The Tory government, under both May and Johnson, has made plain its contempt for the rule of law repeatedly, and not only over the prorogation of parliament. In the last few days we have seen the Tories admit to illegal sales of arms to Saudi Arabia, in direct breach of a ruling by the Court of Appeal, for which “accident” Liz Truss gave a completely fake apology.
The Home Office has simply ignored court rulings in several immigration cases. To this must be added the whole “enemies of the people” attitude of the government supporting media towards judges in cases involving Brexit, and the remarkably equivocal noises from No 10 over respecting the Supreme Court on prorogation.
The arguments of today’s Supreme Court judgement were extremely strong. But even Supreme Court judges are human. No matter how much the judgement may be presented as purely the product of rarified intellect, I have no doubt the surprisingly unanimous view of the court was to some extent influenced by the chance to hit back decisively at a political faction which has cast the judiciary as the enemy and attempted to undermine them and to ignore or override inconvenient judgements.
Boris, meet Hubris.
I have expressed at length my view that the idea the Queen was “misled” is a nonsense. David Cameron’s description of the process of getting the Queen to intervene in the Scottish Independence referendum, involving multiple conversations with her private secretary (a senior civil servant on secondment), lifts the lid a bit for those who have not been inside the system. There will have been detailed discussions with the Queen’s private office of the prorogation and its motives, which Buckingham Palace could see as well as any of us. One cheerful thing about today’s ruling is that it states unequivocally that an Order in Council, issued with the authority of the Queen, is void if unlawful. This is as much a poke in the eye for the Queen as it is for Boris Johnson, despite the near unanimous pretence of her immaculate innocence and infallibility.
I had drafted a piece on Boris and Iran, but given today’s overwhelming news focus am leaving that till tomorrow.
Surely the outcome of this debacle must be for parliament to consider with a great degree of urgency a formulation of a robust written constitution which should also remove the royal prerogative as an instrument of decision making because it has proven to be highly undemocratic.
SA
I have to agree with you.
Boris has telephoned the Queen in Scotland, from his haunt in New York.
Obviously we will not know what was conversed.
Boris is said to be coming back to Downing Street today, ready for the continuation of Parliament, which was never Prorogued.
Black is White, up is down and left is right.
The Leader of the Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Supreme Court judges of launching a “constitutional coup”
and “the most extraordinary overthrowing of the constitution”.
more pop-corn.
Prerogative is another fig leaf for an hereditary executive, which will find a way round it, just as it is sabotaging the only democratic state vote in Britain since 1975. It’s like being in a time machine, watching Germany between 1930 and 1933 when the state tried to rule against the Reichstag (which was democratically-elected until March 1933).
If you guys in England want a written constitution then go for it but don’t even think about making it a UK thing.
The USA was founded on a written constitution. That went well, didn’t it? Oh, wait…
This was a remarkable decision. 11-0, zero ambiguity, as clear a statement as we’ve ever seen on separation of powers per the UK constitution. It’s our Marbury v Madison.
One additional observation I’ve had shared with me is that the court perhaps dropped a unanimous verdict on the government because they half-arsed their case. It was a lazy and flippant and basically disrespectful to the gravity of the question at hand. So rather than, as the higher courts so often do, offer some deferential concessions to the government’s case, they just told them here to piss right off. It’s all polite and elegant legalese, but the message was an unequivocal middle finger from one part of the Establishment to another.
I was not impressed by the government lawyers but you seem to have forgotten that the Court of Appeal found unanimously for the government. What is at stake is far too serious for the judges to chose this moment to give the government one or two fingers. Leavers will now assume that they have to deal with the Supreme Court as well as Speaker Bercow to escape from the EU as per the referendum result. No Lever is going to believe that this decision has anything to do with democracy.
It doesn’t matter what the court of appeal said.
The supreme court has made clear separation of powers is more fundamental and important than anything related to Brexit.
The Leaver Cult can’t be convinced of anything.
And now they will insist on “reforming” the Supreme Court so it resembles the corrupt American court of that name, with members chosen explicitly for the sympathy to Brexit. Separation of Powers, and indeed the rule of law itself, is going to come under extremet pressure as (37 per cent of) the People seek to impose their Will on the rest of us.
“as (37 per cent of) the People seek to impose their Will on the rest of us.”
Sure it would be better if the 35% of people who voted the other way were allowed to impose their will on the rest of us instead, wouldn’t it?
Robert Harneis-The Court of Appeal did not hear the petition of Gina Miller. It was heard by the Divisional court who then gave leave for the matter to be heard directly by the Supreme Court thereby “leapfrogging” the Court of Appeal.
“No ‘lever’ is going to believe that this decision has anything to do with democracy”
Quite appropriate.
The Supreme Court had already decided it’s judgement last week. How else could they have said with such certainty that they would announce their verdict at 10.30am on Tuesday morning? That means they already knew, so the dice was loaded from the start. For everyone that thinks ‘todays’ judgement is some kind of victory, well it’s not. Boris Johnson with the help of the Supreme Court have tucked up the people of Britain nicely and however much it hurts to do so, they have to be applauded because they played a blinder. Let me copy and paste exactly what was written on Wings Over Scotland this morning:
“So the Supreme Court has delivered its brutal verdict. The prorogation of Parliament was completely unlawful and now, in effect, never happened. Parliament is officially still in session. The same Parliament that has stupendously failed to solve Brexit for three years can reconvene and continue to fail to solve it. What now?
Jeremy Corbyn stood up a few minutes ago at the Labour conference and demanded that Boris Johnson stand down immediately and hold a general election, as did several other opposition leaders. Which, alert readers may recall, is what Johnson tried to do, twice, barely a fortnight ago, and was blocked by the opposition.
Presumably if he tries again, they all now have to cooperate and vote for it, even though the dissolution of Parliament would render the Benn bill requiring him to ask the EU for an extension first null and void. So there’ll be a general election held on the subject of “Who rules the country – the people or the courts?”, which is what Johnson wanted all along. Um, victory?
.PS Fun trivia fact: UK electoral law requires 25 working days between the dissolution of Parliament and the date of a general election. There are exactly 27 working days (inclusive) between now and 31 October.”
The UK is leaving the EU on 31st October. Any general election will take place either on, or after that date so all talk from all the parties about second referendums, deals/no deals, revoking article 50 are meaningless drivel because the UK will no longer be a part of the EU!!
The dissolution of parliament and an immediate GE is not the only possible outcome of a no confidence vote in the current government which does not hold a majority. Another alternative would be for the queen to call the leader of the opposition to form a government. This might put Jo Swinson and other wreckers on the spot, either support Corbyn or face a de facto hard Brexit.
