
Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule - hanoz
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
======
the_duke
> This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her
> Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in
> council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should
> be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the
> House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The
> prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been
> prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices.

This is a very clear and damning verdict.

Suspending parliament for five weeks in a critical time would be heavily
criticized by the West as a major anti-democratic and authoritarian move in
any other country.

It's something that would have been unimaginable to happen in the UK a few
years ago, and will probably burden the UKs political system for a long time.

Interesting times indeed.

~~~
hogFeast
It won't burden the system. This has happened before in recent memory and is
totally fitting with the powers of the Executive (the only difference here is
the subject).

And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of
judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it. The key assumption
in that is there is an alternative before the October 31, there isn't...so it
doesn't matter if Parliament is sitting or not because there is nothing to
scrutinise.

To explain: Johnson was not denying Parliament a voice at all because he
wasn't suspending past October 31. He was suspending until a few days before
the European Council meeting, where the final deal will be negotiated, and
then Parliament would vote on it. 95% of articles on this topic do not make
this clear. The timetable does not change whether or not Parliament is
sitting. It only changes if you are someone deluded enough to believe that
there is an alternative...there isn't (the EU has said this multiple times).

What is burdening the system is:

* UK voted to leave * General election was called which Brexit parties won (somehow given May's ineffectiveness) * MPs voted to leave * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal * MPs refuse to re-negotiate the deal or do anything that makes a deal possible * The "alternative" from Labour is to go to the EU, negotiate exactly the same deal that has been voted down 4 times then they will whip their MPs against that deal too.

It is utterly bizarre to take aim at the only person who actually has a
definite idea about how to solve this situation (regardless of whether you
agree with it or not).

~~~
hesk
> And it is worth saying: to get that verdict, they had to take the leap of
> judgement in assuming they knew exactly why the PM did it.

They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament.
From page 2 of the summary
([https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar...](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf)):

> For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this:
> that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be
> unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing,
> without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its
> constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for
> the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might
> be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the
> responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with
> appropriate caution. > If the prorogation does have that effect, without
> reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether
> the Prime Minister’s motive or purpose was unlawful.

Also:

> * MPs voted down the current deal 4 times but EU won't change that deal

The EU is happy to change the deal if the UK government proposes something
reasonable. But it will not back down from its red lines which is the
integrity of the single market and solidarity with Ireland, which is a member
state.

~~~
hogFeast
> They explicitly side-stepped the motive of why Johnson prorogued Parliament.

They did not. The part you quoting actually explains that this is the case.
The court has to identify whether the justification is reasonable (if you
followed the case in Scotland, the logic was exactly the same), and this means
looking at motive (just to say, constitutional law in the UK does not work
like the US...at all).

I did not imply that the EU should do anything. Again, this is a common
misunderstanding of the govt's position. The point of their strategy isn't to
force the EU into doing anything (although that is the effect). The point is
to stop the delay (the effect on the economy has been huge).

~~~
pjc50
> the effect on the economy has been huge

Yes. You can see every time a pro-Brexit news event happens the pound falls
and an anti-Brexit one happens it ticks up again, like today. The effect of
no-deal will be even bigger, as a number of businesses which have been hanging
on will be forced to close or relocate.

The default way out of this has to be to revoke, until such time as someone
can get elected with a majority of MPs supporting a workable plan.

~~~
hogFeast
The UK has a phenomenally large number of low productivity businesses (the BoE
has written tons on the productivity crisis). To suggest that businesses would
go bust who wouldn't have gone bust otherwise is to confuse cause and effect.

For most businesses, it won't make a tremendous difference. Imports are
becoming more expensive but this is something that likely would have occurred
anyway because of weak competitiveness/low savings rate.

Exporters are probably going to come out even or ahead (the change in the £
has offset tariffs).

The situation at the border is somewhat concerning (although only worth 1-2%
of GDP in most studies) but has also been distinctly complicated by the switch
from CDS to CHIEF (which was supposed to happen years ago but didn't). We
could get this right, unf we have got to the point where we are choosing not
to.

The main concern for the UK economy is actually supply. The labour market is
very tight, unemployment is the lowest it has been for four decades or so,
wages are growing like crazy, and we have had deflationary effect due to the
delay (which has crushed investment) but, at some point, this is going to come
back and there is no spare capacity.

It would be a sweet relief for the marginal, low-productivity businesses that
are suffocating the economy to fold (the reason we have low productivity and
tight labour is because too many people do jobs that are unproductive, these
businesses will not give up resources willingly).

~~~
pjc50
Leaving aside Yellowhammer, Thomas Cook, and the various car manufacturers,
the argument that low-productivity businesses are the ones holding the economy
back and need to go bankrupt is really questionable. People are free to move
jobs. You just have to pay them more. Evidently the wage growth has not yet
caught up enough.

The other approach would be to encourage staff from overseas, which the
government has spent years discouraging and has now specifically chosen to
make harder for Europeans.

> We could get this right, unf we have got to the point where we are choosing
> not to.

This has systematically been the Brexit approach.

