I think Boris Johnson tried to call for a snap general election for mid-October yesterday. The CNN article says he hoped to win an outright majority, but I wonder if he secretly hoped to be defeated, so that the opposition would be responsible for implementing Brexit, given that he seems to have no idea how to do so himself.
Because it seems to me that even without a majority, if he had a workable plan, he would just announce it. If it’s a decent enough plan, surely enough members will support it?
As I’m sure we all know, Boris does not have a plan. He never had a plan. There was never a plan by anyone. A plan does not exist. There. Is. No. Plan.
The only thing in Johnson’s head is: “Look at me! I am Prime Minister! I am special! Everyone look at me!”
So what the heck is going to happen on October 31 (aside from kids dressing in costume and asking for candy)? Are they just going to ask for yet another delay? Perhaps that’s how they’ll handle the whole mess; just ask for delay after delay until the public just gives up on the whole idea.
There is, strictly speaking, no such thing. Not on your side, not on mine.
What passes for the “voice of the people” now is a slim majority on a simple binary referendum, without clear specifics. And that only following massive misrepresentation by the likes of Michael Gove & some disreputable newspapermen.
I was listening to the BBC this morning, and the commentators felt that it was a pretty big deal, and that it might lead to Johnson being forced to resign – what they seemed to consider to be the biggest sin was “lying to the Queen” about the reasoning for the prorogation.
It’s not clear if anything will happen before the Supreme Court reviews it (next week, it sounds like), though there are already calls to reconvene Parliament.
Turns out the Scottish Court was quite happy to stick its neck out. This is a big deal in some ways and not in others.
It’s not, because of course the government are going to take this to the Supreme Court and they have final say. So this is not a definitive and final ruling that Johnson and co acted unlawfully.
However. It is *a *ruling that they acted unlawfully, and on a matter of enormous constitutional significance at that. Just by itself, that is a big deal. The summary of the ruling is very clear that the true purpose of prorogation was to stymie Parliament and that this is proven by the documents (government memos, Johnson’s handwritten notes) submitted in evidence. I mean, everyone knew that the purpose of a 5-week prorogation was to stymie Parliament, but to rule to that effect rather than accept the Government’s account is fairly explosive.
Scottish constitutional principals are separate from English ones. For some reason (as was famously pointed out in McCormick v Lord Advocate) for Union institutions, it’s English principles which prevail…
What is the order. Have they declared it void ab initio? Have they stayed their ruling? Have they simply made a declaration that the advise was unlawful?
And, indeed, the High Court has just ruled that the prorogation was lawful.
Be a Supreme Court Justice, they said. You get to wear the robes, they said. You almost certainly won’t take a starring role in the biggest constitutional crisis since the Abdication, they said.
You have the judiciary in two different constituent parts of the United Kingdom saying in essence that they have differing views on the constitution. Not just interpretation, the fundamental aspect of it, like the Royal Perogrative.
I would say it’s a hell of a lot bigger than the Abidcation.
Prorogation. Brexit - electoral fraud notwithstanding - did not create a constitutional crisis itself since Parliament did ultimately vote to invoke Article 50.
To be clear, what’s occurred in English courts today is the publishing of the details of last week’s ruling against the case brought to the High Court of London by Gina Miller arguing that the prorogation of Parliament was illegal. That ruling is under appeal, and it looks like the appeal is going straight to the UK Supreme Court on Tuesday, 17 September.
I don’t understand the various court hierarchies, but three challenges against prorogation were lodged in the courts: Gina Miller’s English and Welsh challenge in the High Court of London, Joanna Cherry’s Scottish challenge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh and Raymond McCord’s Northern Irish challenge in the High Court of Belfast. The English and Scottish challenges were rejected and appealed. The Belfast ruling is due on Thursday. Presumably, regardless of the outcome, the Belfast ruling will also be challenged and appealed to the UK Supreme Court and joined into the hearing on Tuesday, 17 September. The Scottish appeal was heard by the Inner House of the Court of Session. That court’s ruling today overturned the original ruling of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. This appellate ruling is also being appealed and will be combined into Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing. The successful appeal in the Inner House of the Court of Session is significant because it means that a “higher” court has ruled against the government. However, how much significance the UK Supreme Court will recognise from each of the lower court’s rulings is impossible to say.
I swear to God this thing is going to lead to the break up of the UK and England and Wales will be surrounded by EU countries - North, South, East and West - that they have customs barriers with. It’s going to be a mess.
At this point, I wouldn’t even be surprised if Northern Ireland ends up back in some sort of oddball union with the Republic of Ireland.
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised at this point if England secedes from Planet Earth.
Hasn’t the UK been teetering on the brink of breaking up (or slowly going through the process of breaking up, depending on your perspective) for decades now?