Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

What new law did they create?

this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves.

Also Conservatives complain because the opposition parties won't agree to call a premature election in the narrow window of opportunity that is advantageous to Boris.

:D

Especially the likes of Mogg.

Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.

So all the losing comes via nurture?

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.

Frankie Boyle tweeted
@frankieboyle

Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know."

Dave

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504

'tis

"Can" and ""shall" are matters of law.

"Should" is a moral question.

Do you agree with psionl0?

The daily mail is so stupid.

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.

It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.

There is no new law.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP> Edit for rule 6

I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

May I use this when I set up my new religion? It's a good chant.

"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?

IF

I made no claim if they did or not.

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.

so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...

...and wait...

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Indeed

Maybe they took the average (rounding up) of James VI and James I ?

I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.

Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.

So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.

I presume it should be 1579.

(I checked, it should be 1579)

A popular lass even in death then.

Dave

Should be James VI, who became James I of E&W with the union of the crowns in 1603.

Demonstrating (again) that you do not understand the UK political system, the function, roles and powers of the UK Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Where is John Marshall when you need him?

Judicial review.

Not true.

Why?

Not true.