Government watch

An interesting piece this morning, in an email from the Economist. It was describing the new Margaret Attwood sequel - The Testaments which, it claims, "explores the workings of repression.

Referring back to the Hand-maids Tale it declares "described the new regimes brutality from Offred's perspective only, showing how a politician's promise of a better future "never means better for everyone ... it always means worse, for some."

At the moment we are just uncovering the "some" it will be worse for if we leave without a deal I feel.

Boris has denied lying to the Queen - that's all right then, the Scottish court must have been mistaken.

He doesn't know what lying is; lies are just words that come out of his mouth like a sort of verbal diarrhoea.

BJ could easily prove he didn't lie if he published the internal communications relating to proroguing as he has been directed to do by parliament.

If he has nothing to hide why does he not do this?

He also had the opportunity to provide a sworn statement to the Scottish Court but declined, presumable because he did not want to perjure himself.

Perhaps someone has taken him to one side and explained to him what lying is.

He gets round it by the fact that he didn't personally speak to the Queen. his aides did, and probably to her aides.

And now NI have muddied the waters.......

Thu 12-Sep-19 11:26:44 - So true varian

Something to be understood

Prof. Colin Talbot
Let's be very clear.

No judge has accepted Johnson's excuse for Proroguing Parliament for 5 weeks. None. Nobody seriously believes this was about anything but silencing Parliament over Brexit.

The only dispute is whether or not the Courts can intervene in this process.

Once his lips move what then comes out is a lie, time after time. Once he starts to write, he pours out more lies and yet his family believe him.......they don't! I am surprised, families normally stick to........ahhh I see, they trust not is words or judgement either . Well at least I'm not alone

So it’s Engl@nd&NI 2. Scotland 1 - what happens next?

The UK Supreme Court will decide on Tuesday.

BJ has today denied that he lied to the queen - but how do we know that this habitual liar is not lying again?

The man who has been sacked twice for lying, denies lying to the Queen.

As an aside

Johnson has just given the go ahead to allow 64000 badgers to be killed.

Science has shown it doesn’t work, but they are doing it anyway as a sop to the farmers.

I think it's not happening in Derbyshire because there was a campaign to stop it [but I need to double check]. Which goes to show everyone can influence events if they make the effort.

Hmm...there are going to be some interesting conversations over the breakfast table:

www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/boris-johnson-s-partner-carrie-symonds-said-to-be-delighted-after-derbyshire-badger-cull-plans-are-scrapped-1-9985726

Thanks again Whitewall for starting this and your initial posts.
A lot of people are talking of the Supreme Court 'deciding' between the decisions of the English and Scottish courts, but technically they're ruling on the appeal against the Scottish judgement aren't they? If they uphold the appeal that would amount to the same thing of course, but since Gina Miller didn't appeal against the decision of the English court that decision doesn't have to be revisited. Is that right? Does that make any difference re the paperwork to be waded through and so on?
Lots of people on here have expertise in all this. Please could someone clarify things?

From today's NY Times here in the States:

www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/world/europe/no-deal-brexit-impact.html

Thom Brooks , professor of law and government, writes in The Independent on why Johnson should resign.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-resign-brexit-constitutional-law-supreme-court-queen-a9101806.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed

but technically they're ruling on the appeal against the Scottish judgement aren't they?

They're not, as I understand it, ruling on the latest Scottish judgement but on the initial judgements in the Scottish and English courts that the issue was not subject to the law (justiciable) because it was a political rather than a legal issue.

This is one take on the question

Notwithstanding all of the sound and fury in the surrounding political context, neither of these questions, it seems to me, raise especially controversial or difficult legal or constitutional issues. The first question — whether the stymying of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive forms one of the purposes to which the power can lawfully be put — falls to be answered by reference to fundamental constitutional principle. As Jake Rowbottom has noted, one such principle is the representative nature of democracy in the UK and institutional arrangements, including Executive accountability to Parliament, that are thereby necessitated. Recourse to such principle in determining the limits of the prorogation power should hardly be a controversial step. Nor should the conclusion that it is incompatible with the nature of parliamentary democracy in the UK for the Executive to have a legally unfettered power to suspend the operation of Parliament for the purpose of shielding the Executive from parliamentary scrutiny.

From a long and quite complex lawerly blog which is worth wading through:

publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/09/12/prorogation-and-justiciability-some-thoughts-ahead-of-the-cherry-miller-no-2-case-in-the-supreme-court/

Perhaps Remainers would be happy if they put HM in the dock and ask her to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth ....
?

I find it very difficult to comprehend the thinking behind those who believe that Parliament should not be sitting to finalise acts of Parliament. In addition to also scrutinising the executive who are proving to be acting in rather deceitful ways to prevent essential information getting into the public domain. This continuous efforts of deception is not the British way, though it might be the coming norm if you went to Eton.

I can't comprehend a lot of things these days; this is why I have to take time out occasionally to clear my head. It's like one of those nightmares where you're screaming but no one can hear you...

Many thanks, Maizie. That does clarify things.
IMO it's a great pity that the Queen's advisers didn't advise the PM's advisers not to suspend parliament in the first place.
Even if suspension can't be declared "illegal" because no law covers the circumstances, it must have been obvious that it would give rise to challenges that can't easily be refuted, putting the crown in an awkward position. How did it ever get this far?

The Scream by Edvard Munch, Laibach, springs to mind!

Yes; it does sum things up doesn't it. I bought DD an inflatable 'Scream' to take to University many years ago; I wish she still had it so I could borrow it back !