48 ms·

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule

323 points by hanoz 7y ago

guidedlight 7y ago
We are living in interesting times
- makomk 7y ago
  This is indeed astounding and unprecidented - the court ruling, that is, not proroging Parliament to avoid its scrutiny. (There was a much more clear-cut example of that at the end of the Major administration where he suddenly prorogued Parliament for the entire three-week period between his announcement and the general election, most likely to avoid scrutiny of a corruption scandal involving his party. He was one of the folks who submitted briefs in support of the claim that this prorogration was unprecidented and unlawful.)
  - rutthenut 7y ago
    Major certainly took the pee with his parliament shutdown, making him a hyopcrite when complaining about Boris (stupidly) taking the same approach
    - tim333 7y ago
      It takes a thief to catch a thief
  - SEMW 7y ago
    > This is indeed astounding and unprecidented - the court ruling, that is Not sure I'm convinced of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Civil_Service_Unions_v_Minister_for_the_Civil_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Civil_Service_Union... , the first case to hold that prerogative powers were subject to normal principles of judicial review, may have been that -- but that was 35 years ago, the principle's been accepted for a long time
lol768 7y ago
Perhaps the strongest judgement against the government that could have been delivered - and unanimous too. Great to see.
- growlist 7y ago
  If you hate democracy, perhaps.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    How can the re-instating of parliament against the desire of the executive be against democracy?
    - growlist 7y ago
      How can the refusal to agree to a general election be pro-democracy?
      - growse 7y ago
        Funny, I don't see anything in the court's ruling about having (or not) a general election.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        The democratically elected representatives, who are the supreme law of the land under parliamentary supremacy, decided that they didn't want one. And the normal five year term has several years left to run. It's very likely that we'll have one before Christmas, but obviously it has to be after cancelling or postponing Brexit.
      - katet 7y ago
        We've had one, and we're not halfway to the next one. I'm amused to some degree that the idea of another referendum is anathema to some, but the idea of a third election in (almost) as many years is somehow a better idea. If there's another GE now or soon, it'll be the same hung parliament.
davidhyde 7y ago
More importantly, does she know that there is a spider on her shoulder?
- lol768 7y ago
  If you're interested in seeing more of these brooches, Lady Hale apparently has quite a collection https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-brooches/ https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-brooches/
JohnGB 7y ago
The fact that it was unanimous really drives home how obviously illegal it was. I would love to see a direct criminal or civil consequence for this, as it negatively affected the rights of all UK citizens.
- tomp 7y ago
  The funny thing is, prorogation was a democratically elected government trying to prevent a democratically elected parliament from democratically (by members of parliament) stopping a democratic (by the populace) decision to exit the EU.
  - pavlov 7y ago
    The Johnson government isn't democratically elected by any usual definition. The government doesn't have a parliamentary majority, and Boris hasn't stood as a PM candidate in a general election.
    - tomp 7y ago
      I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous governments. PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) More importantly, the government isn't non-democratic by any definition.
      - growse 7y ago
        At the last GE, the government wasn't elected with a majority. The people specifically voted to not give the government unfettered power to do whatever they like. Specifically, Boris was elected prime minister by a very small number of people, and no-one voted for the cabinet. > PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) It's kind of irrelevant what the PM wants - general elections are held in accordance to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (which was passed when the tories were in government). If he wants an election, it has to be with the consent of Parliament (ie the people).
Bantros 7y ago
What a fucking joke
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  elaborate plz
  - Bantros 7y ago
    What is there to elaborate on? The whole situation is a massive joke, a complete and utter farce to all involved
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 7y ago
Well this is going to be fun, especially as it's the middle of party conference season as well. At what point do the remaining unsacked Conservatives admit they've lost? They're already a long way short of a majority. Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon, or are we going to continue with the weird governance by Parliament from the opposition benches?
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon Can't be soon enough.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    .. but not before disarming the Oct 31 timebomb. Which is why it's not happened yet.
    - nicky0 7y ago
      They had a chance of an election on Oct 15 but threw it away.
      - benj111 7y ago
        Who threw it away? BJ wanted an election then for his own political purposes, it isn't the duty of parliament to just go along with that. Once an extension has been requested, then an election can be held, and BJ probably won't have much say in the timing.
- makomk 7y ago
  What's particularly fun is that there seem to be some rumblings that this might be used to disrupt the Conservative annual conference by making the House of Commons sit during the period when it's held next week. Hopefully MPs won't be daft enough to do this; it would do immense damage to both British politics and trust in the judiciary.
rutthenut 7y ago
Was plainly obvious why Boris went for the long shutdown, whatever he chose to say, because of the also-suspect behaviour of the multi-party opposition him wanting to see one law (Brexit Clause 10) implemented without conflicting laws being made up on the fly. Stupid though, as much of that shutdown wouldn't have made any difference during the party conference season, which they strangely don't hold during their summer recess.
forgingahead 7y ago
Ok so this means...that there should be an election? This is exactly what should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Why?
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  > yet there is resistance from Labour. Because Labour may not do well at all. Certainly it is very doubtful that they would get an outright majority. They are split on Brexit (London very pro-Remain, most Northern traditional Labour seats pro-Brexit) and they have been hijacked by effectively communists. This means is has been very hard for them to gather broad support. This is very visible in the polls where they only get lukewarm numbers.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Not automatically, no. There should be an election, but holding one while the Brexit deadline is still ticking is obviously insane, so that needs to be cancelled or extended first.
- nicky0 7y ago
  It just means parliament will be back in session. Only parliament itself can call an early election.
- rvz 7y ago
  > This is exactly what should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Well Labour and other party members abstained from a proposal from the prime minster to hold an election and it required 2/3 of MPs, but that never happened.
  - celticninja 7y ago
    Because they wanted BoJo to get the extension first, an election without the extension has the same effect as prorogation,that is no-one at the helm on the 31st October so default is no deal Brexit.
    - 7y ago
jacquesm 7y ago
Wow, some common sense. Let's hope Boris Johnson gets run out of London tarred and feathered and we can get back to normality (as soon as we know what normality is anyway).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Kaibeezy 7y ago
Why this verdict is so important: It would open the door ... to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it. Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-c...
- pjc50 7y ago
  We already have judicial review applying to governmental actions and ministerial decisions. This is not an application of judicial review to acts of Parliament. The prorogation was an act of the government, not Parliament.
  - Kaibeezy 7y ago
    Good point. WUWT NYT? Investigating... OK, best I can figure is NYT is trying to make the point that if the UK Supreme Court is becoming willing to get involved with such highly political matters, there's no reason they wouldn't seek to extend that to Parliamentary matters. Does that comport with the facts and opinions here?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Oh, they did the usual thing of finding a quote from the other side to put in the article. That quote was of course wrong, but they probably felt the need to put it in for balance.
      - Kaibeezy 7y ago
        Technically, they've upheld the Scottish court's ruling. I'm sort of seeing the Scottish courts focused on it being illegal for Parliament not to be able to do its job. Two sides of a 2-dimensional object.
bonoboTP 7y ago
Is there any punishment, or is the law's spirit that punishment is the potential non-reelection of a PM in such cases?
- nicky0 7y ago
  They didn’t rule that the PM committed a crime. Just that the prorogation was unlawful and effectively never happened.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    So... all of this was just a loud news cycle with no actual effect on anything other than "Parliament can continue doing what it does" ? (I actually can't tell, not trying to be a dick)
    - pmyteh 7y ago
      Well, there's now a hard (rather than implied) constitutional limit to the executive's power to prorogue Parliament. And the political calculus on the Brexit endgame has changed. And the Prime Minister has been publicly slapped down. And the 'what it does' is likely to be more unified and radical than it would have been had the PM let Parliament keep sitting. But otherwise, sure.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Prior to this ruling, Parliament was not able to continue doing anything because it had been prorogued (suspended). The ruling allows it to continue.
    - stordoff 7y ago
      Parliament was suspended and not due to return until October 14. It will now return tomorrow.
- Kaibeezy 7y ago
  It's a civil case, not criminal. Prorogation nullified. Johnson stupefied.
nailer 7y ago
A pity. - The previous parliamentary session was the longest since the civil war (the English one if you're American). - This prorogue was for an extra four days - which seems quite reasonable considering: 1. there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal the EU offers, which is likely to result in a one-sided deal for the UK 2. the last few days of the negotiations are likely to be critical.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > The previous parliamentary session was the longest since the civil war Yes, that in itself was exceptional for no good reason - I think the intent there was to avoid having another Queen's Speech before the deadline, back when the deadline was in May. The negotiations have been carried out on a delusional basis. The EU is not going to cave at the last minute and there's never even been consistency on the UK side about what we want.
- benj111 7y ago
  "there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal the EU offers" Like what? Mays deal that MPs rejected?
  - makomk 7y ago
    Yes, like May's deal that MPs rejected. One of the fundamental things you need to understand in order to make sense of what's going on in Parliament is that none of the Brexit-related options have the support of a majority of MPs and it's unlikely they ever will unless there's another general election. So the only way for anything to get a majority is for a bunch of MPs who disagree on what they want to ally with each other in order to vote against one of the other options. Also, a general election would most likely have given Boris Johnson the majority he needs to push through no-deal Brexit, which a majority of MPs oppose.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Like campaigning to accept any deal.
mschuster91 7y ago
Oh no. Please. Can the UK please already exit the EU? By all means, rejoin us the day after Brexit, but this time with mandatory entering of the Schengen zone and the Euro...
- flurdy 7y ago
  In 10-20 years of negotiation and continuous governmental changes rejoining may be possible in yet another referendum. :|
- tim333 7y ago
  I can see this must be a bit trying for the Europeans.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    Mostly it's because continental Europeans are utterly fed up with the chaos that is Brexit. Right now the uncertainity is extremely expensive for every company involved with UK trade, as precautions like capacity on ferries or in warehouses gobble up money and organization time. For what it's worth the UK can also cancel Brexit, but that would not solve the problem that the "special deal" for the UK is a massive inequality against all other EU states and can be/is abused by EU-sceptics across the EU, and in addition canceling the Brexit would be a signal towards Hungary, Poland and the rest of Visegrad that they can drag the entire EU on the nose ring and then suddenly canceling everything, while all other parties have to pick up the tab.
    - baq 7y ago
      all fair points except that as you said the price has already been paid, cancelling now wouldn't return the time nor money spent, companies that made the move to amsterdam, paris or frankfurt won't just go back, etc.
      - mschuster91 7y ago
        With a canceling of the brexit the time and money spent would be wasted, while with a brexit (no matter if deal or no deal scenario) there would be at least no waste plus the chance that a harsh Brexit will prevent Visegrad, Italy and Greece from further pursuing their dream of "becoming independent from the dictators in Brussels".
pjc50 7y ago
Important technical question: is Bercow still the Speaker? If not, who is? I thought he resigned at the end of the last term, which may or may not be reverted by this result.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Should be, apparently the whole thing was reverted so as long as this parliamentary session lasts he is still speaker.
- OJFord 7y ago
  Yes, and if you're interested in his view he is quoted in his capacity of Commons Speaker in the OP.
- frobozz 7y ago
  He put in his notice that he would finish no later than Oct 31.
- nicwilson 7y ago
  He is due to retire October 31st, or at the calling of a general election and dissolution of parliament, whichever comes sooner.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
tempguy9999 7y ago
I'm reminded of a psychologist's description of sociopaths, that they "leave a trail of destruction in life". BJ seems to have the hallmarks of sociopathy, having known a few myself, and he's made a total mess here. And elsewhere - talk to anyone who's worked in TFL and they all (that I've met) will tell you about stupid plans that have come across their desk, done without any traffic analysis but pushed through nonetheless. This all might force a written constitution, which is long overdue in the UK. Something good may come of this at least.
- nailer 7y ago
  Either that or the Prime Minister could simply be trying to implement the result of the referendum, as voters were told the government would.