Would agree with Wings’ position and I’ve been waiting to see someone point this out all day. Whether this was a deliberate tactic on the part of the conservatives is another story as it involves a level of organisation I’m not familiar with from our politicians. More likely an unforeseen own goal on the part of remainer MP’s I think?
@Mist001 – You’re balancing an awful lot on the “25 working days”. That requirement is only six years old. It was introduced in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (s14) which amended the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (s3(1)), which had stipulated 17 working days. It could be removed in a flash, within a day or two, shortened to whatever it has to be shortened to to get an election before 31 October, and the election date could be put in the bill too. It’s not an issue. There’s a path that goes through an SO24 debate.
In addition, Corbyn should call a vote of no confidence. Screw any “opposition” or “whipless Tory rebel” MPs who won’t vote in favour of it. He should say to Johnson, while referring to Cummings, that if Tories want a general election they don’t even have to express no confidence in themselves – all they have to do is abstain. To pass a VONC there only has to be majority among MPs who vote. It’s not like a motion for a general election that doesn’t refer to confidence, when the requirement is two thirds of all MPs regardless of whether they vote or not.
N_ (16.57): yes, but then there’s Brexit, with time to the 31 Oct deadline running out. For both sides, pro- and anti-Brexit, that date has to be a priority. The remainers need either a postponement or a revocation, while the priority for the Brexiteers is to prevent either of those things happening. Before calling a vote of no confidence the opposition need to know (a) that parliament will support the vote, which as you point out may be probable but is not yet certain. They also need to know (b) that a majority in parliament can be quickly found to form a new temporary government without requiring a general election – but under whose leadership? And, if immediate revocation is not acceptable to a majority in parliament, the opposition also need to know (c) that the agreement of all 27 other EU governments to a postponement will be forthcoming.
Johnson may be a lying and deceitful self-centred braggart, but that won’t stop him getting enough votes in a general election if he has a Brexit under his belt to boast about, while if he has failed to get a Brexit by 1 November he’s toast.
The kick in the teeth delivered by the Supreme Court to the Johnson-Cummings-Rees-Mogg gang of would-be mafiosi may be well-deserved, but on its own it won’t stop Brexit.
Regarding c), perhaps further down the road in the Brexit saga Johnson will get caught trying to influence one of the EU27 governments (Hungary? Italy? Poland? or if I were writing this into a novel, Malta! [1]) to veto an extension – and he will find himself not only in contempt of court and Parliament but on trial for treason. Secretly trying to persuade a foreign power to oppose an outcome that the British government is legally obliged to seek surely counts as such.
If there’s an Act requiring a GE on 15 October then what could Johnson as lame duck PM do before then to stop his successor complying with the Benn Act? [2]
Notes
1) I would also write some great drama for the evening of 31 October, as the Halloween witching hour approaches, the Commons is sitting, and it remains unclear at what exact time John Bercow will step down as he has promised.
2) Famous last words? From a fascist point of view, it would be beautiful if a Corbyn government had had its request for an extension turned down (with no fudge allowed, and the Maltese PM besieged by journalists and not answering his door) and it was forced to choose between a crashout and Revoke.
Wings is wrong here, about a few things.
The 31st deadline has implications for everybody. It could be the day we crash out but with no majority in Parliament, Boris isn’t a lame duck, he’s s sitting duck.
Wings is good at analysis but not politics.
The Supreme Court had already decided it’s judgement last week. How else could they have said with such certainty that they would announce their verdict at 10.30am on Tuesday morning?
Who ever heard of such a thing? A court announcing that judgement/sentence will be passed on a particular date? How odd that the Supreme Court would deviate from standard legal practice. They must be in cahoots with someone!
Political-class civil war will now break out into the open with the Royals as active participants.
The Security Services may have to break cover and openly come out to run the country. Their loyalty will be to themselves.
Interesting times!
James, what do you mean by the security forces: HM Army Navy and Airforce? Will this putsch be carried out on orders of the Queen or against the orders of the Queen?
I heard mention on the radio of the army being put on standby in the event of a No Deal Brexit. Also that body bags were being ordered.
Just saying.
On standby for what?
The Security Services that are/will be control don’t wear insignia or uniforms.
When there is no clear politically valid government and there is potential for complete chaos, this will be the perfect opportunity to put into place the plans that have been put into place.
The question is; who will they be or perhaps more importantly, need to be loyal to?
“The Security Services that are/will be control don’t wear insignia or uniforms.”
Are you telling us they will be the Russian Army?
Lol @ Russian army
Globalists are coming…
It’s worse than that. According to Operation Yellowhammer plans have been drawn up for the troops to move into town halls and ‘run local councils and calculate taxes’ in the event of a no deal Brexit.
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/british-army-could-help-run-3292206
The bodybags are for people who die laughing.
The bodybags are for people who die laughing.
Oh don’t my ribs are already hurting. ;O) ;O);O)
In the mid-1970s in much of the British ruling class the idea that a Labour government might abolish the private schools and whack up inheritance tax and top-rate income tax got closely wed to the idea of the need for a military dictatorship as in Chile. This time I dunno, but I reckon mobilising the pitchforkers comes into it.
In your previous post on the subject, you said:
“My strong expectation therefore is that the Court will avoid this dilemma by a judgement that either the English judges or the Scottish judges were wrong under the terms their own law. That is to day they will find the English judges incorrectly interpreted English law or the Scottish judges incorrectly interpreted Scots law. They will thus avoid the dilemma of preferring one over the other.”
So, does the Supreme Court’s ruling implicate that they consider that the English judges interpreted English law incorrectly?
“So, does the Supreme Court’s ruling implicate that they consider that the English judges interpreted English law incorrectly?.” Yes, it certainly does. Quite aside from anything else, Gina Miller argued in her appeal that the English judges were wrong to consider that the question of the lawfulness of the prorogation was non-justiciable, and the Supreme Court judges agreed with her.
Went even further – not only were the English judges wrong on English law, there’s no difference in the Scottish and English law here (nor should there be in my opinion).
Actually, in Scots law the people are sovereign, although that sovereignty was novated to the British Parliament as per 1707.
The glaring fact that no one dares to point to; has the Golden Piano Lizbeth passed her use by date?
The fact that none of the other elderly monarchs around Europe are kinging/queening around, in contrast to UK that has been subject to a massive austerity regime, and the depletion of her manufacturing base all in the hope of the City being left alone in the European m markets. This has brought about a miserable country that quarter of it’s citizens no longer can afford to live in a house/flat and have fallen in arrears with their rents/mortgages, and the fact that social services agencies have become poor inspectors to check and verify the poor before pointing them to a food banks.
