On a different note, Jeremy Corbyn has declared that Johnson “isn’t fit to be prime minister”, and has called on him to resign, but is refusing to submit a motion for a Vote Of No Confidence. I think that this is the best shot he’ll ever have at leading the Government, and yet he continues to dither.
On the contrary. By confirming that limits have been there for hundreds of years, but clarifying what those limits are, it gives the person of the monarch a firm basis on which to ask some probing “Why?” and “Are you sure you’re legally covered?” questions, which if anything rather extends the monarch’s ability to influence the use of those powers by the PM.
See this.
tl;dr
He could move the election date unless parliament specifically legislated to pin him down.
I can’t see myself how this changes the lie of tye land. It’s well-established that courts can overturn government actions, but not actions by parliament.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I feel that the phrase nobile officium may come into common currency in the near future.
From the ruling:
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.
Yep that’s my point, this could hardly be seen as a parliamentry decision. The only sticking point consitutionally is that it wasn’t the kind of governemtn action that is usually the courts’ bread and butter to review and, if necessary, strike down. However that was becuase the situation was fairly unique.
Calling an election would have suspended parliament, so parliament would still have been shut down, same as proroguing it. That’s why the opposition voted against it. Even the SNP did, and they stand to do very well at the next general election.
I’m not sure how shutting down parliament makes it easier for the government to govern. Really? Not allowing elected officials to have a part to play gives them… more power? 
(My bolding) I strongly suspect that future generations will know about Brexit. They might not know all the details, but the country leaving a major union is kind of a big deal. I suspect there will be more people who know about Brexit than know the intricacies of what parts of the executive exercise which powers.
Yes, obviously if Parliament is unable to stop the Government acting, it’s easier for them to govern. That removal of oversight was one of the main reasons the prorogation was unlawful.
It’s not going well, apparently: Another fine mess: Brexit-dogged Johnson’s UN trip goes awry.
He’s got Trump’s support tho:
“The Government” isn’t just the Prime Minister and the executive. Parliament is as much part of the government as No. 10.
But any view taken in extraordinary circumstances is likely to be an unprecedented view. There won’t be a precedent percisely because the circumstances requiring a ruling are extraordinary. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, it would have been just as unprecedented.
And, yes, we can’t say that “the judgment won’t have some negative consequences in the future”. But if the judgment had been to the opposite effect, we still couldn’t have said that.
No, no. The ruling says nothing about a government acting without consulting Parliament; it deals with prorogation, the sidelining of Parliament so that it cannot hold the government to account, which is quite different. And the ruling doesn’t even say that the government can never do this. On the contrary, it explicitly says that a government could do this, if there were a reasonable justification. A “perceived emergency” might well provide such a justification, but in this case the government did not argue that there was any emergency (and if they had they would certainly have been shot down in flames; there is no emergency).
That, too, is an argument that leans against facilitating prorogation, since prorogation would prevent parliament from remedying any mistakes or missteps it has made.
Yes. But the present government is unlikely to introduce a Bill on this subject which Parliament will approve. Pressing as this is, realistically it has to be a matter for the next government, and the next parliament.
Mm. I’m not so sure. As you point out, Johnson is not well positioned to “play on the ‘unelected government’ thing”. Plus, he’ll be fighting an election after 31 October, having promised to “do or die” by 31 October and having conspicuously failed to do either; so much for his “a bit of vim and vigour will get things done” schtick. And in the campaign he either goes all out for a no-deal Brexit, in which case he alienates moderate Tories, the business community and those who adhere to such old-fashioned values as fresh food, having a job and not trashing the country’s reputation, or he doesn’t, in which case he bleeds votes to the Brexit Party. Either course is quite likely to cost him a majority.
For what it’s worth, the bookies - who are rarely wrong on this matter - give the shortest odds on the outcome of the next election to “no overall majority” (and shortest odds on November for the timing). Sooner rather than later there is likely to be a general election, but there’s more than a sporting chance that it won’t resolve the problem.
There is a solution in which it finally dawns on Brexiters that to carry through their project successfully requires them to frame a model of Brexit capable of securing majority assent, and to work to build a consensus around that model of Brexit, rather than trying to ram through an extremist Brexit which neither Parliament nor the people can stomach. But they have been in denial about this for so long that they might now have no credibility if they tried.
Ugh. That’s got to be some kind of kiss of death in British politics these days.
Johnson’s UN speech was all over the place but barely mentioned Brexit:
As noted, he did mention Brexit:
:rolleyes:
"Are we doomed to a cold and hard future where a computer says ‘yes’ or ‘no’?”
Computer says no.
When Johnson sticks to what he knows from his second-class degree in classics, he’s not bad:
“When Prometheus brought fire to mankind. In a tube of fennel, as you may remember, Zeus punished him by chaining him to a Tartarean crag while his liver was pecked out by an eagle. And every time his liver regrew the eagle came back and pecked it again. And this went on forever – a bit like the experience of Brexit in the UK, if some of our parliamentarians had their way.”
No, not at all. With the exception of ministers, Parliament is not Government, however many people who are not MPs or Lords are part of Government. Here are several links that explain how it works.
Except that Prometheus hadn’t chained himself to the rock by promising to achieve incompatible objectives and cloaking the discrepancy in lies. A big red bus is not a tube of fennel.
A more apt analogy would be Sisyphus.
Or sticking with the chained-to-a-rock motif, Loki.