Let’s see what BJ does now, has anyone got a transcript and the case law cited to reach the verdict

Was fun to watch, should not have a big impact on brexit.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It made the GFA possible!

Being already aligned in EU law made it easier, it didn't make it possible

Given this is still the biggest hurdle for the UK to leave the EU with a deal, I would say it made it possible because both sides were aligned regitolary so no need for a hard border.

Of course, you will say, well other possibilities are there, we can have a super duper electronic border and all is fine, but that solution still remains elusive till this day, so still it remains an unicorn. Even your Brexit minister wants to postpone a decision till end of next year with his non-proposal.

What is transpiring now has no correlation to the process of reaching an agreement for the GFA, regulatory alignment made it easier, by you’re reasoning if there was no regulatory alignment cannot be achieved, the GFA is a near replica of the Sunningdale Agreement that was predominantly to establish power sharing between north and south and this was approximately 12mths after both nations joined the EEC and prior to this the Anglo-Irish agreement of 1965.

If you look back at the parallel of why the agreement collapsed it was viewed as an attempt for a United Ireland in which Hugh Logue remarked "the vehicle that would trundle unionists into a united Ireland" what do think Unionists May see when NI stays in a regulatory alignment with the ROI?


Asserting that an electronic border somehow equals to reaching an agreement in 1998 is the same as leaving in 2019. Unbelievable

Dutchy wrote:

Google is your friend, if it is already available. The only honorable way is to step down for Boris Johnson, so we know he won't do that. But it is going to be slightly harder to force a no-deal Brexit for him. He might try to prorogue parliament again, but this time for 15 days or so, at the beginning of October. The court case does take a long time.

Can the Queen decline BoJo's request for a prorogation #2 cause I am not an expert on UK legislation?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Mmmm, I’m expecting the silence to be deafening on this one

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49807401

So insufficient evidence to continue a criminal investigation. Good that it has been investigated. But what is your point? They still lied in the campaign, they lied to the electorate.

The point is out of the two investigations by both metro and NCA both recognise failure to reach a conclusion on burden of proof infact the NCA describe it as no evidence.

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp, but one should be aware of the throwing stones at glass houses the remain camp was not all sugar and spice all things nice.

Boeing74741R wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49789938

Labour's clear as mud strategy lives on for another general election. Seems farcical to decide such a major policy by a show of hands too, particularly given how close it was. It's clear for some people that supporting Corbyn is more important than deciding what's best for the country and they wonder why they're flagging in the polls.

Yes, quite shocking that it was done on a show of hands. Especially after the confusion on the podium as to which way the vote went. Can't help thinking it's a losing strategy, but it allows Corbyn more time to sit on the fence. His arse must be quite sore by now.

tommy1808 wrote:

And the ruling came down...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/se ... s-prorogue

I'm slightly surprised by the ruling and shocked to see it was unanimous.

Draken21fx wrote:

Can the Queen decline BoJo's request for a prorogation #2 cause I am not an expert on UK legislation?

In theory, yes. But in practice she wouldn't.

The question is whether Boris has the brass balls to try again. If he does I would love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting!

A101 wrote:

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp

It would appear, in the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court justices, that leave is still lying.

I hope that whatever Britain does is irrelevant because at least one European country won’t grant them an extension, France and The Netherlands already hinted on refusing.

Britain is a mess and the EU shouldn’t keep up with them any longer. Another advantage of Brexit would be that with Britain outside the EU they can be made to apply for a visa so we can keep the idiots out.

scbriml wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Draken21fx wrote:

Can the Queen decline BoJo's request for a prorogation #2 cause I am not an expert on UK legislation?

In theory, yes. But in practice she wouldn't.

The question is whether Boris has the brass balls to try again. If he does I would love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting!

A101 wrote:

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp

It would appear, in the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court justices, that leave is still lying.

Obviously, it depends on the points raised in the body of the judgment, i.e. whether any of the judges set out conditions whereby prororation might be permitted, but given that the judgment was unanimous, one would have (subject to the entirety of judgment) conclude that a PM cannot use prorogation as a means to muzzle parliament. There may be times, such as war or other civil emergency, when it might be necessary; this is not one of these times.

Prorogation has been a cornerstone of BoJo's (and one has to assume Dominic Cummings') plan from Day One; now it has been torpedoed. The PM's judgment must be open to question and really, one has to expect that the first order of business when Parliament resumes, tomorrow, will be a motion of confidence in a PM that has tried to muzzle that same parliament - illegally. Good luck with that one, Boris! It would not surprise me if an election were to be announced before the end of the week. It will be very interesting to hear Boris's defence of his actions and whether he has a Plan B.