This has all happened under the watch of Golden Piano Lizbeth! Whom as we all know rules only by “raising an eyebrow”. The facade of parliamentary sovereignty totally upended by the prorogation of the parliament by the bell boy Johnson, that has now been deemed void and unlawful only adding to the theatre of absurd of the none involvement of the the Golden Piano Lizbeth.
It does go beyond belief anyone might consider that the Queen could have been misled. Is she not an intelligent responsible human who would have had an informed opinion of her own about whether or not the right thing to do was to prorogue this parliament. A parliament containing the worst bunch of self seekers and gravy train riders desperately trying to prevent by any means, the expressed through referendum demand of the majority of voters in this country to leave the United States of Europe. Immediately the result of the referendum was known these parliamentarians refused to accept it and vowed to fight against anything that would progress the article 50 which they had previously signed up to. The case has been brought on their behalf by an anti Brexit activist after a legal opinion which again defied their own selfish wishes. This Supreme Court ruling was never going to take the side of the government and seemed to me to contain a preponderance of ex Strasbourg based and/or supporters of the disgraced ex labour PM and equally self seeking Politician who was accused of taking the country into an illegal war, a certain mr tony Blair. They really would have an understanding of misleading activities wouldn’t they. Any written constitution would only play into the hands of the judiciary, what is needed is for parliament to be forced to uphold in fact and in principle the will of the majority and be prevented from hiding behind esoteric democratic ideology whilst acting against the simple solid democratic principle that the will of the majority must hold sway. Why should this hold true for parliament but not for the voters
Really Johnson should fly back tomorrow morning from New York and prostrate himself before John Bercow, begging for forgiveness.
But in reality he will carry on chatting with Donald Trump in America, does Boris play golf?
If the gravy train merchants, the defenders of democracy our M.P.’s have any remorse for their part in this fiasco, they will call for a General Election.
The people have “almost” had enough of these self serving traitors.
They have certainly had enough of Boris Johnson.
“Do you think Boris Johnson should resign?”
He should: 43%
He should not: 39%
via @YouGov, 24 Sep
https://mobile.twitter.com/YouGov/status/1176503721519456256
And 18% aren’t bothered one way or the other.
Democracy has been well and truly thwarted in the U.K.
fourteen and a half million people voted for Brexit, yet the university types will not let it happen.
The elite are mostly Liberal Democrat stooges.
They probably want Article 50 rescinded, bother democracy that’s too good for the proles.
@michael norton
17.4 million people voted for Brexit. 0 people voted for Gina Miller.
I’d imagine that a series of courses in Golf are required at Eton and Oxford. Any member of that class is required to be familiar with the game.
There will be a General Election. But since nobody trusts Boris, it will only be agreed to after the possibility of a great depression caused by a no-deal Brexit have been averted. Then Boris gets to find out just how exactly unpopular a no-deal Brexit is. Remember, the small Leave majority was founded on unicorn tales about how easy and wonderful it would be to get a great trade deal with the EU.
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson will get a chance to see just exactly how popular his manifesto of Destroying Democracy and Destroying the Economy is with people soon enough.
Imagine away. You are mistaken.
According to one tweet on George Galloway’s twitter page the Supreme Court awarded John Major and Gina Miller legal aid. So they got their case heard in the Supreme Court within just weeks on legal aid? Whatever’s going on here ain’t it democracy. After losing the referendum Remainers insist parliament be reopened, not so they can enforce democracy but so they can piss on it.
“Is she not an intelligent responsible human who would have had an informed opinion of her own about whether or not the right thing to do was to prorogue this parliament”
She is a 93 year old great grandmother, who is an unelected – and therefore powerless – Head of State. The queen is not obliged or permitted to have views of a political nature. She cannot vote. She cannot stand for election. She cannot defy the will of the Prime Minister.
This is a matter on which I disagree with craig. The issue of her personal wealth is an irrelevance anyway, but my main beef with Craig is that he damages his cause by not sticking to reality and the truth on this issue. It’s not that I am any sort of royalist. I really don’t care that much about them.
Craig could not have laid out more clearly how well she would have been briefed on this in his post above. Maybe you should have read it. (And maybe you should settle on whether you’re the rampant unapologetic royalist of the last post of yours I read or whether you are not any sort of royalist.)
Lay off Johnny, guys. As someone commented on another page (me, in fact) even Sinn Féin used to be monarchist.
“It’s not that I am any sort of royalist. I really don’t care that much about them.”
Yeah, it shows.
Why don’t you admit it…you are the biggest royal sycophant that ever graced Craig’s blog. In fact, I bet you are the person, dressed in a union jack suit who hangs around outside the hospital where one of them is about to give birth, replete with a doll representing the royal sprog.
“She is a 93 year old great grandmother, who is an unelected – and therefore powerless – Head of State. The queen is not obliged or permitted to have views of a political nature. She cannot vote. She cannot stand for election. She cannot defy the will of the Prime Minister.”
Exactly. That is why this form of head of state is meaningless and obsolete. So what you say can be translated to “The Prime Minister is the final arbiter of what the Prime Minister can do. And the prime minister is not even elected by the people.
@ John2o2o “The issue of her personal wealth is an irrelevance anyway…”
In the year 2018-19 the Queen was paid £82.2m (that’s ‘million’) of public (our) money tax free, compared with the poor old PM who picks up a paltry £150k.
The £82.2m was an increase on the previous year of over £6m, which was in turn an increase on the previous year to that of over £33m – per year. Nice work if you can get it, despite the sycophants’ protestations that “nobody would do their job”.
You may find this irrelevant John, but I don’t think many other people will, whatever Nicholas Witchell says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
Then what is she for?
Human rights Breaches April 2017
Reading crown court case
The TVP/CPS who illegally conspired to hide vital evidence from Reading crown court case April 2017
The corrupt TVP/CPS allowed a undocumented illegal immigrant to give false testimony to Reading crown
Regarding a false kidnap charge which never happened
The illegal immigrant who entered the UK on false documents in 2013 claimed she had been kidnapped
On 13-12-16 in Berkshire.
However the crown court Jury was shown CCTV footage
Of the illegal immigrant Freeda rodrigues Christmas shopping together with the alleged kidnapper in central London all captured on TFL CCTV cameras 21-12-16
The TVP/CPS Was exposed by TFL CCTV and caught
With their pants down as the inexperienced police officer DC sukhi from Windsor police was truly a cop with no
Serious crime experience 2017.