  - mseidl 7y ago
    There needs to be another vote.
    - nailer 7y ago
      Until people vote correctly?
  - EliRivers 7y ago
    Seems unlikely. His best chance of doing that - of leaving the EU - is to get a majority of parliament to vote for whatever deal he presents. Proroguing parliament would appear to antagonise parliament and make that less likely.
    - tomp 7y ago
      He needs a new deal first (this parliament has rejected existing deal, like, 3 times already). His main negotiation tactics (and what May failed to do and was repeatedly criticised for) is to present a viable alternative, a credible No-Deal Brexit option. That can serve as a BATNA in any future negotiations with the EU. Proroguing the parliament might have to do with preventing them to stop BATNA, but it's unlikely to make them not vote for a good new deal.
growlist 7y ago
This is so, so wrong.
the_duke 7y ago
> This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. This is a very clear and damning verdict. Suspending parliament for five weeks in a critical time would be heavily criticized by the West as a major anti-democratic and authoritarian move in any other country. It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago, and will probably burden the UKs political system for a long time. Interesting times indeed.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  It won't burden the system. This has happened before in recent memory and is totally fitting with the powers of the Executive (the only difference here is the subject). And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it. The key assumption in that is there is an alternative before the October 31, there isn't...so it doesn't matter if Parliament is sitting or not because there is nothing to scrutinise. To explain: Johnson was not denying Parliament a voice at all because he wasn't suspending past October 31. He was suspending until a few days before the European Council meeting, where the final deal will be negotiated, and then Parliament would vote on it. 95% of articles on this topic do not make this clear. The timetable does not change whether or not Parliament is sitting. It only changes if you are someone deluded enough to believe that there is an alternative...there isn't (the EU has said this multiple times). What is burdening the system is: * UK voted to leave * General election was called which Brexit parties won (somehow given May's ineffectiveness) * MPs voted to leave * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal * MPs refuse to re-negotiate the deal or do anything that makes a deal possible * The "alternative" from Labour is to go to the EU, negotiate exactly the same deal that has been voted down 4 times then they will whip their MPs against that deal too. It is utterly bizarre to take aim at the only person who actually has a definite idea about how to solve this situation (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).
AstralStorm 7y ago
So what's the result, vote of no confidence?
- tim333 7y ago
  Stay tuned...
- pmyteh 7y ago
  Unlikely to happen straight away. Due to a quirk of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, a successful VoNC now would allow the Prime Minister to run out the clock by refusing to resign, waiting the maximum two weeks to attempt a superseding Vote of Confidence, then calling the latest legal election after he inevitably lost. And Parliament would then be dissolved for the election, leaving only Johnson at the controls over the critical period leading up to Brexit day. There are other routes out of the situation after a VoNC, but they involve Parliament being able to agree on a new PM, which is tricky given that the Leader of the Opposition is cordially despised by much of the Commons and there are deep political problems with any of the other potential candidates. It also would require Boris to either resign or be sacked after losing the VoNC, which is by no means a done deal given that he's ignoring all the other conventions and there's no obvious mechanisms for a forcible dismissal (one hasn't been needed since the early 19th Century, as PMs have done the decent thing on losing the confidence of the House).
baq 7y ago
> It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis. ...yeah, is there anything to add here?
- pjc50 7y ago
  <shrug> It's the new normal. The press and the usual suspects will be out there yelling that down is up. They've put a lot of work into creating this crisis and don't want people to do things like resolve it, and certainly not in a sensible, constructive way.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tim333 7y ago
  Brexiters would argue he is fighting the remainer parliament to implement the will of the people as represented by the 2016 referendum result. It's all a bit of a mess. Personally I think Blair's suggestion of another referendum on no deal vs remain would be the way forward as those are the most popular options with the voters. Everyone seems to hate the withdrawal agreement.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    A second referendum would be a terrible idea. It might have been theoretically defendable some years ago, if events had worked out differently. But what we've seen over the past 3.5 years is that there was already a referendum, and it's had no effect whatsoever because the ruling classes keep fighting it all the way. The UK is still a member of the EU, nearly four years after they voted last time! Moreover, all the politicians in the two biggest political parties campaigned last time on respecting and implementing the vote. They're now not doing that. If you voted leave last time, why would you bother doing it again? The head of the Liberal Democrats admitted on camera already that if she lost a second referendum she still wouldn't vote to implement leaving in Parliament, which surprised nobody at all. The idea of a second referendum is proposed for exactly one reason only: so it can be rigged to give Remain a second chance. Simply re-running it would already give Remain a bigger chance than last time because so many of those who voted Leave before would be disillusioned, believe the new vote was just another lie and refuse to turn up at all. But I doubt the establishment would take any chances. The Electoral Commission has been repeatedly found to have maliciously harassed and fined Leave supporters and campaigns, by the courts and police. For sure they'd try and bend the process significantly. Parliament would also likely try to ensure a Remain victory. Probably by changing voting thresholds or by only offering remain/deal (i.e. remain/remain) and then campaigning on the basis that the Withdrawal Agreement is so bad it'd be better to give up entirely. In the event that somehow a genuine no deal/remain referendum did take place, and the powers that be didn't interfere, and Leave won again, it'd be immediately challenged in courts by Gina Miller and her lawyer friends, the same Parliament would still be in power and still be refusing to implement it, and it'd change nothing. In the end the only way out of this mess is unilaterally leaving the EU and then starting to rebuild whatever relationship is possible from scratch, replacing most sitting MPs and formalising a written constitution.
Ensorceled 7y ago
As a member of the commonwealth with a parliamentary democracy, I’m confused by how many people think this was the wrong call. The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. I wish Canada would also remember that Parliament is supposed to hold the ultimate power of government.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President," which I know waxes over tonnes of detail. The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and illegal?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The timing is normal (for the conference season and Queen's speech). The duration was longer than normal, and of course we're in the middle of a crisis with a ticking clock. A two-week prorogation might have worked fine. But the intent > what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? Normally this kind of conflict doesn't arise, because the government has a large majority, and if they cease to have a majority then the PM is replaced by a no-confidence vote. Normally the PM is supposed to Be A Good Chap and Do The Decent Thing, which are ill-defined concepts from British honour culture, but have basically gone out the window with Johnson's behaviour.