------
EnderMB
Regardless of whatever side you are on, you have to admit that we're currently
living in extraordinary times in UK politics.

A decade ago, the kind of things we've seen over the last 3-4 years would have
been borderline unthinkable. If this were all a TV show, people would've
called it too far-fetched or too distant from reality.

Whatever happens - there will be enough content to create movies, whole
modules for university classes, and a dozen or so questions for pub quizzes.

As for Boris - imagine being the first Prime Minister in British History to be
found guilty of misleading the monarchy. Now, imagine going through a
shattering defeat in court, while STILL being far ahead in the polls.

~~~
mytailorisrich
> _while STILL being far ahead in the polls._

This is because of the appalling state of Labour, which is currently
controlled by actual communists.

People are not stupid. Labour's current policies would be far worse than
Brexit.

With a 'normal', half-decent opposition the Tories would have been overthrown
years ago.

~~~
EnderMB
I guess it depends who you ask. I preferred the Labour policies from the last
GE, but outside of some pie-in-the-sky thinking about private education and
universal credit, I think they have some solid policies.

The average person doesn't care about policies, though. Labour under Ed
Milliband had some good policies, but he was undone because he looked weird
when eating a bacon sandwich. You could argue the same for Gordon Brown, who
looked weird when he smiled when compared to the overly polished David
Cameron.

IMO, the people just don't like Corbyn, and many people cling to the idea that
the PM is the outright ruler of the land, when Brexit has shown the exact
opposite - they are a leader, but they need a house to push their majority
through.

I do agree with you, though. If Owen Smith had plotted a coup a few years
later, he'd probably be 20-30 points ahead, and Boris would do everything
possible to avoid a GE. The one good thing about Corbyn is that he is a
campaigner, so the second a GE becomes a reality he'll be in his element.

If Boris wins, then I give up. The Tories will have sold their soul for
Brexit, the Labour party will have destroyed any credibility as a viable
opposition, and the Lib Dems will have aligned too heavily with the Tories to
be viable themselves. I don't know where the country goes from there, but I
would love to not be a part of it.

~~~
mytailorisrich
The main issue with Corbyn's Labour is that it is too much on the left, with
some major policies being textbook communist (e.g. nationalisations with
handing control to workers), and a Marxist as Shadow Chancellor.

Their current delirium about private education, which is also a textbook
communist party style policy (suppression, assets seizure and "democratic"
redistribution), only adds to this.

I could add their populist war in private landlords and calls for rent
controls...

Beyond Corbyn himself this does scare many people away.

~~~
EnderMB
I agree with you on private schools. My other half went to a private school,
and her parents were in no way wealthy. She left state education because her
primary school messed her education up so much she (alongside other kids in
her class) failed her Year 5 SATS and refused to take the blame for not
teaching the class adequately. She went from failing in Year 5 to getting a
first at uni - probably thanks to a solid private education.

With that being said, the current policy doesn't seem to be to scrap them
entirely, but to remove their charity status. This does make sense, but will
require more thought than what they've given so far. Removing their status
ensures they're paying fair tax, but it also means that they are no longer
required to share their facilities with state schools.

It's a weird policy to lead with, and the cynic in me believes they're doing
so to push the class divide, in order to get more Leave voters behind them.

~~~
mytailorisrich
> _With that being said, the current policy doesn 't seem to be to scrap them
> entirely, but to remove their charity status._

It does not make sense to scrap their charity status.

As you said, people who send their children to private schools are not
necessarily wealthy. But in any case they do pay their taxes yet they do not
use state schools' resources, which actually means more money per state school
pupil. Why would these people have to pay extra taxes for not using state
facilities that they already finance? (Because that's exactly what this would
mean)

Private schools help the system. Hitting them would hurt everyone.

That being said, at this year party conference they did vote to scrap private
schools altogether, to seize their assets, and tho redistribute these assets
"democratically".

> _they 're doing so to push the class divide_

It is an ideological class war. This is communist.

------
joosters
Summary of the judgment:
[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summar...](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-summary.pdf)

Full judgment:
[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgme...](https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf)

~~~
pmyteh
I strongly recommend people read the judgment, or at least the summary. It's
very clearly written, and it would let people argue about what the court
found, as opposed to what they think the court might have found.

------
JohnGB
The fact that it was unanimous really drives home how obviously illegal it
was. I would love to see a direct criminal or civil consequence for this, as
it negatively affected the rights of all UK citizens.

~~~
tomp
The funny thing is, prorogation was a democratically elected government trying
to prevent a democratically elected parliament from democratically (by members
of parliament) stopping a democratic (by the populace) decision to exit the
EU.

~~~
pavlov
The Johnson government isn't democratically elected by any usual definition.

The government doesn't have a parliamentary majority, and Boris hasn't stood
as a PM candidate in a general election.

~~~
jajag
All true - and yet this parliament seems remarkably reluctant to allow the
electorate the opportunity to correct this state of affairs.

~~~
lambertsimnel
Opposition parties might be concerned about being absent from Parliament when
the Brexit deadline passes.

