/ Prorogation unlawful

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
elsewhere 11 Sep 2019

Scottish court has decided prorogation unlawful.

Edit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

From BBC URL above...

In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson's decision to suspend was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

Post edited at 10:36
1
snoop6060 11 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Like Boris gives 2 f*cks about the law or what anyone in Scotland thinks.  I'm willing to bet it goes ahead as planned.

2
Eric9Points 11 Sep 2019
In reply to snoop6060:

I imagine the Government will appeal, if that is possible and it will go to the supreme court.

I'm surprised, my MP was one of the petitioners and thought it had little chance of success.

baron 11 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Oh goody!

Does that mean that Parliament can come back?

I’m sure  Mr Corbyn can’t wait to face continuous calls for him to back a General Election.

10
the sheep 11 Sep 2019
In reply to snoop6060:

Whatever can be done to make BJ's life as difficult as possible is alright with me 

4
MonkeyPuzzle 11 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Oh goody!

> Does that mean that Parliament can come back?

> I’m sure  Mr Corbyn can’t wait to face continuous calls for him to back a General Election.

Pretty sure he'll be happy to wait until Johnson negotiates a deal or asks for an extension. Perhaps a second referendum would be better for everyone.

4
Wanderer100 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

The government have said they will appeal. It will go to the supreme court for the final outcome. 

the sheep 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Wanderer100:

So the court has said "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

Essentially then the court has ruled he lied to the Queen!

2
baron 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> So the court has said "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

> Essentially then the court has ruled he lied to the Queen!

Unlike the court that heard the case previously and maybe unlike the one that will hear it next.

With Tom Watson calling for a referendum before an election this morning it’s not only Johnson who’ll be glad that parliament isn’t sitting.

11
the sheep 11 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

That remains to be seen. It doesn't help but reinforce the belief that every time he opens his mouth a pork pie pops out. Presumably destined for Thailand or Iceland

2
baron 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

I'm not trying to defend Johnson or his actions and especially not his suspension of Parliament.

However, he's not the only one who benefits from a lack of parliamentary scrutiny in what is, essentially, the begining of an election campaign.

8
Eric9Points 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> So the court has said "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."

> Essentially then the court has ruled he lied to the Queen!


Yes, it's nice to see that five judges have decided that BJ is a lying bastard.

2
Eric9Points 11 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

No one trusts BJ.

Why should they?

He's proved himself to be a liar not only since becoming Prime Minister but on numerous occasions before that. You'll no doubt recall his pledge to lie in front if the bulldozers if permission was given to build a third runway at Heathrow for example?

It is because he can't be trusted that Parliament will not allow him to call a GE until they are certain it can't be used as a device to enable Brexit on his terms.

2
WaterMonkey 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> Essentially then the court has ruled he lied to the Queen!

Orff with his head

fred99 11 Sep 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Orff with his head


Can I join the queue for the job please ?

Timmd 11 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Oh goody!

> Does that mean that Parliament can come back?

> I’m sure  Mr Corbyn can’t wait to face continuous calls for him to back a General Election.

It's about more than politics - IYSWIM.

the sheep 11 Sep 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Orff with his head

For the ultimate irony use a guillotine   

1
jkarran 11 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

This should be interesting but I'd be surprised if the ruling survives the appeal.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Agree , it is interesting. Just read this 

"The Divisional Court of the Queens Bench Division with the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls (most senior civil Judge) together with a Lord Justice of Appeal have ruled Boris was entitled to use his executive powers (like Major, Callaghan and Blair) to prorogue Parliament.

The Supreme Court has never overturned a unanimous decision by the LCJ sitting with the MR.  "

1
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

The two interesting things I saw in the verdict were:

a. The appeal judges explain why they took a different view from the lower court and its because they thought the documents the Government was forced to supply showed it was lying in its stated reason for proroguing parliament.   The documents were only supplied at the last minute and I'm not sure the English court that ruled last week considered them. 

b. I'd have thought that a court ruling that the prorogation 'was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect' implied that parliament wasn't actually prorogued.  If it's not prorogued then it shouldn't need to be formally recalled, the MPs could just go in and carry on business, at least until the ruling was reversed by the English supreme court.

The Scots MPs should go in on their own and declare Scotland independent while everyone else is at home.

1
MG 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> The Supreme Court has never overturned a unanimous decision by the LCJ sitting with the MR.  "

Has it ever considered a case with different Scottish and English rulings where the MR was involved though (the MR not being a Scottish position)?