    - flother 7y ago
      There's also an important difference between recess and progrogation. Recess is just a quick break for the conference season, and is normal at this time of year. Progrogation brings all parliamentary business to an end, bills are not carried over to the next session (so work on them has to start from scratch), and select committees can't sit. That's a very different state of affairs.
  - 7y ago
basicplus2 7y ago
Read this before forming an opinion.. "Why Hasn't Brexit Happened?" https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe.. https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe....
- ag56 7y ago
  "Please click here to go back to the Claremont Institute home page"
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Where the current headline is "Defend America - Defeat Multiculturalism", if you wanted to know how unbiased the source is likely to be.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- zeveb 7y ago
  https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/ https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe...
  - zeveb 7y ago
    I should probably mention that unlike grandparent, the above URL actually works …
Simulacra 7y ago
I think this is a terrible verdict. The British courts are interfering with the functioning of parliament. This would never happen in America, because it would trample on the very notion of the three separate branches.
- siquick 7y ago
  Based upon recent events the American system is really not one we want to be taking tips from. What Johnson did was unlawful and this is exactly what the high court should be for.
- mcv 7y ago
  Note that it was the prime minister who wanted to suspend the parliament, not parliament itself. So the court protected the functioning of parliament from interference from the prime minister. Also, the US also has the Supreme Court ruling on actions by the other two branches, so there's really no difference there. If Trump tried to suspend the House of Representatives and a court had to rule on that, you can bet Trump would get slapped down. And then there's the recent politicalization of appointments to the Supreme Court; not exactly good for the Court's independence.
- delfinom 7y ago
  What? The queen via the prime minister interfered. The court said the prime minister can fuck off and restored parliament to functioning.
  - Simulacra 7y ago
    Until he dismisses it again. It means next to nothing other than one branch interfering in the operations of another. Brexit will happen whether you want it to our not.
- slim 7y ago
  there is no hierarchy between judges and representatives. the parliament willingly shutdown itself. they could have acted otherwise. everybody is acting respectfully.
Joakal 7y ago
Liberal Party of Australia shortened the parliament sitting days to avoid scrutiny: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutting-sitting-days-in-2019-to-avoid-scrutiny https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutt... That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more anti-democratic changes in Australia.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow linked?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...
    - tomatocracy 7y ago
      Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
    - viraptor 7y ago
      Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
      - 7y ago
joosters 7y ago
Summary of the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar... Full judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgme...
- pmyteh 7y ago
  I strongly recommend people read the judgment, or at least the summary. It's very clearly written, and it would let people argue about what the court found, as opposed to what they think the court might have found.
mellosouls 7y ago
Speaking as somebody who approved of Boris's strategy to leave on Oct 31: In normal times, with a moral leader, this would be an instant resigning matter. Boris's response has been predictably complacent. "I accept the verdict but strongly disagree with it" will become a go-to phrase of every burglar and other criminal caught red handed. Btw, (UK) word of the year: Prorogation
- rtempaccount1 7y ago
  Out of genuine curiosity, why do you approve of the prime minister's strategy?
  - mellosouls 7y ago
    To clarify: I'm a Remainer, and not a Tory supporter. However, I remember discussing the issue at referendum time with my Leave voting neighbours who were very much the supposedly angry working class type that have been ridiculed and condescended to repeatedly by the liberal media. They (my friends and neighbours) were adamant that "it doesn't matter what we vote anyway, they will just stop it happening." At the time, I thought they were being paranoid. Now they look prescient and wise. Parliament has had 3 years to honour the vote of the people. Boris Johnson (who I have little like for and am suspicious of his character) is the first leader who has shown the will to make that decision happen. So, though I regret the referendum decision (and that the moral impetus has been taken on by people I don't feel a natural affinity to), I respect it and support his move to enact it without further delay.
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the win margin was a couple of percent.
      - mellosouls 7y ago
        Whatever the technical niceties of "advisory" there was never any dispute that the referendum would decide the future of Britain within the EU. The whole "advisory", "win margin" etc. phrasing is post-vote weasel words by the losing side (mine). Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Personally, I doubt it.
EnderMB 7y ago
Regardless of whatever side you are on, you have to admit that we're currently living in extraordinary times in UK politics. A decade ago, the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable. If this were all a TV show, people would've called it too far-fetched or too distant from reality. Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes. As for Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy. Now, imagine going through a shattering defeat in court, while STILL being far ahead in the polls.
- metalliqaz 7y ago
  > Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes. That's what we say now, because we're used to the way it was. We need to start preparing ourselves for the possibility that these changes are permanent. The current clown show in the USA will become essentially permanent if 45 is re-elected. Even if he isn't his party has changed forever and the decorum of the presidency has been tarnished beyond the possibility of any quick repair. Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass. If so, it will be because of the hysterical, elitist clinging to the EU, rather than the act of leaving itself. It may come as a surprise to you, but the UK was once a country, rather than a province of Guy's European Empire; and it worked out fine.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      Parliament voted in favour of every EU treaty. As someone from a country which was in fact made a province of another country (by an act of Parliament, no less), I find your conception of the legal relationship between the UK and the EU somewhat concerning.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Overtonwindow 7y ago
The court is usurping the authority of parliament. Quite unfortunate.

323 points by hanoz 7y ago

guidedlight 7y ago

We are living in interesting times

makomk 7y ago
This is indeed astounding and unprecidented - the court ruling, that is, not proroging Parliament to avoid its scrutiny. (There was a much more clear-cut example of that at the end of the Major administration where he suddenly prorogued Parliament for the entire three-week period between his announcement and the general election, most likely to avoid scrutiny of a corruption scandal involving his party. He was one of the folks who submitted briefs in support of the claim that this prorogration was unprecidented and unlawful.)
- rutthenut 7y ago
  Major certainly took the pee with his parliament shutdown, making him a hyopcrite when complaining about Boris (stupidly) taking the same approach
  - tim333 7y ago
    It takes a thief to catch a thief
- SEMW 7y ago
  > This is indeed astounding and unprecidented - the court ruling, that is Not sure I'm convinced of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Civil_Service_Unions_v_Minister_for_the_Civil_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Civil_Service_Union... , the first case to hold that prerogative powers were subject to normal principles of judicial review, may have been that -- but that was 35 years ago, the principle's been accepted for a long time

lol768 7y ago

Perhaps the strongest judgement against the government that could have been delivered - and unanimous too. Great to see.

growlist 7y ago
If you hate democracy, perhaps.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  How can the re-instating of parliament against the desire of the executive be against democracy?
  - growlist 7y ago
    How can the refusal to agree to a general election be pro-democracy?
    - growse 7y ago
      Funny, I don't see anything in the court's ruling about having (or not) a general election.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The democratically elected representatives, who are the supreme law of the land under parliamentary supremacy, decided that they didn't want one. And the normal five year term has several years left to run. It's very likely that we'll have one before Christmas, but obviously it has to be after cancelling or postponing Brexit.
    - katet 7y ago
      We've had one, and we're not halfway to the next one. I'm amused to some degree that the idea of another referendum is anathema to some, but the idea of a third election in (almost) as many years is somehow a better idea. If there's another GE now or soon, it'll be the same hung parliament.

davidhyde 7y ago

More importantly, does she know that there is a spider on her shoulder?

lol768 7y ago
If you're interested in seeing more of these brooches, Lady Hale apparently has quite a collection https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-brooches/ https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-brooches/

JohnGB 7y ago

The fact that it was unanimous really drives home how obviously illegal it was. I would love to see a direct criminal or civil consequence for this, as it negatively affected the rights of all UK citizens.

tomp 7y ago
The funny thing is, prorogation was a democratically elected government trying to prevent a democratically elected parliament from democratically (by members of parliament) stopping a democratic (by the populace) decision to exit the EU.
- pavlov 7y ago
  The Johnson government isn't democratically elected by any usual definition. The government doesn't have a parliamentary majority, and Boris hasn't stood as a PM candidate in a general election.
  - tomp 7y ago
    I'm not exactly sure how UK government / prime minister elections work, but I'd expect that this government was elected on the exact same basis as previous governments. PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) More importantly, the government isn't non-democratic by any definition.
    - growse 7y ago
      At the last GE, the government wasn't elected with a majority. The people specifically voted to not give the government unfettered power to do whatever they like. Specifically, Boris was elected prime minister by a very small number of people, and no-one voted for the cabinet. > PM wants an election as well, which he's likely to win (well, according to polls... which are likely wrong!) It's kind of irrelevant what the PM wants - general elections are held in accordance to the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 (which was passed when the tories were in government). If he wants an election, it has to be with the consent of Parliament (ie the people).

Bantros 7y ago

What a fucking joke

tempguy9999 7y ago
elaborate plz
- Bantros 7y ago
  What is there to elaborate on? The whole situation is a massive joke, a complete and utter farce to all involved

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pjc50 7y ago

Well this is going to be fun, especially as it's the middle of party conference season as well. At what point do the remaining unsacked Conservatives admit they've lost? They're already a long way short of a majority. Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon, or are we going to continue with the weird governance by Parliament from the opposition benches?

jacquesm 7y ago
> Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon Can't be soon enough.
- pjc50 7y ago
  .. but not before disarming the Oct 31 timebomb. Which is why it's not happened yet.
  - nicky0 7y ago
    They had a chance of an election on Oct 15 but threw it away.
    - benj111 7y ago
      Who threw it away? BJ wanted an election then for his own political purposes, it isn't the duty of parliament to just go along with that. Once an extension has been requested, then an election can be held, and BJ probably won't have much say in the timing.
makomk 7y ago
What's particularly fun is that there seem to be some rumblings that this might be used to disrupt the Conservative annual conference by making the House of Commons sit during the period when it's held next week. Hopefully MPs won't be daft enough to do this; it would do immense damage to both British politics and trust in the judiciary.

rutthenut 7y ago

Was plainly obvious why Boris went for the long shutdown, whatever he chose to say, because of the also-suspect behaviour of the multi-party opposition him wanting to see one law (Brexit Clause 10) implemented without conflicting laws being made up on the fly. Stupid though, as much of that shutdown wouldn't have made any difference during the party conference season, which they strangely don't hold during their summer recess.

forgingahead 7y ago

Ok so this means...that there should be an election? This is exactly what should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Why?

mytailorisrich 7y ago
> yet there is resistance from Labour. Because Labour may not do well at all. Certainly it is very doubtful that they would get an outright majority. They are split on Brexit (London very pro-Remain, most Northern traditional Labour seats pro-Brexit) and they have been hijacked by effectively communists. This means is has been very hard for them to gather broad support. This is very visible in the polls where they only get lukewarm numbers.
pjc50 7y ago
Not automatically, no. There should be an election, but holding one while the Brexit deadline is still ticking is obviously insane, so that needs to be cancelled or extended first.
nicky0 7y ago
It just means parliament will be back in session. Only parliament itself can call an early election.
rvz 7y ago
> This is exactly what should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Well Labour and other party members abstained from a proposal from the prime minster to hold an election and it required 2/3 of MPs, but that never happened.
- celticninja 7y ago
  Because they wanted BoJo to get the extension first, an election without the extension has the same effect as prorogation,that is no-one at the helm on the 31st October so default is no deal Brexit.
  - 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

Wow, some common sense. Let's hope Boris Johnson gets run out of London tarred and feathered and we can get back to normality (as soon as we know what normality is anyway).