There's another problem, too. The First Past the Post electoral system
prevents the electorate from correcting the state of affairs (except perhaps
by accident). Call me cynical, but calls for an early general election under
the existing system look like a power grab rather than a sincere attempt to
let the electorate decide.

~~~
jajag
God forbid that voters have a say!

~~~
lambertsimnel
Voters should have a say under proportional representation. Holding a general
election under First Past the Post would likely hand the government to a
faction with minority support. I don't mean this to be partisan or pro-/anti-
Brexit, but FPTP typically doesn't settle issues and increasingly doesn't
provide good government in the UK.

FPTP typically overrepresents some parties at the cost of others (and at the
cost of voters). Politicians might want an election when they believe they
will be more overrepresented afterwards than before. That's why it's no
surprise for the opposition to suddenly stop wanting an election when the
government begins to want one.

------
Ensorceled
As a member of the commonwealth with a parliamentary democracy, I’m confused
by how many people think this was the wrong call. The PM is only the first
minister, the serve at the behest of parliament. I wish Canada would also
remember that Parliament is supposed to hold the ultimate power of government.

~~~
mieseratte
> The PM is only the first minister, the serve at the behest of parliament.

As a non-Commonwealther, what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed)
to do? In school the PM was always explained as "their version of President,"
which I know waxes over tonnes of detail.

The day after the proroguing announcement, I read a bit that claimed this was
"normal" in the UK Parliament. What makes this so particularly unusual and
illegal?

~~~
pjc50
The timing is normal (for the conference season and Queen's speech). The
duration was longer than normal, and of course we're in the middle of a crisis
with a ticking clock. A two-week prorogation might have worked fine. But the
intent

> what exactly is the PM supposed to (or not supposed) to do?

Normally this kind of conflict doesn't arise, because the government has a
large majority, and if they cease to have a majority then the PM is replaced
by a no-confidence vote.

Normally the PM is supposed to Be A Good Chap and Do The Decent Thing, which
are ill-defined concepts from British honour culture, but have basically gone
out the window with Johnson's behaviour.

~~~
flother
There's also an important difference between _recess_ and _progrogation_.

Recess is just a quick break for the conference season, and is normal at this
time of year. Progrogation brings all parliamentary business to an end, bills
are not carried over to the next session (so work on them has to start from
scratch), and select committees can't sit. That's a _very_ different state of
affairs.

------
Kaibeezy
Why this verdict is so important:

 _It would open the door ... to a form of judicial review that is widely
accepted in the United States, which has a codified Constitution and a Supreme
Court that actively interprets it._

 _Britain, by contrast, relies on an unwritten set of traditions and
conventions that have treated a sovereign Parliament as the supreme law of the
land. Once the courts venture into the political sphere and begin passing
judgment on Parliament’s actions, legal analysts say, there is no going back._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-
supreme-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-
court-brexit.html)

~~~
pjc50
We already have judicial review applying to governmental actions and
ministerial decisions. This is not an application of judicial review to acts
of Parliament. The prorogation was an act of the government, not Parliament.

~~~
Kaibeezy
Good point. WUWT NYT? Investigating...

OK, best I can figure is NYT is trying to make the point that if the UK
Supreme Court is becoming willing to get involved with such highly political
matters, there's no reason they wouldn't seek to extend that to Parliamentary
matters. Does that comport with the facts and opinions here?

~~~
pjc50
Oh, they did the usual thing of finding a quote from the other side to put in
the article. That quote was of course wrong, but they probably felt the need
to put it in for balance.

~~~
Kaibeezy
Technically, they've upheld the Scottish court's ruling. I'm sort of seeing
the Scottish courts focused on it being illegal for Parliament not to be able
to do its job. Two sides of a 2-dimensional object.

~~~
pjc50
I think that since this is the English case the Scottish case now evaporates
and doesn't get appealed separately, so we don't get to find out how that
would have worked out.

~~~
skissane
They upheld the Scottish judgement, and overturned the English one. It was
both cases.

They reached the same conclusion as the Scottish case, but with somewhat
different reasons. They avoided the issue about the PM’s motivations/purpose
that the Scottish judgement focused on. Instead, they said the impact of the
prorogation on Parliament’s ability to do its job made it unlawful, so they
didn’t have to consider the PM’s motivations.

------
Joakal
Liberal Party of Australia shortened the parliament sitting days to avoid
scrutiny: [https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-
cutt...](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-accuses-government-of-cutting-
sitting-days-in-2019-to-avoid-scrutiny)

That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's much more anti-democratic changes
in Australia.

~~~
mieseratte
I'm not a Commonwealth type, are the UK and Australian governments somehow
linked?

~~~
pjc50
Only through the Govenor-General, who is the Queen's standin in the Australian
copy of the British system: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2018/dec/16/queen...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2018/dec/16/queen-appoints-australias-next-governor-general-with-calls-
for-it-to-be-her-last)

~~~
tomatocracy
Courts often look to judgments in other common law or Westminster systems,
even though they aren’t precedents as such.

------
davidhyde
More importantly, does she know that there is a spider on her shoulder?

~~~
lol768
If you're interested in seeing more of these brooches, Lady Hale apparently
has quite a collection [https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-
brooches/](https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/11/lady-hales-best-brooches/)

------
baq
> It is worth just taking a breath and considering that a prime minister of
> the United Kingdom has been found by the highest court in the land to have
> acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body in our constitution,
> Parliament, at a time of national crisis.

...yeah, is there anything to add here?

~~~
tim333
Brexiters would argue he is fighting the remainer parliament to implement the
will of the people as represented by the 2016 referendum result. It's all a
bit of a mess.

Personally I think Blair's suggestion of another referendum on no deal vs
remain would be the way forward as those are the most popular options with the
voters. Everyone seems to hate the withdrawal agreement.

~~~
repolfx
A second referendum would be a terrible idea. It might have been theoretically
defendable some years ago, if events had worked out differently.

But what we've seen over the past 3.5 years is that there was already a
referendum, and it's had no effect whatsoever because the ruling classes keep
fighting it all the way. The UK is still a member of the EU, nearly four years
after they voted last time!

Moreover, all the politicians in the two biggest political parties campaigned
last time on respecting and implementing the vote. They're now not doing that.

If you voted leave last time, why would you bother doing it again? The head of
the Liberal Democrats admitted on camera already that if she lost a second
referendum she still wouldn't vote to implement leaving in Parliament, which
surprised nobody at all.

The idea of a second referendum is proposed for exactly one reason only: so it
can be rigged to give Remain a second chance. Simply re-running it would
already give Remain a bigger chance than last time because so many of those
who voted Leave before would be disillusioned, believe the new vote was just
another lie and refuse to turn up at all.

But I doubt the establishment would take any chances. The Electoral Commission
has been repeatedly found to have maliciously harassed and fined Leave
supporters and campaigns, by the courts and police. For sure they'd try and
bend the process significantly.

Parliament would also likely try to ensure a Remain victory. Probably by
changing voting thresholds or by only offering remain/deal (i.e.
remain/remain) and then campaigning on the basis that the Withdrawal Agreement
is so bad it'd be better to give up entirely.

In the event that somehow a genuine no deal/remain referendum did take place,
and the powers that be didn't interfere, and Leave won again, it'd be
immediately challenged in courts by Gina Miller and her lawyer friends, the
same Parliament would still be in power and still be refusing to implement it,
and it'd change nothing.

In the end the only way out of this mess is unilaterally leaving the EU and
then starting to rebuild whatever relationship is possible from scratch,
replacing most sitting MPs and formalising a written constitution.

~~~
pjc50
> In the end the only way out of this mess is unilaterally leaving the EU

At the cost of hundreds of thousands of jobs, colossal disruption, possible
interruptions to food and medical supplies? Are you delusional that you think
it's easy or do you just not care who gets harmed?

~~~
repolfx
You overlooked the much more likely third option: I don't believe these claims
are true. Most people supporting no deal don't believe they're true, and for
valid reasons!

Let's break it down.

Loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is an economic prediction so we
can't know _for sure_ if it would be true or not unless it really happens. But
before the vote, this very same prediction was made in very similar form and
turned out to be completely false.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-
recessio...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/britain-to-enter-recession-
with-500000-uk-jobs-lost-if-it-left-eu-new-treasury-analysis-shows)

 _Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least
500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU,
new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor
shows._

NB: This analysis was about _voting_ to Leave, not actually leaving, so we can
test its correctness now. The analysis talks about the uncertainty created by
two years of negotiations, saying it would destroy at best 500,000 jobs and at
worst 800,000 jobs. Leave won, there have been 3.5 years of uncertainty and
the economy is performing incredibly well. Employment has grown strongly since
the vote. This prediction posed as scientific fact, but was riven with huge
Remain bias and turned out to be nonsense.

So now the same people are making the same claim again, but won't explain why
this time they're right or what they learned from their previous failure. It's
entirely reasonable to assume they've learned nothing, are making these claims
for political reasons and will be wrong again.

OK, now, colossal disruption. Possible interruptions to food and medical
supplies.

Really?

The explanation for why such disruption would happen goes like this. The UK
will implement more customs checks, which would be slow and temporarily
overwhelm customs infrastructure, leading to supply chain disruptions and
disasters.

Two problems with this claim.

Firstly, why would any sane government insist on customs checks if people were
dying due to lack of medicine or food? Tariff income isn't that important and
on day one the precise rules will be the same anyway. It'd be much more
sensible to just relax customs checks to whatever level was needed to ensure
continuity of supply until enough infrastructure was built.

Secondly and more importantly, people who actually run ports are saying the
infrastructure is already built and it's not true that there'd be large
disruptions in case of no deal.

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/12/08/lettersthe-
uk...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/12/08/lettersthe-uks-ports-
will-not-seize-no-deal-brexit-whatever/)

The CEO of the UK Major Ports Group says:

 _I write on behalf of the United Kingdom’s major port operators, responsible
for handling 75 per cent of the country’s seaborne trade. Dover, handling
around 6 per cent of UK port volumes, faces a unique combination of Brexit
risk factors that are not faced by most major UK ports. These ports already
have the capacity and infrastructure to handle large volumes of both EU and
non-EU trade today without logjam._

So apparently the people running the ports think only Dover might have issues,
but if it gets overloaded traffic would just go elsewhere. What does the head
of Dover Port think about this?

In Bloomberg:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/u-k-
port-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-19/u-k-port-of-
dover-says-it-s-100-ready-for-no-deal-brexit)

 _The Port of Dover -- through which a sixth of the U.K.’s trade in goods
flows -- can cope with any disruption thrown up by a no-deal Brexit, Chief
Executive Officer Doug Bannister said, suggesting some of the direr
predictions of chaos are wide of the mark._

So people who run ports are saying this is just politically driven
scaremongering.

As for medicines, if you look at the NHS advice page, it says the extent of
their plans is hiring additional space on planes or ferries to handle
temporary transport disruption (which, remember, port operators are saying
won't actually be an issue): [https://www.england.nhs.uk/eu-
exit/medicines/medicines-faq/](https://www.england.nhs.uk/eu-
exit/medicines/medicines-faq/)

So the claims being made here to try and terrify the British population into
giving up on Brexit, it's all stuff we heard before or people outside of the
establishment are saying isn't true.

