jump to navigation

A clever plan unravels September 11, 2019

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.


Scottish appeal court judges have declared Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful.

Another chapter written in the annals of incompetence regarding this Johnson government. And it kind of scuppers the idea that the dissent over proroguing Westminster was exaggerated.


1. CL - September 11, 2019

“In Federalist No. 69, New York’s own Alexander Hamilton outlined differences between the new U.S. government promised by the Constitution and the monarchy of Great Britain, from which the young Republic had just broken. Among them: The king or queen “may prorogue or even dissolve the Parliament,” whereas the president can do no such thing.”

“Two hours after the Scottish appeal court ruled that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament was “unlawful”, three of the most senior English judges explained why they had come to a diametrically opposed conclusion ..

“The court concludes on well established and conventional grounds that the claim is non justiciable – that is, it is not capable of being determined by the courts.

A decision to prorogue parliament is a prerogative power, a discretionary power still in the hands of the crown. Such a decision is formally made by the Sovereign on the advice of the privy council. By constitutional convention the sovereign invariably acts on the advice of the prime minister ..”

Is the UK a constitutional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy?
Its both, but is it more one than another?
If its viewed as a constitutional monarchy then the monarchial powers are delegated to the prime minister and Johnson is right.
If its seen as a parliamentary democracy then the HoC is sovereign and Johnson’s action is unconstitutional.
The issue now goes to the UK Supreme Court which will rule in a few weeks.


Dermot M O Connor - September 11, 2019

Indeed, but in the US a President could shut down the federal government – as can Congres. Leaving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people swinging in the wind.

I’ll take the UK system any day.

Those ‘founding fathers’ weren’t half as smart as they thought they were (a fact masked by the fact that they had stumbled onto a virgin continent which had seen little or no heavy exploitation). You’d have to have actively tried to fail to succeed given the natural resources waiting to be plundered.

That said, it would be great stuff if a constitutional monarchy did a better job of checks and balances that the American constitution (which has already proven itself to be an 18th century anachronism in any case). Like a fight between two old drunks in an alley.


2. roddy - September 11, 2019

Apparently the Scottish court decision is worthless and so will any other court.Heard on radio today once the British monarch gives anything “royal assent”it cant be overturned.So would all those talking bullshit about attending Westminster to save Ireland please feck off.


oliverbohs - September 11, 2019

I found the handwringing regarding whether BJ lied to the Queen quite amusing in this context. Not a hill worth dying on, but it seems every day spits out some new bullshit from the aghast centrist types across the water. Them and the jingoistic Tory types need each other for their Old Firm-like bickering for the rest of the century. To distract for society eating its young elsewhere


3. tafkaGW - September 12, 2019

Talking of clever plans unraveling: Apparently the drafters of the bill forcing Alexander de Pfeffel etc. to send a letter requesting an extension drafted the text of the letter, without any thought of how the EU might react.

It requests an extension without giving any reason. Allowing Al to go the EU and present a request while saying, “I was forced to deliver this and I’ve no plans or clue about what to do with the extension.”

This will force the EU to assume that something might materially change during the extension to square it with their own rules. A big assumption.

The drafters clearly suffered from the same problem that all dUK politicians have – no ability or wish to consider things from the point of view of the people they are supposed to be negotiating with.


I reckon the chances of no deal just went up again.


4. tafkaGW - September 12, 2019

Incidentally if the dUK supreme court rules to support the Scottish judgement of the Scottish courts then it is implicitly setting itself about the Crown in the British non-constitution.

Also can / should the courts rule on what a parliament does and when?

Another side-effect of the dUK ‘constitution’ not being worth the paper it’s not written on.


5. CL - September 12, 2019

The Supreme Court ” must decide whether Johnson’s decision to stop parliament sitting for five weeks can be scrutinised by any judge, following opposing decisions by two of Britain’s highest courts.

Scotland’s Court of Session decided that it could on Tuesday, but last week the High Court of England and Wales ruled that it could not.
The three judges sitting in London found that Johnson’s request to prorogue parliament ahead of Brexit was “political” and therefore a “non-justiciable exercise of prerogative power” that cannot be judged by the courts.
The High Court said the issue “marked out the separation of powers between the judicial and the executive branches of government, a fundamental feature of our unwritten constitution”….
But Scottish judges ruled that Mr Johnson’s advice to the Queen was “unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying parliament”….

The High Court concluded that intervening in the dispute would risk interfering with the separation between judicial, legislative and executive powers…
“This is territory into which the courts should be slow indeed to intrude by recognising an expanded concept of parliamentary sovereignty,” judges said. “In our view, the decision of the prime minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue parliament is not justiciable in HM courts.”

The Supreme Court will consider both the High Court and Court of Session judgments in a three-day hearing next week, where parties to the unprecedented case will include 80 current and former parliamentarians.

Whatever decision it makes will change the UK’s constitution forever.”

‘The hearing will be live streamed on http://www.supremecourt.uk,’

“Stephen Tierney, professor of Constitutional Theory at Edinburgh University, believed the significance of this judgement would be felt not only in the short term but in the longer term also.
He explained: “The normal view of the courts is that it would not be appropriate to rule on the exercise of prerogative power….
this decision indicates the courts are more prepared than many people had expected to intervene in government actions.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: