UK court: Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament unlawful

Those activist Scottish judges are trying to take down a duly chosen prime minister. The Scottish are notorious Deep Staters.

Trying to circumvent the law to push through his own agenda! I wonder if he is going to blast the judges on twitter now?

Yadda yadda laws are there to protect the establishment...

...but another madman (or rather a man-child, madman is too big for his likes) got slapped with it, as well as world-wide proven to be a nuisance and unfair player. That's a yellow card. Hopefully he does not go as far to receive a red one, as many others might suffer in the process.

Chip StarToday 06:32 am JST

Those activist Scottish judges are trying to take down a duly chosen prime minister. The Scottish are notorious Deep Staters.

Look, there are Scottish judges and there are "Scottish judges". These people are clearly "Scottish judges".

Look, there are Scottish judges and there are "Scottish judges". These people are clearly "Scottish judge

And the "Scottish judges" clearly can't do their jobs without bias.

Thsnks for joining in the early morning comedy, Alfie!

So the way I see it, Johnson really helped create this entire Brexit mess with his giant Brexit bus and pushing it down the throats of the Brits with false info and propaganda. Then he wants to be Prime Minister on the premise that he and he alone can fix this Brexit nightmare that he created. Reminds me of someone.... hmmmm? who could it be?

Scottish judges said it was unlawful but last week English judges said it wasn't unlawful. Which verdict is correct? The English one I would presume but I am confused here. Anyway next Tuesday the Surpreme court of the UK will hand down its verdict.

Looks like another prime minister downed by Brexit. Maybe the next one will do a little better.

Thsnks for joining in the early morning comedy, Alfie!

Well, if you don't laugh you'd cry!

Particularly as Lying Johnson's "advisor" Dominic Cummings is a Social Darwinist with very strange and disturbing eugenicist views which he aired on his blog:

*"However, the spread of knowledge and education is itself a danger and cannot eliminate gaps in wealth and power created partly by unequally distributed heritable characteristics."*

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/09/01/number-10-refuses-to-engage-with-questions-about-cummings-chillingly-eugenicist-comments/

Even Trump would never go that far. No wonder the British far-right Tory/UKIP/British National Party ethno-fascists support Johnson.

https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2019/09/04/dominic-cummings-social-darwinist-views/

Bungling Boris Botches Brexit.

(wish I could be tabloid headline writer).

So? It's a Scottish judge. Stay strong, Boris. Get to Europe pronto and start telling countries to veto any further extension to Brexit.

Any lawyers here? English judges say his actions were legal, Scottish judges say it was illegal. People will want to believe whichever verdict suits their political stance of course. Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court come up with next week.

Their case got a boost late Wednesday as the government gave in to a demand from lawmakers and published a document showing that a hard exit could lead to logjams for freight, shortages of some foods and medicines, major travel disruptions and possible rioting.

Seems that would deserve a comment from Johnson.

Isn't it unlawful for the government to refuse to carry out the will of the people as expressed in referendums?

SerranoToday  08:53 am JST

Isn't it unlawful for the government to refuse to carry out the will of the people as expressed in referendums?

No.

Serrano I have no idea why you are so hopeful for a no deal exit rather than a coordinated one.

And everybody was saying Theresa May was the worst prime minister ever...

This guys has been at this post for less than 3 months, and made it an even greater mess than it already became in the last 3 years.

Hilarious.

Scottish judges said it was unlawful but last week English judges said it wasn't unlawful.

English judges never said anything of the sort, they refused to hear the complaint stating it wasn't a matter for the courts to decide. That doesn't mean it is lawful, it's just like abstaining from a vote. It means they gave no decision whether it was or not.

Isn't it unlawful for the government to refuse to carry out the will of the people as expressed in referendums?

If it's a binding referendum then yes. But this was a non-binding referendum, i.e its a survey

I am reading that the High Court in London ruled against a case, brought in front of them by some nitwit, that suspension of Parliament is a political matter and thus not a case for the courts to decide on. Instead of wasting the court’s time, they should lock up all those MPs trying to put a stop to Brexit in the Tower for obstructing democracy by completely ignoring the will of the people. At least those that took the trouble to get off their butts and vote in that referendum. The “mess” has been created by the remain camp for completely ignoring the result of the referendum, not May or Johnson. And those loonies in Brussels, who can’t stomach that there are people, many people in fact, who do not subscribe to their delusional policies and instead have been trying to punish the UK with all kinds of demands and threats. Some article in that Lisbon peace of paper leaves a provision for countries to leave the EU and nowhere is it mentioned that such a country would face punishment for wanting to do so.

