8 ms·

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 s

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
      Border controls themselves aren't really the major item in dispute (and there are already forms of controls for contraband, alcohol/fuel duty, VAT, and movement of people which occur in a dedramatised way) - its alignment of law and regulation which is disputed much more heavily. This isn't widely understood, I think.
      - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
        They're not really in dispute right now, but they will be a massive, massive flashpoint following Brexit. The nationalists will treat it as a symbol, and there will likley be violence associated with any border checks. If we can keep these away from the border, it would be better, but not sure how you prevent smuggling in that kind of environment.
criley2 7y ago
"This has happened before in recent memory and is totally fitting with the powers of the Executive" This is explicitly false, as the normal proroguing is 1 week, not 5 weeks, and such an oddly and unnecessarily long proroguing has never occured during a massive political crisis. No offense but the Supreme Court of the U.K. is more of an expert on the subject than commenters on Hacker News and it's their context and interpretation as subject matter experts we should be respecting. This is not normal. It's not the new normal. Good on the U.K. for standing up for the Parliament against an out-of-control Executive who really does appear to following in the footstep of the recent trend of western leaders fancying themselves fascist dictators who are above the laws and systems of their countries.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  Happened in 1997. And the point is not the length of the prorogation (as the Supreme Court decision makes clear) but the justification. In 1997, the justification was to stop a politically damaging report being published before an election. Again, Johnson is not denying Parliament the opportunity to vote on the deal. Nothing will happen now that Parliament is sitting again. The negotiation will still happen at the European Council meeting at the end of the month, and Parliament will still get a vote on it. It is important to really think through the logic here: if Johnson wanted to stop Parliament he would delayed until AFTER October 31. He didn't do this.
  - vidarh 7y ago
    In 1997 the question was not brought before the court, so referencing it as some sort of precedent that his behavior should be acceptable is meaningless. Secondly, the damage done was accordingly limited: If people saw the delay as questionable, people were given an opportunity to directly punish the government in an election rather than doing so indirectly via Parliament. If there was time to hold a general election with suitable margin ahead of October 31st, then this proroguing would not have been an issue, as we'd be going into an election instead. > Again, Johnson is not denying Parliament the opportunity to vote on the deal. It is not up to Johnson or the courts to decide what Parliament may or may not consider critical to do in the run-up to such a major constitutional change. His government serves with the consent of parliament; parliament is sovereign, not the government. > It is important to really think through the logic here: if Johnson wanted to stop Parliament he would delayed until AFTER October 31. He didn't do this. This does not follow. If he had announced he would prorogue until after October 31, then he would have to give up any pretense that he is negotiating a deal, because parliament would be unable to vote for it. It would instantly ensure a majority for removing him, as everyone opposed to no deal would have no other choice. His only option if his goal was to stop Parliament was to limit their ability to function as much as possible but still little enough to not push people into deciding removing him instantly was absolutely essential.
hesk 7y ago
> 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. They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament. From page 2 of the summary (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar...): > For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution. > If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful. Also: > * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal The EU is happy to change the deal if the UK government proposes something reasonable. But it will not back down from its red lines which is the integrity of the single market and solidarity with Ireland, which is a member state.
- hogFeast 7y ago
  > They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament. They did not. The part you quoting actually explains that this is the case. The court has to identify whether the justification is reasonable (if you followed the case in Scotland, the logic was exactly the same), and this means looking at motive (just to say, constitutional law in the UK does not work like the US...at all). I did not imply that the EU should do anything. Again, this is a common misunderstanding of the govt's position. The point of their strategy isn't to force the EU into doing anything (although that is the effect). The point is to stop the delay (the effect on the economy has been huge).
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > the effect on the economy has been huge Yes. You can see every time a pro-Brexit news event happens the pound falls and an anti-Brexit one happens it ticks up again, like today. The effect of no-deal will be even bigger, as a number of businesses which have been hanging on will be forced to close or relocate. The default way out of this has to be to revoke, until such time as someone can get elected with a majority of MPs supporting a workable plan.
pjc50 7y ago
Plenty of people have ideas on how to solve this situation, from straight up admit it's unworkable and revoke to having another referendum on "deal vs revoke".
rtempaccount1 7y ago
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with this analysis. The government's originally stated aim of the prorogation, was that it was a standard mechanism prior to a queen's speech. The court has taken the opinion that the real aim of this prorogation was instead to restrict parliamentary debate of the Brexit process and that this is unlawful. Looking at historic prorogation lengths (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0111 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum...) we can see that "Between 1930 and 2017, the mean average was about 5 calendar days, a median average of about 4 calendar days.", so it's clear that this prorogation was considerably longer than usual. Your suggestion then that there's nothing out of the ordinary, seems unlikely to hold and indeed the government's own lawyers didn't even try that line of argument during the case, as far as I'm aware. To quote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 'Lord Keen said previous prorogations of Parliament - including in 1930 and 1948 - had "clearly been employed" when governments wanted to "pursue a particular political objective", adding: "They are entitled to do so."' so the government was arguing a) that the matter was not one for the courts and b) that even if it was, the government was entitled to use prorogation for political ends. I'm actually mildly surprised that b) didn't hold. allowing a) would have set a very dangerous precedent.
stordoff 7y ago
> they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it They explicitly didn't do this: > We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it > It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful. They didn't conclude anything specific about why the PM did it; they concluded that no reason was given.

