Prorogation Ruled To Be Unlawful

[THECORBYLOON]

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

What now for Boris?

[Togo]

You had better get down to the House of Commotions then Zac and tell them there. They all seem to accept that this is so. A new law gerrymandered by the S.C., to their surprise, to facilitate a vexatious legal challenge designed to thwart Brexit no less.

[jim360]

If you read between the lines you tend to miss what is actually said. It is clear that Cox is upset about the judgement, as well he might. But it is equally clear that he utterly rejects any suggestion that the decision was reached improperly. No amount of patronising attempts to dress up an utterly flawed position will undermine that.

The basic truth is that the Supreme Court has ruled, the impartiality of the judges is to be respected and welcomed, and the government has lost its case and one of its strongest trump cards.

I will confess to being wrong in one regard. At the start of this entire mess, I called the decision to prorogue "a clever move" by Johnson. It turns out to have backfired in its entirety, to the extent that no future PM will ever be able to try to same tactic.

[Togo]

“Constitutionally, the court’s decision is seminal. It marks the most brazen encroachment of the judiciary on to territory once considered an untouchable Crown prerogative. Just two weeks ago, the High Court in London, with the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division sitting, ruled that the legality or otherwise of prorogation was not a matter for the judiciary: “The court concludes on well established and conventional grounds that the claim is non justiciable – that is, not capable of being determined by the court.” If these grounds are “well-established” how could they be overturned in such a peremptory way? The failure of a single Supreme Court judge to stand up for long-established constitutional principles is shocking.”

Philip Johnston.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/24/britain-has-become-republic-bercow-head/

[naomi24]

As I said previously, the Establishment in action.

[jim360]

Philip Johnston may perhaps care to note that the High Court's decision, whilst well-argued, also cited at several points judgements made by those who sit in the Supreme Court: Carnwath at paragraphs 37-39, Hodge at 47, Sales at 50, Hale at 61, Reed at 62, etc.

So at least one reason the High Court's decision was overturned is that Lady Hale et al knew what they meant by what they said better than the High Court did.

[THECORBYLOON]

TOGO, do you disagree with the Attorney General when he says it is important to remember the Justices are both impartial and independent and entitled to reach the conclusion they did?

[ichkeria]

Cox’s “dead Parliament rant” reminded me of the bloke coming in after losing on the horses and kicking the cat.

[jim360]

Well, quite, N. But it was wrong when you said it previously and it's wrong now, too.

[naomi24]

No Jim, it isn’t wrong. It doesn’t suit your purpose to consider it, that’s all.

[Togo]

TCL. I agree that he said so......He would have to would he not. Now ask me if I think he meant it.......

[jim360]

It's clearly wrong. It is wrong because you are still insistent that this is about blocking Brexit. That falls down on two counts: firstly, the judges explicitly stated otherwise, at paragraph 57: "The people have decided that [we will leave the EU]." Secondly, it was central to the government's case that even if the issue was justiciable then the only reason for the prorogation was to lead to a Queen's Speech. If they had done so legally then there would be no issue. The Court has found that the government acted unlawfully because it acted unlawfully.

I should also add that if you were watching the oral arguments you will have seen that the only time the question of the effects of Brexit came up, the Judges shot down the relevant QC in extremely strong terms. This question is a legal argument and it was decided on legal considerations.

[jim360]

One of the cases cited in the Divisional Court's judgement (which went the government's way -- the Establishment clearly isn't united on this, is it?), by the way, was R (McClean) v. First Secretary of State, which concerned whether or not the confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP, and particularly the £1 billion extra funding for Northern Ireland that went with it, was lawful. It clearly was, of course -- but my main point is that one of the Judges in that case, who then emphatically sided with the government in no uncertain terms, was a certain Lord Sales:

// In my view [the idea that the government had an illegitimate
conflict of interest when entering the confidence and supply agreement] is not remotely arguable as a contention of law. In this political context there is no relevant standard of impartiality or disinterestedness which has been breached. The confidence and supply agreement is a political agreement ... The law does not super-impose additional standards which would make the political process unworkable. //

He could hardly be more clear then: judges won't step into matters of pure politics. They will step in when the government breaks the law. They have found that, in this case, the government acted unlawfully. What is so hard to accept about that?

[naomi24]

Jim, dirty deeds have been afoot for the past three plus years. I will not argue to support deceit in any form. This decision is political.

[Zacs-Master]

'As I said previously, the Establishment in action'

There's nothing more establishment than Old Etonian Boris. How does the supreme court ruling his actions as unlawful sit with your view, Naomi?

[spathiphyllum]

I just don't understand how if he ask'd the queen, and if she said yes how can it be unlawful

[ichkeria]

He didn’t “ask the queen” in anything other than a matter of constitutional form.
The queen’s part in this is more or less ceremonial.

[THECORBYLOON]

SPATH, in theory, the Queen could have refused but by long-established convention, she accepts the advice of the Prime Minister.

The PM's advice has been found to be unlawful, meaning the consequence of that advice (prorogation) was also unlawful.

[Old_Geezer]

"surely you wouldn't be happy living in a so called democracy which could do that, OG?"

A nice long break without parliament nor government imposing more unwanted restrictions and obligations on the people ? I don't know, I think some nations have gone without parliament for extended periods and seem none the worse for it. As long as it wasn't a regular event may well be beneficial.

[Khandro]

I stated earlier that nobody seemed to expect the outcome of the court supremos, but I was wrong; my paper copy of The Spectator has just arrived (dated last Saturday, 21st) & across the front it says;
Richard Eakins on the danger of courts taking over politics
I wonder if he had a Chrystal ball? - that's why I take the Speccie.

[jim360]

It is a shame that you insist it is political, N, but there is simply no reason to support that. Put another way, can you point to the error in law that the Supreme Court has made?