Matthew knight from Reading CPS who allowed the illegal behaviour of Suppressing Crucial evidence from Reading crown court case was a overworked paper pusher who failed to sense check the inexperienced police officer DC sukhi from the Thames valley police
The Corrupt TVP/CPS illegally and unlawfully Suppressed the John Radcliffe hospital reports diagnosing Freeda rodrigues with severe physiological mental health problems in August 2016(Dr Michael Yusef
The Lying Cops also witheld the Surrey police force arrests sheets of the illegal immigrant Freeda rodrigues who was arrested by Surrey police in July 2016 after assaulting a victim with glass bottles causing severe head injuries All illegally Witheld by TVP/CPS.
Bank statements proving Freeda rodrigues was paying people smugglers in Bombay India All illegally witheld
43SW0010717 Reading crown court
Miscarriage of justice April 2017
Thames valley police knew about this miscarriage
And still did nothing.
They allowed a Innocent person to go to prison unlawfully because of the illegal behaviour of the TVP/CPS who prosecuted the victim of extreme domestic violence by a illegal immigrant Freeda rodrigues who entered the UK on false documents 2013 who paid people smugglers in Bombay $6000 to enter the UK illegally and manipulate our justice system
The illegal immigrant Freeda rodrigues who was mentally unstable person who was arrested by Surrey police force after passengers reported Freeda rodrigues assaulting a person with glass bottles causing severe head injuries
At Egham train station Surrey July 2016
Diagnosed at the John Radcliffe hospital August 2016
By Dr Michael Yusef with severe mental health problems
However the Crooked CPS illegally witheld this Crucial evidence from Reading criminal courts April 2017
[email protected]
The judgement by the Supreme Court lays before us the mechanism of tyranny: the judges are supreme. and therefore sovereign. And there’s stupid us thinking it was the people, or the democratically elected government, or even maybe Parliament as a whole that was sovereign. It could have even been the Queen herself. But no, it is 11 unelected judges that have sat in judgement on a democratically elected government. Judges sitting at the behest of millionaires and billionaires that have decided what government is and isn’t able to do on our behalf. Above Government, above Parliament, above even the Queen, the Supreme Court has established itself. It has established itself as the arbiter of government policy. It can second guess what any particular government was thinking when it made a judgement and enacted policy and if necessary quash that policy. It can now cancel any government policy the rich requires cancelling….& this is a cause for celebration ?
Boris Johnson’s government made an “absolutely catastrophic political judgement” when it prorogued Parliament,
Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage says.
“I think he’s in trouble, I think he’s in real trouble,” he says.
“The prospects of leaving on 31 October have completely evaporated.”
He adds that the most likely outcome is an extension to Brexit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-49807552
It seems the whole Establishment is against the people, they will not let us go.
Brexit people. Meet Scottish independence supporters.
It seems the whole Establishment is against the people, they will not let us go.
_________________________________________
As a mere observer and geopolitical dilettante in the US, I know better than to rush in where angels fear to tread.
But to me, this is the obvious nub of it. I am no fan of the über-bumptious Boorish Johnson, and have referred to him as England’s “Village Idiot Laureate”.
Be that as it may, I find it fatuous to equate thwarting Johnson’s executive overreach with “restoring democracy” in the UK. Brexit has become a Gordian Knot, and Parliament has done nothing but enthusiastically feed the Knot more string (or rope), and pull loose threads tight. This is patently not “democracy in action”.
Indeed, it appears that further indefinite delay and dilation is in the offing now that the PM has been properly put in his place. I can’t resist making the cynical observation that in supposedly enlightened Western countries, where government officials rhetorically champion the “rule of law”, that courts only occasionally dispense justice or right political wrongs; rather, they are mostly concerned with Keeping Up Appearances and assuring the persistence of Business as Usual.
Good luck!
Was it ever a democracy to be proud of? If so, when?
The illusion of the Gordian Knot is only that in Britain it is very difficult to push back against a policy which the government has decided upon, even though it has (had at one time is better) not more than a very bare majority for a revolutionary change which is going to upend large parts of British life. Even someone as mainstream establishment as Ivan Rogers calls it a revolution (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PxpHNXIKnY). A lot of people don’t agree with having their lives upended (though a lot of the retirees in favour are to be found on this blog). Stopping this revolution was always going to be a long job, made even longer by certain politicians putting their own private political interests first. But it’s evident that there isn’t the majority to push through a revolution. There never has been. And so the Brexiters are failing (though not have failed).
No it’s the case for a written Constitution to bind the court,the parliament…. And a thick grandmother!!!
It seems that some people have an insatiable appetite to destroy the rule of law. Take a look at the new found cult of stabbing people in London for a taste of what happens when the law is destroyed.
First we learn that the decision to prorogue Parliament was exactly akin to rule by Executive Fiat. For this argument to hold water it is necessary to pretend that the Judiciary does not exist. Oddly that argument has been quietly dropped.
Next we learn that there is a fundamental difference between Scottish Law and English Law such that the prorogation of Parliament is likely legal under English Law, but illegal under Scottish Law. Naturally this makes it impossible to effectively maintain the Union. Equally naturally there was and is no mention of any conflict between either English or Scottish Law with the Napoleonic Code type law favored by the EU.
Given that the Judgement of the Supreme Court was unanimous there is no longer any mention of conflicts between English Law and Scottish Law. Amazingly the stakes continue to be raised with an entirely evidence free assertion that the Judiciary are far less interested in the Law than they are in making petty political points.
Naturally should anyone come to believe this then all Court rulings can be interpreted in a political light and soon enough everyone will come to detest the Judiciary and they can look forward to the day that they are literally taken outside and shot. Once this happens the UK can look forward to not only importing Afghan and Somalian food but also the same rule of law practiced in these, and many other states.
Yippee and then the killing fest can get underway all without the interference of old, out of touch and terminally corrupt judges.
Your complete lack of any knowledge or familiarity with the UK is almost funny, if it weren’t for the alt-right claptrap you faithfully wedge in to every glaring gap in your ‘argument’.
How shocked I am that you provide no evidence of any glaring gaps in my argument.
It is a racing certainty that you have no first hand knowledge of living in a society that does not benefit from the protection afforded by the rule of law. It is because of the unearned privilege of your place of birth that you are able to consistently spout inanity without fear of consequence.
Well done you, but not everyone has benefitted from your privilege and not everyone is prepared to bend the knee before the alter of those who deem themselves enlightened by virtue of their own ignorance.
