Tomorrow I think.
Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful
- Thread starter owlo
- Start date
May not be until Friday. Tomorrow is John Major and I think he will blow the doors off!
If prorogation is not covered by enough legal precedents and actual law then maybe they will have to fall back on a degree of natural justice and accepted norms. Major will tell them just how outrageous boris and Cummings have been and he also will be able to share his experiences as a privy councillor to the Queen.
It should be very interesting!
I'd like to watch that. Got a link to live feed?
Will be difficult to not think of him spaffing all over Edwina's tits though.
Whatever floats your boat man!
Expect result next week, they will finish hearing on Thursday and will take some time to read through everything and deliberate.
Majors experience of proroguing parliament may benefit and hinder him. I expect the government will at least highlight this.
One small but important point which I feel O'Neill missed during his presentation is as follows.
The Scottish court as pointed out made a mistake when stating how easily parliament can recall itself during recess. [It can't]
However, recess is time limited by parliament themselves; the executive cannot choose to extend it. Prorogation can be extended without parliament reconvening, at the behest of the executive alone.
Comments coming from the seat of the executive has indicated a willingness to dothis. Therefore, it cannot be considered an '8 day prorogation' as the executive can simply extend it at will.
I cannot see how they could rule this unjusticiable now. BJ sending a written submission for them to 'butt out of political business' is going to lend well to justiciability too.
The Scottish court as pointed out made a mistake when stating how easily parliament can recall itself during recess. [It can't]
However, recess is time limited by parliament themselves; the executive cannot choose to extend it. Prorogation can be extended without parliament reconvening, at the behest of the executive alone.
Comments coming from the seat of the executive has indicated a willingness to dothis. Therefore, it cannot be considered an '8 day prorogation' as the executive can simply extend it at will.
I cannot see how they could rule this unjusticiable now. BJ sending a written submission for them to 'butt out of political business' is going to lend well to justiciability too.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I still can't shake the feeling that they'll give the government a pass in some way, with a slap on the wrist at worst. Still remember when the SC was first formed, and they overruled the High Court's decision on banks and credit card companies ripping off the public, despite the High Court having denied further appeal.
Reading the BBC, the NI rep seems to be getting slapped down a few times. Keeps trying to make it about Brexit only to be told the court isn't interested in Brexit, only the legality.
You have a good memory.
Can you also remember those brilliant Spitting Image programmes. I still have a laugh at them.
If the court rules against the Government, what's to stop Johnson immediately proroguing Parliament again?
Guardian said:
So that's the Government openly threatening the Supreme Court that it will ignore what it says and get round it anyway by proroguing Parliament a second time and there is no way they can take any pre-emptive action to stop them.
That's a desperate move...and strengthens the case they are being duplicitous!
That's a desperate move...and strengthens the case they are being duplicitous!
If they find against the government then they’re likely saying (like the Scottish court did) that the PM lied to the Queen to gain royal assent. That has to carry more consequences than just ‘ah well, we’ll ask again without lying’.
Lord Garnier's summary is spot on:
"One of the central points of the present case - and the reason why these proceedings are necessary at all - is that the power of prorogation subverts the possibility of control by political means.
Its effect is to deprive parliament of a voice throughout the period of the prorogation.
There is no possibility of political control except in the limited sense that a prime minister who exercises the power in a damaging way might face political consequences at some later date, when parliament is permitted to reconvene.
But where the effect of the prorogation is to prevent parliament from discharging its role during a time-critical period, there is no possibility of meaningful political control of that decision until after the damage has been done."
"One of the central points of the present case - and the reason why these proceedings are necessary at all - is that the power of prorogation subverts the possibility of control by political means.
Its effect is to deprive parliament of a voice throughout the period of the prorogation.
There is no possibility of political control except in the limited sense that a prime minister who exercises the power in a damaging way might face political consequences at some later date, when parliament is permitted to reconvene.
