Supreme Court looks set to find against Johnson Watch

Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
The Supreme Court rules today on the lawfulness of Johnson's prorogation.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...on-prorogation

Apparently everything is pointing to an adverse decision for the Johnson government, ruling that it was unlawful because it blocked legislation in the pipeline.

Johnson will certainly prorogue again, a vote on that must now fall in Parliament if democracy in this country is to be anything more than a sham and a farce and if our entire system is not to be nothing more than a contemptuously small thing to be brushed aside by a dictatorship.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Does it really make any difference though? I mean purely from a brexit stand point it matters not if he gets his way proroguing or not as the decision doesnt lie with Westminster
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Napp)
Does it really make any difference though? I mean purely from a brexit stand point it matters not if he gets his way proroguing or not as the decision doesnt lie with Westminster
It makes a difference about the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty and the extent to which the No Deal can be blocked. Rory Stewart says this morning that all the talk of a deal by Johnson is just a fantasy now and clearly if Johnson can just cancel Parliament on a whim and serially, then he can thwart Parliamentary opposition to a No Deal simply by refusing to accept (in effect) that Parliament is Sovereign. This, needless to say, undermines one of the supposed bedrock elements of our unwritten constitution.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Would rather wait and see what the judgment is.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
The Supreme Court rules today on the lawfulness of Johnson's prorogation.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...on-prorogation

Apparently everything is pointing to an adverse decision for the Johnson government, ruling that it was unlawful because it blocked legislation in the pipeline.

Johnson will certainly prorogue again, a vote on that must now fall in Parliament if democracy in this country is to be anything more than a sham and a farce and if our entire system is not to be nothing more than a contemptuously small thing to be brushed aside by a dictatorship.
The Government has handled this case appallingly badly if they genuinely wanted to win the case.

Basic failures:-

1 Claim of untrammelled freedom of action. There was no need for that. It was perfectly possible to construct an argument that Parliament had constructed a box within which the Government could operate and the Government had not strayed outside the box.

2 Appeal to Dicey. It is a truism that Scotland doesn't accept the Dicean constitutional model, so one is always in trouble arguing Dicey on a case that has a Scots dimension

3 Remedies. Any suggestion you will play fast and loose with a court decision inevitably means a court would go further than it would otherwise have done in granting a remedy.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The Government has handled this case appallingly badly if they genuinely wanted to win the case.

Basic failures:-

1 Claim of untrammelled freedom of action. There was no need for that. It was perfectly possible to construct an argument that Parliament had constructed a box within which the Government could operate and the Government had not strayed outside the box.

2 Appeal to Dicey. It is a truism that Scotland doesn't accept the Dicean constitutional model, so one is always in trouble arguing Dicey on a case that has a Scots dimension

3 Remedies. Any suggestion you will play fast and loose with a court decision inevitably means a court would go further than it would otherwise have done in granting a remedy.
On (3), I was astonished that the government's own lawyers argued to the court that they would very likely simply seek a means of running around the court's decision - what a strangely contemptuous thing to do, but perhaps all too indicative of the bizarre situation we're in, where a government with a negative 40 majority thinks it is empowered to be a cross between Hugo Chavez and Benito Mussolini.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by 999tigger)
Would rather wait and see what the judgment is.
Why wait when you can have fun predicting? :teehee:
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
Let’s wait for a judgement.

I don’t see what the big deal is, Parliament has had 3 years. All they have told us is what they don’t want. A few extra weeks isn’t gonna make much difference.

An extension solves nothing, it just continues the uncertainty. Waste of time to extend. We should just leave.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Andrew97)
Let’s wait for a judgement.

I don’t see what the big deal is, Parliament has had 3 years. All they have told us is what they don’t want. A few extra weeks isn’t gonna make much difference.

An extension solves nothing, it just continues the uncertainty. Waste of time to extend. We should just leave.
I think you know perfectly well that Johnson prorogued at a critical time when Parliament could enforce the block of a no-deal Brexit that will severely damage the UK, as will any Brexit that does not leave us in the customs union and the single market.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
On (3), I was astonished that the government's own lawyers argued to the court that they would very likely simply seek a means of running around the court's decision - what a strangely contemptuous thing to do, but perhaps all too indicative of the bizarre situation we're in, where a government with a negative 40 majority thinks it is empowered to be a cross between Hugo Chavez and Benito Mussolini.
I don't think any of the commentators are there yet on defining the limits of "wrongness".