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Kaibeezy 7y ago

Why this verdict is so important: It would open the door ... to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it. Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-c...

pjc50 7y ago
We already have judicial review applying to governmental actions and ministerial decisions. This is not an application of judicial review to acts of Parliament. The prorogation was an act of the government, not Parliament.
- Kaibeezy 7y ago
  Good point. WUWT NYT? Investigating... OK, best I can figure is NYT is trying to make the point that if the UK Supreme Court is becoming willing to get involved with such highly political matters, there's no reason they wouldn't seek to extend that to Parliamentary matters. Does that comport with the facts and opinions here?
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Oh, they did the usual thing of finding a quote from the other side to put in the article. That quote was of course wrong, but they probably felt the need to put it in for balance.
    - Kaibeezy 7y ago
      Technically, they've upheld the Scottish court's ruling. I'm sort of seeing the Scottish courts focused on it being illegal for Parliament not to be able to do its job. Two sides of a 2-dimensional object.

bonoboTP 7y ago

Is there any punishment, or is the law's spirit that punishment is the potential non-reelection of a PM in such cases?

nicky0 7y ago
They didn’t rule that the PM committed a crime. Just that the prorogation was unlawful and effectively never happened.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  So... all of this was just a loud news cycle with no actual effect on anything other than "Parliament can continue doing what it does" ? (I actually can't tell, not trying to be a dick)
  - pmyteh 7y ago
    Well, there's now a hard (rather than implied) constitutional limit to the executive's power to prorogue Parliament. And the political calculus on the Brexit endgame has changed. And the Prime Minister has been publicly slapped down. And the 'what it does' is likely to be more unified and radical than it would have been had the PM let Parliament keep sitting. But otherwise, sure.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Prior to this ruling, Parliament was not able to continue doing anything because it had been prorogued (suspended). The ruling allows it to continue.
  - stordoff 7y ago
    Parliament was suspended and not due to return until October 14. It will now return tomorrow.
Kaibeezy 7y ago
It's a civil case, not criminal. Prorogation nullified. Johnson stupefied.

nailer 7y ago

A pity. - The previous parliamentary session was the longest since the civil war (the English one if you're American). - This prorogue was for an extra four days - which seems quite reasonable considering: 1. there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal the EU offers, which is likely to result in a one-sided deal for the UK 2. the last few days of the negotiations are likely to be critical.

pjc50 7y ago
> The previous parliamentary session was the longest since the civil war Yes, that in itself was exceptional for no good reason - I think the intent there was to avoid having another Queen's Speech before the deadline, back when the deadline was in May. The negotiations have been carried out on a delusional basis. The EU is not going to cave at the last minute and there's never even been consistency on the UK side about what we want.
benj111 7y ago
"there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal the EU offers" Like what? Mays deal that MPs rejected?
- makomk 7y ago
  Yes, like May's deal that MPs rejected. One of the fundamental things you need to understand in order to make sense of what's going on in Parliament is that none of the Brexit-related options have the support of a majority of MPs and it's unlikely they ever will unless there's another general election. So the only way for anything to get a majority is for a bunch of MPs who disagree on what they want to ally with each other in order to vote against one of the other options. Also, a general election would most likely have given Boris Johnson the majority he needs to push through no-deal Brexit, which a majority of MPs oppose.
- nailer 7y ago
  Like campaigning to accept any deal.

mschuster91 7y ago

Oh no. Please. Can the UK please already exit the EU? By all means, rejoin us the day after Brexit, but this time with mandatory entering of the Schengen zone and the Euro...

flurdy 7y ago
In 10-20 years of negotiation and continuous governmental changes rejoining may be possible in yet another referendum. :|
tim333 7y ago
I can see this must be a bit trying for the Europeans.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  Mostly it's because continental Europeans are utterly fed up with the chaos that is Brexit. Right now the uncertainity is extremely expensive for every company involved with UK trade, as precautions like capacity on ferries or in warehouses gobble up money and organization time. For what it's worth the UK can also cancel Brexit, but that would not solve the problem that the "special deal" for the UK is a massive inequality against all other EU states and can be/is abused by EU-sceptics across the EU, and in addition canceling the Brexit would be a signal towards Hungary, Poland and the rest of Visegrad that they can drag the entire EU on the nose ring and then suddenly canceling everything, while all other parties have to pick up the tab.
  - baq 7y ago
    all fair points except that as you said the price has already been paid, cancelling now wouldn't return the time nor money spent, companies that made the move to amsterdam, paris or frankfurt won't just go back, etc.
    - mschuster91 7y ago
      With a canceling of the brexit the time and money spent would be wasted, while with a brexit (no matter if deal or no deal scenario) there would be at least no waste plus the chance that a harsh Brexit will prevent Visegrad, Italy and Greece from further pursuing their dream of "becoming independent from the dictators in Brussels".

pjc50 7y ago

Important technical question: is Bercow still the Speaker? If not, who is? I thought he resigned at the end of the last term, which may or may not be reverted by this result.

jacquesm 7y ago
Should be, apparently the whole thing was reverted so as long as this parliamentary session lasts he is still speaker.
OJFord 7y ago
Yes, and if you're interested in his view he is quoted in his capacity of Commons Speaker in the OP.
frobozz 7y ago
He put in his notice that he would finish no later than Oct 31.
nicwilson 7y ago
He is due to retire October 31st, or at the calling of a general election and dissolution of parliament, whichever comes sooner.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

tempguy9999 7y ago

I'm reminded of a psychologist's description of sociopaths, that they "leave a trail of destruction in life". BJ seems to have the hallmarks of sociopathy, having known a few myself, and he's made a total mess here. And elsewhere - talk to anyone who's worked in TFL and they all (that I've met) will tell you about stupid plans that have come across their desk, done without any traffic analysis but pushed through nonetheless. This all might force a written constitution, which is long overdue in the UK. Something good may come of this at least.

