The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo

newolder wrote:When is Boris Johnson's sentence passed and what will be the penalty for this treacherous act?

GrahamH wrote:The right decision, but of course the right wing press are stirring unrest.

The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo

I'm With Stupid wrote:

newolder wrote:When is Boris Johnson's sentence passed and what will be the penalty for this treacherous act?

newolder wrote:

GrahamH wrote:The right decision, but of course the right wing press are stirring unrest.

The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo

I don't know about unrest but it certainly confuses me. Usurp is to take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force. The only illegal act here is by Boris.

ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.

Alan B wrote:It's a serious offence to lie to and mislead Her Majesty.

A treasonable offence, perhaps?

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.

Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

Alan B wrote:It's a serious offence to lie to and mislead Her Majesty.

A treasonable offence, perhaps?

We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do not know what conversation, if any, passed between the assembled Privy Counsellors before or after the meeting. We do not know what the Queen was told and cannot draw any conclusions about it.

zoon wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.

Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

I'm hazy, but isn't this how the system has always worked? Parliament makes laws, and judges rule on how the laws are to be interpreted in the particular cases which come up before the courts, filling in gaps if necessary?

Thommo wrote:
That isn't what happened here. Parliament did not make a law, it was a matter of prerogative, convention and constitutional theory and this is precisely the problem. Hence the pursuant suggestion of the need for a full written constitution.

mrjonno wrote:Sadly I doubt the ruling will lose Johnson a single vote.

Spearthrower wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Sadly I doubt the ruling will lose Johnson a single vote.

What vote?

GrahamH wrote:
BJ has lost every vote so far in parliament, but this won't affect that. He still seems absurdly popular amongst a large part of the electorate...

GrahamH wrote:...and there's a good chance this will only help him there since it plays nicely into his narrative of the people vs parliament and the establishment.

GrahamH wrote:This may be a battle won but it may loose the war.