Debub wrote: » from Laura Kuenssberg:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49813639 The highest court in the land has just ruled that the serving prime minister broke the law. He gave the Queen advice that was unlawful. And the scope and strength of this judgement cannot just be dismissed as some pesky judges sticking their noses in. But the decision to suspend Parliament may just have blown up in Number 10's face. In his two months in power, Boris Johnson has lost his first six Commons votes, broken the law by suspending Parliament and misled the monarch. Even for a politician who seems to enjoy breaking the rules, that is a serious charge that, only two months into office, even the most brazen Johnson backer cannot simply shrug off.
Mr Bridgen said: We need Boris to be strong now. It is the worst possible decision for our democracy. I think what we have got is a Parliament is completely out of step with the sentiment of the country. They are holding our democracy to ransom. They are completely ignoring the vote we had in 2016 to Leave the European Union. It is an absolute disgrace as far as I’m concerned. What we are going to see now is the Speaker John Bercow taking control of Parliament and playing to the Remainers tune until the 31st of October when he resigns. We have got a zombie Parliament that won’t go back to the people and be held to account.
Seth Brundle wrote: » I give you Andrew Bridgenhttp://players.brightcove.net/2540076170001/B1Hli6KCG_default/index.html?videoId=6088967202001
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Indeed, legal commentators after the hearings thought the judgement would be split, anything up to 6-5. Johnson managed to lose on justiciability AND on lawfulness AND get an 11-0 unanimous verdict. Absolutely crushing defeat. I wonder if the men in grey suits will be having a word on his return from the US, he is dragging the Tory party through the absolute depths of public humiliation.
GM228 wrote: » https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1176494900826624001?s=19 Tease, anyone care to speculate?
robinph wrote: » Mogg getting booted out of the Privy Council for misleading the monarch, followed by a ceremonial squashing of his top hat?
briany wrote: » The mindset of the average English Brexiteer is that they don't really care if Scotland leaves the UK, or if the backstop becomes enforced. They just want themselves to be out of the thing.
CelticRambler wrote: » When IndyRef2 comes to pass, we can be pretty sure that the "better together" banners are not going to feature highly in the campaign on the English side of Hadrian's Wall.
listermint wrote: » By whom farage? The myriad of pensioners who support ukip? Whom exactly because they haven't shown themselves in any number to date.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Isn't that treason?
woohoo!!! wrote: » Simply put, the various positions put forth from the UK body politic are not credible.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » Trump talking now, saying there are working with Boris to finalise a great trade deal. I thought they could not even discuss trade deals unless they had left.
briany wrote: » What's Johnson's next move? Could he just advise the Queen to prorogue parliament again?
Hoppy Jack wrote: » He could in theory but won’t. Would look dreadful.
Hoppy Jack wrote: » He could in theory but won’t. Would look dreadful. He’ll carry on. Let the HoC sit and ignore the angry speeches
briany wrote: » The mindset of the average English Brexiteer is that they don't really care if Scotland leaves the UK, or if the backstop becomes enforced. They just want themselves to be out of the thing. So, the NI-only backstop would meet widespread approval among the Brexit-voting public, and it's only game-playing among the political class that's currently stopping it.
Varta wrote: » The EU can't be seen to be vindictive against ANY member. This false notion of certain members being more important than others is only heard out of the UK.
robinph wrote: » I got the impression that he can't and that the court stated that anything more than a week for writing a Queens speech without very clear justification as to why would be considered unlawful.
briany wrote: » So that means that if Johnson wishes to prorogue again for longer than a week, he must first apply to the courts?
Chips Lovell wrote: » No. More that it could be shot down again. Possibility too that he could be found in contempt of court.
briany wrote: » But court procedures take time to organise and execute. If Johnson successfully hand another prorogation on, say, the 15th of October, by the time the court ruled again that it was unlawful, it might be too late to matter. Unless it could now be fast-tracked.
This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)