nailer 7y ago
Either that or the Prime Minister could simply be trying to implement the result of the referendum, as voters were told the government would.
- mseidl 7y ago
  There needs to be another vote.
  - nailer 7y ago
    Until people vote correctly?
- EliRivers 7y ago
  Seems unlikely. His best chance of doing that - of leaving the EU - is to get a majority of parliament to vote for whatever deal he presents. Proroguing parliament would appear to antagonise parliament and make that less likely.
  - tomp 7y ago
    He needs a new deal first (this parliament has rejected existing deal, like, 3 times already). His main negotiation tactics (and what May failed to do and was repeatedly criticised for) is to present a viable alternative, a credible No-Deal Brexit option. That can serve as a BATNA in any future negotiations with the EU. Proroguing the parliament might have to do with preventing them to stop BATNA, but it's unlikely to make them not vote for a good new deal.

growlist 7y ago

This is so, so wrong.

the_duke 7y ago

> This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. This is a very clear and damning verdict. Suspending parliament for five weeks in a critical time would be heavily criticized by the West as a major anti-democratic and authoritarian move in any other country. It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago, and will probably burden the UKs political system for a long time. Interesting times indeed.

hogFeast 7y ago
It won't burden the system. This has happened before in recent memory and is totally fitting with the powers of the Executive (the only difference here is the subject). And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it. The key assumption in that is there is an alternative before the October 31, there isn't...so it doesn't matter if Parliament is sitting or not because there is nothing to scrutinise. To explain: Johnson was not denying Parliament a voice at all because he wasn't suspending past October 31. He was suspending until a few days before the European Council meeting, where the final deal will be negotiated, and then Parliament would vote on it. 95% of articles on this topic do not make this clear. The timetable does not change whether or not Parliament is sitting. It only changes if you are someone deluded enough to believe that there is an alternative...there isn't (the EU has said this multiple times). What is burdening the system is: * UK voted to leave * General election was called which Brexit parties won (somehow given May's ineffectiveness) * MPs voted to leave * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal * MPs refuse to re-negotiate the deal or do anything that makes a deal possible * The "alternative" from Labour is to go to the EU, negotiate exactly the same deal that has been voted down 4 times then they will whip their MPs against that deal too. It is utterly bizarre to take aim at the only person who actually has a definite idea about how to solve this situation (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).

AstralStorm 7y ago

So what's the result, vote of no confidence?

tim333 7y ago
Stay tuned...
pmyteh 7y ago
Unlikely to happen straight away. Due to a quirk of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, a successful VoNC now would allow the Prime Minister to run out the clock by refusing to resign, waiting the maximum two weeks to attempt a superseding Vote of Confidence, then calling the latest legal election after he inevitably lost. And Parliament would then be dissolved for the election, leaving only Johnson at the controls over the critical period leading up to Brexit day. There are other routes out of the situation after a VoNC, but they involve Parliament being able to agree on a new PM, which is tricky given that the Leader of the Opposition is cordially despised by much of the Commons and there are deep political problems with any of the other potential candidates. It also would require Boris to either resign or be sacked after losing the VoNC, which is by no means a done deal given that he's ignoring all the other conventions and there's no obvious mechanisms for a forcible dismissal (one hasn't been needed since the early 19th Century, as PMs have done the decent thing on losing the confidence of the House).

baq 7y ago

> It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis. ...yeah, is there anything to add here?

pjc50 7y ago
<shrug> It's the new normal. The press and the usual suspects will be out there yelling that down is up. They've put a lot of work into creating this crisis and don't want people to do things like resolve it, and certainly not in a sensible, constructive way.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tim333 7y ago
Brexiters would argue he is fighting the remainer parliament to implement the will of the people as represented by the 2016 referendum result. It's all a bit of a mess. Personally I think Blair's suggestion of another referendum on no deal vs remain would be the way forward as those are the most popular options with the voters. Everyone seems to hate the withdrawal agreement.
- repolfx 7y ago
  A second referendum would be a terrible idea. It might have been theoretically defendable some years ago, if events had worked out differently. But what we've seen over the past 3.5 years is that there was already a referendum, and it's had no effect whatsoever because the ruling classes keep fighting it all the way. The UK is still a member of the EU, nearly four years after they voted last time! Moreover, all the politicians in the two biggest political parties campaigned last time on respecting and implementing the vote. They're now not doing that. If you voted leave last time, why would you bother doing it again? The head of the Liberal Democrats admitted on camera already that if she lost a second referendum she still wouldn't vote to implement leaving in Parliament, which surprised nobody at all. The idea of a second referendum is proposed for exactly one reason only: so it can be rigged to give Remain a second chance. Simply re-running it would already give Remain a bigger chance than last time because so many of those who voted Leave before would be disillusioned, believe the new vote was just another lie and refuse to turn up at all. But I doubt the establishment would take any chances. The Electoral Commission has been repeatedly found to have maliciously harassed and fined Leave supporters and campaigns, by the courts and police. For sure they'd try and bend the process significantly. Parliament would also likely try to ensure a Remain victory. Probably by changing voting thresholds or by only offering remain/deal (i.e. remain/remain) and then campaigning on the basis that the Withdrawal Agreement is so bad it'd be better to give up entirely. In the event that somehow a genuine no deal/remain referendum did take place, and the powers that be didn't interfere, and Leave won again, it'd be immediately challenged in courts by Gina Miller and her lawyer friends, the same Parliament would still be in power and still be refusing to implement it, and it'd change nothing. In the end the only way out of this mess is unilaterally leaving the EU and then starting to rebuild whatever relationship is possible from scratch, replacing most sitting MPs and formalising a written constitution.

