Government watch

What Kwarteng said is a scandal. I was talking about this to a lawyer this afternoon. I'm not claiming to understand all the details, but basically the Scottish judgment was made using Scottish systems, which are different from English/Welsh ones. It's not to do with bias. The Scottish judges were following Scottish law.

It's seems like yet another attempt to undermine the law and smear judges by unscrupulous people who would like to operate outside the law.

More lies. Well he opened his mouth.

Reporter - You said that police forces were spaffing money up the wall on investigating historic child abuse.

Boris Johnson - That's not what I said.

LBC interview - £60million was being spaffed up the wall..

Glad to know our tax is being put to good use

Emma Kennedy
@EmmaKennedy
Guys, call me a suspicious old ninnymuggins but I’m starting to wonder whether the tax payer funded “Get ready for Brexit” ad campaign (which doesn’t actually tell you anything) is just an ad campaign for the Conservatives.

But they surely wouldn’t break the rules, would they?

The other massive lie is the advert that says

“Duty free shopping is coming back”

When was the last time we paid duty on stuff we brought back from the EU?

I Noticed adverts on motorway service stations. It says “Get Ready for Brexit”

And that’s it?

Tom Brake MP ?
@thomasbrake
The government’s ‘Get Ready for Brexit’ campaign has fallen afoul of parliament’s Public Accounts Committee

There is a clear lack of transparency on what taxpayers’ money is being spent on, all whilst pursuing a vague and disastrous #NoDeal policy

A government minister has been criticised for suggesting “many people” think judges are biased in relation to Brexit.
The business minister Kwasi Kwarteng made the remarks after judges at the court of session in Edinburgh said the suspension of parliament was “unlawful”.

When asked about the Scottish court’s judgment, Kwarteng told the BBC: “Many people are saying – I’m not saying this – but, many people … are saying that the judges are biased. The judges are getting involved in politics. I think that they are impartial, but I’m saying that many people, many leave voters, many people up and down the country, are beginning to question the partiality of the judges.”

The former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said the comments were ill-judged. “I would expect a government minister to understand the importance of the independence of the judiciary and not make any comments that might undermine public perceptions.”

Susan D Shaw, a managing partner at the Scottish law firm Living Law, said: “The rule of law is the bedrock of our society and affects every aspect of our daily lives. Legal judgments – decisions on the law and proven facts – frequently have profound political ramifications. That does not make them political. Rather, that they are above bluster and bullying tactics.

“This government needs to wake up and grasp the basics of our constitution. The ambit of executive discretion is not infinite. They promised the patently undeliverable and have acted as though they were above the law and beyond accountability. Where we are now is simply reality.”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/12/brexit-kwasi-kwarteng-criticised-for-biased-judges-comment

Yet again we see a Tory minister pandering to lowest common denominator populism, whilst, at the same time, trying to distance himself from the tabloid readers who will no doubt now be encouraged to make these accusations. Highly irresponsible and inflammatory.

I get the S.O. to gently break the news of the latest developments GG. We watch QT together these days although still can't usually stomach watching the whole programme [not that QT is a proper politics programme these days]. I'm joining a march in Edinburgh next week which will be interesting; hopefully Joanna Cherry [sp] will be speaking at it.

Thank you, everyone. This is complex - as I imagine the final verdict will be - but it is good to read the knowledgable opinion you are all finding.

I agree about the scream yet I find I have to keep up to date because I have never lived through anything like this.

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 !

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

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?

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...

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.

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 ....
?

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/

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

From today's NY Times here in the States:

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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