Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Darat]

Wonder how they are going to do the Tory party conference, if parliament is still open for business? Wouldn't have thought the government would want all their MPs and ministers out of the house. Could you imagine what bills the opposition could get through!

[Pixel42]

It did cross my mind that Johnson might resign seemingly in response to the Court ruling, but actually as a quid pro quo for that supposedly career ending scandal being quietly forgotten. So either he thinks he can weather the scandal, or he thinks he can keep it quiet. Or, of course, there was nothing to those rumours in the first place.

[The Don]

Damn, you go cycling in Sicily for a few days and it all kicks off.

I'm guessing that Boris Johnson ignores the ruling, runs down the clock and the UK drops out with no deal.

Edited to add.....

The thread title will have me dusting off my lime green vinyl copy of Don't Point Your Finger....

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

He could call for new elections.
Probably will.

He can call for them but he won't get them until the Brexit mess is cleared up for the time being anyway

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Johnson's been saying that the court decision is about people trying to frustrate Brexit, and by saying that they need a Queen's speech anyway, is hinting that he's going to have another go at proroguing parliament.

Hmm... but Boris... you said the prorogation had NOTHING to do with Brexit, remember? So how would stopping it be frustrating Brexit? Unless..... unless... surely not.... were you telling fibs?

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by The Don

Damn, you go cycling in Sicily for a few days and it all kicks off.

I'm guessing that Boris Johnson ignores the ruling, runs down the clock and the UK drops out with no deal.

Edited to add.....

The thread title will have me dusting off my lime green vinyl copy of Don't Point Your Finger....

He can't. The ruling means that the prorogue is void and there is literally nothing he can do about it.

He could try to prorogue again (bit of a stretch even for him), try and call an election, or try and call a vote of no confidence in himself and hope that that leads to an election, or try and get the WA ratified in parliament..

Otherwise he needs to go cap in hand to Brussels and ask for an extension by the 19th Oct.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale

He could try to prorogue again (bit of a stretch even for him)[...]

Even if he did try it, it'd be unlikely to succeed. AIUI, Bercow didn't have the power to do anything with the last proroguement. This decision, though, I believe gives him the power to say that a proroguement isn't valid because there is no good reason for it, and it would then be up to Johnson to go to court in order to try to have the court establish that there is a good reason for it.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Hubert Cumberdale

He can't. The ruling means that the prorogue is void and there is literally nothing he can do about it.

He could try to prorogue again (bit of a stretch even for him), try and call an election, or try and call a vote of no confidence in himself and hope that that leads to an election, or try and get the WA ratified in parliament..

Otherwise he needs to go cap in hand to Brussels and ask for an extension by the 19th Oct.

Yes, wait two weeks, prorogue again and wait for the case to go through the courts which will be too late for the letter and too late to do anything else.

He could even try to cause a(bother) constitutional crisis by calling Parliament illegitimate and saying that Conservative MPs should not attend..

[Tolls]

As Squeegee says, I'm pretty sure the power over allowing a proroguement is with the speaker now, after this case.

It won't go back to the courts.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...08349845823488

Quote:

1. No 10 source: “We think the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters."

2. Source goes on... "Further, the Supreme Court has made it clear that its reasons are connected to the Parliamentary disputes over, and timetable for, leaving the European Union. We think this is a further serious mistake. "

3. No 10 - "We think this is a further serious mistake. We will study the judgement carefully to consider how we can best respond in these unique circumstances. As always the government will respect the law and comply with the courts.”

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176497743969345542

Quote:

And in case you’re wondering, I hear that the prime minister is absolutely furious about all of this. This prorogation plan couldn’t have gone worse. Awful own goal that has triggered a series of mini-crises for Johnson culminating with a rebuke from the highest court in the land

[Garrison]

At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status...08349845823488

Why bother paying her a salary when you could just have Cummings tweeting this stuff directly?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Darat

I'm amazed it was a unanimous decision.

That's the really interesting bit. I expect that there was much discussion....

