Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful

One Night Only said:
I don't get it either :lol:

Basically the judge can just not like Johnson's actions and go against him saying it was wrong. Dodgy all round.

Might leave the EU sometime in 2949
Click to expand...
Basically two courts of the UK deemed that one man tried to circumvent the rule of law.
 
JPRouve said:
It's subjective but it's not a bad thing because the government completely failed to explain why they prorogued Parliaments at that moment and for that length, the decision went against the political and legislative context.
Click to expand...
I hate BJ more than anyone and am very happy with this outcome.

But I’m not keen on courts making subjective decisions because they don’t have slam dunk evidence. Doesn’t make sense to me from a legal perspective.
 
So will BJ resign? Are there enough votes in Parliament for a vote of no confidence?
 
owlo said:
I'm pretty sure she said that the intent didn't matter, given that the effect was to stymie parliament. And that no other reason was given for prorogation.
Click to expand...
What’s the evidence that it was to ‘stymie parliament’?
 
With regards to motive the relevant portions can be found at points 58 - 61 in the full judgement: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

58. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it.

60. Nowhere is there a hint that the Prime Minister, in giving advice to Her Majesty, is more than simply the leader of the Government seeking to promote its own policies; he has a constitutional responsibility, as we have explained in para 30 above.

61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October. We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.
Click to expand...

paragraph 30 said:
30. Before considering the question of justiciability, there are four points that we should make clear at the outset. First, the power to order the prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative power: that is to say, a power recognised by the common law and exercised by the Crown, in this instance by the sovereign in person, acting on advice, in accordance with modern constitutional practice. It is not suggested in these appeals that Her Majesty was other than obliged by constitutional convention to accept that advice. In the circumstances, we express no view on that matter. That situation does, however, place on the Prime Minister a constitutional responsibility, as the only person with power to do so, to have regard to all relevant interests, including the interests of Parliament.
Click to expand...
 
sammsky1 said:
What’s the evidence that it was to ‘stymie parliament’?
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding.

The effect was that it did stymie parliament.

Therefore whatever the intent was, it didn't matter, because it is not lawful to prorogue if the effect is that it stymies parliament.

No reason was given for a 5 week prorogation, hence we don't even know what the intent was [as the government provided none] and must only examine the effect. See the quotes on various news sites about this. The implication is clear.

PS. There is a mountain of evidence for improper motive, but they just choose that they didn't need to go there. It's clearly alluded to though.
 
Did anyone here see the interviews with young voters from Stoke?

One leave voter could barely speak and said he agrees with PM Joris Bohnson.

Sums it up.
 
sammsky1 said:
What’s the evidence that it was to ‘stymie parliament’?
Click to expand...

Your question seems to imply the requirement of intent. The court found that intent wasn't required, simply that if the effect was to stymie parliament without good reason then that was enough for prorogation to be deemed unlawful.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Your question seems to imply the requirement of intent. The court found that intent wasn't required, simply that if the effect was to stymie parliament without good reason then that was enough for prorogation to be deemed unlawful.
Click to expand...

That said, the undercurrent was pretty damning.

sun_tzu said:
certainly ... probably enough votes to impeach as well
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is. But surely they'll privately try to set out demands first? He'll say no and resign, then what?
 
So another extension looms, for what? 6 months maybe? Which will bring it up to March/April next year at a minimum, basically FOUR years since the referendum, which is the length of term between elections in most democracies.

Still "unlawful" to have a second referendum is it?
 
Madness. The whole thing is one big farce.

Surely he’s gotta resign now.
 
do.ob said:
Why are people so certain about this, when the UK is only one side of an extension agreement?
Click to expand...

The rebels have been speaking to the EU for months, they're confident it will be given.
 
owlo said:
That said, the undercurrent was pretty damning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they've clearly found his motive to be purely for party political gain with the "[no] more than simply the leader of the government" observation and clearly question the authenticity of the proffered reason with "It is impossible for us to conclude...that there was any reason, let alone a good reason."
 
owlo said:
That said, the undercurrent was pretty damning.



I'm sure there is. But surely they'll privately try to set out demands first? He'll say no and resign, then what?
Click to expand...
queen asks corbyn to try and form a majority - he probably fails
then there will be a period for somebody else to try and form a GNU - gut feel ken clarke will get the backing in the end on a promice he will be caretaker for a referendum - enact no other legislation and after the referendum a GE will be callled and he will stand down
but there are so many other possibilities that its at best a guess

I suspect the referendum will be mays deal and remain ...I also suspect that the election after will have a farrage / boris party saying they will take winning as a mandate to leave with no deal and the whole mess will start again
 
owlo said:
You're misunderstanding.

The effect was that it did stymie parliament.

Therefore whatever the intent was, it didn't matter, because it is not lawful to prorogue if the effect is that it stymies parliament.

No reason was given for a 5 week prorogation, hence we don't even know what the intent was [as the government provided none] and must only examine the effect. See the quotes on various news sites about this. The implication is clear.

PS. There is a mountain of evidence for improper motive, but they just choose that they didn't need to go there. It's clearly alluded to though.
Click to expand...

Ekkie Thump said:
Your question seems to imply the requirement of intent. The court found that intent wasn't required, simply that if the effect was to stymie parliament without good reason then that was enough for prorogation to be deemed unlawful.
Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining.
 
I stand corrected. They did uphold "improper intent"

 
In normal circumstances he would have to resign immediately. In today's world nothing will probably happen. Hope I'm wrong though.
 
sun_tzu said:
queen asks corbyn to try and form a majority - he probably fails
then there will be a period for somebody else to try and form a GNU - gut feel ken clarke will get the backing in the end on a promice he will be caretaker for a referendum - enact no other legislation and after the referendum a GE will be callled and he will stand down
but there are so many other possibilities that its at best a guess
Click to expand...

Posted about this in the general politics thread. It seems to assume that both Corbyn and Swinson are reasonable people.

I can only see 2 policies that they would enact with cross party consensus.
 
sun_tzu said:
queen asks corbyn to try and form a majority - he probably fails
then there will be a period for somebody else to try and form a GNU - gut feel ken clarke will get the backing in the end on a promice he will be caretaker for a referendum - enact no other legislation and after the referendum a GE will be callled and he will stand down
but there are so many other possibilities that its at best a guess
Click to expand...
Isn't there a 2 week period to form a government then it moves to a General Election? Corbyn couldn't have 2 weeks, fail, then move on to someone else?

Or am I wrong on that one?
 
balaks said:
In normal circumstances he would have to resign immediately. In today's world nothing will probably happen. Hope I'm wrong though.
Click to expand...
He did say on the 12th that he absolutely did not lie to the Queen, which is now an accusation being upheld by two courts. It's the little things in life, isn't it :lol:
 
Massive Spanner said:
So another extension looms, for what? 6 months maybe? Which will bring it up to March/April next year at a minimum, basically FOUR years since the referendum, which is the length of term between elections in most democracies.

Still "unlawful" to have a second referendum is it?
Click to expand...
It's a fair point. I get that a few people were up in arms at the prospect a year or so after the fact. Now though, it's a different landscape and anyone arguing against a 2nd ref isn't worth listening to.
 
Massive Spanner said:
So another extension looms, for what? 6 months maybe? Which will bring it up to March/April next year at a minimum, basically FOUR years since the referendum, which is the length of term between elections in most democracies.

Still "unlawful" to have a second referendum is it?
Click to expand...
It also brings us past January when all of those tasty undeclared donations need to be declared. Delicious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.