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

[nmc]

No.

The eleven most senior justices in the UK have ruled (unanimously) - there’s simply no one to appeal to.

 

[Chris in London]

The eleven most senior justices in the UK have ruled (unanimously) - there’s simply no one to appeal to.

This

 

[nmc]

Does he not have to for the Tory Conference?

Boris will probably want to give that a miss.

 

[George Hannah]

The court just picked through the evidence that they did not act in good faith and found against the government.
The government put up no evidence to suggest anything else. The meeting with the queen and who was present was called out in specific detail. The inference is clear....

That meeting was preceded by a telephone call to her from BoJo so he is part of the group. That they failed to produce affidavits stating their reasons were constitutionally appropriate was the key to the judgement against them I think. The reasons given were not the genuine ones. So, as has been said, they may well not deliberately have acted illegally but their real motives have been judged unconstitutional and as such BoJo's position as PM is untenable,.

 

[FlemishDuck]

During the course of argument one point that came out time and time again was that the power to dissolve parliament is not justiciable

See i don't get that argument. Afterall, the law somewhere does require that a prorogation of a unprecedented lenght must have a written explenation for that unprecedented lenght provided for it right? So, thats essentially "part of law"? How can one argue that the courts would not have the power to judge over the legallity of "a prorogation of unprecedented lenght" if by law they are the ones that must process the legaly required explenation for it's legallity? Surely that process isn't just a symbolic procedure that nessecarily always would have the same outcome? Surely if you have sepperation of powers and some independant judiciary they arn't nessecarily going to be default puppets on a string for the goverment?

 

[Neville Kneville]

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.

I thought it was established that Parliament is only dissolved at the end of a term or with a majority ?

 

[Neville Kneville]

Anybody seen him ?

Did they give him a pistol & a glass of whiskey but he's waiting for Dominic Cummings to tell him what he is supposed to do with them ?

Where the fuck is he ?

 

[M18CTID]

Very funny and @worlseyweb what are you going to tell us next it's okay for Johnson to break the law because he was doing it to honour the result of a non binding referendum.

If you're going to tag him, at least do it properly!

 

[nmc]

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.

The problem with that argument was that if the Governments argument was upheld in reality the Executive could simply sideline Parliament at any time of its choosing whenever it felt like it for any length of time. The balance of power between Parliament and the Executive had to be clarified and it has been.

 

[Chris in London]

See i don't get that argument. Afterall, the law somewhere does require that a prorogation of a unprecedented lenght must have a written explenation for that unprecedented lenght provided for it right? So, thats essentially "part of law"? How can one argue that the courts would not have the power to judge over the legallity of "a prorogation of unprecedented lenght" if by law they are the ones that must process the legaly required explenation for it's legallity? Surely that process isn't just a symbolic procedure that nessecarily always would have the same outcome? Surely if you have sepperation of powers and some independant judiciary they arn't nessecarily going to be default puppets on a string for the goverment?

No it doesn't. What the Supreme Court said is that you can't prorogue parliament without good reason. If the government had had good reasons to prorogue, it wouldn't have mattered that their reasons weren't in writing (though in practice they almost certainly would have been recorded somewhere.)