And yes, it was a non binding referendum, but then PM Cameron said the government would respect the outcome. Why was nobody up in arms then?

Most of Boris Johnson's three months has been a recess, so all this wrecking has been in two weeks.

Yesterday's developments mean he's politicized and misled the Queen, which ultimately damages the monarchy, and the government knows that No Deal could be genuinely disastrous. The authorities have closed ranks and will do so again, so the Government will get away with the prorogation, not publishing all of Yellowhammer, and probably without publishing emails in which Dominic Cummings tells full Cabinet ministers to effing get in effing line, but it's still a result. It's more humiliation for the Government, to the amusement and benefit of its detractors, and the detriment of its supporters, if any of them are still listening.

Serrano I have no idea why you are so hopeful for a no deal exit rather than a coordinated one.

I have explained this before, SuperLib. The only deal the U.K. can get from the EU is a bad one.

And no deal and coordinated are not mutually exclusive.

forzaducatiToday  09:45 am JST

I am reading that the High Court in London ruled against a case, brought in front of them by some nitwit, that suspension of Parliament is a political matter and thus not a case for the courts to decide on. Instead of wasting the court’s time, they should lock up all those MPs trying to put a stop to Brexit in the Tower...

I stopped taking this comment seriously after those last three words.

If it's a binding referendum then yes. But this was a non-binding referendum, i.e its a survey

Heh, if you really want to blow their minds, call it what it actually is: a poll.

And yes, it was a non binding referendum, but then PM Cameron said the government would respect the outcome.

And Boris made claims on buses that turned out to be false.

It's clear that there is no expectation of politicians to abide by their word. So the only thing that mattered was whether the referendum actually was binding.

It wasn't.

I have explained this before, SuperLib. The only deal the U.K. can get from the EU is a bad one.

And no deal and coordinated are not mutually exclusive.

No deal is worse than a bad deal.

Leaving the EU is worse than staying in.

Boris is a charlatan that only dullards would be taken in by, just like Trump.

Isn't it unlawful for the government to refuse to carry out the will of the people as expressed in referendums?

but it wasnt a referendum, it was a non legally binding vote, I think it may be time for a legally binding referendum on Brexit, votes should be 1. Stay. 2. leave without deal. 3. leave with deal. just a guess but iod expect the results to be very different this time round.

Some people, Americans, want the total destruction of the EU regardless of the cost of that.

Surely you mean 'destruction of the uk' right? No doubt the EU would take a financial hit from a no deal brexit (short term) but they'd be fine (as in 'ok') mid-long term. The UK on the other hand...

I keep reading (from eng pundits obviously) that a 'no deal brexit is as risky for the EU as it is for the uk' but it's not! The uk needs the EU more than euros need them, that's why the vast majority of uk businesses, ceo, bankers etc are against brexit let alone a no deal B and why many of your pollies (on all sides) have finally realised how far up shyt creek they are & are now doing everything possible to -at the very least- take no deal off the table.

And everybody was saying Theresa May was the worst prime minister ever...

Not everyone. I and a few others were saying it was Cameron but Johnson is looking good for the title.

I think Cummings might have got it the wrong way around. The ‘well-bred’ types like Cameron, Osborne and Johnson were/are absolute car crashes.

Useless shower of....This lot should stick to trashing restaurants instead of trashing the country.

goldorakToday  11:49 am JST

"Some people, Americans, want the total destruction of the EU regardless of the cost of that."

Surely you mean 'destruction of the uk' right?

Actually I think "destruction of the EU" might be closer the mark. Those Americans probably see the EU as a serious potential rival that should be broken up, but the "Brits" can be brought to heel by throwing Tory and Blairite politicians a few bones from time to time. Like the "fantastic" trade deal Boris Johnson has no doubt been told he'll get from Donald Trump - probably about five times in the same sentence.

America is afraid of the huge EU trading bloc.

Remember some of those 'American' anti-EU posters push the global far right agenda. They include those who during the US 2016 election parroted the Internet Research Agency's messages, like 'Hillary's no-fly zone means WW3'. Some praise Putin, and even have written he's a 'stud'. hee hee

The Toxits have given up on the union (of GB) anyway.

