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

SteveTheRed said:
Can someone please explain to me, like the simpleton I am, what was "unlawful" ?

Do we know what Boris said to the Queen that was a lie?
Click to expand...

The judgement is basically that if parliament is to be suspended for a certain amount of time then there has to be a good reason and that reason has to account for the entire term of the suspension. If no good reason is given then the action is unlawful.

The court chose not to decide whether or not Boris lied, though it is definitely implied that he did.
 
B20 said:
So he will go for a 4-6 day proroguing soon.
Click to expand...

Can he though? Why would the Queen agree now? I'm not as knowledgeable on this stuff - is she obligated to grant it?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
The judgement is basically that if parliament is to be suspended for a certain amount of time then there has to be a good reason and that reason has to account for the entire term of the suspension. If no good reason is given, then the action is unlawful.
Click to expand...

So assuming that Boris gave the Queen a "reason" and she acted on his advise, are the Supreme Courts basically said that the reason Boris gave was a lie?

Surely it has to be a lie, if it's a poor reason then it is still the Queen's decision right?
 
FootballHQ said:
These two? :D

father-ted-careful-now.jpg
Click to expand...

Far worse. :lol:

They actually sounded like the worst kind of football fans. At one point they were singing ‘We love you Boris, we do!’. I’m amazed they didn’t go with ‘The referees a wanker!’, it would of at least been topical.
 
Simbo said:
I'm pretty sure the shenanigans from a couple weeks ago passed a law that meant this isn't the case.
Click to expand...

711 said:
You know what, I've been picked up on that before. Definite memory problems, thanks for the correction.
Click to expand...

Actually the more I think about it, yes the UK passed an act on hard Brexit, but we can't stop the process unilaterally can we? As it stands as far as the EU is concerned the UK has tendered article 50 and is leaving in five weeks time in what will in effect be hard Brexit whether the UK parliament now wants it or not. Or am I still wrong? it wouldn't surprise me.
 
SteveTheRed said:
So assuming that Boris gave the Queen a "reason" and she acted on his advise, are the Supreme Courts basically said that the reason Boris gave was a lie?

Surely it has to be a lie, if it's a poor reason then it is still the Queen's decision right?
Click to expand...

I believe the Scottish court ruled that he misled Lizzie and the Supreme Court ruling has upheld that judgement.
 
711 said:
Actually the more I think about it, yes the UK passed an act on hard Brexit, but we can't stop the process unilaterally can we? As it stands as far as the EU is concerned the UK has tendered article 50 and is leaving in five weeks time in what will in effect be hard Brexit whether the UK parliament now wants it or not. Or am I still wrong? it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

The UK can unilaterally revoke article 50.

Not that that will happen. All the guff about a "no deal exit being prevented" was bollocks, they don't have that ability. They either leave on terms agreed by the EU, leave with no deal, or revoke A50.
 
Rado_N said:
The UK can unilaterally revoke article 50.

Not that that will happen. All the guff about a "no deal exit being prevented" was bollocks, they don't have that ability. They either leave on terms agreed by the EU, leave with no deal, or revoke A50.
Click to expand...
Yeah thanks, I appreciate it's in the EU constitution that we could revoke whilst in the notice period, and we might, but we haven't yet, so it still stands, bollocky acts of parliament or not. So, five weeks then.
 
SteveTheRed said:
So assuming that Boris gave the Queen a "reason" and she acted on his advise, are the Supreme Courts basically said that the reason Boris gave was a lie?

Surely it has to be a lie, if it's a poor reason then it is still the Queen's decision right?
Click to expand...

It almost certainly was a lie, or more precisely an example of being economical with the truth. I'm sure Boris did want a new Queens speech, but more than that he wanted a pretext to shut up parliament. The court stopped short of declaring it a lie though, instead declaring that insufficient reason had been provided and that the advice given by government to the Queen was against the law on that basis alone.

The thing is that while the Queen's assent is required, in practice she merely accepts the advice of her ministers and acts accordingly. It's not really a two way conversation where the Queen must be persuaded - she just gets told what to do. If she's assured by her government it's all perfectly legal, proper and indeed routine then its custom that she just accepts that.