Loony tells us “Next we learn that there is a fundamental difference between Scottish Law and English Law …”
Was this news to you? Really?
Hey Jake is there some reason other than mendaciousness that you chose to omit the rest of the sentence?
The word you were groping for is ‘mendacity’.
I think ‘Boris, meet Nemesis’ is more appropriate.
NEMESIS is what comes after HUBRIS.
Exactly. So hubris would be the Tory government, under both May and Johnson, making plain its contempt for the rule of law, including prorogation, as outlined in Craig’s opening two paragraphs, and nemesis would be the final, unanimous judgement of the Supreme Court. I think Dermot’s right, and thought so when I read the article.
Whilst today’s Supreme Court upholds the earlier decision in the Scottish Court of Session one does have to grimace at the bullshit that the Queen was misled.
To do so suggests that the Queen is little else than a stooge, a gormless glove puppet, with not a bit of wit about her. As a reigning monarch of over sixty years with an extensive staff of advisors I don’t think so. This wee woman and her super rich dynasty knew, or more than ought to have known exactly what she was doing.
She certainly knew what she was doing when Cameron asked her to raise an eyebrow at during the Scottish Independence referendum and then made the statement that folks needed to consider carefully.
So yes, Queenie, is on exactly on the same side as the fascist Boris Johnson and his elite chums.No wonder Queenie is now hiding in Balmoral with Johnson hiding in New York till the heat dies down.
And tomorrow, will Trump’s chump chum return for a HoC’s Prime Minister’s question time.
We shall see – but isn’t it time that Scotland extracted itself from this crock of excrement that is the Great British constitution and let England, its unelected monarch, her elitist prime minster and xenophobic Brexiteer band get on with it.
If only Scotch nationalists had the courage of their convictions and campaigned for a vote by everyone in the UK on a proposal to alter its structure, since it affects everyone. Scotland would have be ejected like someone being kicked by a horse.
“Scotland would have be ejected like someone being kicked by a horse.”
I’ll remind you that countless Westminster governments have desperately held on to Scotland draining it of its resources whilst using it to house its nuclear weapons.
However recent polls by Wings Over Scotland, in England have shown that if push came to shove people South of the border would rather say goodbye to Scotland and NI for that matter, and keep Gibraltar if they had to choose.
You see we’re trying to leave but your country’s government and most of the Westminster politicians won’t let us.
Do have a word with them old boy.
Squeeth, it’s not the responsibility of the Scottish electorate to resolve your issues. If only you had the courage of your convictions and campaigned for your country to leave the UK, rather than sit on the sidelines and criticise?
1. Do we know whether Boris even spoke to HER? Wouldn’t JRM doing it provide plausible deniability?
2. Why are we so sure she didn’t want to be lied to? She knows the score after 90 years in the business.
I must admit that I thought that the Surpemes would do as they were told; the ruling was something of a surprise. Either way, I’m still getting more entertainment from my referendum vote than I ever dreamed of.
Jeremy Corbyn the Supreme Ruler of the Labourites wants Boris to tender his resignation.
J.C. wants a General Election
so we can have a Democratically elected government.
Yes Please, let’s have a General Election and cull the turncoats/LibDems.
How do you know they weren’t doing what they’re told? Why did the prorogation remove only a few more sitting days than would have been removed anyway by the usual recess?
A big question is whether Dominic Cummings and others will be forced to hand over copies of their communications regarding the prorogation. That motion was passed in the Commons by 311 votes to 302 a matter of hours before the prorogation took place on 9 September. Are any journalists reading this? If so, how’s your memory? Here is a link if you want to read about it in Hansard rather than wondering what’s on your Twitter feed about it.
Nobody believes Johnson. It must be quite annoying, except for the Tory Hedge Fund predators like Rees Morgue, that a long established business like Thomas Cook crashed because of the falling pound.
It was the Tories who wanted a liar as leader who created this uncertainty and it was the Queen trusting him against the advice of her advisors that caused Thomas Cook to go bust. So it’s not just Judicial blowback, but also business blowback, EU blowback, DUP blowback, Royal blowback, and the blowback from Jeremy Corbyn’s wisdom this week in refusing to do what Tom Watson advised.
There’s no point in prolonging the agony. Johnson should immediately resign before his own party Dis-May him. Some rulers get murdered in Malmesbury wine. His political career has been longer than that. Some leaders are forced out of office by their own party. Johnson’s party chose him for some reason best known to themselves. He will not be attending a Conservative party Conference this year and he will probably cancel it to avoid facing the music for his choice of his maverick advisor Cummings,
Fortunately however he will also avoid having to bomb Iran, and he will probably take Cameron with him when he goes, for daring to criticise him when Cameron is a perverted war criminal that buggered Gadaffi by proxy along with many other crimes.
“It was the Tories who wanted a liar as leader who created this uncertainty and it was the Queen trusting him against the advice of her advisors that caused Thomas Cook to go bust.”
Hang on a moment: are you seriously saying that the Queen overruled her own advisors? That seems astronomically unlikely! Where, if anywhere, was this momentous event reported?
(I know, even if such a wildly unlikely thing could happen, it would be in the strictest privacy, but where [else] has anyone even speculated on such an occurrence?)
Twillip
Just concentrate on the road , Sir, if you don’t mind.
What on Earth is that supposed to mean? And why haven’t you answered my question? It was simple enough.
Twirlip
Nobody elected Johnson.
Nobody trusts him.
He concocted outrageous lies against Russia as Foreign Secretary.
He stood up in the HoC and defended the terrorists of Al Qaida in Syria and Libya.
The Queen on the other hand has offended nobody, complained to nobody and invented no lies.. she is the epitome of manners and integrity while he is spoilt, ignorant and deceitful.
There are people in public life who incredibly believe most of what they are told.
Jo Cox believed the White Helmets. John Mscdonnell believed the Skripal lies.
One has to assume that the Queen’s advisors are selected from people who might be a little bit more worldly wise.
Therefore I have to conclude that the Queen chose to ignore Johnson’s lack of majority in the HoC and Johnson’s appalling reputation because she chose to ignore these things.
If I understand you correctly (I’m not at all sure that I do – perhaps partly because it’s late, and I’m tired now), you are saying (among other things) that Johnson is a liar, and pretty much everyone knows this, presumably including the Queen’s advisors, but the Queen trusted him, therefore she did overrule her advisors.
Not only does the conclusion of your argument still strike me as extremely implausible, but the argument incorporates, at its very end, the tautology “the Queen chose to ignore [certain things about Johnson] because she chose to ignore these things”, so the argument as a whole is very unclear to me. I’m sorry! But thank you for answering the question this time.
