear huge implications of this ruling, it certainly does set a president and is possible to spiral, its bigger than leave, remain, labour, Tory political fights.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 50

username4926212

11

Original post by Burton Bridge

I think people with this view, the ecstatic joy about this are being exceptionally short sighted to its implications to future political decisions.

You may very well be on the receiving end of this beast that's just been unleashed, sooner than you may think.

You've completely misunderstood the implications.

Do try again.

Reply 51

Original post by Burton Bridge

Time will tell if I'm correct or incorrect, I hope I'm incorrect and you are right but I don't think so at the moment.

Democracy is certainly not being served by the majority of parliament, that's unequivocally true. Borris is the only PM in history to be accused of shutting down democracy by asking for a general democratic election!

I'm no fan of borris but I fear huge implications of this ruling, it certainly does set a president and is possible to spiral, its bigger than leave, remain, labour, Tory political fights.

Afaik he's the only PM in history to cancel Parliament because he has no workable majority to get anything through.

Reply 52

Original post by _Wellies_

You've completely misunderstood the implications.

Do try again.

Really, I don't think so

Reply 53

Original post by nulli tertius

I think the decision is wrong but the Government legal team, perhaps on instructions, handled this appallingly badly.

This is interesting - what's your theory there? That the government instructed bad behaviour as an additional part of the 'blame anyone but Boris' strategy, eg, set it up so that he can then include the courts as part of the conspiracy of the elites against the people election? We're really getting deep into Trump territory now, aren't we.

Reply 54

Wired_1800

Original post by nulli tertius

I think Robert Redford will play Lord Pannick and Dustin Hoffman will play Brenda Hale.

If you understand the reference; what finished Nixon was the 8-0 Supreme Court decision ordering him to hand over the tapes. Berger CJ wrote a portentous judgment for a unanimous court as Hale P has done.

I think the decision is wrong but the Government legal team, perhaps on instructions, handled this appallingly badly.

Can you elaborate on how the Government’s legal team handled it badly?

Do you think this is Johnson’s Nixon moment?

Reply 55

Napp

22

Original post by Wired_1800

When you get a majority, you say that you got the “will of the people”. When Parties are voted in, they say that they have the mandate from the people. So I am consistent with my comments on PM Johnson having the will of the people.

No, you say that. Again my point is stop trying to lump everyone in with your train of thought especially when simple maths says you are wrong on every single count. Strangely enough people who dont vote or voted the other way do not suddenly lose their status as people or their right to have their opinions heard.
'PM' Johnson most certainly does not have the will of the people. He was neither elected nor has a majority.

Reply 56

Bercow is greenlighting MPs to put forward SO24 motions to legally prevent BJ from proroguing again.

Reply 57

Political twitter says Tory MPs are furiously attacking Dominic Cummings. It will be interesting to see if Boris can pass the blame off on him. That is one of the reasons after all why he was hired.

Reply 58