There's quite a few comments going around on the various news sites (serious and otherwise). Here's one that sums things up best:

"Came to power, lost his majority live on TV, fired his hero's grandson, set the record of losing his first five votes in Parliament (breaking the previous record of four set by Boris Johnson earlier that same evening), lied to the Queen, broke the law. We're in month two."

scbriml wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

And the ruling came down...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/se ... s-prorogue

I'm slightly surprised by the ruling and shocked to see it was unanimous.

Yes very surprised as well. It interesting ruling as now the judiciary is ruling on executive power of the prime minister and technically is challenging the Queens powers invested in the prime minister

scbriml wrote:

Draken21fx wrote:

Can the Queen decline BoJo's request for a prorogation #2 cause I am not an expert on UK legislation?

In theory, yes. But in practice she wouldn't.

The question is whether Boris has the brass balls to try again. If he does I would love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting!

Somehow I don’t think Her Majesty will be amused if that were to happen.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp

It would appear, in the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court justices, that leave is still lying.

Therein lies the problem, was the verdict on opinion or law?

As I said I really interested to see how they came to the conclusion and what case law was used.

kaitak wrote:

Prorogation has been a cornerstone of BoJo's (and one has to assume Dominic Cummings') plan from Day One; now it has been torpedoed. The PM's judgment must be open to question and really, one has to expect that the first order of business when Parliament resumes, tomorrow, will be a motion of confidence in a PM that has tried to muzzle that same parliament - illegally.

If Boris had an ounce of integrity, he'd resign. Along with the Leader of the House. I doubt very much they will.

As to a Vote of No Confidence (possibly forcing a GE), that would seem to be counter to rejecting Boris's own attempts to force an election. Parliament doesn't want an election before he returns from the EU summit with his new deal.

Jetty wrote:

I hope that whatever Britain does is irrelevant because at least one European country won’t grant them an extension, France and The Netherlands already hinted on refusing.

Britain is a mess and the EU shouldn’t keep up with them any longer. Another advantage of Brexit would be that with Britain outside the EU they can be made to apply for a visa so we can keep the idiots out.

How dare you!?! Can't you see I am holding a BLUE passport...?!

What this ruling proves is that the Queen can't exercise her prerogative powers. These should thus be removed. Parliament should start tomorrow, making a law about how prorogation is going to work in the future, it should be something along the lines of the PM asking for it, and MPs voting on the date and duration of it, or maybe just make it a 1 week default length.

scbriml wrote:

kaitak wrote:

Prorogation has been a cornerstone of BoJo's (and one has to assume Dominic Cummings') plan from Day One; now it has been torpedoed. The PM's judgment must be open to question and really, one has to expect that the first order of business when Parliament resumes, tomorrow, will be a motion of confidence in a PM that has tried to muzzle that same parliament - illegally.

If Boris had an ounce of integrity, he'd resign. Along with the Leader of the House. I doubt very much they will.

As to a Vote of No Confidence (possibly forcing a GE), that would seem to be counter to rejecting Boris's own attempts to force an election. Parliament doesn't want an election before he returns from the EU summit with his new deal.

I was just rolling my eyes at one of the top comments on the BBC coverage of this (vastly more anti-government than pro-government, I'm happy to say) that was complaining about the opposition doing this to mess with democracy while *blocking* an election from taking place.

It's scary how people can be fooled into believing an alternate reality.

Aesma wrote:

What this ruling proves is that the Queen can't exercise her prerogative powers. These should thus be removed.

Hence I believe the constitutional shit storm has arrived.

A101 wrote:

As I said I really interested to see how they came to the conclusion and what case law was used.

If rules were solely decided by case, there would be no precedent.

A101 wrote:

It interesting ruling as now the judiciary is ruling on executive power of the prime minister and technically is challenging the Queens powers invested in the prime minister

No, they unanimously ruled that this prorogation was unlawful. Not the process itself or the Government's right to use it.

A101 wrote:

As I said I really interested to see how they came to the conclusion and what case law was used.

The full ruling is already available on numerous sites. Read away.

So vote of no confidence later this week youse reckon?

Only if it means labour get's to form the next government, if not, then no.

scbriml wrote:

Parliament doesn't want an election before he returns from the EU summit with his new deal.

