RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:Boris could get in front of this by saying he's opening parliament and on his way to take questions ahead of the next court ruling. or he could dress JRM up as Judge Dredd and send him to let those nonces in Scotland know who is the law.

I can picture it - Judge Dredd rocking up the M74 on his Lawmaster, complete with nanny on the pillion.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:Boris could get in front of this by saying he's opening parliament and on his way to take questions ahead of the next court ruling. or he could dress JRM up as Judge Dredd and send him to let those nonces in Scotland know who is the law.

I can picture it - Judge Dredd rocking up the M74 on his Lawmaster, complete with nanny on the pillion.

Don't be silly. Nanny will be driving and Dredd will be reclined across the pillion and a sidecar.

Puja

Summary of the Court's ruling which is utterly damning.
If the Supreme Court determines likewise, Johnson is surely toast.

"All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.

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"

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.