UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[The Archregimancy]

When a Conservative government loses the Daily Mail, well...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html (link will only work while the ruling is the main headline)

BORIS BROKE LAW is not what the Conservative Party will have been hoping for from the Mail.

The actual main story isn't much better for the government.

[The Free Joy State]

Unanimous on both counts, blimey.

I'm surprised the decision was unanimous.

Bercow is calling for the House of Commons to "convene without delay".

I don't always agree with him, but I do here.

On another note, I liked Lady Hale's summary.

[Wopruthien]

When a Conservative government loses the Daily Mail, well...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html (link will only work while the ruling is the main headline)

BORIS BROKE LAW is not what the Conservative Party will have been hoping for from the Mail.

The actual main story isn't much better for the government.

Pretty sure they will be able to find a way to blame Corbyn for this, or at least bring out a picture of an IRA member shaking his hand or soviet spy in the next few hours.

[Salandriagado]

What does it mean though? Parliament resumes? What are the consequences of advisors giving unlawful requests to the Queen?

Basically can we send Rees-Mogg to the Tower?

Parliament was never prorogued in the first place, so can sit as normal whenever it feels like sitting. That'll be tomorrow morning. I imagine "what do we do about people who broke the law to stop us doing our job" will be rather close to the top of the agenda.

[Caracasus]

Oh damn. Payday is tomorrow and I have no money for popcorn.

[Vassenor]

Oh damn. Payday is tomorrow and I have no money for popcorn.

F.

[Alvecia]

I get the impression that the lack of a witness statement was pretty big when deciding the lawfulness:

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.

[Gravlen]

It was, in a way. The lack of justification was probably decisive, and the government provided no witnesses or other evidence justifying the decision.

This is basic shit. The Government didn't really even try.

(From the summary:)

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the court should grant. The court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.

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.

It is for parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the prime minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.
It follows that the advocate general’s appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller’s appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case.

[Vassenor]

Nigel's fanclub are losing their fucking minds over this display of Judicial Sovereignty.

[The Archregimancy]

It was, in a way. The lack of justification was probably decisive, and the government provided no witnesses or other evidence justifying the decision.

This is basic shit. The Government didn't really even try.

(From the summary:)

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

You don't really need the full quoted box, Gravlen; the opening two paragraphs, as quoted above, are enough.

As you, Alvecia, and others have implicitly and explicitly pointed out, the government didn't even really try.

The Supreme Court was not amused.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

The dog ate Boris's homework, again.

[The New California Republic]

Haha. Rekt. Fucking Rekt.

[The Archregimancy]

Reposting this from the 8th of September in case it becomes relevant over the coming days:

And a quick reminder of the ten shortest Prime Ministerial terms of office (not including Wellington's 23-day 1834 caretaker administration):

1) Rockingham, 1782: 97 days(+)
2) Canning, 1827: 119 days(+)
3) Peel, 1834-5: 120 days
4) Melbourne, 1834: 122 days
5) Goderich, 1827-8: 131 days
6) Gladstone, 1886: 170 days
7) Bonar Law, 1922-23: 210 days
8.) Salisbury, 1885-6: 220 days
9) Devonshire, 1756-7: 226 days
10) Russell, 1865-6: 241 days

Rockingham and Canning both died in office.

The Johnson Prime Ministerial non-literal Death Watch is meanwhile on 47 days and counting.

Johnson might take some consolation in some of the names on that list, I suppose - and interesting to see how unstable the government was in c.1827-1835.

We're now on 63 days (I think) and counting; so Johnson has to stagger on for another 35 days to outlast Rockingham, and another 58 days to outlast Peel's 1834-5 government (the shortest term of any PM not to have died in office).

[The New California Republic]

Reposting this from the 8th of September in case it becomes relevant over the coming days:

And a quick reminder of the ten shortest Prime Ministerial terms of office (not including Wellington's 23-day 1834 caretaker administration):

1) Rockingham, 1782: 97 days(+)
2) Canning, 1827: 119 days(+)
3) Peel, 1834-5: 120 days
4) Melbourne, 1834: 122 days
5) Goderich, 1827-8: 131 days
6) Gladstone, 1886: 170 days
7) Bonar Law, 1922-23: 210 days
8.) Salisbury, 1885-6: 220 days
9) Devonshire, 1756-7: 226 days
10) Russell, 1865-6: 241 days

Rockingham and Canning both died in office.

The Johnson Prime Ministerial non-literal Death Watch is meanwhile on 47 days and counting.

Johnson might take some consolation in some of the names on that list, I suppose - and interesting to see how unstable the government was in c.1827-1835.

We're now on 63 days (I think) and counting; so Johnson has to stagger on for another 35 days to outlast Rockingham, and another 58 days to outlast Peel's 1834-5 government (the shortest term of any PM not to have died in office).

Well there will now most certainly be calls for him to go.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What does it mean though? Parliament resumes? What are the consequences of advisors giving unlawful requests to the Queen?

Basically can we send Rees-Mogg to the Tower?

The consequence is that Parliament is no longer prorogued.

The government made a procedural error, which is not liable.to criminal prosecution.

[Vassenor]

What does it mean though? Parliament resumes? What are the consequences of advisors giving unlawful requests to the Queen?

Basically can we send Rees-Mogg to the Tower?

The consequence is that Parliament is no longer prorogued.

The government made a procedural error, which is not liable.to criminal prosecution.

Intentionally misleading the Sovereign is now a "procedural error"?

[The Free Joy State]

Reposting this from the 8th of September in case it becomes relevant over the coming days:



We're now on 63 days (I think) and counting; so Johnson has to stagger on for another 35 days to outlast Rockingham, and another 58 days to outlast Peel's 1834-5 government (the shortest term of any PM not to have died in office).

Well there will now most certainly be calls for him to go. It depends if there is actually a threat of prosecution proceedings as well...

Well, Johnson already hinted yesterday that he won't resign:

Asked if such a finding – that he concealed his true motive was to silence parliament over Brexit – would make his position “untenable”, the prime minister replied: “No”.

Of course, I think few people expected such a decisive decision...

[Vassenor]

This might need double checking, but I think we now have written precedent that all uses of prerogative powers are justicible.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I can't remember seeing the political pundits on TV news being quite so gobsmacked by something.

[Vassenor]

>I never want to hear Boris Johnson or any other Brexiteer say again that the European Union is undemocratic.

Verhofstadt is throwing shade.

[Duhon]

Ha.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Duhon]

The tide might yet turn. Very good, very good.

[The New California Republic]

I can't remember seeing the political pundits on TV news being quite so gobsmacked by something.

To be honest I think that everyone was expecting a middle road to be taken, instead of the one that was actually taken. I certainly didn't expect SCOTUK to be unanimous and as explicit in its verdict.

[Duhon]

I can't remember seeing the political pundits on TV news being quite so gobsmacked by something.

To be honest I think that everyone was expecting a middle road to be taken, instead of the one that was actually taken. I certainly didn't expect SCOTUK to be unanimous and as explicit in its verdict.

When the horse doesn't exist, you don't pretend it lives, let alone can run a bloody race.

[Gravlen]

It was, in a way. The lack of justification was probably decisive, and the government provided no witnesses or other evidence justifying the decision.

This is basic shit. The Government didn't really even try.

(From the summary:)

No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15 August. This explains why holding the Queen’s speech to open a new session of parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31 October. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

You don't really need the full quoted box, Gravlen; the opening two paragraphs, as quoted above, are enough.

Someone asked above what it meant. The rest of the quote gave an answer to that question so I kept it all in.

Here I am, with a stated justification, unlike the UK government.