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
    Border controls themselves aren't really the major item in dispute (and there are already forms of controls for contraband, alcohol/fuel duty, VAT, and movement of people which occur in a dedramatised way) - its alignment of law and regulation which is disputed much more heavily. This isn't widely understood, I think.
    - disgruntledphd2 7y ago
      They're not really in dispute right now, but they will be a massive, massive flashpoint following Brexit. The nationalists will treat it as a symbol, and there will likley be violence associated with any border checks. If we can keep these away from the border, it would be better, but not sure how you prevent smuggling in that kind of environment.

criley2 7y ago

"This has happened before in recent memory and is totally fitting with the powers of the Executive" This is explicitly false, as the normal proroguing is 1 week, not 5 weeks, and such an oddly and unnecessarily long proroguing has never occured during a massive political crisis. No offense but the Supreme Court of the U.K. is more of an expert on the subject than commenters on Hacker News and it's their context and interpretation as subject matter experts we should be respecting. This is not normal. It's not the new normal. Good on the U.K. for standing up for the Parliament against an out-of-control Executive who really does appear to following in the footstep of the recent trend of western leaders fancying themselves fascist dictators who are above the laws and systems of their countries.

hogFeast 7y ago
Happened in 1997. And the point is not the length of the prorogation (as the Supreme Court decision makes clear) but the justification. In 1997, the justification was to stop a politically damaging report being published before an election. Again, Johnson is not denying Parliament the opportunity to vote on the deal. Nothing will happen now that Parliament is sitting again. The negotiation will still happen at the European Council meeting at the end of the month, and Parliament will still get a vote on it. It is important to really think through the logic here: if Johnson wanted to stop Parliament he would delayed until AFTER October 31. He didn't do this.
- vidarh 7y ago
  In 1997 the question was not brought before the court, so referencing it as some sort of precedent that his behavior should be acceptable is meaningless. Secondly, the damage done was accordingly limited: If people saw the delay as questionable, people were given an opportunity to directly punish the government in an election rather than doing so indirectly via Parliament. If there was time to hold a general election with suitable margin ahead of October 31st, then this proroguing would not have been an issue, as we'd be going into an election instead. > Again, Johnson is not denying Parliament the opportunity to vote on the deal. It is not up to Johnson or the courts to decide what Parliament may or may not consider critical to do in the run-up to such a major constitutional change. His government serves with the consent of parliament; parliament is sovereign, not the government. > It is important to really think through the logic here: if Johnson wanted to stop Parliament he would delayed until AFTER October 31. He didn't do this. This does not follow. If he had announced he would prorogue until after October 31, then he would have to give up any pretense that he is negotiating a deal, because parliament would be unable to vote for it. It would instantly ensure a majority for removing him, as everyone opposed to no deal would have no other choice. His only option if his goal was to stop Parliament was to limit their ability to function as much as possible but still little enough to not push people into deciding removing him instantly was absolutely essential.

hesk 7y ago

> 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. They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament. From page 2 of the summary (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar...): > For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution. > If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful. Also: > * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal The EU is happy to change the deal if the UK government proposes something reasonable. But it will not back down from its red lines which is the integrity of the single market and solidarity with Ireland, which is a member state.

hogFeast 7y ago
> They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament. They did not. The part you quoting actually explains that this is the case. The court has to identify whether the justification is reasonable (if you followed the case in Scotland, the logic was exactly the same), and this means looking at motive (just to say, constitutional law in the UK does not work like the US...at all). I did not imply that the EU should do anything. Again, this is a common misunderstanding of the govt's position. The point of their strategy isn't to force the EU into doing anything (although that is the effect). The point is to stop the delay (the effect on the economy has been huge).
- pjc50 7y ago
  > the effect on the economy has been huge Yes. You can see every time a pro-Brexit news event happens the pound falls and an anti-Brexit one happens it ticks up again, like today. The effect of no-deal will be even bigger, as a number of businesses which have been hanging on will be forced to close or relocate. The default way out of this has to be to revoke, until such time as someone can get elected with a majority of MPs supporting a workable plan.

pjc50 7y ago

Plenty of people have ideas on how to solve this situation, from straight up admit it's unworkable and revoke to having another referendum on "deal vs revoke".

rtempaccount1 7y ago

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with this analysis. The government's originally stated aim of the prorogation, was that it was a standard mechanism prior to a queen's speech. The court has taken the opinion that the real aim of this prorogation was instead to restrict parliamentary debate of the Brexit process and that this is unlawful. Looking at historic prorogation lengths (https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2019-0111 https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Sum...) we can see that "Between 1930 and 2017, the mean average was about 5 calendar days, a median average of about 4 calendar days.", so it's clear that this prorogation was considerably longer than usual. Your suggestion then that there's nothing out of the ordinary, seems unlikely to hold and indeed the government's own lawyers didn't even try that line of argument during the case, as far as I'm aware. To quote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 'Lord Keen said previous prorogations of Parliament - including in 1930 and 1948 - had "clearly been employed" when governments wanted to "pursue a particular political objective", adding: "They are entitled to do so."' so the government was arguing a) that the matter was not one for the courts and b) that even if it was, the government was entitled to use prorogation for political ends. I'm actually mildly surprised that b) didn't hold. allowing a) would have set a very dangerous precedent.

stordoff 7y ago

> they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it They explicitly didn't do this: > We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it > It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful. They didn't conclude anything specific about why the PM did it; they concluded that no reason was given.