It’s been a tough week for Boris Johnson, or has it?
The supreme court has now strayed into the political. The High Court decided that the matter of prorogation was a political, not a judicial matter. This was an opinion with which I concur – also one with which David Starkey agrees. The Supreme Court, however differs.
What I struggle with here is the idea that the judges have decided that the prorogation was unlawful because:
It comes after the court ruled it was impossible to conclude there had been any reason “let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks”.
Okay, let’s think about that for a moment. The government gave them no reason. Ostensibly, it was to end one parliamentary session – the longest in around 400 years – and to start a new one. Right slap bang in the middle of it was a recess for conference season anyway, so in practice a few days during which MPs would not be sitting. The objection was that MPs wouldn’t have time to debate any new Brexit related matters before October the 31st. What have they been doing this past three and a bit years, except discussing it to death and using every dirty trick up their sleeve to obstruct it?
This prorogation then, according to the hysterically inclined remain crowd was a coup, an assault on democracy no less. Really? The prime minister has offered on more than one occasion to put the matter to the electorate but parliament refuses (how many leaders of coups ask for an election?). For that, may curses rain down on Cameron and Clegg for their Fixed Term Parliaments Act. With their idiocy they managed to hamstring a successor. How quickly does badly conceived legislation comes back to bite and bite hard with its unintended consequences.
But I digress. The Supreme Court has deemed the prorogation unlawful. What law will this be? How long is allowed? John Major’s three-week one was okay apparently. Who gets to decide? And there we have it. The Supreme Court gets to decide. Eleven unelected and therefore unaccountable judges have now strayed dangerously from the legal to the political.
Of course, those on the remain side are crowing with delight, for this is one more step in thwarting the plebiscite of 2016. But one day this precedent will come back to bite them and bite hard. They just don’t see it yet.
We are supposed to be a constitutional monarchy and the prime minister seeks the consent of the monarch to prorogue parliament. The supreme court has, without saying so, deemed the advice given to Brenda was a lie. Presumably they were wearing thought transference helmets while sitting – after all in the absence of any other information I cannot see any reason, let alone a good reason, for them to come to this conclusion. Worse than this, though, we are now in difficult territory constitutionally as the judiciary and parliament are supposed to be separate institutions yet the supreme court just decided otherwise. And just look at parliament. Must we? – Ed.
We have a parliament that has seized control of the legislative agenda with no oversight – because usually that is parliament’s job. We have a blatantly partisan speaker who has managed to make Michael Martin appear a paragon of virtue, we have a prime minister who, because of the stupidity of his predecessor is unable to call an election without a two-thirds majority in parliament and a parliament that is behaving like spoiled children and insisting on conditions before they agree, knowing full well that many of them will be voted out by angry constituents and rightly so. If this runs to the next scheduled election lord help us, because no one else will.
We also have a situation where sore losers who have deep pockets are using the courts as a weapon to overturn a plebiscite – because, make no mistake, that is what this is about. To the remainers, I merely ask this: Are you really happy that the rich and powerful can use their money to impose their will in this manner? Will you be so happy when it is a government you favour that finds itself on the wrong end of a similar action because some wealthy individual decided that democracy really isn’t to their taste and the constitution be damned?
Now we have the situation where prorogation – a perfectly normal process at the end of a parliamentary session – is deemed to be unlawful by a court (because of its length? Its timing?) when such prorogation has a precedent, despite the man who set it now appearing to be suffering memory loss.
But, despite losing in the house, despite losing in the courts, despite losing in the media, the Conservatives are riding high in the polls. Yes, I know, polls can be wrong, but it does seem that his stance is popular among not only those who voted leave, but those who value our democracy regardless of how they voted in 2016. So, hanging on in there seems to be a winning strategy outside of the house and outside of the courts and Fleet Street. We do, indeed, live in interesting times.
All I can do now is turn to Geoffrey Cox channelling Oliver Cromwell as he eviscerates this zombie parliament of cowards, jackanapes, buffoons, poltroons and mountebanks.
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.
Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.
Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?
Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!
I’ve no more to add.
It is worrying how big a screw up this hopeless shower is going to create before we get shot of them. But apart from that I’m loving the show. That speech was brilliant. Also, did you hear Bercow bleating that everyone was being too mean by calling the surrender document a surrender document? Don’t these people know that telling the truth isn’t woke?
As a spectator sport, it has its appeal. When do they get fed to the lions?
I told you needed Oliver Cromwell!
Sorry there should be two yous
Going back to the whole “Winning by Losing” aspect, there is actual merit in allowing the Remoaners to play their hand across Parliament, the courts, etc., because they are clearly and unequivocally showing that they don’t give a flying fuck about democracy, the referendum or delivering BRExit in anything other than a form that is so egregious that even remaining in the EU would be preferable.
So Boris and Cummings let them play their little games without distractions, since both Parliament and the courts are so biased against the will of the electorate that they would only be played for fools and then lose anyway. So, yes. In this specific context “Winning by Losing” is the only game in town.
I just hope that they have something more substantial up their sleeves to deal with the legislative puppetry of the Benn Act when the time comes.
Good to see my MP actually standing up and being counted. Great speech, kids in the future will be learning it for their GCSE in history.
So true are the words and plenty of people I know who would never vote Tory are actually saying in an election they would just to get Brexit over with, and not all of them voted leave.
Have these people considered what the EU want, they are fed up with us prolonging it and if we come out then a new government want us in they will screw us for so much money it would be criminal. Besides once out they might realise what a good thing it actually is.
There is all this debate about waits at the ports and how nothing will get through, all media propaganda. On a call in show someone who works in the industry explained that new paperwork is required, there will be 160 pop up booths leading to ports where paperwork can be checked and sorted . This means all those entering the ports will have the correct documents to make the import and export run smoothly. So while parliament is arguing the rest of the country – the important people are preparing for Exit.
Roll on 31 October (is it a trick or a treat) and just realise we have lived through the most disgraceful period in political history.
The chap who used to run the port of Dover explained that it’s a non issue. They have six months after the event to submit paperwork.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/caller-port-of-dover-no-deal-brexit-really-like/
Is it illegal to hope, in the privacy of your own mind, that certain MPs and non-MPs called Gina get to meet their maker sooner rather than later? Asking for a friend.
Hope is okay.
Wish is not. That’s a big no no.
Thanks, Smoking Scot, I’ll tell my friend to confine his thoughts to hoping and eradicating wishing. You may be called as a witness in the future.
These judges are all Remainers anyway.Snouts in the trough like the MP’s.
Wait till we catch up with them.
The supreme court justices defined parliament as just the two houses. They left out the monarch but the monarch is part of parliament. She prorogues parliament. By interfering with that process the SC violates the Bill of Rights which says they must not nor anyone must not interfere with parliamentary process. So they left her out to get around the law. Very strange. Also they are all remainers and several have remarked to other people that they simply couldn’t understand why anyone would vote for Brexit. Plus many of them sit on European courts and receive big money from the EU. Impartial? I doubt it, not compared to the High Court.
For the full reasons see the esteemed John Ward:
https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/exclusive-why-this-supreme-court-was-never-going-to-find-bojos-proroguation-legal/
In most parts of Hull a pig with a red rosette on would be a shoe in at any election but that may be about to change. A local yellow vest type protest group are giving local remainer MPs lots of grief for not representing their constituents as the majority voted leave. The local paper has been running the stories online and the remainer MPs are being excoriated in the comments with not a single person prepared to defend them.
On the radio news today they were reporting that John Major was advocating compromise as a way forward. My first thought was why do all these has been politicians think that we are interested in their opinions? My second thought was why would we, the winners, want to compromise with the side that lost?