Righto - thanks.
Five weeks is not indefinite, nor unprecedented. The finding that this prorogation affected Parliamentary sovereignty despite Parliament having confidence in the Government and not objecting to the suspension is the extraordinary, unprecedented view.
As it is the view of the Supreme Court, it is obviously legally the correct view. One would think that as a matter of some urgency Parliament will need to create a legislative framework for future prorogation.
The election would have been before October 31st. Now, it can’t be. The reason Labour didn’t want an election is because they will lose, just as they will lose all elections until they get a sensible leader. You fell for the oppositions lies about this.
As for what happens now, the only options are to keep the current Government in place and trust Johnson to sort out Brexit, or to get rid of the government and replace it. Which can either be done democratically, by an election after we’ve left the EU, or by installing some sort of unity government which can request an extension but will then likely be crushed by the Johnson-led Tories at the next election, followed by a no-deal Brexit in short order, as he will play on the “unelected government” thing. Hypocritically, obviously, but that won’t matter.
Or, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there’s a better solution, or just maybe enough people will come to their senses and support the Lib Dems.
Mild hijack: What happens to Bercow on 01 November? I don’t believe he’s resigning as an MP, although I may have missed that. Does he go back to being a nominally Conservative, independent-minded MP? Or s he already out of the Conservative party, and will be sitting as an independent?
The length of prorogation is a red herring - the point is that the prorogation prevented Parliament from holding the government to account and could not reasonably have been called for any other purpose. (To take an extreme case, a government could call a short prorogation of only a day so that Parliament couldn’t stop it from using the time to declare war and launch a nuke - it would still be unreasonable and unlawful to do so, even though it’s just a day.)
Parliament may have kept the Johnson government in power, but I don’t think you can constitutionally read that as carte blanche for any exercise of prerogative powers. That’s even before you take into account the obvious reality that the only reason Parliament denied Johnson an election is because it was also a time-wasting exercise, and one which he had the power to abuse to ensure No Deal by shifting the date of the election after the vote. Denying one time-wasting tactic can’t be taken as endorsement of another.
And Parliament clearly did object to the prorogation, because it had passed a law in an attempt to prevent exactly this. They failed to consider how far Johnson would go in his (ab)use of powers and so left time for a conference recess (with the option to decide not to recess if needed). But Parliament was making clear attempts to prevent itself from being prorogued for political purposes. I’m not sure what other form of objection you were looking for, nor what could have been done once the decision to prorogue had been taken.
As far as I know, he left the party upon becoming Speaker, and Wiki seems to confirm this.
So the default would be that he continues to sit as an independent, unless he resigns as an MP or joins a party.
That’s exactly the sort of prerogative that a Government needs to have - there is no time for days of debate and weeks of court cases when war has started.
That will remain false no matter how many times the opposition try to claim it, the date for the election was to be mid October.
No, they passed laws that allowed a prorogation in exactly the time period that Johnson attempted to have one.
That Johnson’s actions were wrong and illegal doesn’t excuse the stupidity and inaction of the rest of Parliament, on all sides. Whilst I’ll continue to support the Lib Dems as the only viable option, I’m furious with them for voting against an election when they had a strong chance to get the best result they’ve ever had.
If Johnson is still PM at the end of next month, we will leave the EU. If Corbyn is, he will do his fucking best to defy his party and leave as soon as possible, and we can only hope he’ll fail. If Swinson is PM, then the world will have become so strange I’ll be looking to see who spiked my coffee…
As for a Unity Government, this current Parliament is the least unified I can remember, and I can’t see Clarke or Harman holding it together for long enough.
I just got caught up with the conversation here; it’s fascinating. I can’t say I’m stunned by the Court’s ruling after reading the transcripts y’all have provided, but I am a bit gobsmacked at how big a decision it is.
And Mr. Johnson isn’t even in the UK at the moment. I wonder how this is affecting his pseudo-victory tour at the UN?
The Prime Minister could easily and legally have moved the date of the election to after 31 October, which is exactly what everyone expected him to do. You can keep claiming otherwise, but you will continue to be wrong.
Thank you for the gratuitous and false political potshot. Your mindreading act needs work, particularly as I’m repeatedly on the record as saying virtually the same thing as you - that Labour will continue to flounder until it figures out what it wants to be and ousts Corbyn.
None of which has anything to do with Johnson’s persistent skulduggery. It seems odd to refer to “the opposition’s lies” at a time with the Prime Minister has lied about virtually everything. Taking as read all his lies during the Leave campaign, he more recently said that he would be working for a new deal and against a no-deal Brexit; his own backbenchers have revealed that he’s doing nothing of the sort. He promised his own party he wouldn’t prorogue Parliament; he promptly did. And he’s apparently lied to the Queen.
That’s a bunch of interesting hypotheticals, but I’m not convinced that any of them are well-founded (and I don’t see “Johnson-led Tories” crushing anyone, given his recent efforts to drive away his own party members.)
Honestly, I don’t see a sensible way forward (I mean, I support the Lib Dems’ “Bollocks to Brexit” approach but they’ve repeatedly shown once they get more than about eight MPs the entire party falls apart). The problem isn’t that the populace wants one thing or another; the problem is that the populace is deeply, fundamentally divided, and thus any action taken will anger a sizable percentage of people (possibly the majority, no matter what the action). And the Commons itself is likewise deeply factionalised, not just into two camps but into many. And as long as that situation persists, things will not get better.
In other words: the Mercers are winning, just like here in the US.
Well, now we’re in a situation where the earliest an election can happen is after the 31st. So unless Parliament gets rid of him and unites behind another leader, he’s got his way.
I need only read your posts, not your mind, to see that you believe that an electiom would not have been held before the 31st even if Parliament had agreed to it.
Johnson is certainly better at lying that the opposition, I’ll grant you that. He is PM, and as things stand we will leave the EU without a deal in a few weeks. Unless Corbyn and to a lesser extent Swinson get their shit together very soon, Johnson will achieve what he is aiming for, and the opposition and those that support what they’ve been doing will be left looking pretty stupid.
Then I think you fundamentally misunderstand Tory voters and Leavers.
You are right about the population being fundamentally divided - but that’s why we need some sort of centrist-ish government to at least bridge the divide, if not heal it. That’s why Blair and Cameron/Clegg were successful, but Brown and May weren’t. And now we have Corbyn and Johnson, who are far more extremist than those two.
If I may be a bit callous… perhaps a stint of being governed by Johnson, crashing out of the UE without a net, and the likely concomitant chaos that would accompany it, would be the revulsive needed by the average British voter to understand that democracy is serious business, and that you should better think twice before putting your vote into the ballot box.
It wouldn’t be a pretty sight, but sometimes people only learn after they hit the wall at top speed.
(I still can’t get over what a friend of mine did - he lives in the UK but was born in Spain; a few years ago he applied for and got UK citizenship, and when it was time to vote on the Brexit referendum he voted… leave. When I asked him, “but WHY!!!”, he just said “I just wanted to flip the bird at the government…” That kind of attitude is NOT what you should have when going to vote on something with the potential to affect the country where you live for the coming decades! - And I’m afraid that a non-negligible amount of voters likely went to the polls on referendum day with this kind of mindset :smack: )
(red bolding mine)
That is exactly the reason that Trump won the election in 2016: people wanting to say “fuck you” to a system that they perceived as not working for them.
And guess who painted that picture in both countries? The Mercers.
What are Mercers?
Who/what are the Mercers?
Revealed: how US billionaire helped to back Brexit
They’re pulling your strings just like they’re pulling ours.
Oh good. It’s not just me.
I don’t think there needs to be a nefarious entity to make that kind of “FU” voting happen. I remember in High School a stoner ran for school president and of course won. While I realize High School should different than real life, it really isn’t.
The rightness or wrongness of the decision and the arguments about both are besides the point.
It doesn’t matter any longer to anyone whether James I can ban the prohibition of building new structures in London or ban the production of wheat and starche, doubtless a major issue to those affected. The principle, however is one of great import and has become fundamental, that the Crown or these days the executive cannot exersize power except under authority of law. It underpins the English legal system and indeed around the world.
The same way, in future decades or centuries, few people will know about BREXIT. But, the principal enunciated today, that a Court can review a recognised discretionary exercise of power by the executive AND substitute its own view for that of the executive, yeah that’s going to be a big deal.
Yeah, future generations might hold that it be self evident, but even in the Case of Proclamations, the outcome was not at all obvious to contemporaries, Lord Ellsmere, the greatest jurists of the age thought the decision to be wrong.
Interesting snap poll by YouGov:
The Supreme Court have said that Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament. Do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
Agree - 49%
Disagree - 30%
Do you think Boris Johnson should or should not resign?
He should - 43%
He should not - 39%
I heard this a few times before the October election vote, and saw it repeated in the newspapers, but it never made sense to me. Johnson originally scheduled the election for 14 October. He moved it to 15 October due to a Jewish holiday, and put the election up for a vote. Obviously the vote failed, but how was he supposed to move the vote date if he had won? Parliament would have passed a motion to hold a general election on a specific date. Post-motion, after Parliament was adjourned, was Johnson just going to say “Fooled you - the elections mid-November - take that suckers!” That kind of tactic strikes me as being far worse than the proroguing tactic that was just struck down.
What’s more, Johnson doesn’t actually care about leaving the EU. He cares about being Prime Minister. A blatant lie about an election date is far worse than some campaign lie on the side of a bus. I think it would have gotten him crucified in an election if he had tried such a thing. I’m finding it hard to take seriously a belief that Johnson would try such a “Fooled you” tactic.