~~~
rz2k
Somewhat off topic, but is there a name for this convention:

> Most people supporting no deal don't believe they're true, and for valid
> reasons!

> Let's break it down.

It is the same pattern and cadence that Sheryl Sandberg uses when describing
exciting new privacy initiatives in interviews, but it's also used by PR
managers at many tech firms.

Is there a PR school where they describe the subconscious thought process of a
typical audience:

> Sure, I want to join this really fun bandwagon with all of the enthusiastic
> people developing privacy policies at Facebook, or learning all the great
> ways that a no deal Brexit is going to be truly awesome for the UK. However,
> that's just my emotional response to wanting to be included, so please give
> me some nominally rational arguments for post hoc rationalization

I think it probably works, at least until it is overused, but I am curious
about whether there is a name for the whole approach.

~~~
repolfx
What convention? You mean stating what you believe and then providing
arguments for it? I'm not sure why you believe a normal argumentation
structure is somehow linked to PR firms.

Do you have any actual rebuttals or, would you rather just make innuendos and
insinuations (about what I'm not entirely sure).

------
guidedlight
We are living in interesting times

~~~
makomk
This is indeed astounding and unprecidented - the court ruling, that is, not
proroging Parliament to avoid its scrutiny. (There was a much more clear-cut
example of that at the end of the Major administration where he suddenly
prorogued Parliament for the entire three-week period between his announcement
and the general election, most likely to avoid scrutiny of a corruption
scandal involving his party. He was one of the folks who submitted briefs in
support of the claim that this prorogration was unprecidented and unlawful.)

~~~
rutthenut
Major certainly took the pee with his parliament shutdown, making him a
hyopcrite when complaining about Boris (stupidly) taking the same approach

~~~
tim333
It takes a thief to catch a thief

------
pjc50
Important technical question: is Bercow still the Speaker? If not, who is? I
thought he resigned at the end of the last term, which may or may not be
reverted by this result.

~~~
nicwilson
He is due to retire October 31st, or at the calling of a general election and
dissolution of parliament, whichever comes sooner.

------
bonoboTP
Is there any punishment, or is the law's spirit that punishment is the
potential non-reelection of a PM in such cases?

~~~
nicky0
They didn’t rule that the PM committed a crime. Just that the prorogation was
unlawful and effectively never happened.

~~~
peterwwillis
So... all of this was just a loud news cycle with no actual effect on anything
other than "Parliament can continue doing what it does" ? (I actually can't
tell, not trying to be a dick)

~~~
pjc50
Prior to this ruling, Parliament was _not_ able to continue doing anything
because it had been prorogued (suspended). The ruling allows it to continue.

------
mellosouls
Speaking as somebody who approved of Boris's strategy to leave on Oct 31:

In normal times, with a moral leader, this would be an instant resigning
matter.

Boris's response has been predictably complacent.

"I accept the verdict but strongly disagree with it" will become a go-to
phrase of every burglar and other criminal caught red handed.

Btw, (UK) word of the year:

Prorogation

~~~
rtempaccount1
Out of genuine curiosity, why do you approve of the prime minister's strategy?

~~~
mellosouls
To clarify: I'm a Remainer, and not a Tory supporter.

However, I remember discussing the issue at referendum time with my Leave
voting neighbours who were very much the supposedly angry working class type
that have been ridiculed and condescended to repeatedly by the liberal media.

They (my friends and neighbours) were adamant that "it doesn't matter what we
vote anyway, _they_ will just stop it happening."

At the time, I thought they were being paranoid.

Now they look prescient and wise. Parliament has had 3 years to honour the
vote of the people.

