9 ms·

> 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

> 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).
- growse 7y ago
  > MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal Sure they will. They just need the UK to bring some proposed changes. To date, they haven't. https://www.thejournal.ie/barnier-brexit-4521220-Mar2019/ https://www.thejournal.ie/barnier-brexit-4521220-Mar2019/
- Jweb_Guru 7y ago
  Unfortunately, the "solution" you're referring to violates the Good Friday Agreement, so in fact Boris Johnson does not have a definite idea about how to solve anything whatsoever.
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    Its fair to say that whether it is in line with or 'breaks' the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is disputed - the UK courts recently ruled that imposing a border on a no deal exit would not breach it, and what the UK is proposing is less than that. The Republic of Ireland (or at least their political leadership) seem to interpret the agreement differently, and insist that the Good Friday Agreement means that all laws relating to trade or commerce must be exactly the same in both NI and the RoI (they cite some provisions on the 'all island economy' in support of this). Equally the unionists believe that the May Withdrawal Agreement breaches the GFA for different reasons - because the GFA acknowledges UK sovereignty over NI and says that this shouldn't be changed without a border poll (which the unionists would likely win still).
    - PaulAJ 7y ago
      It is technically true to say the the GFA does not prohibit border controls. However the GFA was negotiated with joint EU membership as part of the existing political background, so it was taken for granted. In practice anything which stops people crossing the border without let or hindrance will be treated by the Republicans as an abrogation of the intent of the GFA.
      - tomatocracy 7y ago
shadyMrPatch 7y ago
"It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago" You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discussion of the cash for questions scandal that ultimately toppled the Major Conservative government. I believe that the Blair government considered it in the run up to the Iraq war too but didn't.
- makomk 7y ago
  Yeah, though somehow the British press managed to omit that little fact from their regurgitations of John Major's claims about how dangerous and remarkable this action was. His prorogation seems much more clear-cut an example of frustrating Parliamentary scrutiny too; he completely blocked Parliament from sitting between the time he announced it and the election he was hoping to protect, unlike this case where Boris left windows for them to act both before and after the prorogation, and he didn't even have the justification that Boris did of doing it to end an over-long session and hold a Queen's Speech.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    Not a few of Major's cabinet ended up in jail, for various reasons. In fact there's a better precedent - Attlee's prorogation in 1948. The difference is that both were done by a PM with a working majority, so it could be argued they were done with the consent of Parliament. Johnson nuked his own majority from orbit, so there's absolutely no argument that he's acting with the confidence and approval of Parliament. Which is part of the problem. Parliament will remove him with a No Confidence vote soon. But first it wants to make sure that he doesn't make any other attempt to game electoral or Parliamentary procedure to force through the mad Brexit agenda that his hedge-fund owning backers want to profit from.
    - roywiggins 7y ago
      The prorogation in 1948 was about creating a pro-forma session of Parliament just for the purpose of passing a law an extra time, so as to pass it over the objections of the Lords. It didn't actually prevent Parliament from having its say, which is the issue today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Clement_Atlee's_Lords_reform_(1948) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_King... (BoJo's government still has the confidence of Parliament until it doesn't- that's not what the court ruled on)

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).

growse 7y ago
> MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal Sure they will. They just need the UK to bring some proposed changes. To date, they haven't. https://www.thejournal.ie/barnier-brexit-4521220-Mar2019/ https://www.thejournal.ie/barnier-brexit-4521220-Mar2019/
Jweb_Guru 7y ago
Unfortunately, the "solution" you're referring to violates the Good Friday Agreement, so in fact Boris Johnson does not have a definite idea about how to solve anything whatsoever.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  Its fair to say that whether it is in line with or 'breaks' the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement is disputed - the UK courts recently ruled that imposing a border on a no deal exit would not breach it, and what the UK is proposing is less than that. The Republic of Ireland (or at least their political leadership) seem to interpret the agreement differently, and insist that the Good Friday Agreement means that all laws relating to trade or commerce must be exactly the same in both NI and the RoI (they cite some provisions on the 'all island economy' in support of this). Equally the unionists believe that the May Withdrawal Agreement breaches the GFA for different reasons - because the GFA acknowledges UK sovereignty over NI and says that this shouldn't be changed without a border poll (which the unionists would likely win still).
  - PaulAJ 7y ago
    It is technically true to say the the GFA does not prohibit border controls. However the GFA was negotiated with joint EU membership as part of the existing political background, so it was taken for granted. In practice anything which stops people crossing the border without let or hindrance will be treated by the Republicans as an abrogation of the intent of the GFA.
    - tomatocracy 7y ago

shadyMrPatch 7y ago

"It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago" You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discussion of the cash for questions scandal that ultimately toppled the Major Conservative government. I believe that the Blair government considered it in the run up to the Iraq war too but didn't.

makomk 7y ago
Yeah, though somehow the British press managed to omit that little fact from their regurgitations of John Major's claims about how dangerous and remarkable this action was. His prorogation seems much more clear-cut an example of frustrating Parliamentary scrutiny too; he completely blocked Parliament from sitting between the time he announced it and the election he was hoping to protect, unlike this case where Boris left windows for them to act both before and after the prorogation, and he didn't even have the justification that Boris did of doing it to end an over-long session and hold a Queen's Speech.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  Not a few of Major's cabinet ended up in jail, for various reasons. In fact there's a better precedent - Attlee's prorogation in 1948. The difference is that both were done by a PM with a working majority, so it could be argued they were done with the consent of Parliament. Johnson nuked his own majority from orbit, so there's absolutely no argument that he's acting with the confidence and approval of Parliament. Which is part of the problem. Parliament will remove him with a No Confidence vote soon. But first it wants to make sure that he doesn't make any other attempt to game electoral or Parliamentary procedure to force through the mad Brexit agenda that his hedge-fund owning backers want to profit from.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    The prorogation in 1948 was about creating a pro-forma session of Parliament just for the purpose of passing a law an extra time, so as to pass it over the objections of the Lords. It didn't actually prevent Parliament from having its say, which is the issue today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Clement_Atlee's_Lords_reform_(1948) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_the_United_King... (BoJo's government still has the confidence of Parliament until it doesn't- that's not what the court ruled on)