Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful

[THECORBYLOON]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

What now for Boris?

[Ken4155]

Where'd you get that nugget from, Khandro. The only thing i can find on Cox is that he said those things 'before' the hearing when advising BoJo.

[jim360]

jourdain -- the Court quite clearly stated its position on Brexit: it has none.

// Whether or not [Brexit] is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge. The people have decided that. //

There's a load of nonsense put out about this. The Court has ruled on a legal issue, nothing more. If pushing through a particular version of Brexit requires acting other than according to the rule of law, then that particular vision of Brexit -- or, at least, the means for achieving it -- is, by definition, illegitimate. But the Courts will not rule on Brexit itself, and at every opportunity have kept out of it.

And, finally, the fact that this was a unanimous decision also betrays the broken logic of Togo et al. Judges who sides with the government in 2016 now side against it. They know their role.

[jim360]

// Geoffrey Cox has ruled prorogation WAS legal... //

He may have advised this, and I am sure that he did -- in good faith -- but he certainly didn't rule it. Only judges can make rulings.

[jim360]

I think Khandro's "nugget" is based on, among other things, this article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7499703/Attorney-General-Geoffrey-Cox-told-PM-prorogation-Parliament-lawful.html

As I say above, I don't doubt that Cox gave this advice, and -- frankly -- I don't even blame him for doing so. There was a legal argument to be made that prorogation of any length was lawful, and indeed the High Court accepted the government's position. But the High Court's ruling has been quashed, and what Cox said has turned out to be wrong.

[ichkeria]

Johnson May have acted in the belief and with good assurances from the AG emrhat the prorogation was legal but ...
It’s the dishonesty of it: As I said before, who believes the reasons given?
And if legal advice WAS taken that shows they knew it was dodgy.

[Togo]

Ahh found something.

""Attorney General Geoffrey Cox told the PM that proroguing Parliament was 'lawful and within the constitution', it was revealed tonight.
The government's chief law officer advised Mr Johnson that there was no problem with his plan, and any criticism would be 'politically motivated'.
According to Sky News, advice that was previously redacted from court papers indicates that Mr Cox said any accusation of unlawfulness was 'motivated by political considerations'.
'Any accusations of unlawfulness or constitutional outrage were motivated by political considerations. The proposal was compatible with the provisions of the NIEF (Northern Ireland Executive Formation Act) 2019.'
A spokeswoman from the Attorney General's Office said: 'The Government acted in good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional.""

Get ready for the real deal.

[ichkeria]

It’s impossible to make sense of that unless and until the full advice is released. Which I believe parliament will demand.
For example Sir Geoffrey may have been looking only at the length issue (prorogation itself is legal of course)
But the SC ruling appears to be based on the reasons combined with the length and won’t have been impressed with the lack of evidence of anything other than the reasons stated.

[gulliver1]

18.19, so there are no supporters of Boris anymore on A/b or have they all chickened out ?.

[drmorgans]

Togo: surely if the government had told the Supreme Court that it's usual practice to prorogue parliament for the duration of the party conferences then they would have believed them?

Except it's not. Since the 1980s parliament has been usually prorogued for about a week. This was a ruse to silence parliament and stop the government being scrutinsed. The government didn't even try to justify its actions.

[ichkeria]

It would be great if Sir Geoffrey was on record somewhere as saying:
“If you are asking me whether lying, effectively, to the Queen, is a matter for the courts, then I’d say it is not”
Then everything would be fine :-)

[Togo]

What we have drmorgans, is a parliament that is unable to be prorogued, doesn’t want to have an election, can't agree on the way to effect the result of the biggest vote ever held in the UK, that is in shut down for the conference "season" and unelected "judges" deciding what is that they need to talk a bit more. Haha. I thought I had the ability to satirise the goons, but will need to raise my game somewhat to be pointed to the tip of being ridiculous.

[drmorgans]

Indeed, a Tory leader who didn't believe the people would vote to leave the EU, and they did, another who didn't believe in Brexit who decided to go it alone to decide on the form of it and failed, and a third who has tried various ruses and now isn't trusted. It's a mess, particularly as the issues aren't along party lines. Labour clearly doesn't want to deal with them and (if it gets the chance) would ask us again. A horrible, divisive mess.

[ichkeria]

Parliament is happy to be prorogued when the time comes for a sensible length of time. It was not “shut down” for the conference season as will be plain tomorrow ...
But the other point is a fair one: Parliament needs to decide what it wants to do.
At least now it has another chance to do that.

[New Judge]

//Parliament needs to decide what it wants to do.
At least now it has another chance to do that. //

And I'll not be holding my breath. All the time it does nothing it secures its aim - to keep the UK in the EU.

[Togo]

Know this. Despite the S.C. ruling, Boris can't be forced out. MPs could table a vote of no confidence when Parly meant ....re opens will they?
If they do and Boris loses, then he has 14 days to regain control of the circus. With a minority as well. If he doesn't regain control in 14 days a G.E. is automatically called. As this happens the UK would leave the EUSSR without a deeeeaaalll. Haha Corby would have to tell his lap dogs to keep Boris in office. Told you I couldn't make it up as daft as it really is.

[drmorgans]

Not sure if this is relevant but Lord Sumption (another of those pesky lawyers) said if Boris wouldn't or couldn't deliver the letter asking for an extension then a court could mandate a civil servant to do it.

[gulliver1]

19.37 that is GOOD news thanks

[ichkeria]

The opposition parties are not going to force a general election until after an extension to Oct 31 has been applied for. That isn’t going to be changed by this ruling.
Could the PM prorogue parliament for a week from Friday and bring forward the Queens Speech? He could but I’m not sure it would no him any good as it seems that voting down the speech would not count as a VONC.
The irony here is overwhelming. Johnson has wanted for years to be PM, and now he is effectively going to be held prisoner as head of the current government until he’s released by Jeremy Corbyn.

[jim360]

If Parliament's aim were to keep us in the EU then they would have voted for it. So far, all Parliament has done is vote against stuff. But, a hardcore of MPs aside, most in the House clearly want to find a way forward that honours and respects the 2016 Referendum. The problem is not that they want to frustrate that Referendum, but that nobody can agree on *how* to achieve that end.

That has been exacerbated by successive PMs deciding that the way forward is to try and shut Parliament out of the picture altogether. Theresa May tried by calling an election to remove her opponents; she failed. Then Theresa May tried by passing legislation that gave her carte blanche to negotiate her deal with no scrutiny; she failed. Then Theresa May tried by bringing the same rejected deal back to Parliament, three times (and would have a fourth, fifth, sixth... ad nauseam); she failed. Now Boris Johnson tried the nuclear option of shutting down Parliament altogether. And no he has failed there, too.

As long as Brexit supporters treat Parliament as the enemy, then they will find no way forward.

[Old_Geezer]

One can vote continually against all ways out and it's the sneaky equivalent of voting to remain. The thing is that many wish to avoid voting for remain because it would be an open admission of the disdain in which they hold the public, their opinion, and democracy in general. So every option to exit is simply voted against and every chance to extend the present situation voted for.