MG 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> b. I'd have thought that a court ruling that the prorogation 'was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect' implied that parliament wasn't actually prorogued.  If it's not prorogued then it shouldn't need to be formally recalled, the MPs could just go in and carry on business, at least until the ruling was reversed by the English supreme court.

Isn't it simultaneously ruled as void and valid by two courts of equal standing?  (What happened in NI).

The supreme court is a UK one for civil cases.

Post edited at 16:54
Doug 11 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

An article I read earlier this afternoon pointed out that the questions put to the Scottish & English courts were different & that the different verdicts were not incoherent. I'm not a lawyer so no idea if that's correct but sounds possible.

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> Isn't it simultaneously ruled as void and valid by two courts of equal standing?  (What happened in NI).

I've no idea how this will play out in the English Supreme Court.  Some lawyer was saying on Twitter the English Supreme Court is supposed to apply Scottish Law principles on appeals referred from a Scottish Court.   It would be highly amusing if it found that the prorogation was illegal in Scotland and legal in England and they all moved to Scotland for a few weeks.

I thought Dominic Grieves comments about lying to the Queen might be the way this plays out.  The other courts ruled the issue of prorogation was non-justiciable and did not look at the evidence on whether the government was lying.  The Scottish appeal court found the issue was normally non-justiciable but became justiciable because the government was lying about its motives.  There could be some absolute smoking-gun information in the documents that were supplied to the court which makes the lying issue a matter of fact rather than opinion.   

No matter which way the Supreme Court rules on whether the issue is justiciable the fact that the Scottish Court found the government were lying about their motives, which would mean they lied when giving advice to the Queen, is not something they will walk away from easily.    Presumably the Queen has a reasonable expectation that the PM will not lie to her and she could choose to reverse her decision.

MonkeyPuzzle 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Doug:

The High Court simply ruled that the case was not "justiceable" as it had no legal rule by which to measure it. The Scottish Inner Court ruled that it was justiceable and that the inference (by lack of sworn affidavit to the contrary) that the reason for prorogation was different to that given to the Queen, meant that it went against the government's duty of candour and constituted an improper use of its power.

As I understand it, the Supreme Court will have to somehow reconcile the different positions in Scottish and English law, not just say that each were fair judgements under each respective law.

F*ck knows, basically.

kipper12 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Might. It Tony Blair have lied when explaining why we’re embarking on the disaster that was GW 2

kipper12 11 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think the opposition should give we the electorate the chance to have our say on this rotten to the core government.  If we somehow return BJ again, then we only have ourselves to blame

3
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Yes, it's nice to see that five judges have decided that BJ is a lying bastard.

I don't think that’s in dispute. The question is whether he’s a lying bastard the courts can sort out or whether the electorate needs to do that.

jcm

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If you recall the English courts (the High Court, I think it was) decided recently in effect that for politicians to lie to the people while in office was no business of theirs.

jcm

elsewhere 11 Sep 2019

If prorogation to stymie parliament turns out lawful it is time to give up on Westminster in its current form as unfit for purpose.

Robert Durran 11 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

Is the unlawfulness that Johnson lied about the reason for the prorogation or that the reason itself was unlawful?

Lusk 11 Sep 2019
In reply to kipper12:

> I think the opposition should give we the electorate the chance to have our say on this rotten to the core government.


Once the lying, twisted, conniving scum bag can set a date that he can't change, we're having one.

>  If we somehow return BJ again, then we only have ourselves to blame

and f*cked.  I'm really, really hoping that we're witnessing the death of the Conservative party here.
If we are, all this will have been worthwhile.

elsewhere 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Stymieing unlawful rather than lies. 

Snyggapa 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> For the ultimate irony use a guillotine   

I am applying for the job of guillotine  sharpener. I have a feeling that I will do a poor job. A really poor job

Robert Durran 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Lusk:

>  I'm really, really hoping that we're witnessing the death of the Conservative party here.

But somethiong else will spring up in it's place - it might be very nasty (thopugh hopefully unelectable).  I'd rather they split, leaving a right of centre one nation Conservative party for which there is a place, while the nutters join Farage or whatever on the fringes.

1
Yanis Nayu 11 Sep 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I wonder if lying to the Queen as part of the execution of government is a different matter?

tom_in_edinburgh 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I wonder if lying to the Queen as part of the execution of government is a different matter?

I wonder if the Queen could kick Boris and/or Jacob Rees Mogg off the Privy Council.   If they lied to her about the true reasons for proroguing parliament while 'in council' advising her to do it then they broke their oath as Privy Councillors.   "You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience;"

People have been chucked off before for criminal convictions. 

Constitutionally, if we have a system where the Queen has the final say on matters such as proroguing parliament, even if by convention she always takes the advice of ministers, then there has to be an expectation that the ministers advising her will not lie to her.   

As one of the QCs arguing the case pointed out, under the English court's reading of the law the Prime Minister can prorogue parliament whenever they like, for whatever reason they like, for as long as they like and neither the courts or parliament can stop them.

Yanis Nayu 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Just read a tweet from the leader of Plaid Cymru saying that if Johnson lied about the reasons for the prorogation he lied to parliament which is an impeachable offence. I hope he’s right. 

baron 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Just read a tweet from the leader of Plaid Cymru saying that if Johnson lied about the reasons for the prorogation he lied to parliament which is an impeachable offence. I hope he’s right. 

He’s wrong.

Don’t get too excited.

6
tom_in_edinburgh 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> For the ultimate irony use a guillotine   

Fortuitously, Edinburgh used the guillotine for a while and we still have it in the National Museum of Scotland.  It wouldn't take long to set it up at the Mercat Cross should it be needed.  A slight complication is they are currently filming Fast and the Furious 9 in that location but I'm sure the movie people could work a beheading into the plot if necessary.

Lusk 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  a beheading

Bit extreme dude.
There must a stinking dungeon under Edinburgh castle you can stick BigJob in and throw away the key?

wercat 11 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> Essentially then the court has ruled he lied to the Queen!

more that he misused the Queen, given that she, by convention, follows the PM's wishes

wercat 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well just set it up at Wercat Cross then - I don't mind

> Fortuitously, Edinburgh used the guillotine for a while and we still have it in the National Museum of Scotland.  It wouldn't take long to set it up at the Mercat Cross should it be needed.  A slight complication is they are currently filming Fast and the Furious 9 in that location but I'm sure the movie people could work a beheading into the plot if necessary.

Dr.S at work 11 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

> more that he misused the Queen, given that she, by convention, follows the PM's wishes


That sounds rather sordid!

lets see what SCOTUK  (thats An Àrd-Chùirt for you Tom) has to say.

pasbury 11 Sep 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> If you recall the English courts (the High Court, I think it was) decided recently in effect that for politicians to lie to the people while in office was no business of theirs.

> jcm

I think they were right too. Political statements have no place in court.

The problem is not the lies; it’s people believing them.

6
pasbury 11 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

> more that he misused the Queen, given that she, by convention, follows the PM's wishes

As someone who is pretty ambivalent about our monarch being head of state, i.e. purely symbolic, I did feel that she was being misused, I would be very interested in reading a transcript of the meeting.

My impression is that the Queen and the rest of the royal family are quite pro EU.

I bet she is really pissed off with Mr Johnson and probably thinks that Dominic Cummings is a right count.

1
pasbury 11 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Quite. Impeachment is not something we can do. Even if we could, the American example of it’s impotence as a political weapon should be instructive.

Normal law and the courts please.

And any attacks on the impartiality of the judiciary will take us into distinctly shitty territory.

pasbury 11 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The Queen (this one at least) will never contradict the government or the judiciary. And neither should she. Her position is symbolic and relies on trust in the government, and the Prime Minister. That does make it tricky when the Prime Minister is an untrustworthy, lying piece of shit.

1
baron 11 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Quite. Impeachment is not something we can do. Even if we could, the American example of it’s impotence as a political weapon should be instructive.

> Normal law and the courts please.

> And any attacks on the impartiality of the judiciary will take us into distinctly shitty territory.

The present shenanigans have highlighted that our quaint, archaic laws and procedures might no longer be appropriate for the modern age.

If any good can come of the chaos it might be a modernisation of the political and legal system to prevent similar situations arising in the future.

Thankfully (hopefully) we live in a country where the judiciary are impartial. We shall see.

pasbury 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The present shenanigans have highlighted that our quaint, archaic laws and procedures might no longer be appropriate for the modern age.

I don’t mind archaic procedures as long as they’re being used accountably by a fairly elected executive.

> If any good can come of the chaos it might be a modernisation of the political and legal system to prevent similar situations arising in the future.

What do you suggest? Proportional Representation would offer a huge transformation in my opinion.

