Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

Thank you all for your information.

A few points: it wasn't I who 'accused' the Supreme Court of making a new law - those words came from the Attorney General himself.

It's no wonder that I, and many others, are confused - when the Attorney General makes such a comment, I believe him! (As I do with many other MPs.)

Thank you, MaizieD for your link.

(Sorry about the 9/9 - should have been 11/11!)

I think things are a little clearer ... umm ... maybe ...

I think the media are largely responsible for the misapprehension shared by many about the High Court ruling. I frequently heard that they had ruled the proroguing legal. They did no such thing of course. They ruled that the matter was beyond their remit and they could not interfere. When such a thing happens it is common for the matter to be taken to the supreme court where such decisions can be taken.
I do think that the media didn't represent what happened well.

There are loads of them, varian. All defending away on another thread.

It is all of a piece of the hard rights attempt to take away our democratic rights.

They hate it that an ordinary member of the electorate had the temerity to challenge action taken by the current government.

Their sense of entitlement has also been challenged and this elite aren’t used to it.

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/this-immoral-illegal-power-grab-by-leftie-judges/

"This immoral, illegal power grab by Leftie judges" is the poisonous headline on a website called The Conservative Woman"

Is there a conservative woman on GN who is willing to defend that appalling opinion?

jura2 I'm sure it was all planned, and I'd agree Cummings' handprint is all over it. I so wanted the MPs to ask one question at a time, and keep doing it so they could demonstrate unequivocally that the government weren't answering, and obviously had something to hide. Asking two or three things in the one question enabled the ministers to sidestep to their preferred response.

The opposition must stand firm, it must see that no deal is never allowed to take place.

This prime minister simply cannot be trusted to keep his word that he will adhere to the law.

So parliament are our guardians to ensure that the law is upheld. They cannot allow a GE until after 31 st October, both to secure the law and to allow Johnson time to develop his agreement with the EU and for the result of this agreement to be digested.

If he had answered any of the questions- they would not have been asked again, no? He did not want to answer- so made sure to fill the gap with all the

janipat- that was all planned - by Cummings I am sure. Any question- just give them back bluff and bluster, and as loud as poss- and waste the whole time so no need to answer any actual questions. The technique is very well known - and just up Cummings, Johnson's and ERG's street.

The blustery Ian Blackford SNP seems to have fallen for the idea of a VONC and an election, he wants to convince others to go with it.

Urmstongran part of the going round and round in circles was because the government wouldn't answer the questions they were asked! How many times were they asked the date and by whom Yellowhammer was changed from base case scenario to worst case scenario? Nothing but bluff and bluster came in response. Asked about the political videos in primary schools, the only answer was we're putting more money into schools.

Watching the MP’s yesterday going round and round in circles, asking the same questions over & over for more than 3 hours did make me wonder why going back in ‘to that place’ was so urgent. I heard nothing new yesterday.

Oh yes, I did. These Remainer MP’s want to firm up the Benn Bill (or surrender/capitulation bill as Rumpole described it) to hamstring the government even tighter.

Gulliver being tied down by the tiny Lilliputs comes to mind. How did that end up?

TG I didn't watch the scenes in Parliament last night with the dreadful language.
Too near another takeover of thugs as in the 1930s.
Surely our population can't accept this?
I wish I was young enough to actively oppose. I'll write to our MP (Labour).

Just to share, a letter today in The Telegraph:

SIR – I find it interesting that the leaders of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party are all calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General on the grounds that they acted unlawfully in advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament.

Are these party leaders also going to call for the resignation of Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice; Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls; and Dame Victoria Sharp, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, who ruled that the Prime Minister acted 
legally?
Arthur Scargill
President, National Union of Mineworkers 1982-2002
Barnsley, South Yorkshire

I think Lindilou may have missed out an il in illegal.

Or maybe thinks that accusing the Supreme Court of "Making a new law" means that a real new law has been made. It hasn't, the Suprteme Court doesn't make& laws, it interprets the ones that Parliament has discussed and made. They have not made a nerw one about prorogation - they couldn't have done, they had been sent home!