Boris Johnson (who I have little like for and am suspicious of his character)
is the first leader who has shown the will to make that decision happen.

So, though I regret the referendum decision (and that the moral impetus has
been taken on by people I don't feel a natural affinity to), I respect it and
support his move to enact it without further delay.

~~~
matthewdgreen
Why would you vote in an explicitly non-binding “advisory” referendum and
think that this somehow mandated the government to act? Particularly when the
win margin was a couple of percent.

~~~
mellosouls
Whatever the technical niceties of "advisory" there was never any dispute that
the referendum would decide the future of Britain within the EU.

The whole "advisory", "win margin" etc. phrasing is post-vote weasel words by
the losing side (mine). Those are nullification criteria to be established
_before_ the vote, not after it doesn't go your way.

If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been
using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory?

Personally, I doubt it.

~~~
matthewdgreen
It seems weird to initiate something as radical as a _total political
realignment of your country_ on the basis of a 2% win margin, particularly
when you don't actually have a concrete plan for how you're doing it (and when
no majority of the pro-Brexit voters seem to support the actual plans that
have been proposed.) The total failure of your politicians to complete this
project after several free and democratic parliamentary elections seems to me
to be a reflection of that fact, rather than some kind of weasel.

>If Remain had won by a similar small margin, do you think we would have been
using those words to acknowledge some moral failure of our victory?

Not really -- preserving your existing trade relationships doesn't seem like
the kind of thing that requires an overwhelming majority.

~~~
mellosouls
I'm not sure how to respond without repeating myself.

 _Those are nullification criteria to be established before the vote, not
after it doesn 't go your way._

The decision was made, it just needs to be delivered. I agree it has taken far
too long to do so.

~~~
matthewdgreen
Nobody established any nullification criteria. They just said “do you want to
leave the EU”. Parliament then negotiated an exit deal. The problem seems to
be that the many of the same voters who said “yes” are unable to get their
representatives to agree on accepting that deal.

------
lol768
Perhaps the strongest judgement against the government that could have been
delivered - and unanimous too. Great to see.

------
mschuster91
Oh no. Please. Can the UK please already exit the EU? By all means, rejoin us
the day after Brexit, but this time with mandatory entering of the Schengen
zone and the Euro...

~~~
tim333
I can see this must be a bit trying for the Europeans.

~~~
mschuster91
Mostly it's because continental Europeans are _utterly fed up_ with the chaos
that is Brexit. Right now the uncertainity is extremely expensive for every
company involved with UK trade, as precautions like capacity on ferries or in
warehouses gobble up money and organization time.

For what it's worth the UK can also cancel Brexit, but that would not solve
the problem that the "special deal" for the UK is a massive inequality against
all other EU states and can be/is abused by EU-sceptics across the EU, and in
addition canceling the Brexit would be a signal towards Hungary, Poland and
the rest of Visegrad that they can drag the entire EU on the nose ring and
then suddenly canceling everything, while all other parties have to pick up
the tab.

~~~
baq
all fair points except that as you said the price has already been paid,
cancelling now wouldn't return the time nor money spent, companies that made
the move to amsterdam, paris or frankfurt won't just go back, etc.

~~~
mschuster91
With a canceling of the brexit the time and money spent would be wasted, while
with a brexit (no matter if deal or no deal scenario) there would be at least
no waste plus the chance that a harsh Brexit will prevent Visegrad, Italy and
Greece from further pursuing their dream of "becoming independent from the
dictators in Brussels".

------
AstralStorm
So what's the result, vote of no confidence?

~~~
pmyteh
Unlikely to happen straight away. Due to a quirk of the Fixed Term Parliaments
Act 2011, a successful VoNC now would allow the Prime Minister to run out the
clock by refusing to resign, waiting the maximum two weeks to attempt a
superseding Vote of Confidence, then calling the latest legal election after
he inevitably lost. And Parliament would then be dissolved for the election,
leaving only Johnson at the controls over the critical period leading up to
Brexit day.

There are other routes out of the situation after a VoNC, but they involve
Parliament being able to agree on a new PM, which is tricky given that the
Leader of the Opposition is cordially despised by much of the Commons and
there are deep political problems with any of the other potential candidates.
It also would require Boris to either resign or be sacked after losing the
VoNC, which is by no means a done deal given that he's ignoring all the other
conventions and there's no obvious mechanisms for a forcible dismissal (one
hasn't been needed since the early 19th Century, as PMs have done the decent
thing on losing the confidence of the House).

------
Overtonwindow
The court is usurping the authority of parliament. Quite unfortunate.

------
pjc50
Well this is going to be fun, especially as it's the middle of party
conference season as well. At what point do the remaining unsacked
Conservatives admit they've lost? They're already a long way short of a
majority. Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon, or are we going to
continue with the weird governance by Parliament from the opposition benches?

~~~
jacquesm
> Are we going to have a no confidence vote soon

Can't be soon enough.

~~~
pjc50
.. but not before disarming the Oct 31 timebomb. Which is why it's not
happened yet.

~~~
nicky0
They had a chance of an election on Oct 15 but threw it away.