@simon, oh ok, fair enough. i didnt see it this way.

For whatever reason i thought zichi was talking about JT's americans, not the us as a whole, my bad. (I dont think JT's americans really care about/like/or even hate europe or the uk tbh, they're just winding brits/euros up, which is fine i guess)

So Sneezy

No deal is worse than a bad deal.

Leaving the EU is worse than staying in.

Let take a closer look at that. What is the technical theoretical outcome between No deal is worse than a bad deal.

Sector by sector ? Let reach beyond your one sentence wonder ideology......

Cooperation between the EU27 and the UK....

I will start the ball rolling........Police and judicial cooperation

A ‘no-deal’ brexit: police and judicial cooperation

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/factsheet_police_and_judicial_coordination_final.pdf

Perhaps you can enlighten on ano-deal, bad deal scenarios to regulate citizens' rights, or maybe financial services?

I could pass on your comprehension, grasp and understanding of the subject matter on my team in Brighton?.

I have explained this before, SuperLib. The only deal the U.K. can get from the EU is a bad one.

And does that apply to NI/6 counties?

For example, do you think that leaving the EU will enhance the GFA? The border communities?

Was it right for Pence to tell Ireland to "respect UK sovereignty", the other day? A bit ironic, seeing as Ireland have been trying to negotiate in good faith for the last 3 years...

Russia wants chaos, and Brexit was one of their ideas that they pushed relentlessly through social media. And boy, ole boy, are the Brits playing along with spectacular theater. Making it far more complex than originally designed. Yeah! Get out your popcorn for in October, there will be a out and out breakup, and the borders will be closed. Chaos will reign and the Russians will laugh. Tariffs, and import duties, and lines and lines of trucks at the border getting inspected. BUT...the conservatives will say, "no problem" and the economy will SOAR. This will teach the EU a lesson or two. I wonder how many years of misery the Brits will put up with before they get on their KNEES to beg back in. Any ideas?

The business at our Brighton site carried out a full risk assessment of a clean break no deal Brexit finical services it is over a thousand pages in length with an additional technical draft,

Are the electorate to believe that more than 600 civil servants spent months drafting Yellowhammer and the result is a document of just five flipping pages ????..........And all frivolous assumptions, no technical background......It is a con

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/831199/20190802_Latest_Yellowhammer_Planning_assumptions_CDL.pdf

Are people still blaming this all on the Red Bus?

By the way, the big loser from publication of the No Deal assessment is Farage, who's boxed himself into a No Deal or nothing position and just been snubbed by the Tories who called him "not fit or proper".

In response to Yellowhammer, he's been reduced to the usual Project Fear ramblings and an "I've ... I've done trade deals for twenty years!" spiel that will convince no-one.

Referendum on May's Deal, which the British public reject, is the end game I see. The potential spanner is the Lib Dems, who may overcook it by going straight for revoke and splitting the opposition. They keep sneering at Labour in an unhelpful and unendearing way. To end this, it would be better to get the public to do the rejecting. Politicians can defy the will of the British public, but the public themselves cannot.

By the way, the big loser from publication of the No Deal assessment is Farage, who's boxed himself into a No Deal or nothing position and just been snubbed by the Tories who called him "not fit or proper".

For sure. Even the tories got it right there.

Spiv Farage campaigned in front of a "breaking point" poster that was reminscent of Nazi propaganda.

He said Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech was correct.

He has spoken at far right AfD rallies in Germany.

He is friends with white supremacist Steve Bannon.

Scottish judges said it was unlawful but last week English judges said it wasn't unlawful. Which verdict is correct? The English one I would presume but I am confused here. 

As Scottish and English law are separate, I guess both could be correct. I don't think you are the only one who is confused. I certainly am. Could the Supreme Court also find that both rulings were correct? That could be interesting.

For sure. Even the tories got it right there.

Spiv Farage campaigned in front of a "breaking point" poster that was reminscent of Nazi propaganda.

He said Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech was correct.

He has spoken at far right AfD rallies in Germany.

He is friends with white supremacist Steve Bannon.

No-policies Nigel is capitalizing, and has always capitalized, on successive governments’ failure to get immigration under control which is something a majority of the country wants.

Regardless of what happens over Brexit, I don’t think this problem is going away and I can imagine something worse than Farage emerging.

forzaducatiToday  09:45 am JST

I am reading that the High Court in London ruled against a case...