Stopping legislation in the pipeline doesn't really work because some legislation is lost every time Parliament is prorogued. What about all those 10 minute rule bills that no-one expects to become law? Did Cameron act unlawfully when he prorogued Parliament in 2012 and stopped this Bill for a referendum on whether there should be a new series of Last of the Summer Wine (see clause 1 (c))?

https://publications.parliament.uk/p..._en_2.htm#l1g1
Last edited by nulli tertius; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I think you know perfectly well that Johnson prorogued at a critical time when Parliament could enforce the block of a no-deal Brexit that will severely damage the UK, as will any Brexit that does not leave us in the customs union and the single market.
But what did he stop Parliament from doing? What was Parliament going to do this week other than have more TV sound bites criticising the Government? Everyone is waiting for Boris to reveal the Plan; and if there is no Plan everyone is waiting for him to try and extricate himself from the legislative handcuffs on 19th October.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by nulli tertius)
But what did he stop Parliament from doing? What was Parliament going to do this week other than have more TV sound bites criticising the Government? Everyone is waiting for Boris to reveal the Plan; and if there is no Plan everyone is waiting for him to try and extricate himself from the legislative handcuffs on 19th October.
It would have given Parliament time to scrutinise any proposed deal, although of course one is sceptical that Johnson is currently engaged in anything other than pretending to try to get a deal so that he can subsequently blame the EU for failing to get one. I agree though that there's an element of farce involved at every level, including the ability of Parliament to get the Executive to do things it doesn't want to do. We're in the current jam only because Labour is so pathetically weakened by its current leadership and the inability of the latter to get their heads out of an old fashioned model of what the EU represents. Nothing like what is happening now should be happening, given the government's complete lack of actual votes in the House. We also shouldn't be having to go to law to try to defend the constitution against the Tory Party, yet that is what is happening.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I don't think any of the commentators are there yet on defining the limits of "wrongness".

Stopping legislation in the pipeline doesn't really work because some legislation is lost every time Parliament is prorogued. What about all those 10 minute rule bills that no-one expects to become law? Did Cameron act unlawfully when he prorogued Parliament in 2012 and stopped this Bill for a referendum on whether there should be a new series of Last of the Summer Wine (see clause 1 (c))?

https://publications.parliament.uk/p..._en_2.htm#l1g1
It's all a bit weak and arguably the courts shouldn't be involved at all, but our 'constitution' is now so visibly weak and pathetic that people are clutching at whatever is available.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It would have given Parliament time to scrutinise any proposed deal, although of course one is sceptical that Johnson is currently engaged in anything other than pretending to try to get a deal so that he can subsequently blame the EU for failing to get one. I agree though that there's an element of farce involved at every level, including the ability of Parliament to get the Executive to do things it doesn't want to do. We're in the current jam only because Labour is so pathetically weakened by its current leadership and the inability of the latter to get their heads out of an old fashioned model of what the EU represents. Nothing like what is happening now should be happening, given the government's complete lack of actual votes in the House. We also shouldn't be having to go to law to try to defend the constitution against the Tory Party, yet that is what is happening.
The only way Parliament can have more time for scrutiny between the making of a deal that is yet to be made and 31st October is if Parliament creates more time. Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 (Repeal) Bill 2019 anyone?
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Napp)
Does it really make any difference though? I mean purely from a brexit stand point it matters not if he gets his way proroguing or not as the decision doesnt lie with Westminster
I personally see this constitutional issue as far more important than Brexit.
0
reply
Lumarsh
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
Its all mental
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's all a bit weak and arguably the courts shouldn't be involved at all, but our 'constitution' is now so visibly weak and pathetic that people are clutching at whatever is available.
I don't think it is. Cummings may be threatening in anonymous briefings to build Dachau in Plumstead but frankly the prorogation business is simply the Opposition hyperventilating. If the Government hadn't joined them, this would have gone nowhere. Nothing has been prevented from happening.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
Much as I think the prorogation was a disgraceful act, the law as I see it does not make it illegal. A law should be made that the House of Commons should have to vote for prorogation.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
Ironically the court could rule that the advise to the Queen was in jest and should therefore be considered null but issue the order to recall parliament on the 6th to allow for Tory conference.

Johnson would no longer have to fight a Queens speech and only has to fight for two more weeks than he otherwise would.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Andrew97)
Let’s wait for a judgement.

I don’t see what the big deal is, Parliament has had 3 years. All they have told us is what they don’t want. A few extra weeks isn’t gonna make much difference.

An extension solves nothing, it just continues the uncertainty. Waste of time to extend. We should just leave.
It's not really about that. It's importance is of huge constitutional significance.

It's about whether a Prime Minister can prorogue Parliament for whatever reason they choose, at any time of their choosing, for any amount of time.

Imagine Corbyn (Or whoever) becomes Prime Minister and they decide to prorogue Parliament in order to push through a policy that they can't be through the Commons. Would that be okay?

Or what if a future PM decides to prorogue Parliament for six months?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (19)
6.64%
They might tell the bully (29)
10.14%
I don't think they'd understand (44)
15.38%
It might lead to more bullying (105)
36.71%
There's nothing they could do (89)
31.12%

Watched Threads

View All