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176497743969345542

Quote:

And in case you’re wondering, I hear that the prime minister is absolutely furious about all of this. This prorogation plan couldn’t have gone worse. Awful own goal that has triggered a series of mini-crises for Johnson culminating with a rebuke from the highest court in the land

And to think a few weeks ago we had people telling us this was all a positively Machiavellian plan that would deliver a No Deal Brexit and an election victory that would put Johson in Number 10 for the next 5 years. Now he'll be lucky to last 5 days.

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Originally Posted by Garrison

At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?

Making billion/millionaire disaster capitalists even richer by trashing people's rights, deregulating everything, and slashing tax.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Anyone notice the "Boris the Spider" motif on her top?

Coincidence? I don't think so

I think you're reaching. Maybe...

Quote:

Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly
He's come to a sticky end
Don't think he will ever mend
Never more will he crawl 'round
He's embedded in the ground
Boris the spider
Boris the spider

Originally Posted by Darat

Or give up her disgusting useless influence on the governance of the country.

Really she's demonstrated that the UK monarchy is utterly pointless, not even acting as a safeguard.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

He could call for new elections.
Probably will.

He didn't even manage that last time.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Garrison

At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?

There was a diabetic guy on the news the other day who was asked whether he still supported Brexit, even though it meant that he might die due to lack of insulin. He said yes, because it was what people had voted for.

There is no logic or reason any more (what little there was, beyond "blindly believing everything Nigel Farage said" or "wanting to keep the darkies out"), it's just a "side" that people have picked and now feel committed to.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by The Don

Yes, wait two weeks, prorogue again and wait for the case to go through the courts which will be too late for the letter and too late to do anything else.

I suspect that, given today's precedent, that the SC would issue an order nullifying such an action within an hour.

He

Originally Posted by The Don

could even try to cause a(bother) constitutional crisis by calling Parliament illegitimate and saying that Conservative MPs should not attend..

That would be amusing. Corbyn takes the premiership by default, shades of the Rump Parliament.

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Garrison

At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?

It's now solely the principle that because they can't or shouldn't have it, that they therefore want it beyond anything else. For them, not to get it would be tantamount to their cocks falling off.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

There is no logic or reason any more (what little there was, beyond "blindly believing everything Nigel Farage said" or "wanting to keep the darkies out"), it's just a "side" that people have picked and now feel committed to.

I suspect that, cognitive dissonance being what it is, the less justification for Brexit there is, the more its supporters will harden their committment to it. By this stage, at least, when all the original arguments have been revealed to be specious.

Dave

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Garrison

And to think a few weeks ago we had people telling us this was all a positively Machiavellian plan that would deliver a No Deal Brexit and an election victory that would put Johson in Number 10 for the next 5 years. Now he'll be lucky to last 5 days.

That was Johnson's cunning plan yes. But he didn't exactly give it more thought and effort than he gives anything else.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176512712643403778

Quote:

Great scoop from @SamCoatesSky who has seen a document which says attorney general Cox advised that #Prorogation was legal

Screenshot embedded in tweet.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176512712643403778



Screenshot embedded in tweet.

Then Cox should also resign, in addition to BoJo. Of course that would require integrity, something that Geoffrey Cox has abundantly demonstrated he lacks.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Then Cox should also resign, in addition to BoJo. Of course that would require integrity, something that Geoffrey Cox has abundantly demonstrated he lacks.

And Cummings, and Rees-Mogg. But they won't.

In fact, they may try to turn this to their advantage - force a vote of no confidence, thereby trigger a general election, and campaign on the fact that the Supreme Court decision is another instance of the rich, Remain establishment trying to thwart the Will Of The People, which is what Boris "everyman" Johnson is trying to carry out.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176512712643403778



Screenshot embedded in tweet.

Barristers. You tell them what you want them to say and then pay them loads of money for saying it.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

And Cummings, and Rees-Mogg. But they won't.

In fact, they may try to turn this to their advantage - force a vote of no confidence, thereby trigger a general election, and campaign on the fact that the Supreme Court decision is another instance of the rich, Remain establishment trying to thwart the Will Of The People, which is what Boris "everyman" Johnson is trying to carry out.