What the Supreme Court (which is above the High Court, and can over-ride them on appeal) did was to consider what happened and compare it to the purpose prorogation was made for and how it has been used in the past. They found (unanimously, eleven out of eleven) that it had been used improperly, therefore it was annulled and had never happened, and Parliament are free to continue where they left off.

They are the highest court of appeal in the land - representing our national freedom from legal subordination to any other country, and they have a right to make that judgment.
Does that answer your question?

if the High Court ruled that Johnson's act was legal, what would be the chances of the Supreme Court ruling unanamously that it wasn't? Pretty slim, I would have thought. Certainly not 9/9.

I don't understand what you're on about here, either. No court ruled that Johnson's act was legal. Is this a hypothetical question?

Have you read the Supreme Court's actual judgement, Lyndiloo?

I suggest it would answer your 'lawfulness' question better than we can. There's a link to it on here:

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

As to the 'annulment', it seems to me to being analogous to the annulment of a marriage, which equally declared that the marriage, in law, never happened. We know that, physically, it did happen but, legally, it didn't. It's as if it hadn't happened. Do we have a problem with that? Do we interpret that as a dangerous rewriting of history? I think not..

You seem to have taken several threads and tied yourself in a knot Lyndiloo, perhaps because you believe the Attorney General's comment, made entirely to raise the political temperature I feel, that the eleven Supreme Court Judges had made a new law. That was not their purpose nor what happened. What they did, with their expertise in the law, was clarify it.

If we take your example of a seat belt, yes, there is a law which says we must have them fitted in the car. This is a bit like you driving with one in the car and being stopped by a policeman, with precise knowledge of that law, pointing out that it is not enough to have it fitted, you must wear it too and that not to do so is breaking the law.

Johnson only took notice of the existence his ability to use prorogation, not the limiting factors.

Really don't understand that last paragraph. Could you elucidate please?

One thing that I do not understand - and perhaps someone on here could help me out: the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Johnson's prerogation of Parliament was unlawful. The Attorney General said in Parliament today that the Supreme Court had made a new law. (Previously, the High Court had ruled that it was legal.) Now, the Prime Minister seems to be be accused of breaking the law. But when he preroged Parliament, that wasn't the law - so how was he breaking it? (Johnson was advised by the Attorney General that what he intended to do was legal.)

(That's a little like me being fined for not wearing a seat-belt, before it became law to wear one.)

And how can the Supreme Court now say that Parliament was NOT preroged??? It obviously was! (Or if it wasn't, then Johnson has not commited any offence at all!)

Another thing that really concerned me - I watched John Bercoe today say that the entry in the Parliamentary Records for the prerogation of Parliament would be deleted!

It just didn't happen, then ...???

This is scary. Reminds me of the book, 1984 by Orwell, where the Government simply rewrote history.

And while I'm on a rant ... (and I know this will be contentious) if the High Court ruled that Johnson's act was legal, what would be the chances of the Supreme Court ruling unanamously that it wasn't? Pretty slim, I would have thought. Certainly not 9/9.

Jonathan Lis
@jonlis1
·
.
@maitlis
hits nail on the head when she contends this wasn’t just boisterous, it was horrendous. Bernard Jenkin offers a Trump-style ‘both sides’ defence. #Newsnight guests are ashen-faced. This is new and dangerous and feels utterly unreal.

Marina Hyde
@MarinaHyde

Woman after woman after woman after woman has had to stand up tonight and plead with Boris Johnson to moderate his language for their own safety, and he just doubles down every time. What an absolutely hollowed-our human. Narcissism has taken it all.

I see they are even stooping to put in propaganda videos about Johnson in primary schools.

What on Earth is happening in this country.

They are behaving like loutish yobs and using jobbish language. We're all shocked at the violence on our streets, yet we have witnessed politicians behaving like street gangs in Parliament today.