Twirlip
No tautology intended.
She ignored Johnson’ s unsuitability for the office of PM at this time for her owm personal reasons.
Whether that was because of his awful porsche accent or his gilfriend belonging to MI 6, or his ruval to be PM having a Chinese wife or the prefix if de in the fake family name, I’ve no idea.
During a week in which Labour have been pushing back against privilege in education and the court’s have been pushing back at the arrogance of the privately educated Tories I discovered a new phenomenon.
For over ten years I’ve done electrical installation and testing for an Islamic Girls School which provides an alternative and Islamic atmosphere for local students.
Ofsted removed the head master and so the school was taken over by somebody else.
The new man in charge sees a market not in screening the girls from un-Islamic influences but screening them from the working class.
The new Asian middle class want orivellege and exclusivity. That’s not a charitable cause that I’m prepared to condone or support.
The new management tried to persuade me to donate my time to their fake charity for seven quid an hour. We are Islamic Tories. That’s a contradiction in terms for a start.
Against that it has been brilliant to see the judiciary putting Tory Privelege at the expense of the rest of the country under control.
We owe a huge debt of gratitude to Joanna Cherry for getting this blowback against Tory arrogance. Like scratching a volcanic when it was ready to pop.
And lest we forget one of Blighty’s oldest companies the one hundred and seventy eight year old Thomas Cook has gone down the pan.
With something like 150,000 Brits needing to be repatriated from around the globe, many of who are now without accommodation and or are stranded at airports, the Supreme Court decision has overshadowed the collapse of this huge British company that employed something like 22,000 in the U.K. alone.
Following the gargantuan collapse of Britain’s second biggest engineering construction group Carillion eighteen months ago, this latest British failure shows just what a shambles British industry is. In any other universe 150,000 people stranded oversees with 22,000 folks thrown on the scrap heap would be a big deal.
More rousing renditions of Rule Britannia and Land of Hope and Glory do I hear.
Potential SNP campaign poster
Big Picture of Boris.
Above the picture is his full name
“Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson”
Below the picture is the quote from the Supreme Court
“the effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.”
Minus your comment at the end there is already a very good poster using BJ!!
The English claim of rights is that the English Parliament is sovereign, not the queen. The 11 judges upheld this.
How do we interpret the fact that today, the day that the Supreme Court annulled the prorogation, the National Crime Agency announced that it had found no evidence of any crime committed by Arron Banks and would not be continuing its investigations into either Banks or Leave.EU?
Then again, if one reads the words carefully…
“The NCA has found no evidence that any criminal offences have been committed under PPERA or company law by any of the individuals or organisations referred to it by the Electoral Commission. It will therefore take no further action against Mr Banks, Ms Bilney, Better for the Country Ltd or Leave.EU in respect of this specific matter.” (emphasis added)
Have you noticed the ariel shot of the supreme court layout on the 6 o’clock news on BBC1, looks very much like an eye, I wonder why ?
A Welcome bit of Good news from all this Chaos.
Well done Joanna Cherry and her Team.
I was wondering if it would be illegal for the UK Gov to refuse to request the OSCE monitors to cover the coming General Election..Or a second Independence Referendum.
A Short Clip of Joanna Speaking after the Court ruling –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QswTFAtWhk
Yes Brian Joanna Cherry appears to be a gutsy ballsy politician, I think she’d make a very formidable First minister for Scotland.
Now, does anyone think that since Joanna Cherry seems to be on a bit of a roll, that she’ll challenge the legality of an article 30 order preventing Scotland from holding an independence referendum?
No, I didn’t think so either.
That’s a very good point, and when next asked and denied, I shall think of Cherry, and watch to see if she moves with such gusto as she has on stopping a no deal Brexit.
RoS
Yes I have heard many people saying Joanna would make a great First Minister.
And as You suggest..It should in interesting if She goes after the S30 order..
I’m watching what will happen to the The Nobile Officium business (still pending) that Joanna Cherry initiated. If granted it means that if Boris refuses to ask the EU for an extension ( as he is required to by law) then the Scottish Court will appoint a law officer to do so in his place.
So what does the Crown do now if the PM advises that it should approve something it is dubious of?
Refuse or seek a declaration from the Court or just sign (or seal?) and let others argue the point.
“AWAY YOU GO !”
If there was any honour in the Conservative party they’d do the decent thing. SO. Don’t hold your breath.
“Away you go” – Bozo, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Dominic Cummings and oh-so-many other ‘morally-challenged’ Tories.
Maybe if enough people organize ‘we’ can ‘help them’ to do the right thing. ; )
– Michael Palin, Pass the Port – ‘Roger of the Raj’ – Ripping Yarns – Youtube –
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xLJlfX-Iis#t=02m00s
THE FORBIN, ER CORBYN, PROJECT
One path to Scottish independence (still) runs through a hard Brexit, says Dundee-born economist, Mark Blyth.
“The Conservatives have strapped a bomb to their chests called Brexit.” Jeremy Corbyn is like ‘Can I help you ‘tick’ that down?'”
Does Jeremy Corbyn want to be prime minister? What does Jeremy Corbyn, a life-long anti-racist, internationalist, socialist and back-bencher, in parliament since Margaret Thatcher, want ??
Jeremy Corbyn’s goal is to destroy the Tory party of Margaret Thatcher, says economist Mark Blyth. Corbyn has denied the Tories the opportunity for a general election; he’s made them ‘own’ their Brexit disaster; and the Tories have already lost 22 MPs, dismissed from their own party.
SO. So far he’s doing a fine job !
Mark Blyth was born and raised in Dundee, the socialist capital of the UK. He was, he says, raised by his grandmother on a state pension and was one of the last in the UK to benefit from a free state education through university, before that was destroyed by the Tories, as they did so much else to destroy the working class and the power of the unions from the 1979 to today.
He has, he says, ‘skin in the game’. That, and a vitriolic sense of humour.
Without honour in the Conservative party, someone’s going to have to ‘help them’ – off a cliff. Step forward Jeremy Corbyn !
– Economist Mark Blyth explains Jeremy Corbyn’s goal, Brexit and Scottish Independence in two minutes. –
– https://twitter.com/TheBirmingham6/status/1155344311061569536
MORE
See comment by ‘Ex Pat’ to “The Solidarity of Backstabbing,” 23rd September 2019 – Weegingerdug blog –
– https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/the-solidarity-of-back-stabbing/#comment-88432
You seem confused and eager to spread your confusion to the general reader.
What could be meant by the phrase “away you go”?