The earliest an election can now take place is late-October/early-November, so still time for Boris to pull a rabbit out of the hat unless he loses a VNC which I suspect would be on the table tomorrow now Parliament knows they were prorogued unlawfully.

They can still appoint a caretaker PM to go to the European Council to request the extension under law and then hold an election.

Amiga500 wrote:

So vote of no confidence later this week youse reckon?

It would surprise me if there wasn't a VNC. If a PM is found to have carried something out unlawfully, it makes it very difficult to then attempt to carry on let alone command the confidence of the house. That said, I see Boris has said they will respect the judgement.

par13del wrote:

Only if it means labour get's to form the next government, if not, then no.

That will be the next battle. Corbyn will no doubt use any VNC to attempt to install himself as PM as he just wants power and isn't doing a good job hiding behind the Brexit crisis as means to his end, but I don't think he will command enough confidence in the house even if he promises to only be in charge to do two things: put in the Article 50 extension request and call a general election.

The more I think about it, the more I believe the idea of appointing somebody like Ken Clarke on an interim basis to do just that would be more sensible. I don't believe Clarke will want to be PM full-time, but can probably command enough confidence in the house, particularly after the recent antics where he had the Tory whip removed from him.

Aesma wrote:

What this ruling proves is that the Queen can't exercise her prerogative powers. .

well, she probably can, but not without limit.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

It interesting ruling as now the judiciary is ruling on executive power of the prime minister and technically is challenging the Queens powers invested in the prime minister

No, they unanimously ruled that this prorogation was unlawful. Not the process itself or the Government's right to use it.

and given that the UK is a parliamentarian democracy, with the PM effectively the hired help to run the government for them, it is not at all surprising that the PM can no more send the MPs home to push a hard Brexit through than a CEO can tell share holders to shut up for the next couple of weeks to prevent them from stopping a merger..

best regards
Thomas

Aesma wrote:

What this ruling proves is that the Queen can't exercise her prerogative powers.

The Supreme Court ruling did no such thing, IMHO quite the opposite.

The Queen only exercises her powers at the request of Government and she was misled by Government. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that this specific instance of prorogation was unlawful. The Government's lawyers were not able to offer even a "reasonable justification" for the prorogation.

Boeing74741R wrote:

The earliest an election can now take place is late-October/early-November, so still time for Boris to pull a rabbit out of the hat unless he loses a VNC which I suspect would be on the table tomorrow now Parliament knows they were prorogued unlawfully.

But an early November election is exactly what Parliament wanted to avoid - Parliament suspended for the GE and then we just fall out of the EU with no deal on 31st Oct by default.

Amiga500 wrote:

If rules were solely decided by case, there would be no precedent.

Exactly. Hence the liberal use of the word "unprecedented".

scbriml wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

If rules were solely decided by case, there would be no precedent.

Exactly. Hence the liberal use of the word "unprecedented".

... which is to be expected as overthrowing the constitutional order is pretty "unprecedented" in the UK as well. After all this was as close to an attempted coup as you an get without adding a d'état.

best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

The Queen only exercises her powers at the request of Government and she was misled by Government. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that this specific instance of prorogation was unlawful. The Government's lawyers were not able to offer even a "reasonable justification" for the prorogation.

It is perhaps a pity that the court did not consider, or deemed it unsuitable, to recommend that any future prorogation must be passed within parliament before being presented before the monarch as a means of ensuring that it is justifiable without getting the courts involved again.

Would be a fairly straightforward and safe way of preventing this from ever happening again.

Amiga500 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

The Queen only exercises her powers at the request of Government and she was misled by Government. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that this specific instance of prorogation was unlawful. The Government's lawyers were not able to offer even a "reasonable justification" for the prorogation.

It is perhaps a pity that the court did not consider, or deemed it unsuitable, to recommend that any future prorogation must be passed within parliament before being presented before the monarch as a means of ensuring that it is justifiable without getting the courts involved again.

Would be a fairly straightforward and safe way of preventing this from ever happening again.

But that would be legislating from the bench in a very real way, and judges dont do that. However, they could have added that parliment should clarify the rules to prevent a return of the show, and leave to them how they do it.

Best regards
Thomas

scbriml wrote:

But an early November election is exactly what Parliament wanted to avoid - Parliament suspended for the GE and then we just fall out of the EU with no deal on 31st Oct by default.

My understanding of the law that was passed is that it's applicable to whoever is Prime Minister at the time of the European Council summit in October. It's clearly intended for Boris and we know why it was drawn up, but even if an election was called and/or Boris is no longer Prime Minister by the time of the European Council summit it will surely still stand unless the law is repealed before then or something happened such as an Article 50 request being submitted prior to the summit that would make the law redundant?

Amiga500 wrote:

It is perhaps a pity that the court did not consider, or deemed it unsuitable, to recommend that any future prorogation must be passed within parliament before being presented before the monarch as a means of ensuring that it is justifiable without getting the courts involved again.

Would be a fairly straightforward and safe way of preventing this from ever happening again.

I'm not sure that's the court's place to be making such recommendations. That said, it would certainly be tempting for the opposition parties to adopt it as policy that future parliamentary sessions will only go to the Queen for prorogation if approved by Parliament first. For example, fixed term parliaments were part of the Labour and Lib Dem manifesto's for the 2010 general election and it became a reality under the Coalition government with the introduction of the Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011, so it could form part of any future coalitions or confidence-and-supply deals drawn up between parties.

Jetty wrote:

I hope that whatever Britain does is irrelevant because at least one European country won’t grant them an extension, France and The Netherlands already hinted on refusing.

Britain is a mess and the EU shouldn’t keep up with them any longer.

That perspective does have some merit, but it applies primarily to a section of the UK political scene and to a shrinking minority among the population.

While nominally I'm quite with you when looking at Boris' band of brexiters, risking a failed state directly on the outskirts of the European Union is not in our own interest either, so even with all the chaos in Westminster EU27 leaders will carefully ponder their options and the possible consequences in light of the tactical and strategic situation in that bar brawl across the channel.

Another advantage of Brexit would be that with Britain outside the EU they can be made to apply for a visa so we can keep the idiots out.

Maybe, but all the sane ones as well, and not least by looking at our homegrown assortment of idiots I don't really see all that much of a point in that!

A101 wrote:

The point is out of the two investigations by both metro and NCA both recognise failure to reach a conclusion on burden of proof infact the NCA describe it as no evidence.

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp, but one should be aware of the throwing stones at glass houses the remain camp was not all sugar and spice all things nice.

Is it too early to break out those Downfall dubs again?

No, it seems the level of desperate denial is pretty much there already...!

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

The point is out of the two investigations by both metro and NCA both recognise failure to reach a conclusion on burden of proof infact the NCA describe it as no evidence.

But I do like the liar liar pants on fire porkies directed towards the leave camp, but one should be aware of the throwing stones at glass houses the remain camp was not all sugar and spice all things nice.

Is it too early to break out those Downfall dubs again?

No, it seems the level of desperate denial is pretty much there already...!

Desperate denial the way you put it is like a cover up from Metro & NCA, or its just another lie by thevleave camp.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What this ruling proves is that the Queen can't exercise her prerogative powers.

The Supreme Court ruling did no such thing, IMHO quite the opposite.

The Queen only exercises her powers at the request of Government and she was misled by Government. What the Supreme Court has ruled is that this specific instance of prorogation was unlawful. The Government's lawyers were not able to offer even a "reasonable justification" for the prorogation.

Everyone knew what Boris was doing, it wasn't a secret. The Queen knew it, yet she did nothing to stop it.

Boeing74741R wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I believe the idea of appointing somebody like Ken Clarke on an interim basis to do just that would be more sensible. I don't believe Clarke will want to be PM full-time, but can probably command enough confidence in the house, particularly after the recent antics where he had the Tory whip removed from him.

I will have do use Google to assist me, but is there a provision for someone other than the elected leaders of the party to be PM even on a care take basis?

Will go with wiki on this one, so technically possible the issue is getting a significant amount of Tories to vote YES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Min ... ed_Kingdom

Aesma wrote:

Everyone knew what Boris was doing, it wasn't a secret. The Queen knew it, yet she did nothing to stop it.

Nobody knew the Government had acted unlawfully before this morning.

What exactly do you expect the Queen to do? She acts at the behest of the Government. She has no say in it, she would not deny a request from her Government.

scbriml wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Everyone knew what Boris was doing, it wasn't a secret. The Queen knew it, yet she did nothing to stop it.

Nobody knew the Government had acted unlawfully before this morning.

Everybody knew it, but nobody had a written judgment to that effect yet, and I guess that's the standard that would have had to be met.

What exactly do you expect the Queen to do? She acts at the behest of the Government. She has no say in it, she would not deny a request from her Government.

The problem is that this way the Queen is utterly, completely useless as a head of state.

Normally a head of state embodies the national interest and can talk and act as such if the government in its own political self-interest is out of bounds.

The USA have a similar problem by not having a separate head of state at all.

Klaus wrote:

The problem is that this way the Queen is utterly, completely useless as a head of state.

Normally a head of state embodies the national interest and can talk and act as such if the government in its own political self-interest is out of bounds.

The USA have a similar problem by not having a separate head of state at all.

This suggests you don't understand how the Monarchy works in the UK. The Queen (or King) are simply figureheads with no real power. The current Queen takes her duties very seriously but would never dream of going against her Government. We could do away with the Monarchy tomorrow and it would change very little in the way Government functions.

While the Queen has theoretical power, she would never use it because using it would almost certainly result in the end of the Monarchy. In reality, the Monarchy is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Government. You need to accept that before you can judge her actions.

scbriml wrote:

This suggests you don't understand how the Monarchy works in the UK. The Queen (or King) are simply figureheads with no real power. The current Queen takes her duties very seriously but would never dream of going against her Government. We could do away with the Monarchy tomorrow and it would change very little in the way Government functions.

I understand that perfectly well – it is just a highly problematic state of affairs.

In most other countries the head of state would very much examine and in some cases even reject requests by the government based on their own, separate legitimacy which the QoE just doesn't have.

There is an important distinction between the interests of government and the interest of the state, and it is highly problematic if the interests of the state are just not represented by anybody.

If the Queen can't do that, she has no function and the state is almost defenseless against overreaching governments as we've seen.

While the Queen has theoretical power, she would never use it because using it would almost certainly result in the end of the Monarchy. In reality, the Monarchy is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the Government. You need to accept that before you can judge her actions.

I know that to be her position and this frees her from almost any personal fault or responsibility in this whole debacle, but it is just a mistake not to have any legitimate representative of the state, leaving the institutional landscape lopsided and incomplete.

Dutchy wrote:

Klaus wrote:

If the Queen can't do that, she has no function and the state is almost defenseless against overreaching governments as we've seen.

I wouldnot relay on an unchosen, undemocratic figurehead to protect against an overreaching democratically electected government. Montesquieu's separation of powers does that, as it has done in this case. It is a bit strange for a government to remove its lord and master like this, so it might do better change it ways and have it take an act of parliament prorogue it next time. Johnson would not have been able to do a stunt like that.

Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull, they deliberately steered away from creating an even bigger constitutional crisis similar to the Queens representative to Her Majesty Australian Government and the Governor-General dismissal of the Australian government in 75

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

Klaus wrote:

There is an important distinction between the interests of government and the interest of the state, and it is highly problematic if the interests of the state are just not represented by anybody.

Does the UK parliament not represent the interests of the state?

Klaus wrote:

If the Queen can't do that, she has no function and the state is almost defenseless against overreaching governments as we've seen.

And yet we've just seen the court act in the interests of the country over that of, to use your phrase, an "overreaching government". No Government can act beyond the law. This has been proven in the UK time and time again.

You make the UK sound like some tinpot dictatorship where the PM can do whatever the hell they like. We've managed to function perfectly adequately for centuries as our political and legal systems have evolved. Despite having only a figurehead Monarchy, we have checks and balances in place, so I do not share your concerns.

A101 wrote:

Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull

What?

You're going to have to explain how you reach that conclusion. The ruling was clearly based on the fact that the Government sought to prevent Parliament from fulfilling it's duty with no justification. No sworn statement from Boris to say why he prorogued was presented to the court. The Government's lawyers offered very little.

From Lady Hale's statement:

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

So, nothing about the length of prorogation (although it was mentioned it wasn't cited as a reason for it being unlawful). The reason it was ruled unlawful was because Boris and all his advisors (including that constitutional wizard Rees-Mogg) couldn't actually come up with even a half-arsed justification for it. Hilarious.

It was reported on the BBC's evening news that Boris called the Queen this afternoon. One has to assume that was to offer an apology of epicly grovelling proportions. The same will be required in Parliament tomorrow at an absolute minimum.

AeroVega wrote:

Does the UK parliament not represent the interests of the state?

It does. As does the House of Lords. In addition, the courts ensure the Government acts within the law.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull

What?

You're going to have to explain how you reach that conclusion. The ruling was clearly based on the fact that the Government sought to prevent Parliament from fulfilling it's duty with no justification. No sworn statement from Boris to say why he prorogued was presented to the court. The Government's lawyers offered very little.

From Lady Hale's statement:

The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

So, nothing about the length of prorogation (although it was mentioned it wasn't cited as a reason for it being unlawful). The reason it was ruled unlawful was because Boris and all his advisors (including that constitutional wizard Rees-Mogg) couldn't actually come up with even a half-arsed justification for it. Hilarious.

