> This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.
This is a very clear and damning verdict.
Suspending parliament for five weeks in a critical time would be heavily criticized by the West as a major anti-democratic and authoritarian move in any other country.
It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago, and will probably burden the UKs political system for a long time.
"It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago"
You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discussion of the cash for questions scandal that ultimately toppled the Major Conservative government.
I believe that the Blair government considered it in the run up to the Iraq war too but didn't.
It won't burden the system. This has happened before in recent memory and is totally fitting with the powers of the Executive (the only difference here is the subject).
And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it. The key assumption in that is there is an alternative before the October 31, there isn't...so it doesn't matter if Parliament is sitting or not because there is nothing to scrutinise.
To explain: Johnson was not denying Parliament a voice at all because he wasn't suspending past October 31. He was suspending until a few days before the European Council meeting, where the final deal will be negotiated, and then Parliament would vote on it. 95% of articles on this topic do not make this clear. The timetable does not change whether or not Parliament is sitting. It only changes if you are someone deluded enough to believe that there is an alternative...there isn't (the EU has said this multiple times).
What is burdening the system is:
* UK voted to leave
* General election was called which Brexit parties won (somehow given May's ineffectiveness)
* MPs voted to leave
* MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal
* MPs refuse to re-negotiate the deal or do anything that makes a deal possible
* The "alternative" from Labour is to go to the EU, negotiate exactly the same deal that has been voted down 4 times then they will whip their MPs against that deal too.
It is utterly bizarre to take aim at the only person who actually has a definite idea about how to solve this situation (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).
Regardless of whatever side you are on, you have to admit that we're currently living in extraordinary times in UK politics.
A decade ago, the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable. If this were all a TV show, people would've called it too far-fetched or too distant from reality.
Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes.
As for Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy. Now, imagine going through a shattering defeat in court, while STILL being far ahead in the polls.
> Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes.
That's what we say now, because we're used to the way it was. We need to start preparing ourselves for the possibility that these changes are permanent.
The current clown show in the USA will become essentially permanent if 45 is re-elected. Even if he isn't his party has changed forever and the decorum of the presidency has been tarnished beyond the possibility of any quick repair. Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass.
Well you could take the view, as I heard expressed on World at One at lunchtime, that the British Constitution needs the odd attempt to take the piss to keep it on the rails.
All those precedents, conventions and case law look so weak compared to a fully written constitution. Yet a written constitution can spawn no end of legal activity to decide the precise meaning of a comma.
Whether the British Constitution's famous flexibility is a good thing will be argued for centuries to come, I suspect.
> the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable
Which you could say is the result of the last time someone decided to take the piss constitutionally. The chances of another PM being quite so cavalier in the next 20 years or so are slim to none. Regardless of what you wished to happen, there's no way Johnson's "cunning plan" worked out as intended, or with positive press resulting.
> Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy
I think there's precedent, but before it was formally PM, but still just First Lord of the Treasury. Lord North possibly?
I strongly recommend people read the judgment, or at least the summary. It's very clearly written, and it would let people argue about what the court found, as opposed to what they think the court might have found.
The fact that it was unanimous really drives home how obviously illegal it was. I would love to see a direct criminal or civil consequence for this, as it negatively affected the rights of all UK citizens.
It wasn't obvious at all. Even ignoring the fact that traditionally this was outside the purview of the courts entirely, the Supreme Court had to take a very aggressive approach to the evidence to get this result. First, they decided that it didn't matter whether the Prime Minister had unlawful intent, only whether prorogation did in fact frustrate Parliament. Secondly, they decided that it was up to the Prime Minister to prove in detail that his prorogation didn't have this effect. (This was important because no-one has been able to come up with a convincing argument for how exactly this particular prorogation would stop Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit. It was scheduled to avoid all the important dates where such scrutiny was likely, and the court had documents showing this was intentional.) Thirdly, they had to play up the fact that Parliament could theoretically sit or carry out other actions during the three-week party conference season if it was in the usual recess rather than prorogued in order to justify the claim that this prorogation was at all unusual in the first place. Which is technically true, but by convention no-one does this because using your control of parliament in ways that monkey with the other parties' annual conferences is pretty bad for democracy.