A traditional understanding is that the government should seek to dissolve itself and seek a fresh mandate by way of a General Election. Oddly that is exactly what the government has sought to do. It has however been impeded in this attempt by current law and the refusal of opposition parties to enable it to dissolve itself.
So what do you want the government to do? Commit ritual suicide? Even f they did how would that help?
So Jeremy Corbyn wants to destroy the Conservative Party. Maybe he will. If only he paid more attention to war then he might be acquainted with the phrase “In order to save this village we had to destroy it”
In order to destroy the Conservative Party it is likely that the Labour Party will need to act as political suicide bombers. So great both parties are destroyed – and no idea what will replace them and no idea how this might benefit ordinary people But hey who needs ordinary people – Pol Pot showed you the way there.
Finally if you are really interested in Scottish Independence simply let the English vote. You will be independent within a day.
Thank you Ex Pat, This is an extraordinary struggle and I am pleased to see that Jeremy Corbyn has maintained his integrity honed with political nous. The next few days will be interesting times.
Special thanks for referencing Mark Blyth.
Hi Mark ! ; ) (?)
Thank you for the positive feedback.
Mark Blyth is brilliant !!
He’s pithy, funny and very, very clear and he explains the strange world we find ourselves in. With demagogues – Trump and Bozo Johnson – and most importanty, austerity. He’s completely accessible to the non-economist (me). I look forward to his next book – ‘I am totally in the pay of George Soros (to write it)’ – on ‘R’ – a collective wealth fund for the general public (which make complete sense – it’s what those who inherit money do (/did) for themselves). Trickle-up prosperity ! Tories may not like it. /Go incandescent with rage. No more peasants to abuse!
In a Muppet Stream Media world with entirely controlled media, _and_ (largely) controlled cyber-media, it is extraordinarily hard to find unbiased, unbought opinion (to quote John le Carre).
Opinion such as that of Mark Blyth is not in the MSM, but can be found by word of mouth, and dumb luck (mine!).
Mark Blyth has been vital to explain the situation we are in, with Europe following the US insanity of helicoptering money to banks that are ‘too big to bail’ – quantitative easing. And why we are suffering under austerity, when it doesn’t work, except to keep such banks from collapsing.
After the crash of 2008, many said that a new form of banking was needed, with public savings banks ring-fenced and prohibited from speculating using ‘financial weapons of mass destruction’ – derivatives. Investment banks would be allowed, but not ‘too big to fail’. They would be purely private and _never_ be bailed out with public funds. Which might encourage the same prudence seen in banking from 1945 to 1985, when banking was a quiet backwater.
Instead, the insanity – and the criminal risk-taking – has continued. Which is why Mark Blyth is vital !!
If the PM has acted unlawfully can he not be arrested and charged for it?
No because the daft shire Tories will say the judges are just voyeurs planted by Corbyn to slander the prime minister. Arff Arff.
Ah yes with such a penetrating analysis you must be a lawyer.
Loony
Obviously I am deeply cynical about Thatxherism and the fascist elements of Islamism because these things impinge on my daily life.
But to my astonishment there are Tories who are conspiracy theorists about reds under the bed New Labour.. They would feel disgusted and betrayed if wogs were allowed to marry the Royal Family.
Come to think of it, aren’t you one of them?
If the PM has acted unlawfully can he not be arrested and charged for it?
Therein lies the conundrum now facing the legal system as a consequence of this act of judicial activism- what is the point of making a legal judgment of law breaking if there is no reasonable legal sanction to apply to the law breaker ?
In effect the SC has turned this matter over to Speaker Bercow- he has called for parliament to be reconvened tomorrow at 11.30 to continue deliberating- but he is silent on what punishment he wishes to mete out to the putative lawbreakers. I suppose he could instruct Black Rod to apprehend Bojo and Rees Mogg when they enter the Chamber, and then send them hence to the Tower- but that would turn what is already a pantomime into a pathetic farce.
In truth, the only real sanction Parliament has is to evict the government and try to form a new one from different constituent parts of the present House – a task which is almost certainly beyond it.
Doesn’t happen with Judicial Reviews, does it.
Same thing here.
They’re simply reviewing executive decisions as to their lawfulness.
You don’t get arrested for having a different legal view.
But on a biggie mistake such as this you should probably resign.
Iam with you, some respect for the law would do the snollygoster good. A house arrest should for now be enough to guarantee his “safety’ from cliff edges and windows.
“Unlawful” means you can be sued for damages.
“Illegal” means you can be prosecuted and punished.
I think The Supremes at one point used the word “illegal” to describe the prorogation. It’s The Queen that prorogues parliament, on the advice of the PM.
So can we look forward to Rex v. Rex, with The Queen in the dock? Will the judge say “Take her down!”? Will she serve time, or will she just get one of those electronic tags?
Maybe tomorrow, with or without Snolly G. Johnson, Parliament could declare JAssange free to organisr his defence in an open prison or with a private person.
Its time to champion free speech when scoundtels can ignore the rule of law.
arrest him! For his own safety? afaic, he has acted unlawful and is studiously discrediting the law by not agreeing with the lawcourts judgement.
The Queen should now ask the leader of the opposition to form a new Government.
But apparently she had words with Boris after the judgent, according to the brown bulls
Corporation, getting their stories right before gets drawn and quartered.
At risk of injecting a whiff of optimism, the supreme court judgement today is a step toward better government and a chance for this country to become a decent place to live in.
By my count we have been misgoverned for at least 4 decades. By and large, we have come to accept that a few ministers, their unelected advisers and weak civil servants do what governments do – that is, push through measures that benefit few and harm many, sometimes against the will of Parliament.
I believe we have to thank Blair for the current presidential ‘kitchen cabinet’ US style of government. Don’t these people know that the inherent ‘group think’ of such small government was always likely to lead to mistakes – like wars, council tax, May’s deal?
But enough of that. Thanks to the judgement today, it may be that the Commons can re-assert its pre-eminence. Thanks this time to Gina Miller.
But do enough MP’s have the selflessness to grasp the opportunities of the resumption of Parliament?
By accident, design or principle, the Labour Party is in a position to offer the country the chance of a fair solution to the problem of UK and EU. By honouring the 2016 referendum, at least to the extent of a more informed electorate having a second chance at clearer alternatives, the Labour Party is offering a chance of re-unifying this happy breed.
I read most of that twice and didn’t see any of the promised optimism. Granted, there’s often a fine line between delusion and optimism.
I see you give credit to Gina Miller alone. That’s not delusion, it’s just wrong.