Ensorceled 7y ago

As a member of the commonwealth with a parliamentary democracy, I’m confused by how many people think this was the wrong call. The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. I wish Canada would also remember that Parliament is supposed to hold the ultimate power of government.

mieseratte 7y ago
> The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President," which I know waxes over tonnes of detail. The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and illegal?
- pjc50 7y ago
  The timing is normal (for the conference season and Queen's speech). The duration was longer than normal, and of course we're in the middle of a crisis with a ticking clock. A two-week prorogation might have worked fine. But the intent > what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? Normally this kind of conflict doesn't arise, because the government has a large majority, and if they cease to have a majority then the PM is replaced by a no-confidence vote. Normally the PM is supposed to Be A Good Chap and Do The Decent Thing, which are ill-defined concepts from British honour culture, but have basically gone out the window with Johnson's behaviour.
  - flother 7y ago
    There's also an important difference between recess and progrogation. Recess is just a quick break for the conference season, and is normal at this time of year. Progrogation brings all parliamentary business to an end, bills are not carried over to the next session (so work on them has to start from scratch), and select committees can't sit. That's a very different state of affairs.
- 7y ago

basicplus2 7y ago

Read this before forming an opinion.. "Why Hasn't Brexit Happened?" https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe.. https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe....

ag56 7y ago
"Please click here to go back to the Claremont Institute home page"
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Where the current headline is "Defend America - Defeat Multiculturalism", if you wanted to know how unbiased the source is likely to be.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
zeveb 7y ago
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/ https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe...
- zeveb 7y ago
  I should probably mention that unlike grandparent, the above URL actually works …

Simulacra 7y ago

I think this is a terrible verdict. The British courts are interfering with the functioning of parliament. This would never happen in America, because it would trample on the very notion of the three separate branches.

siquick 7y ago
Based upon recent events the American system is really not one we want to be taking tips from. What Johnson did was unlawful and this is exactly what the high court should be for.
mcv 7y ago
Note that it was the prime minister who wanted to suspend the parliament, not parliament itself. So the court protected the functioning of parliament from interference from the prime minister. Also, the US also has the Supreme Court ruling on actions by the other two branches, so there's really no difference there. If Trump tried to suspend the House of Representatives and a court had to rule on that, you can bet Trump would get slapped down. And then there's the recent politicalization of appointments to the Supreme Court; not exactly good for the Court's independence.
delfinom 7y ago
What? The queen via the prime minister interfered. The court said the prime minister can fuck off and restored parliament to functioning.
- Simulacra 7y ago
  Until he dismisses it again. It means next to nothing other than one branch interfering in the operations of another. Brexit will happen whether you want it to our not.
slim 7y ago
there is no hierarchy between judges and representatives. the parliament willingly shutdown itself. they could have acted otherwise. everybody is acting respectfully.

Joakal 7y ago

Liberal Party of Australia shortened the parliament sitting days to avoid scrutiny: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutting-sitting-days-in-2019-to-avoid-scrutiny https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutt... That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more anti-democratic changes in Australia.

mieseratte 7y ago
I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow linked?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian copy of the British system: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-for-it-to-be-her-last https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/16/queen...
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems, even though they aren’t precedents as such.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Yes they have the same head of state: Queen Elizabeth II
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Almost entirely for ceremonial purposes though. She gets presented things and signs other things, but basically if she doesn't follow, that would most likely be an immediate end to that position.
    - 7y ago

joosters 7y ago

Summary of the judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar... Full judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgme...

pmyteh 7y ago
I strongly recommend people read the judgment, or at least the summary. It's very clearly written, and it would let people argue about what the court found, as opposed to what they think the court might have found.

mellosouls 7y ago

Speaking as somebody who approved of Boris's strategy to leave on Oct 31: In normal times, with a moral leader, this would be an instant resigning matter. Boris's response has been predictably complacent. "I accept the verdict but strongly disagree with it" will become a go-to phrase of every burglar and other criminal caught red handed. Btw, (UK) word of the year: Prorogation

rtempaccount1 7y ago
Out of genuine curiosity, why do you approve of the prime minister's strategy?
- mellosouls 7y ago
  To clarify: I'm a Remainer, and not a Tory supporter. However, I remember discussing the issue at referendum time with my Leave voting neighbours who were very much the supposedly angry working class type that have been ridiculed and condescended to repeatedly by the liberal media. They (my friends and neighbours) were adamant that "it doesn't matter what we vote anyway, they will just stop it happening." At the time, I thought they were being paranoid. Now they look prescient and wise. Parliament has had 3 years to honour the vote of the people. Boris Johnson (who I have little like for and am suspicious of his character) is the first leader who has shown the will to make that decision happen. So, though I regret the referendum decision (and that the moral impetus has been taken on by people I don't feel a natural affinity to), I respect it and support his move to enact it without further delay.
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the win margin was a couple of percent.
    - mellosouls 7y ago
      Whatever the technical niceties of "advisory" there was never any dispute that the referendum would decide the future of Britain within the EU. The whole "advisory", "win margin" etc. phrasing is post-vote weasel words by the losing side (mine). Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not after it doesn't go your way. If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory? Personally, I doubt it.

EnderMB 7y ago

Regardless of whatever side you are on, you have to admit that we're currently living in extraordinary times in UK politics. A decade ago, the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable. If this were all a TV show, people would've called it too far-fetched or too distant from reality. Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes. As for Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy. Now, imagine going through a shattering defeat in court, while STILL being far ahead in the polls.

metalliqaz 7y ago
> Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes. That's what we say now, because we're used to the way it was. We need to start preparing ourselves for the possibility that these changes are permanent. The current clown show in the USA will become essentially permanent if 45 is re-elected. Even if he isn't his party has changed forever and the decorum of the presidency has been tarnished beyond the possibility of any quick repair. Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass. If so, it will be because of the hysterical, elitist clinging to the EU, rather than the act of leaving itself. It may come as a surprise to you, but the UK was once a country, rather than a province of Guy's European Empire; and it worked out fine.
  - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
    Parliament voted in favour of every EU treaty. As someone from a country which was in fact made a province of another country (by an act of Parliament, no less), I find your conception of the legal relationship between the UK and the EU somewhat concerning.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Overtonwindow 7y ago

The court is usurping the authority of parliament. Quite unfortunate.