The funny thing is, prorogation was a democratically elected government trying to prevent a democratically elected parliament from democratically (by members of parliament) stopping a democratic (by the populace) decision to exit the EU.
I have to disagree. Not only does it seem completely lawful to me, you'll notice that none of the justices could cite an actual law that was violated.
Their summary makes this a bit clearer - "...was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
They never actually indicate any law that has been violated. Just sort of a general assertion that it was an asshole, undemocratic move that they have now declared to be "illegal".
Furthermore, I remember when it was originally announced that he was considering doing this and every single lawyer, pundit, and news outlet that I read said very clearly that while it was "unthinkable" it was completely legal and he had every right to do so with the power of his position/office.
As a member of the commonwealth with a parliamentary democracy, I’m confused by how many people think this was the wrong call. The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. I wish Canada would also remember that Parliament is supposed to hold the ultimate power of government.
> The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament.
As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President," which I know waxes over tonnes of detail.
The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and illegal?
Yes, and he has a majority in Parliament...that is why he is the PM.
And the issue people have is the alternative. There is no alternative.
The implication of the decision is that Parliament is now going to do something...well, the European Council won't meet until before Oct 31 anyway...which is when Parliament would get to scrutinise the final deal.
And the big plan that the opposition has is: to go to the EU, negotiate the same exact deal that has been voted down 4 times, and then whip their MPs to vote it down again.
The lack of actual practical understanding here, not just here but on the part of journalists, is astonishing.
The only comparison that comes to mind is in football: journalists and fans will turn on a manager, they will laugh at them on Twitter, write endless articles about how they are washed up, clubs will then panic and fire the manager...and then only then realise that there is no-one else to do the job, and they just fired the only person who can.
It would open the door ... to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it.
Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back.
> But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.
Instead it passed judgement on an action of the government which it has done for centuries.
From page 2 of the summary:
> The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.
Do you not find it ironic that you're comment says the court acted to ensure the government respects the sovereignty of parliament? Your own or quoted words say sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land which btw has always been subject to the courts and latterly the ECJ.
Government is not parliament. The UK supreme Court upheld the sovereignty of parliament over government within narrow limits: prorogation must be consensual and justified.
We already have judicial review applying to governmental actions and ministerial decisions. This is not an application of judicial review to acts of Parliament. The prorogation was an act of the government, not Parliament.
This wasn't an action taken by Parliament, it was an action taken by a private citizen and his assistants. It's just that the private citizen happened to be the Prime Minister. Individual members of parliament can still be subject to the law, without threatening the supremacy of parliament. After all, the laws these judges are adjudicating on are made by parliament.
> It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament, at a time of national crisis.
Brexiters would argue he is fighting the remainer parliament to implement the will of the people as represented by the 2016 referendum result. It's all a bit of a mess.
Personally I think Blair's suggestion of another referendum on no deal vs remain would be the way forward as those are the most popular options with the voters. Everyone seems to hate the withdrawal agreement.
<shrug> It's the new normal. The press and the usual suspects will be out there yelling that down is up. They've put a lot of work into creating this crisis and don't want people to do things like resolve it, and certainly not in a sensible, constructive way.
Important technical question: is Bercow still the Speaker? If not, who is? I thought he resigned at the end of the last term, which may or may not be reverted by this result.
Oh no. Please. Can the UK please already exit the EU? By all means, rejoin us the day after Brexit, but this time with mandatory entering of the Schengen zone and the Euro...
Unlikely to happen straight away. Due to a quirk of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011, a successful VoNC now would allow the Prime Minister to run out the clock by refusing to resign, waiting the maximum two weeks to attempt a superseding Vote of Confidence, then calling the latest legal election after he inevitably lost. And Parliament would then be dissolved for the election, leaving only Johnson at the controls over the critical period leading up to Brexit day.
