RugbyRebels

Blurred lines everywhere

fivepointer wrote: 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"

Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Which Tyler wrote:

fivepointer wrote: 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"

Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

fivepointer wrote: 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"

Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

I can imagine how this will play out. The appeals process will be spun out as long as possible, Johnson will then further delay taking any action until the last possible moment before arrest for contempt of court, and they will hope that by then there won't be any time left for parliament to do anything at all.

What I can say - safely, and without fear of contradiction* is that... I'm confused.


*If only because I'm confused enough already, and I doubt that any contradiction will clarify things for me. I know you buggers; someone would claim that I know exactly what's going on, if only to spite me.

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

fivepointer wrote: 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"

Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

Where do you get that from? Opinions seem mixed as to whether the Scots court has over-reached.

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

I can imagine how this will play out. The appeals process will be spun out as long as possible, Johnson will then further delay taking any action until the last possible moment before arrest for contempt of court, and they will hope that by then there won't be any time left for parliament to do anything at all.

Won't they be into 'normal' recess by Friday? And after that, proroguing would be 'normal' prior to Queens speech. I may have made that up though.

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Puja wrote:
Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

I can imagine how this will play out. The appeals process will be spun out as long as possible, Johnson will then further delay taking any action until the last possible moment before arrest for contempt of court, and they will hope that by then there won't be any time left for parliament to do anything at all.

Won't they be into 'normal' recess by Friday? And after that, proroguing would be 'normal' prior to Queens speech. I may have made that up though.

They might not vote for a recess, were parliament open to not vote for it

I suspect the high court will overrule this judgement. No for any legal reason, just ... are they going to rock the boat that much?

But if they do uphold it ... BJ will have misled Queen and Parliament. Surely resignation time*?



* under normal circumstances

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I can imagine how this will play out. The appeals process will be spun out as long as possible, Johnson will then further delay taking any action until the last possible moment before arrest for contempt of court, and they will hope that by then there won't be any time left for parliament to do anything at all.

Won't they be into 'normal' recess by Friday? And after that, proroguing would be 'normal' prior to Queens speech. I may have made that up though.

They might not vote for a recess, were parliament open to not vote for it

fair. Though that might bu55er up their conferences somewhat

Banquo wrote:Won't they be into 'normal' recess by Friday? And after that, proroguing would be 'normal' prior to Queens speech. I may have made that up though.

Yes; though they can always vote not to have the recess. There's also the element of everything else that progogation closes down - Teh Lords and various select and special committees etc close for prorogation, but not for recess.
There was due to be some questioning of BJ today by a select committee or other (I think, I've only had half an ear on the news) - which is cancelled sue to prorogation.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Won't they be into 'normal' recess by Friday? And after that, proroguing would be 'normal' prior to Queens speech. I may have made that up though.

Yes; though they can always vote not to have the recess. There's also the element of everything else that progogation closes down - Teh Lords and various select and special committees etc close for prorogation, but not for recess.
There was due to be some questioning of BJ today by a select committee or other (I think, I've only had half an ear on the news) - which is cancelled sue to prorogation.

Its getting beyond parody, and kind of makes a mockery of a sovereign parliament, which 'takes back control'

Screw their conferences. A no-deal Brexit is the most serious event to affect the country since the 3-day weeks of the 70s. I think they should be prioritising this over their feckin jolly to Blackpool.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Which seems to imply that, legally, prorogation isn't happening at this moment in time; it's been voided.

Technically, it's saying the advice is invalid. The actual prorogation was the "decision" of the Queen and so cannot be challenged, but once all the appeals are considered, then the court will likely order Boris to advise the Queen to recant the prorogation.

Puja

Where do you get that from? Opinions seem mixed as to whether the Scots court has over-reached.

I was talking on the hypothetical that the appeals came out the same result as the intial decision, not out of expectation that they necessarily will.

Puja

I’d be very surprised if the Supreme Court backed the Scots Court, but the fact it was referred for appeal very quickly in England suggests to me that there is something to this.

It's a weird thing really, cause the government's lawyers aren't even trying to argue that a 35 day prorogation was a measured and sensible requirement for a Queen's speech or that it wasn't just a cynical attempt to close down scrutiny. Not even a figleaf claim that it's got nothing to do with Brexit. Their whole case is based around the idea that, even if he has mislead the Queen and asked for prorogation under false pretences, the judicial branch doesn't have the authority to rule that that is wrong.

It's a shame the electorate as a whole isn't cleverer/better informed, cause that really should be a career-ending choice of argument.

Puja

Stones of granite wrote:Screw their conferences. A no-deal Brexit is the most serious event to affect the country since the 3-day weeks of the 70s. I think they should be prioritising this over their feckin jolly to Blackpool.

But! What will all the lobbyists do????

On Yellowhammer.

What's different about the new Yellowhammer document that the government has just published compared with the one I got hold of last month? The heading.
What did the version I had say? BASE SCENARIO
Now what does the new one say? HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning

This from the journalist who broke the story.

Lies upon lies upon lies.....

fivepointer wrote:On Yellowhammer.

What's different about the new Yellowhammer document that the government has just published compared with the one I got hold of last month? The heading.
What did the version I had say? BASE SCENARIO
Now what does the new one say? HMG Reasonable Worst Case Planning

This from the journalist who broke the story.

Lies upon lies upon lies.....

I've not seen either yet - but others are saying that it's shrunk from 37 pages down to 5 and reads much more like a précis than an actual report.
If only parliament were sitting, and could ask awkward questions about this sort of thing!

The 5 page summary is here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ns_CDL.pdf

There seems to be some noise on twatter about a report called black swan. Hard to know as there is also info around from a month ago that points at this as well.

However, being suggested it is the real worst case doc. and in the process of being leaked. Of course it may be all a load of bollox as these things have a habit of being.

If the document really is the worst case scenario, then the Govt should be able to also put out its base line assumptions.

Further, if Johnson really didnt lie to the Queen about the reason for prorogation of Parliament he can supply a sworn statement to that effect for the Supreme Court next week.

Both should be completely straightforward, shouldnt they?

fivepointer wrote:If the document really is the worst case scenario, then the Govt should be able to also put out its base line assumptions.

Further, if Johnson really didnt lie to the Queen about the reason for prorogation of Parliament he can supply a sworn statement to that effect for the Supreme Court next week.

Both should be completely straightforward, shouldnt they?

Agreed, given that any with half a brain could have written that precis three years ago. Think it was called Project Fear . Leavers will just ignore anyway.

Meanwhile, Bercow continues to carve out a new definition for the role of Speaker. His role in this, plus all the judicial reviews, has raised some interesting issues over having an unwritten constitution....

Bernard Jenkin was on the radio earlier saying the role of speaker was to defend the minority interest in parliament, presumably on the basis the government normally enjoys a majority, thus in this instance the speaker should be protecting the executive as the minority from parliament. Which is one way to look at it, I can't say it had occurred to me to consider it that way before, and I'm not minded to think other than the speaker is there to allow parliament to express a view, whatever that might be.