~~~
benj111
Who threw it away? BJ wanted an election then for his own political purposes,
it isn't the duty of parliament to just go along with that. Once an extension
has been requested, then an election can be held, and BJ probably won't have
much say in the timing.

------
tempguy9999
I'm reminded of a psychologist's description of sociopaths, that they "leave a
trail of destruction in life".

BJ seems to have the hallmarks of sociopathy, having known a few myself, and
he's made a total mess here. And elsewhere - talk to anyone who's worked in
TFL and they all (that I've met) will tell you about stupid plans that have
come across their desk, done without any traffic analysis but pushed through
nonetheless.

This all might force a written constitution, which is long overdue in the UK.
Something good may come of this at least.

~~~
nailer
Either that or the Prime Minister could simply be trying to implement the
result of the referendum, as voters were told the government would.

~~~
rini17
Voters were deciding based on abject lies in the referendum campaign. Then the
government carried on lying during whole process. This makes whole referendum
mandate very weak.

It's probably best to redo whole thing.

~~~
tomp
> It's probably best to redo whole thing.

How many times?

~~~
tempguy9999
I'll answer that. Exactly once more.

If people have not changed their mind the result will be the same.

If they have changed their mind they will have done it with the enormous,
painful benefit of the past few years of hindsight.

In either case the result will be clearer than what we have now.

If the UK then votes to leave, I'll go with that, regretfully but I will.

~~~
nailer
That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to
thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote.

~~~
tempguy9999
Then let's ignore the fact that the UK is tearing itself apart over this and
carry on, regardless of the possibility that people may have changed their
mind and that brexit is looking more damaging than ever, and that BoJo's
career has been built on opportunism (before the referendum was he for or
against brexit?) and lies (£350 million?)

Yes, push on, let's. Let's not compromise, rethink, allow a possibly bad
decision to be reconsidered. Push on, forward, forward!

Since neither side wish to compromise, the above was my suggestion of a way
forwards, where I would support brexit if I lost a 2nd ref.

What's yours?

(Oh, one more thing - the world's ecosystem has possibly started to collapse,
which may kill millions and cause wars killing more, perhaps many more. But,
BREXIT!!!!)

~~~
nailer
If you think the Office of National Statistics lie, then I suggest you take it
up with them.

The nation isn't tearing itself apart. A bunch of us who lost the vote have
decided to attempt to thwart the result. May was a remainer and a weak
negotiator, other remainers are weakening the UKs negotiating position by
insisting we can't walk away from a bad deal.

We lost. It's over. The vote was to leave. Let's leave.

And yes then let's fix the environment, knife crime and everything else too.

~~~
tempguy9999
You appear to have confused BoJo with the ONS. I did not.

> The nation isn't tearing itself apart

We'll have to disagree there. Granted it's not actual civil war but it's
politically stressed badly.

> We lost. It's over. The vote was to leave. Let's leave.

What is so terrifying about having a 2nd (and final) vote to check we haven't
changed our minds? Specifically, what is wrong with it? Are people not allowed
to change view in the light of new information?

~~~
nailer
> > > and lies (£350 million?) ...

> You appear to have confused BoJo with the ONS. I did not.

Are you sure? BoJo quoted the ONS correctly the UK sends the EU 350M. That the
EU returns 150 of it doesn't change that the EU is determining how the UK
spend the UK's money and then takes half of it for the EU.

> What is so terrifying about having a 2nd (and final) vote to check we
> haven't changed our minds?

> Specifically, what is wrong with it?

> Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?

See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090)

~~~
tempguy9999
> BoJo quoted the ONS correctly the UK sends the EU 350M.

You seem shaky on a number of things - are you a UK resident?

OK, to answer your point [https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/heres-how-
spectacularly-wrong...](https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/heres-how-
spectacularly-wrong-the-brexit-bus-350million-lie-was-6600987/)

"Just in case you hadn’t already cottoned on, the number plastered on the side
of the Brexit bus was a big fat lie.

[...]

According to the new official estimates, the UK actually makes a net
contribution to the EU of around £199 million a week."

So BloJo lied. Do you find it acceptable for a politician to lie to you?

> That the EU returns 150 of it doesn't change that the EU is determining how
> the UK spend the UK's money and then takes half of it for the EU.

True but irrelevant. Boris lied. That was my point. The ONS doesn't come into
it.

Me: >> Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?

You: > See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090)

Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible
precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the
outcome, get a second vote". That doesn't answer the question so let me try
again, same question, please answer Yes or No.

~~~
nailer
From the article you just posted:

"The ONS figures for 2015 suggest the UK’s gross contribution to the EU,
before the cash rebate received by the UK, totalled £19.6 billion – or about
£376 million a week. "

> You: see
> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090)

> Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible
> precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing
> the outcome, get a second vote".

Yes. You seem to not have either read or understood that point.

> That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please
> answer Yes or No.

Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and
undemocratic as you've already read, hopefully three times now. Maybe you can
ingest that information, process it and even respond if you'd like to rebut
it.