But where the effect of the prorogation is to prevent parliament from discharging its role during a time-critical period, there is no possibility of meaningful political control of that decision until after the damage has been done."
But in that case they would be lying again wouldn't they.
And what is to stop yet another court case being brought against him.
Not really when that possibility of control existed beforehand and was chosen to not be exercised.
Its a moot point in the context of a leave no deal outcome on October 31st. I imagine they’d announce with no times left for SC to sit.
Garnier made some brilliant submissions i actually now think they may side against the government.
His examples of what a future PM could do if this was deemed not justiciable make for a very strong case. It's necessary to ensure that parliament is sovereign for propogation to be justiciable.
The outcome of all this no matter which way it goes surely has to be amendments to the surrounding laws so that there's some checks and balances over propagation. Of course that's if the PM doesn't prorogue to stop any such bills.
His examples of what a future PM could do if this was deemed not justiciable make for a very strong case. It's necessary to ensure that parliament is sovereign for propogation to be justiciable.
The outcome of all this no matter which way it goes surely has to be amendments to the surrounding laws so that there's some checks and balances over propagation. Of course that's if the PM doesn't prorogue to stop any such bills.
How could it be though? They could have taken control of the order paper and tabled bills to block it but it would still need to get through the lords before Boris went to the queen and prorogued immediately. There's no notice period required. Then there's the fact that such a bill would require royal ascent which Boris could advise the queen not to give.
This lengthy conversation about Remedy seems to suggest which way this will go, Govt. looks to have lost.
I stand to make around £60k tax free from this, so feeling pretty smug but still nervous. I have hedged a little this morning and sold off some of my position just to be responsible as the tide of opinion now seems to have turned and people realise that a judgement against is a real proposition.
Decision to be released by SHC early next week.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
What market/ticker are you trading this on? I assume not forex but can't think what the alternative is. Risky trade imho.
Yes and no. Hard to say these things with confidence.
A divisional court can make an order inside a day. That order would stand until appealed successfully.
Royal Assent denial is complicated, but even BJ didn't fancy going that route, so you can assume it's off the table.
The argument is that they handled the most urgent business ie. Avoiding no deal brexit first and simply ran out of time. The case is all about time; and how it was used to stomp on scrutiny and further bills.
I think he'll resign fairly soon and be allowed to walk free. Impeachment would be political dynamite, especially if they ordered remand.
I'd expect a vote of no confidence to be imminent next week then....many tories will also vote against it if it is framed as the government having lied to the queen...they all have visions of gaining an award and to vote for the government will damage their careers permanently.
Kinda off topic, but an amalgamation of commodities/forex pairs. Some riskier than others, which are less directly affected. It's risky aye, but you have to make a living somehow! (Most appeal cases are way less high profile but predictive methodology and risk assessment remains the same.)
The absolute gammon wailing outside of court right now.
EDIT - They were just screaming "TRAITOR!" at Gina Miller
EDIT - They were just screaming "TRAITOR!" at Gina Miller
But. If the UK government decided to ignore a SC ruling then it would not have to go back to the SC. It could be done by a lower court and at speed.
More importantly would the government have to get royal ascent for a second time.
The absolute gammon wailing outside of court right now.
EDIT - They were just screaming "TRAITOR!" at Gina Miller
Much the same as in Luxemburg the other day, to be fair....
Just a different object of hatred and abuse but the same depth of hatred none the less....
I'm predicting the government to win this, purely as the benefit of doubt falls on their side. Any judge that is struggling to make a decision either way is going to be more comfortable falling on the side of "not interfering in politics".
My original prediction holds though, they're going to have very harsh words for Boris but in the end say that can't get involved. 7/4.
My original prediction holds though, they're going to have very harsh words for Boris but in the end say that can't get involved. 7/4.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Sounds like they are getting ready to ignore the supreme court if they don't like the decision
It seems likely that the Court is going to rule against the government, according to experts.
That snark from the Downing Street source definitely sounds like they’re expecting to lose. And take their loss very badly.