Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
ceptimus said:
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
Click to expand...

None yet, he just acted outside of his authority. His whole lying to parliament thing that has caused some issues before will be the actual law he broke. I know brexit is all about destroying parliament and restoring sovereignty to a new Sovereign(Boris) but until then he does have to abide by some laws.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
Click to expand...

Exactly, if it doesn't fall to the Supreme Court to decide such matters then who would? Dominic Cummings? BoJo must be so unhappy he can't just stack the court with political hacks like his buddy Trump.
 
I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.
 
ceptimus said:
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
Click to expand...

Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html
 
Last edited:
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Click to expand...

He should be the first to resign after Boris.

Perhaps this will be what his address is? Yes, he will have found his sense of decency and decided to resign. That's all it can be. Right?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.
Click to expand...

A number of commentators have said that the SC did the absolute minimum within their legal remit and then handed the issue back to Parliament. They wanted to keep the focus on the key issue being the supremacy of Parliament. IANAL.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Click to expand...

Maybe he will say
"The Court had made it's decision. Let them enforce it".:D
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. ;) More likely he will be announcing the fate of the chosen scapegoat, probably the Attorney General based on earlier statements.
 
psionl0 said:
That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?
Click to expand...

The SC didn't overrule the queen, technically. They found that the advice given to HM to prorogue was void, and so that which followed from the advice was nullified:

[The] advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.
Click to expand...
 
I guess Boris thought he was Oliver Cromwell dismissing the Long Parliament; did not work out that way.

If I were a Labor member, I would throw Cromwell's famous statement in the dismissal right in BoJo's face:

"You have been sitting here too long for any good you have been doing.In the name of God, go".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom