The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[Doobs]

Parliament suspension ruled 'unlawful'

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


What, if anything, are the ramifications of this?

Ha, was just going to post this.  Don't know the answer, but the article says it doesn't affect the curreny suspension.  So guess it just means that Johnson and Cummings are very naighty boys, but given their previous, we shouldn't be surprised.  Maybe Cummings gets to be found in contempt of parliament? again...

[Doobs]

More in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

The British government will appeal against the Scottish appeal court’s decision, which also contradicts a decision in Johnson’s favour by senior English judges last week, at the supreme court.

The supreme court has already scheduled an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and English cases for 17 September, alongside a third challenge brought in the courts in Belfast.

[Cf]

How dare these unelected judges try to thwart the will of the people etc

When does party conference season start? If the supreme court uphold this and parliament restarts could that happen during that time?

[Sheriff Fatman]

Regardless of any ongoing developments with this ruling, it's quite an astonishing situation already that 3 judges have effectively declared that the government/PM knowingly misled the Queen with regard to the decision to prorogue.

The monarchy has no effective say in the actions it takes, as it relies on the advice of the government.  This is why there was never any prospect that the Queen would not give consent when requested to prorogue.  Consequently, for a government to now have been found to have acted improperly in this regard is a major development.

Even if the UK Supreme Court subsequently overrules the decision, there's no escaping that a senior court within the UK has actually reached this conclusion.  If the Queen is put in a situation where she can't rely on the advice of the PM, as someone who is politically neutral, then the whole system of Royal Assent pretty much breaks down.

Ignoring the Brexit element of all this, for a PM to mislead the Queen in this manner, as has now been established in law (albeit still subject to appeal), is surely an unprecedented situation.  Ordinarily, you would expect this to make the PM's position immediately untenable (imagine the political fallout of a court having reached this conclusion about Thatcher, Blair, Major, etc during the time they were in office).  The fact that this hasn't already become a Prime Ministerial resignation matter shows how much we're in unchartered political territory at present.

[StuartHopkin]

Regardless of any ongoing developments with this ruling, it's quite an astonishing situation already that 3 judges have effectively declared that the government/PM knowingly misled the Queen with regard to the decision to prorogue.

The monarchy has no effective say in the actions it takes, as it relies on the advice of the government.  This is why there was never any prospect that the Queen would not give consent when requested to prorogue.  Consequently, for a government to now have been found to have acted improperly in this regard is a major development.

Even if the UK Supreme Court subsequently overrules the decision, there's no escaping that a senior court within the UK has actually reached this conclusion.  If the Queen is put in a situation where she can't rely on the advice of the PM, as someone who is politically neutral, then the whole system of Royal Assent pretty much breaks down.

Ignoring the Brexit element of all this, for a PM to mislead the Queen in this manner, as has now been established in law (albeit still subject to appeal), is surely an unprecedented situation.  Ordinarily, you would expect this to make the PM's position immediately untenable (imagine the political fallout of a court having reached this conclusion about Thatcher, Blair, Major, etc during the time they were in office).  The fact that this hasn't already become a Prime Ministerial resignation matter shows how much we're in unchartered political territory at present.

It is obviously a huge grey area, and all we are seeing is differing opinions from top level judges that shows how complex/grey/interpretation based the matter is.

It will just be said that Boris was advised it was fine, he took this in good faith, and would never knowingly mislead the Queen.

[TightEnd]

If the Supreme Court follows the Scottish court and finds that Boris Johnson misled the Queen then he presumably will have to resign.

The English High Court (on Friday, Miller case) held the question was "non-justiciable" - ie, prorogation is a matter for politics not law

The Scottish court (today) held it was justiciable and also there was improper motive

If Supreme Court says it is justiciable (It probably won't) then its game over for him isn't it? The buck doesn't stop at what he was advised and who advised him?

[Jon MW]

If the Supreme Court follows the Scottish court and finds that Boris Johnson misled the Queen then he presumably will have to resign.

The English High Court (on Friday, Miller case) held the question was "non-justiciable" - ie, prorogation is a matter for politics not law

The Scottish court (today) held it was justiciable and also there was improper motive

If Supreme Court says it is justiciable (It probably won't) then its game over for him isn't it? The buck doesn't stop at what he was advised and who advised him?

Scottish law and English law interpret parts of the constitution differently (English case law doesn't affect Scottish interpretation for example).

I assume the Supreme Court follows English law interpretation(?)

[Jon MW]

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/press-statement-gina-miller-v-the-prime-minister-others/

Judgement and summary of the English case if anyone wants a read

[StuartHopkin]

The Queen knew why he was doing it.

I cant believe I have just sat and read it but it seems pretty clear cut no?

Both the decision of the Prime Minister that Parliament should be prorogued at the time and for
the duration chosen and the advice given by the Prime Minister in the present case were inherently
political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy. [51]
There is no legal measure of the length of time between Parliamentary sessions, nor even a
constitutional convention which governs that matter, albeit constitutional conventions are not
justiciable. [54] Parliament may be prorogued for various reasons, including political reasons, and
there is no statute, law or convention which requires Parliament to sit in constant session.

[TightEnd]

Yes, that's what the English court said but whatever else it might mean in practice, senior judges in Scotland have ruled the the Prime Minister deliberately tried to frustrate Parliament for his own ends, then lied about it to the Queen and the country. 

Interesting times. Normally that would obviously play pretty badly but in this people v politicians type environment presumably it doesn't play badly to his core vote..ie he did it as a means to an end which is to get Brexit through with no further delays

[TightEnd]

Goodall posts as follows

"All in all prorogation was one of the most politically inept decisions of recent history:

- extension law happened anyway
- prompted Tory MPs to rebel more quickly
- which provoked expulsions
- majority to fall to -44
- provoked huge legal clashes
- might be reversed"


"The Queen relies on the sound and honest counsel from her prime minister not to put her in a position where she is acting a) politically b) controversially c) unlawfully. PM had already failed on A and B. C is a real kicker"

and the point i made above put in a better way

"Yet in the court of public opinion, this will change little. All of our institutions, including the courts, have become less trusted as a result of Brexit. The PM’s team will suggest this is all part of a remainer establishment seeking to thwart the ref. Many will believe them."

[StuartHopkin]

Yes, that's what the English court said but whatever else it might mean in practice, senior judges in Scotland have ruled the the Prime Minister deliberately tried to frustrate Parliament for his own ends, then lied about it to the Queen and the country. 

Interesting times. Normally that would obviously play pretty badly but in this people v politicians type environment presumably it doesn't play badly to his core vote..ie he did it as a means to an end which is to get Brexit through with no further delays

I probably am part of his core vote to be fair 

Are we not saying that the Queen is pretty thick if she has been misled on this though?

Also based on that paragraph, his motives were politically driven, so he is allowed to prorogue as he see's fit?

[kukushkin88]

Yes, that's what the English court said but whatever else it might mean in practice, senior judges in Scotland have ruled the the Prime Minister deliberately tried to frustrate Parliament for his own ends, then lied about it to the Queen and the country. 

Interesting times. Normally that would obviously play pretty badly but in this people v politicians type environment presumably it doesn't play badly to his core vote..ie he did it as a means to an end which is to get Brexit through with no further delays

I probably am part of his core vote to be fair 

Are we not saying that the Queen is pretty thick if she has been misled on this though?

Also based on that paragraph, his motives were politically driven, so he is allowed to prorogue as he see's fit?

It’s a formality that she approves it, it was always going to be for the courts to decide if she was misled. I don’t think anyone doubts the reasons that were given are dishonest. The Supreme Court case will be interesting for sure.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Letter from Gina Miller's lawyers outlining the case for immediate re-opening of Parliament, based on today's ruling:

https://twitter.com/thatginamiller/status/1171796319968616450

[RickBFA]

The Supreme Court will almost certainly rule in favour of the Government.

The sooner we get a general election the better.