I guess you could say that in asserting that the prorogation was all above board the government lied, but you could also say that they were just in error and incompetent.
 
What's parliament's next move if PM doesn't resign?

No confidence vote? If so wouldn't that trigger gen election if an alternative government can't be formed which the parliament wasn't keen on doing until October leave deadline extended?

Then again how can not go for a no-confidence vote in somebody who's resignation they are demanding?
 
Rado_N said:
The UK can unilaterally revoke article 50.

Not that that will happen. All the guff about a "no deal exit being prevented" was bollocks, they don't have that ability. They either leave on terms agreed by the EU, leave with no deal, or revoke A50.
Click to expand...
I have a thought that we ask for an extension...
the eu refuse as they have had enough and just want rid of us
we revoke
the eu are stuck with us and we become even more belligerent
 
Wolverine said:
What's parliament's next move if PM doesn't resign?

No confidence vote? If so wouldn't that trigger gen election if an alternative government can't be formed which the parliament wasn't keen on doing until October leave deadline extended?

Then again how can not go for a no-confidence vote in somebody who's resignation they are demanding?
Click to expand...

I think yes a confidence vote - perhaps a GNU under corbyn
Perhaps also impeachment - im not sure if boris could be pm (or even an mp) if he was impeached and im not sure how quickly they could do it
 
711 said:
Actually the more I think about it, yes the UK passed an act on hard Brexit, but we can't stop the process unilaterally can we? As it stands as far as the EU is concerned the UK has tendered article 50 and is leaving in five weeks time in what will in effect be hard Brexit whether the UK parliament now wants it or not. Or am I still wrong? it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

You're right . He only has to ask for an extension. If the EU say no you're off. A lot of people seem to be under the false impression that no deal is off the table. But you can revoke A50.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You're right . He only has to ask for an extension. If the EU say no you're off. A lot of people seem to be under the false impression that no deal is off the table. But you can revoke A50.
Click to expand...
I doubt he will ask. But if he does, it will be granted.
 
Wolverine said:
What's parliament's next move if PM doesn't resign?

No confidence vote? If so wouldn't that trigger gen election if an alternative government can't be formed which the parliament wasn't keen on doing until October leave deadline extended?

Then again how can not go for a no-confidence vote in somebody who's resignation they are demanding?
Click to expand...

It's a dodgy time-line. If they call a vote of no confidence they have 14 days to form a new government under a new PM. If that happened tomorrow it would take us up to 8th October. If no government is formed then parliament dissolves with a mandatory 25 day gap till the election.

That would take us past the deadline and well into November.

If a vote of no confidence is called then there might just be the immense pressure required for these tossers to actually agree on an interim PM just to avoid this.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's a dodgy time-line. If they call a vote of no confidence they have 14 days to form a new government under a new PM. If that happened tomorrow it would take us up to 8th October. If no government is formed then parliament dissolves with a mandatory 25 day gap till the election.

That would take us past the deadline and well into November.
Click to expand...
hence Im pretty sure a compramise candidate would be agreed (i.e. not corbyn) - Ken clarke would be my guesshe would sumbit the letter / arrange extension for a referendum (mays deal vs remain) and call a GE / stand down after
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You're right . He only has to ask for an extension. If the EU say no you're off. A lot of people seem to be under the false impression that no deal is off the table. But you can revoke A50.
Click to expand...

I think practically speaking the EU will give an extension and the UK will have a general election.

I can't really see what that'll change though in truth... A couple of dozen more Lib Dems with less Labour and Tory MPs?
 
sun_tzu said:
hence Im pretty sure a compramise candidate would be agreed (i.e. not corbyn) - Ken clarke would be my guesshe would sumbit the letter / arrange extension for a referendum (mays deal vs remain) and call a GE / stand down after
Click to expand...

I ninja edited my agreement to this. Yeah, if it happens my money would be on Clarke - though I can see Corbyn going for a round of brinkmanship first.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It's a dodgy time-line. If they call a vote of no confidence they have 14 days to form a new government under a new PM. If that happened tomorrow it would take us up to 8th October. If no government is formed then parliament dissolves with a mandatory 25 day gap till the election.