There are other routes out of the situation after a VoNC, but they involve Parliament being able to agree on a new PM, which is tricky given that the Leader of the Opposition is cordially despised by much of the Commons and there are deep political problems with any of the other potential candidates. It also would require Boris to either resign or be sacked after losing the VoNC, which is by no means a done deal given that he's ignoring all the other conventions and there's no obvious mechanisms for a forcible dismissal (one hasn't been needed since the early 19th Century, as PMs have done the decent thing on losing the confidence of the House).
Well this is going to be fun, especially as it's the middle of party conference season as well. At what point do the remaining unsacked Conservatives admit they've lost? They're already a long way short of a majority. Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon, or are we going to continue with the weird governance by Parliament from the opposition benches?
[+] [-] the_duke|6 years ago|reply
This is a very clear and damning verdict.
Suspending parliament for five weeks in a critical time would be heavily criticized by the West as a major anti-democratic and authoritarian move in any other country.
It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few years ago, and will probably burden the UKs political system for a long time.
Interesting times indeed.
[+] [-] shadyMrPatch|6 years ago|reply
You say that but we had it happen in 1997 to prevent parliamentary discussion of the cash for questions scandal that ultimately toppled the Major Conservative government.
I believe that the Blair government considered it in the run up to the Iraq war too but didn't.
[+] [-] hogFeast|6 years ago|reply
And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it. The key assumption in that is there is an alternative before the October 31, there isn't...so it doesn't matter if Parliament is sitting or not because there is nothing to scrutinise.
To explain: Johnson was not denying Parliament a voice at all because he wasn't suspending past October 31. He was suspending until a few days before the European Council meeting, where the final deal will be negotiated, and then Parliament would vote on it. 95% of articles on this topic do not make this clear. The timetable does not change whether or not Parliament is sitting. It only changes if you are someone deluded enough to believe that there is an alternative...there isn't (the EU has said this multiple times).
What is burdening the system is:
* UK voted to leave * General election was called which Brexit parties won (somehow given May's ineffectiveness) * MPs voted to leave * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal * MPs refuse to re-negotiate the deal or do anything that makes a deal possible * The "alternative" from Labour is to go to the EU, negotiate exactly the same deal that has been voted down 4 times then they will whip their MPs against that deal too.
It is utterly bizarre to take aim at the only person who actually has a definite idea about how to solve this situation (regardless of whether you agree with it or not).
[+] [-] EnderMB|6 years ago|reply
A decade ago, the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable. If this were all a TV show, people would've called it too far-fetched or too distant from reality.
Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes.
As for Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy. Now, imagine going through a shattering defeat in court, while STILL being far ahead in the polls.
[+] [-] metalliqaz|6 years ago|reply
That's what we say now, because we're used to the way it was. We need to start preparing ourselves for the possibility that these changes are permanent.
The current clown show in the USA will become essentially permanent if 45 is re-elected. Even if he isn't his party has changed forever and the decorum of the presidency has been tarnished beyond the possibility of any quick repair. Likewise, I expect, in the UK... especially if a no-deal brexit comes to pass.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|6 years ago|reply
This is because of the appalling state of Labour, which is currently controlled by actual communists.
People are not stupid. Labour's current policies would be far worse than Brexit.
With a 'normal', half-decent opposition the Tories would have been overthrown years ago.
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|6 years ago|reply
All those precedents, conventions and case law look so weak compared to a fully written constitution. Yet a written constitution can spawn no end of legal activity to decide the precise meaning of a comma.
Whether the British Constitution's famous flexibility is a good thing will be argued for centuries to come, I suspect.
> the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have been borderline unthinkable
Which you could say is the result of the last time someone decided to take the piss constitutionally. The chances of another PM being quite so cavalier in the next 20 years or so are slim to none. Regardless of what you wished to happen, there's no way Johnson's "cunning plan" worked out as intended, or with positive press resulting.
> Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be found guilty of misleading the monarchy
I think there's precedent, but before it was formally PM, but still just First Lord of the Treasury. Lord North possibly?
[+] [-] joosters|6 years ago|reply
Full judgment: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgme...
[+] [-] pmyteh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnGB|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makomk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomp|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OJFord|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiffEq|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] turc1656|6 years ago|reply
Their summary makes this a bit clearer - "...was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification."
They never actually indicate any law that has been violated. Just sort of a general assertion that it was an asshole, undemocratic move that they have now declared to be "illegal".
Furthermore, I remember when it was originally announced that he was considering doing this and every single lawyer, pundit, and news outlet that I read said very clearly that while it was "unthinkable" it was completely legal and he had every right to do so with the power of his position/office.
[+] [-] Ensorceled|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mieseratte|6 years ago|reply
As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President," which I know waxes over tonnes of detail.
The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was "normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and illegal?
[+] [-] goodluckchuck|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hogFeast|6 years ago|reply
And the issue people have is the alternative. There is no alternative.
The implication of the decision is that Parliament is now going to do something...well, the European Council won't meet until before Oct 31 anyway...which is when Parliament would get to scrutinise the final deal.
And the big plan that the opposition has is: to go to the EU, negotiate the same exact deal that has been voted down 4 times, and then whip their MPs to vote it down again.
The lack of actual practical understanding here, not just here but on the part of journalists, is astonishing.
The only comparison that comes to mind is in football: journalists and fans will turn on a manager, they will laugh at them on Twitter, write endless articles about how they are washed up, clubs will then panic and fire the manager...and then only then realise that there is no-one else to do the job, and they just fired the only person who can.
[+] [-] Kaibeezy|6 years ago|reply
It would open the door ... to a form of judicial review that is widely accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme Court that actively interprets it.
Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-c...
[+] [-] hesk|6 years ago|reply
The court explicitly did not pass judgement on an action of Parliament.
From page 3 of the summary (https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar...)
> But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.
Instead it passed judgement on an action of the government which it has done for centuries.
From page 2 of the summary:
> The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.
[+] [-] ggm|6 years ago|reply
Government is not parliament. The UK supreme Court upheld the sovereignty of parliament over government within narrow limits: prorogation must be consensual and justified.
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] proaralyst|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonh|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] empath75|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulAJ|6 years ago|reply
Second, the courts have previously acted to bring acts of parliament under judicial review, with the Investigatory Powers Act https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/news/press-releases-an...
[+] [-] RonaldSchleifer|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Joakal|6 years ago|reply
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more anti-democratic changes in Australia.
[+] [-] davidhyde|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lol768|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|6 years ago|reply
...yeah, is there anything to add here?
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
Personally I think Blair's suggestion of another referendum on no deal vs remain would be the way forward as those are the most popular options with the voters. Everyone seems to hate the withdrawal agreement.
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] guidedlight|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonoboTP|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellosouls|6 years ago|reply
In normal times, with a moral leader, this would be an instant resigning matter.
Boris's response has been predictably complacent.
"I accept the verdict but strongly disagree with it" will become a go-to phrase of every burglar and other criminal caught red handed.
Btw, (UK) word of the year:
Prorogation
[+] [-] rtempaccount1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lol768|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] growlist|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mschuster91|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AstralStorm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmyteh|6 years ago|reply
There are other routes out of the situation after a VoNC, but they involve Parliament being able to agree on a new PM, which is tricky given that the Leader of the Opposition is cordially despised by much of the Commons and there are deep political problems with any of the other potential candidates. It also would require Boris to either resign or be sacked after losing the VoNC, which is by no means a done deal given that he's ignoring all the other conventions and there's no obvious mechanisms for a forcible dismissal (one hasn't been needed since the early 19th Century, as PMs have done the decent thing on losing the confidence of the House).
[+] [-] tim333|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjc50|6 years ago|reply