> Thankfully (hopefully) we live in a country where the judiciary are impartial. We shall see.

they are, even if they’re not. Every judge has a moral compass and a political stance. They act ‘impartially’ but they are human. Judgement contains a set of moral and ethical values which we presume are shared. This has been challenged in the last few years by populists such as Trump.

1
baron 12 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I was thinking about removing the ability of a PM to suspend parliament for long periods.

Proportional representation maybe, although I understand that there is more  than one type.

We can keep the pomp and ceremony, I like that as it is a demonstration of our historical democracy, something that many countries don’t have.

Gordon Stainforth 12 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Yes, the beauty of the arrangement is that you can have the ceremonial of all the state occasions more or less drained of the political. The monarch being little more than a human face put to the flag that flies above our whole state and parliamentary democracy. Representing the whole nation: all the people, all political parties.

wercat 12 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> Quite. Impeachment is not something we can do. Even if we could, the American example of it’s impotence as a political weapon should be instructive.

One of the signatories of the motion to impeach Tony Blair was Boris Johnson.  Astonishingly enough.

fred99 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I wonder if lying to the Queen as part of the execution of government is a different matter?


Hopefully lying to the Queen would lead to the execution of the government.

tom_in_edinburgh 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> lets see what SCOTUK  (thats An Àrd-Chùirt for you Tom) has to say.

Obviously as an Independence supporter I'd argue that the SCOTUK has no authority to overrule the Scottish Court.  This is explicitly written into the Treaty of Union.

"and that no Causes in Scotland be cognizable by the Courts of Chancery, Queen’s Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-Hall; and that the said Courts, or any other of the like Nature, after the Union, shall have no Power to cognize, review, or alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, to stop the Execution of the same."

the sheep 12 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Breaking news, man with history of lying, lies yet again about lying 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49674516

Mike Stretford 12 Sep 2019
In reply to the sheep:

> Breaking news, man with history of lying, lies yet again about lying 

Can't watch it with sound. Does the journo point out how ridiculous it would have been to have a Queens speech at this time.... you normally have them after a GE, and everybody knows we'll have one of those before Christmas!

Graeme Alderson 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I can't find any record of there being a Queen's speech after May took office, the 2016 QS was in May and May didn't arrive until July

And Brown took office in June 2007 and the QS was in November.

So having a QS in the circumstances of a new PM without a GE seems unusual.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Matt in the Telegraph today is good

two suits talking discreetly outside no 10... 

"Here's the plan. If Boris is in jail, he can't go to Brussels to ask for an extension"

MonkeyPuzzle 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Can't watch it with sound. Does the journo point out how ridiculous it would have been to have a Queens speech at this time.... you normally have them after a GE, and everybody knows we'll have one of those before Christmas!

Of course not. The BBC is now just a mouthpiece for government. Ever since the Iraq dossier under Blair/Campbell and getting exponentially worse for it since Whittingdale's review under Cameron.

3
Mike Stretford 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Graeme Alderson: That's more investigative journalism than the BBC can manage!

Recent list here https://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-stateopening/

Always one after a GE, and with his flimsy majority of 1, Boris knew full well a GE was coming. If he really wanted one before October 31 he should have recalled parliament early, then he wouldn't have proposed a GE and no-deal Brexit in the same month.

Dr.S at work 12 Sep 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Perhaps that treaty has been superseded by subsequent statute?

After all I assume you think things like the treaty of Union can be changed - otherwise no chance of independence.

tom_in_edinburgh 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Perhaps that treaty has been superseded by subsequent statute?

No doubt according to the UK government and the UK legal system it has.  However, it seems to me that it makes no sense for the Westminster parliament to be able to change a clause in the treaty whose entire purpose is to set out the limits of its authority.   Imagine if that was allowed for other treaties.

My view (based on no legal scholarship at all) is that the Holyrood Parliament is the successor to the Scottish Parliament and the English MPs in the Westminster Parliament in EVEL mode are the successor of the English Parliament.  Either party i.e. the Scottish or English Parliament could decide to withdraw from the treaty or both parliaments could agree to amend it. 

> After all I assume you think things like the treaty of Union can be changed - otherwise no chance of independence.

I think the Scottish Parliament, as the successor of the Scottish Parliament which entered the treaty could decide to revoke it and leave the UK.   I think the SNP might well need to make arguments like this more forcefully in the future as the basis for a unilateral independence referendum if Westminster refuse an s30 order.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.