It was reported on the BBC's evening news that Boris called the Queen this afternoon. One has to assume that was to offer an apology of epicly grovelling proportions. The same will be required in Parliament tomorrow at an absolute minimum.

:

It within the judgement they have not actully ruled if BJ acted unlawfully as I quoted beforehand: what is actually being ruled on isif they have stymied Parliment from doing its job the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature, but there is nothing to say under different circumstances that parliament cannot be prorogued for that length of time either.

If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

There is an important distinction between the interests of government and the interest of the state, and it is highly problematic if the interests of the state are just not represented by anybody.

Does the UK parliament not represent the interests of the state?

No, they are partisan politicians who are pursuing their respective own agendas just like the government which is usually part of at least one of the parties and those agendas can go very much against the interests of the state.

Ideally both MPs and the government should consider and respect the interests of the state besides their own, but as we see right now that cannot just be relied on in an act of faith but there needs to be someone who can actually represent the interests of the state in contrast to partisan interests if necessary, because sometimes that is just the case.

scbriml wrote:

Klaus wrote:

If the Queen can't do that, she has no function and the state is almost defenseless against overreaching governments as we've seen.

And yet we've just seen the court act in the interests of the country over that of, to use your phrase, an "overreaching government". No Government can act beyond the law. This has been proven in the UK time and time again.

A Supreme Court cannot replace a legitimate head of state because it can only restrict certain transgressions of standing statute and case law but they cannot actually represent the interests of the state beyond that, which is particularly precarious in the case of the UK without a properly codified constitution.

And that is simply not what a proper head of state is for, actually.

A proper head of state would have filled that gaping void in the whole Brexit saga where simply nobody stood up for the state as such – there was simply nothing beyond the different partisan voices being able to call the entire political class to order the way a proper head of state would actually have to do in a situation like this!

That isn't to say that the existence of the institution as such would automatically be a solution to everything – far from it. But experience has shown that especially in times of difficult and fundamental dissent this is an indispensable institution, and the UK has on the one hand clung to its monarchy but otherwise so thoroughly neutered that institution that it could never actually develop that necessary role.

You make the UK sound like some tinpot dictatorship where the PM can do whatever the hell they like. We've managed to function perfectly adequately for centuries as our political and legal systems have evolved. Despite having only a figurehead Monarchy, we have checks and balances in place, so I do not share your concerns.

The current situation has come about not least by an almost total vacuum where the institution of a head of state should have been – in some ways the venom that's poisoning the country now could only accumulate through that particular combination of institutional and electoral defects which have never been fixed and with the state prey to the horrid and electorally cemented bi-partisan divide and nobody institutionally above, the consequences of these problems could be diverted into a massive scapegoating campaign.

Of course normally a free press should have played a role there, too, but a billionaire-dominated oligopoly with its own interests stopped that from happening.

A101 wrote:

It within the judgement they have not actully ruled if BJ acted unlawfully as I quoted beforehand: what is actually being ruled on isif they have stymied Parliment from doing its job the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature, but there is nothing to say under different circumstances that parliament cannot be prorogued for that length of time either.

You said: "Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull"

The proroguing of Parliament was ruled unlawful because there was no reasonable justification for it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf

61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before
us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to
prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October.
We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons
might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.

So certainly not saying proroguing for five weeks was unlawful but proroguing for that long with no reasonable justification was. So Boris's motive for the prorogation was illegal.

They didn't rule that Parliament couldn't be prorogued for five weeks, but that reasonable justification was required. Boris and his cronies couldn't provide that. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in Parliament today. If he has an ounce of integrity, he'll resign along with his henchman Rees-Mogg.

A light interlude:

I fear this thread is becoming too long, it will be locked and my question will go unanswered but here goes:

Can the queen simply dissolve parliament on her own or does there need to be a "No Confidence" vote taken first? Is there a chance parliament will be dissolved in light of the court ruling? If so, who is the likely replacement for Prime Minister if Boris Johnson's party loses?

Dutchy wrote:

Why would this court ruling dissolve the house of commons? If Parlaiment is smart they will let Johnson dangel and have an election in December or January.

The issue is whether they can somehow get the Tory party to remove him as leader, if not, when the election comes around in December or January.......

The parliament does need to be dissolved and the citizens take another crack at it, the difference between now and 2017 is that there has been another 2 years of watching them do their best to do nothing.