Supreme court appeal today over proroguing of Parliament

I suppose that we should be prepared for a judgement that says "this is not justiceable"

In other words "we all know BJ lied to the queen but we can't do anything about it"

In which case any tyrant or dictator who cheats his way into 10 Downing Street can do exactly what he wants without recourse to parliament.

Yes Fennel. It seems that the government has conceded the point though. We shall wait to here what the Supreme Court says, but it is expect that they will consider the case to be justiceable

ps I ask because I haven't been following up to now, not to cause trouble!

So the main decision up to now is that this is an appropriate case to be decided in the law courts?
ie it's an exception from the principle that law courts can't get involved in political matters?
ie this is primarily a legal matter?

A quote from the Supreme Court referred to "the mother of parliaments" and "the father of lies".

Who could that possibly be?

Hmmm. I was so enjoying a thread without the malicious gossip. Such a shame.

I have been out this afternoon but looking forward to hearing the judges next week, having watched it all up until lunch time today. All I can say is thank heavens for experts.

A complicated and far-reaching constitutional issue reduced to half- truths on buses.

A complicated and far-reaching constitutional issue reduced to the level of the goodies wearing the white hats while the baddies wear black ones!

The judges have a mindset that the law is important. That is where they differ from buccaneering mavericks who are after instant gratification of their adventurous wishes, risking breaking laws in the process.

What is also important is the history behind past interpretations of individual laws. In British law-courts, past judgements and the interpretations used to reach those judgements are cited in future cases involving the same issues.

So if the buccaneers get way with flouting a law, that goes into the records and becomes a legitimate quote for someone wishing to flout the same law for what may be a very sinister purpose.

What if a would-be sole dictator who would like to make a great deal of money out of his leadership were to try to have a law passed that said that he personally was entitled to receive the estate of anyone who died intestate in the UK.

Suppose also that if it appeared that members of Parliament didn't seem inclined to vote to pass that and make it law, he were to decide to prorogue Parliament indefinitely until he had applied enough behind-the-scenes pressure on individuals to consent to vote it.

Suppose too that there was a lot of good and necessary legislation that wasn't getting passed while Parliament was prorogued, and MPs were getting worried about there being no effective Parliamentary presence in the country.

With a precedent of a Prime Minister proroguing Parliament while the clock ticked toward the deadline of Brexit, and while MPs were unable to discuss it as they wished until it was too late (or to discuss anything else) the would-be dictator could quote that to seek approval for his acquisitive plan.

this prorogation - but setting a principle.

Saying all that though, I’m not holding my breath

ug the supreme is judging on this particular prorogation and the reasons given. They are asked to give consideration that the people’s representative in parliament are being prevented from holding the executive to account.

Urmstongran- many have explained here, that his is way beyond Brexit- but about the right or not, for a PM to prorogue to 'shut up' our Sovereign Parliament.

Be careful of what you wish for, as, I'll repeat- if it is judged to be acceptable and correct procedure, for a PM to get rid of opposition- in any situation in the future- then it could certainly bite those like you - in future times. If it is acceptable for Johnson, it is acceptable for all in future- including your friend Corbyn, or whomever, whatever their 'mindset'. Can't you see?

Certainly explains the mindset of Johnson, who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag!

Well I liked Allison Pearson’s column today. It started:

“I met Clare at a Telegraph event and liked her immediately. She introduced herself as a solicitor who had voted Leave and was married to a judge. “Not many like me in my circle,” she laughed.

Clare said she had kept quiet at many dinners where the judges present had expressed contempt for Brexit and for the “morons” who voted for it. It’s fair to say their Honours were aggrieved by the referendum result.

“You see, they’ve always got what they wanted, their whole lives,” Clare explained, “and suddenly they didn’t.”

Explains the mindset of many.
?

Liking O'Neill's robust, no-nonsense approach!L
Just hope it's not too robust for the judges!
Meanwhile Eadie looks like a grumpy stuffed shirt.

Exactly

Jo Maugham QC

A man with a mandate from 160,000 seeks to suspend a Parliament with a mandate from 46 million because it opposes his will. Parliament is the supreme body in our constitution but cannot stop him and so the Courts must. That's it.

Aidan O’Neill is impressive.

Looks like the court is going to accept the case is justiceable.

First step passed.

How about "to be made" rather than make. Sorry.

Our constitution is not entirely unwritten. It has allowed for relatively smooth progressive changes to make the constitution.

I don't think a written constitution is necessary. This case should clarify.

There is no witness statement to say that this was the reason lemongrove. They are asking questions about this currently..

Written constitutions are not the answer to everything unfortunately. There are advantages to not having it all in writing ( but obviously disadvantages too). Not clear cut imo

Even if the supreme court rules that the proroguing was done legally, Parliament can still decide to get a law passed quickly against anyone doing it again, when they are back in Westminster.
A written constitution may not be necessary in that case.

lemon that would be the next step after/if the courts rule that this prorogue is illegal.

Then parliament can give consideration to a much needed written constitution including rules regarding proroguing.

The point is is can’t be justified for any reason. That is the argument.