That would take us past the deadline and well into November.

If a vote of no confidence is called, then there might just be the immense pressure required for these tossers to actually agree on an interim PM just to avoid this.
Click to expand...

I see regarding the deadlines. Still just seems bizarre they are clamouring for his resignation if they aren't going to go ahead and call for no-confidence vote. The mental gymnastics to justify that would be so difficult, even with the timeframe rationale that you mentioned.

Given that Jo Swinson has ruled effectively anything that would put Jeremy Corbyn in power, is an interim unity replacement government with Ken Clarke +/- ******* Harman feasible?
 
Ekkie Thump said:
It almost certainly was a lie, or more precisely an example of being economical with the truth. I'm sure Boris did want a new Queens speech, but more than that he wanted a pretext to shut up parliament. The court stopped short of declaring it a lie though, instead declaring that insufficient reason had been provided and that the advice given by government to the Queen was against the law on that basis alone.

The thing is that while the Queen's assent is required, in practice she merely accepts the advice of her ministers and acts accordingly. It's not really a two way conversation where the Queen must be persuaded - she just gets told what to do. If she's assured by her government it's all perfectly legal, proper and indeed routine then its custom that she just accepts that.

I guess you could say that in asserting that the prorogation was all above board the government lied, but you could also say that they were just in error and incompetent.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've been reading about it today and this just seems a lot easier to comprehend.
 
At least it looks like Boris wont have to be dead in a ditch on the 19th as its unlikely he can remain as PM till then

I wonder if doing a Boris is going to turn into a common saying for making a shambolic clusterfec of everything
 
finneh said:
I think practically speaking the EU will give an extension and the UK will have a general election.

I can't really see what that'll change though in truth... A couple of dozen more Lib Dems with less Labour and Tory MPs?
Click to expand...
First it would have to be asked for. Boris won't ask for one and if he clings on for a bit, loses a vote of no confidence, then there's some more buggering about followed by a general election then five weeks with no one to ask for one will be long gone. Or Corbyn gets in a position so he can ask for one for three months to negotiate a new deal - yeah, right.

There are of course scenarios where an extension could be asked for and granted, but there are others where it doesn't happen. Neither of us actually knows, do we?
 
Wolverine said:
I see regarding the deadlines. Still just seems bizarre they are clamouring for his resignation if they aren't going to go ahead and call for no-confidence vote. The mental gymnastics to justify that would be so difficult, even with the timeframe rationale that you mentioned.

Given that Jo Swinson has ruled effectively anything that would put Jeremy Corbyn in power, is an interim unity replacement government with Ken Clarke +/- ******* Harman feasible?
Click to expand...

That's the big question. Can those opposed to no deal compromise enough in the short space available? The current understanding is no, they can't and that + the time limit is what's holding them off going for a no confidence vote. Instead they've tried to sidestep it by turning Boris into some sort of puppet PM who goes and gets the extension instead. It's a bit cowardly, but there's a lot at stake. I think people want at least some sense of cohesion around a particular candidate before they push the nuclear button and leave themselves with a deadline of 14 days to do so.

In the end that might be the only thing left to do though and in such circumstances i'm cautiously optimistic that they'll fudge something barely acceptable and we'll wobble on towards another referendum/election after the EU grant us an extention.

Probably Clarke.
 
Last edited:
Rado_N said:
The UK can unilaterally revoke article 50.

Not that that will happen. All the guff about a "no deal exit being prevented" was bollocks, they don't have that ability. They either leave on terms agreed by the EU, leave with no deal, or revoke A50.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Those are and have been the three options.
The pressure is now very much on getting a withdrawal agreement that both sides can compromise and agree on.
That is the least worse option, save for revoking A50
I say compromise on because the EU has invested a huge amount of time on this whole process. And as such, I still believe that the only sensible option is to bring to an end the withdrawal process with a deal.
That then paves the way for the far more important future trading arrangement and of course gives the UK the vital transition period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.