Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Parliament reopening tomorrow, at 11.30 am

Watch the price of train fares to London go through the roof ..... welcome to Tory Britain

 

[nmc]

I imagine Cummings will be advising him to do it again.

The judgement largely heads that off.

 

[Neville Kneville]

He needs a Glockenspiel;-)

Down the throat.

I thought it was that **** who stands outside Parliament but it's a reverse version.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Hooray, the lunatics can go back into the asylum! It will all be sorted now. Oh wait..........

 

[Chris in London]

The Govt's case was weak and they knew it - that was why they presented no evidence, no written statement , no ministerial witness - as John Major pointed out that was either because they had no case and as a result nobody from the Govt was prepared to perjure themselves.

Secondly their legal team concentrated on the argument 5 weeks wasn't unusual - to such an extent they were visibly rocked when one of the judges asked in that case what is to stop a PM for proroguing for a year or two years. They literally hadn't anticipated that question and so had no answer. Its speculated that the obvious answer would be that Parliament exists to call the PM to account but of course a Parliament that was just prorogued for two years can't do jack shit.

Ultimately if you consider those points they were always on a loser.

The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.

 

[1.618034]

Boris has a problem.

The problem has a name; Dominic Cummings.

Maye we are seriously underestimating the incompetence of the Tory leadership. They prorogued to stop rebel anti-no deal legislation, it didn't because they allowed enough time for it to be enacted anyway- but the prorogation then went ahead completely unnecessarily. There is little doubt they would have recessed for the conferences in any case. Total stupidity.

Classic Dom.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

The weak point in Gina Miller's case was always the question of whether it was justiciable. That's why she lost in the Divisional Court, and why Joanna Cherry lost the case initially in Scotland. Once the Supreme Court held the case was justiciable, the Government was in deep trouble.

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable, and none of the advocates was able to articulate what (to my ears) was any sort of principled distinction between that and proroguing. Having pressed the advocates on that point, the way the Supreme Court dealt with it in their judgment was fascinating.

So far as I can see, they ignored it completely.

Can it be appealed?

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

The judgement largely heads that off.

Does he not have to for the Tory Conference?

 

[Chris in London]

Can it be appealed?

No.

 

[Indaparkside]

Mr Corbyn is bringing his leadres speach forward to this afternoon so he can be back in westminster tomorrow