~~~
tempguy9999
Yes, before the cash rebate it was ~£350M/week (or £376M/week according to
this). Which boris used without accounting for the rebate which would have
brought it down to considerably less.

He lied and you seem ok with it.

> Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and
> undemocratic as you've already read

So Yes, people can change their mind, you allow, but no they shouldn't have a
2nd vote, you say, despite the fact they may have changed their mind.

So what am I supposed to conclude from that?

IMO it's problematic either way, but if we had a 2nd referendum at least "the
will of the people" would be clearer. Which may give us a way forwards, which
I proposed as a compromise, but you are trying to shut down.

Your compromise/way forward is... what?

~~~
nailer
I mentioned why the EU having control of our money is bad in a previous post
you responded to and didn't read.

There is no compromise. We lost. Asking people to vote a second time before
disrespects the first referendum. I have explained this a fourth time. I'm
blocking you now. You'll say it's because you're making amazing points, but
actually it's because you're talking to yourself.

~~~
tempguy9999
> I mentioned why the EU having control of our money is bad in a previous post

and I responded "True but irrelevant. Boris lied".

> Asking people to vote a second time before disrespects the first referendum

"Good evening madam, please be seated"

"Thank you. Let's see, I think I'll have the fish... no wait, the chicken
looks good. I'll have the chick-"

"NO! You will have the fish"

"But I want the ch-"

"Do not do this! You wanted the fish and you will have the fish"

"But I changed my m-"

"You are disrespecting your first choice _and I cannot allow this!_ "

Well, that's not how I see things.

~~~
nailer
> > "The ONS figures for 2015 suggest the UK’s gross contribution to the EU,
> before the cash rebate received by the UK, totalled £19.6 billion – or about
> £376 million a week. "

> "True but irrelevant. Boris lied".

I mentioned you were having a discussion with yourself earlier, but thanks for
providing an example.

"Fish is better"

"I'll have the chick-"

 _Person A shits all over chicken before it arrives_

"Hah fish is better don't you want fish now?"

------
forgingahead
Ok so this means...that there should be an election? This is exactly what
should have been called weeks ago, yet there is resistance from Labour. Why?

~~~
gadders
Labour are resistant to an election as they know they won't win.

~~~
rvz
Labour and other party members knew this was a trap. But the real reason they
abstained is they wanted to truly rule out a no-deal brexit plan and also to
further scrutinize the government.

Boris is now forced to ask Brussels for an extension due to parliament taking
over the brexit process. Only then a general election can happen.

------
growlist
This is so, so wrong.

------
nailer
A pity.

\- The previous parliamentary session was the longest since the civil war (the
English one if you're American).

\- This prorogue was for an extra four days - which seems quite reasonable
considering:

1\. there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the
referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal
the EU offers, which is likely to result in a one-sided deal for the UK

2\. the last few days of the negotiations are likely to be critical.

~~~
benj111
"there are politicians, who previously campaigned on the losing side of the
referendum, bent on hampering negotiations by making the UK accept any deal
the EU offers"

Like what? Mays deal that MPs rejected?

~~~
nailer
Like campaigning to accept any deal.

~~~
benj111
Who's campaigning to accept any deal?

The whole problem is ~50% of parliament want to remain, the other half don't
all agree on what deal they want.

So if there is a subset that will accept any deal, there clearly isnt enough
to make a difference about anything.

~~~
nailer
The remain folks are campaigning against no deal being on the table, which
forces the UK to accept any deal.

~~~
benj111
You seem to be poor at basic logic.

Against no deal != in favour of / having to accept, any deal.

~~~
nailer
You should improve your own logic.

'Against no deal' does not mean 'no deal must not be on the table'.

The PM is against no deal. He has stated so many, many times.

He also understands that the UK must be prepared to walk away in order to get
a reasonable deal. Do you understand that?

------
basicplus2
Read this before forming an opinion..

"Why Hasn't Brexit Happened?"

[https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-
happe...](https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happe..).

~~~
ag56
"Please click here to go back to the Claremont Institute home page"

~~~
ceejayoz
Where the current headline is "Defend America - Defeat Multiculturalism", if
you wanted to know how unbiased the source is likely to be.

------
Simulacra
I think this is a terrible verdict. The British courts are interfering with
the functioning of parliament. This would never happen in America, because it
would trample on the very notion of the three separate branches.

~~~
delfinom
What? The queen via the prime minister interfered. The court said the prime
minister can fuck off and restored parliament to functioning.

~~~
Simulacra
Until he dismisses it again. It means next to nothing other than one branch
interfering in the operations of another. Brexit will happen whether you want
it to our not.

------
rutthenut
Was plainly obvious why Boris went for the long shutdown, whatever he chose to
say, because of the also-suspect behaviour of the multi-party opposition him
wanting to see one law (Brexit Clause 10) implemented without conflicting laws
being made up on the fly.

Stupid though, as much of that shutdown wouldn't have made any difference
during the party conference season, which they strangely don't hold during
their summer recess.