The High Court did nothing of the sort.

albaleoToday  04:01 pm JST

"Scottish judges said it was unlawful but last week English judges said it wasn't unlawful. Which verdict is correct? The English one I would presume but I am confused here. "

As Scottish and English law are separate, I guess both could be correct.

The Court of Session made a ruling, the High Court threw the case out. It's more a question of which court made the correct call whether to hear the case or not.

Fatty is toast...

It's more a question of which court made the correct call whether to hear the case or not.

I don't think it's so simple. It's possible that both could be correct if different laws apply in Scotland and England. Concerning the relationship between the monarch and parliament, I understand there are some differences. In this case, I think it's mainly about whether the government can lie to the queen in order to stymie parliament. So far, one court says yes and the other no.

No deal is worse than a bad deal.

Leaving the EU is worse than staying in.

No, and no.

As if the UK is helpless without the EU, unable to forge independent trade deals.

Of course they can. And will.

Trump supporting morons really should not opine on Brexit. One of them I know did not even understand the Chinese tariffs he was cheering on. That is certainly a special kind of stupid.

albaleoToday  09:00 pm JST

In this case, I think it's mainly about whether the government can lie to the queen in order to stymie parliament. So far, one court says yes and the other no.

Not really. The Court of Session is saying yes and the High Court is refusing to say anything.

It noted that another challenge to the suspension, brought by transparency campaigner Gina Miller, was rejected at the High Court in London last week by judges who said the decision was inherently political and "not a matter for the courts."

In other words, "nothing to do with us. Take it somewhere else."

SerranoToday  09:01 pm JST

As if the UK is helpless without the EU, unable to forge independent trade deals.

Of course they can. And will.

Just like your Dear Leader Mr. Trump says, right? That's your angle here, isn't it. If no-deal Brexit goes ahead there'll be a barrage of tweets from Trump taking all the credit for himself and you'll parrot every single one.

Simon FostonToday  11:05 pm UTC

albaleoToday  09:00 pm JST

"In this case, I think it's mainly about whether the government can lie to the queen in order to stymie parliament. So far, one court says yes and the other no."

Not really. The Court of Session is saying yes...

I mis-read that comment a bit. It's the Court of Session that's saying no.

@Simon

Not really. The Court of Session is saying yes and the High Court is refusing to say anything.

I don't see it that way. The High Court is saying it is not justiciable (new word for me), so it is throwing out the case. Is it not saying the government's action is not subject to court procedures therefore it is legal? The original Court of Session hearing took the same position. The subsequent hearing took the opposite view and declared the government's action illegal.

I'm wondering if that means Johnson could be arrested if he set foot in Scotland. :-)

(I am not an expert on these matters and find it hard to follow. The media are not exactly helpful in explaining things. They prefer quoting people who are perhaps as ignorant as I am.)

ksteer - If it's a binding referendum then yes. But this was a non-binding referendum, i.e its a survey

Which was made binding by Article 50. G.B. is now being run by it's third government since this "non-binding" referendum became law. While some on the internet are quick to dismiss the non-binding referendum/binding legislation as unimportant, G.B. legislators have gotten their knickers into a twist over how, or whether, to carry out the will of the people.

Meanwhile, does it really matter what different lower courts rule? The issue is being appealed to a higher court.

The government immediately said it would appeal, as the political opposition demanded Johnson reverse the suspension and recall lawmakers to Parliament.

Which was made binding by Article 50.

What? No it wasn't. It was non-binding then, and is still non-binding now.

Remember, it was a poll. Seems weird you are so focused on the results of a poll. Are you suddenly a supporter of polls now?

arrestpaulToday  05:23 am JST

"ksteer - If it's a binding referendum then yes. But this was a non-binding referendum, i.e its a survey"

Which was made binding by Article 50.

Parliament can vote to revoke Article 50.

albaleoToday  12:32 am JST

@Simon

The High Court is saying it is not justiciable (new word for me), so it is throwing out the case. Is it not saying the government's action is not subject to court procedures therefore it is legal?

I think the view is that the legality of what Johnson is doing is for someone else to decide. The courts don't make the laws.

Strangerland - What? No it wasn't. It was non-binding then, and is still non-binding now.

That must be why G.B. has had three governments since the results of this non-binding referendum/poll was announced. I guess the British people, British voters, and British legislators simply haven't been made aware that they can now simply ignore the referendum, ignore Article 50, and ignore the changes in government.