This is something that still amazes me. How can the opposition not tear the 'everyman' image apart? You can hardly get more rich establishment than BJ and Rees Mogg.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

This is something that still amazes me. How can the opposition not tear the 'everyman' image apart? You can hardly get more rich establishment than BJ and Rees Mogg.

I think Cameron and Osborne we considerably more establishment.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

This is something that still amazes me. How can the opposition not tear the 'everyman' image apart? You can hardly get more rich establishment than BJ and Rees Mogg.

We Brits love a toff, especially one who pretends to stoop to our level every now and then.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176512712643403778



Screenshot embedded in tweet.

I'd be cautious of taking second-hand versions of lawyer's advice as they are often couched in the relayer's biases. You would need to see the original wording to know exactly what he was saying was legal.

[psionl0]

Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?

Under Australia's constitution, the Governor General has sole discretion over parliamentary sitting times. Whether he takes the advice of the Prime Minister or not is just a matter of convention.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

There was a diabetic guy on the news the other day who was asked whether he still supported Brexit, even though it meant that he might die due to lack of insulin. He said yes, because it was what people had voted for.

There is no logic or reason any more (what little there was, beyond "blindly believing everything Nigel Farage said" or "wanting to keep the darkies out"), it's just a "side" that people have picked and now feel committed to.

I’ve just seen Boris saying that it is “the will of the people” for the U.K. to leave the EU on 31at October. When did we vote on that?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I’ve just seen Boris saying that it is “the will of the people” for the U.K. to leave the EU on 31at October. When did we vote on that?

When the referendum result came in.

The question was so indistinct that we voted for whatever kind of Brexit on whatever date our political masters deign to give us.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?

Under Australia's constitution, the Governor General has sole discretion over parliamentary sitting times. Whether he takes the advice of the Prime Minister or not is just a matter of convention.

The decision wasn't about when Parliament gets suspended, it was about for what reasons and for how long.
The SC didn't curtail the power of the PM, it affirmed the power of the House.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The decision wasn't about when Parliament gets suspended, it was about for what reasons and for how long.
The SC didn't curtail the power of the PM, it affirmed the power of the House.

That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

They're about politics, but that doesn't mean they're political. The key reason was that Johnson used the prorogation to frustrate the constitutional right of parliament to rule, without there being a good reason to do so.

Quote:

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?

No. This has been an unprecedented situation, and any ruling was always going to add to the constitution. Parliament has always operated on a sort of "gentleman's agreement", where it's assumed that everybody involved is going to be fair and will put the interests of the country and democracy above personal interests. That this is not true is unprecedented and, as it's unprecedented.

To boil it down to its most basic level, the decision was always basically going to be one of two things - that there must be a good reason to rob parliament of its ability to govern, or that the Prime Minister can thwart any legislation he or she wants to or avoid scrutiny on any issue whatsoever simply by proroguing parliament. The Supreme Court ruled, quite rightly in my opinion, that the former is correct according to the spirit of the constitution.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, also: Section 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament"

Johnson impeached the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament from out of Parliament. And without good reason.

Whether or not there's a law that establishes what is or is not a good reason is irrelevant, because the government didn't provide a reason to the court. Their defence literally didn't include any reason why the prorogation was so unusually long, or at such a time of crisis.

[ceptimus]

Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Oh, also: Section 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament"

Johnson impeached the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament from out of Parliament. And without good reason.

Whether or not there's a law that establishes what is or is not a good reason is irrelevant, because the government didn't provide a reason to the court. Their defence literally didn't include any reason why the prorogation was so unusually long, or at such a time of crisis.

But the brexit vote was clearly to restore all sovereignty to the true leader of all England Boris Johnson, the Sovereign of All England. It was to get rid of the constitutional part of the monarchy and go back to the divine right of kings under the new king. None of this parliament BS.

It was subtle but clear in the pamphlet I think.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by psionl0

That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?

are you a Monarchist?