Joanna Cherry and the Scottish Courts played the biggest parts in today’s judgement. Miller actually lost her case in the English divisional court where Cherry succeeded and brought momentum and weight to the argument.
Interesting to see you talk about the last 4 decades and the malign influence of advisers who pushed through policies that were harmful to so many. Then you blame Blair for this new style of government we have. All upside down and wrong.
The horrors of the last 4 decades can be attributed in the main to England’s middle classes. It’s tempting to blame the tabloids and politicians too but 99% of journalists and editors are middle class anyway. Of course, I’m generalising here — they aren’t all rotten — but most are only interested in cutting tax and adding more money to their piles, regardless of the impact on society.
The middle classes hate the traditional left, that’s why they demanded a New Labour Party, they don’t give a damn about the poor (here or abroad), they voted in their droves for Thatcher, Major, Blair and the rest — all Tories.
They continued to vote along those same lines when Iraqis were dying in their millions, when tens of thousands of British people were dying as a result of austerity, and even now, when they face the consequences of their selfish behaviour in the form of Brexit, they refuse to face to acknowledge any responsibility.
Today’s decision doesn’t change a thing. The Brexit tsunami is coming and it won’t be as discerning as austerity or those so called smart bombs we dropped on innocent Iraqis. For the first time in 40 years, the English middle classes are staring down both barrels of a political decision that will actually hurt them too.
Brexit is pure karma.
WoW!
It’s the middle classes to blame for all.
Nonsense.
The middle classes are the only hope in tempering elites.
Look at a country without much of a middle class.
Then you’ll see how bad it can get.
Who are “elites”?
They’re the most obnoxious spoilt Trust Fund kids you’ve ever come across in all your life.
Every middle class person who has ever managed them throughout history, has reported the same.
Going way back to whenever and up to the present day.
But still. The power is the power.
I mean, these elites would just be continually warring with each other were they not tempered by the middle class.
That’s the whole point.
A strong middle class is a sign of a healthy society.
And the weakening of the middle class is a sign where the UK is going.
Name some of these elites.
Oh, aristocrats and the like. The great families of business and so on. Massive inherited wealth.
But anyway, they ain’t the middle class.
“One cheerful thing about today’s ruling is that it states unequivocally that an Order in Council, issued with the authority of the Queen, is void if unlawful.”
Agreed, this is very important.
I’m ashamed to say that i don’t really understand what the legal position in the UK is, regarding whether or not the queen is subject to the laws of the land. I had to look up “ask a grown-up” on The Guardian (oh how The Guardian would love to be the grown-ups we turn to for answers, but anyway…). I found the following explanation from a high heidyin in the London polis in answer to a seven year olds’ question about whether or not the queen can be arrested.
“when you join the service you make an oath ‘that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable’. The commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Met police are both royal appointments. All cases that are heard in a crown court are ‘the Queen versus’, because the Queen is also head of the criminal justice system. The monarch could not prosecute herself. Prisons are also Her Majesty’s prison service; some people say prisoners are serving time ‘at Her Majesty’s pleasure’. Considering that the police service, courts and prisons are all under the direction of the monarch, the Queen cannot be arrested, prosecuted or imprisoned unless under exceptional circumstances.”
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/20/ask-grown-up-can-police-arrest-queen
The current situation isn’t of that type, of course. The queen hasn’t been accused of a crime. However, the Supreme Court has found that a decision she backed was unlawful, and that any order issued in respect of that decision is therefore void, in spite of being issued with her authority. It would be pretty outrageous in the 21st century if the queen’s authority could be allowed to override the decisions of the highest court in the land. That aside, everything in the quote by the polisman above is fairly outrageous when you think about the implications and potential consequences. There does seem to be a strong suggestion that the law serves the monarch, rather than vice versa.
I’m embarrassed that I’m so ignorant on this topic but it’s not like we’re encouraged to think about it too hard as UK citizens, correction, “subjects”.
As always well written thanks Craig regards from peter from bangkok
Why you in Bangkok?
I have an amazingly simple solution to it all build a border around london and move the new government to manchester , let’s make the new eu nation london that’s beautifully democratic, small comment on the side I will never go their , edinbrough is a thousand London’s in value . Remember the question to soviet times , did they try out communism on rats first before they tried it out on people ? Well guess what london makes a great cage doesent it
Important: given that the legal position is that Parliament was not prorogued, prorogation cannot have prevented the monarch from complying with this “Humble Address” that was passed by the Commons on 9 September (hours before what we now know was not a prorogation):
“That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct Ministers to lay before this House, not later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September, all correspondence and other communications (whether formal or informal, in both written and electronic form, including but not limited to messaging services including WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Facebook messenger, private email accounts both encrypted and unencrypted, text messaging and iMessage and the use of both official and personal mobile phones) to, from or within the present administration, since 23 July 2019 relating to the prorogation of Parliament sent or received by one or more of the following individuals: Hugh Bennett, Simon Burton, Dominic Cummings, Nikki da Costa, Tom Irven, Sir Roy Stone, Christopher James, Lee Cain or Beatrice Timpson; and that Ministers be further directed to lay before this House no later than 11.00pm Wednesday 11 September all the documents prepared within Her Majesty’s Government since 23 July 2019 relating to operation Yellowhammer and submitted to the Cabinet or a Cabinet Committee.”
The monarch had better get off her a*se and instruct her ministers to bring those documents to the House!
How about Johnson brings them with him in good time for 11.30am this morning when the House of Commons show resumes? That the Supreme Court has ruled that the so-called prorogation was unlawful does NOT mean that the Commons should not want to investigate the circumstances of the prorogation. If Johnson is found to have lied to the House he will be out right there and then.
Isn’t the current situation akin to a CEO (PM) who with his other executive directors (Cabinet) have gone off on an ultra vires frolic. They have been caught out and are called to account by a Board of non-executive directors (MPs) who are now closely monitoring and directing the executive actions pending the AGM or an EGM (general election).
Some of the non-executives are thinking of replacing the CEO but they can’t agree who and pending the AGM they are going to get the CEO before the board each day to give account of himself and to take the orders of the board.
Before the C20 the US President was also more of a civil servant with lower status and less executive powers.
The Supreme Court can hold an exercise of power to be unlawful and so I hopefully assume that it would strike down anything like a UK version of the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, but if there were a majority Government in Parliament, which passed a sort of Reichstag Fire Act, or in other words an act which fundamentally upends the role of the Courts and Parliament and which gave all power to the Executive could the Court strike it down? In other words are there certain constitutional principles which are essentially fixed and which Parliament can’t overrule?