Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

[DaveB]

The House is in recess now. How do you suppose a non-scheduled recess is created...?

Anyway, that is irrelevant. The Scottish ruling is based on the judges' interpretation of the reasons Boris gave the Queen. Since that meeting - indeed any such meeting - was not minuted, nobody other than the PM and the Queen knows what was said. So on what basis did the judges decide it was illegal? Judgements are not supposed to be based on supposition, only on proven fact.

You need a better understanding of how the system works.

Nothing was said in the meeting with the Queen, that's not how it works. Boris didn't even meet her himself. 3 Minsters met the Queen in Privvy Council and asked her to make an oOrder in Council to Prorogue Parliament, which she did. No debate, no discussion.

The case hinges on the reasons Boris gave for requesting the Order to Prorogue and whether it stymied Parliaments ability to scrutinise the government as a result and whether that was the desired effect. The Law Lords concluded that it did and it was based on evidence provided including minutes of meetings in which proroguing was discussed and a hand written note and initialled agreement from Boris.

Even when in recess for the party conference season parliamentary business can still be conducted, Ministers required to respond to questions and if needs be votes held. A prorogued parliament can do none of this as it technically no longer exists until the next Queens Speach.

There was still time after the conference season to carry out the normal business of Proroguing parliament ahead of a Queens Speach. What has happened is that Parliament has been shutdown for 5 weeks, when it would normally only be 2. This week just gone, the two weeks of the conference season and the two weeks after that. Only the final two weeks would normally have been affected by a prorogation.

Read the judgement for yourself and you will see why the Law Lords reached the conclusions they did based on statute and case law.

[Mordac]

We’ll never know, Parliament didn’t get the chance to vote on the period of recess for conference season.

What, you think they'd turn down the chance to go on a weeks freebie pissup on expenses, and possibly get some totty into the bargain?

[meridian]

Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

What, you think they'd turn down the chance to go on a weeks freebie pissup on expenses, and possibly get some totty into the bargain?

Lol, you make conference season sound exciting. “Totty”? Is it a Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, or Tory conference that you’d find “totty”!

Perhaps it’s all relative though, a week in Blackpool and even the donkeys might look attractive to some of them.

[Old Greg]

Lol, you make conference season sound exciting. “Totty”? Is it a Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, or Tory conference that you’d find “totty”!

Perhaps it’s all relative though, a week in Blackpool and even the donkeys might look attractive to some of them.

mordy has a zero hours contract for the conference season as the back end of a donkey, so he's hoping for some action.

[meridian]

Cummings appears to confirm that the reason for proroguing is Brexit. His “genius” is only matched by his idiocy in running his mouth off.

H/t Sunday Times.

[malvolio]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

[Mordac]

mordy has a zero hours contract for the conference season as the back end of a donkey, so he's hoping for some action.

At least I didn't get sacked from the front end for scaring the children...

[DealorNoDeal]

I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament.

You mean the Prime Minister? (Parliament didn't prorogue itself.)

So, you think a Prime Minister should be able to prorogue Parliament for any reason, and duration, he/she deems appropriate?

[DaveB]

We all know why it was prorogued, and what the Queen was told was the reason - and I suspect that als includes the Queen herself. I still don't accept that it is the duty of the courts to rule on political decisions made by Parliament. ISTR there is actually some old statute out there that explicitly prevents that happening, although that may not apply in Scotland of course.

Even so, Scotland is a bit like the DUP - it's the "British" government when they disagree with it, but it's their governement when they need it, neatly ignoring the detail that they are all still part of Britain (or, before the pedants jump in, The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

You really do need to read the judgement for yourself.

The courts didn't rule on a decision made by Parliament , they ruled on a decision made by the executive. i.e. the government led by the prime minister.

The decision was based on actual Statute that specifically prohibits the executive from proroguing parliament in order to stop parliament from doing it's job, as I quoted previously (The Claim of Right Act 1689). The courts do not normally have jurisdiction over political decisions, unless they may be breaking the law. That was the basis on which the case was brought. The original judgement went against them on the basis that there was no evidence that the law had actually been broken, therefor the courts had no jurisdiction over the decision. The appeal was granted due to the additional evidence produced (meeting minutes, hand written material from Boris and a note from him approving the use of prorogation as a tool to avoid parliamentary scrutiny) that clearly showed, in the courts judgement, that the reasons for proroguing were in breech of the law.

The Claim of Right Act is UK Law that is applicable in Scotland and has been used as recently as 2014, as cited in my previous post, this is not a case of some archaic statute being dredged up as a last resort.

Your last statement is simply more muddying of the waters by trying to imply that the courts are biased one way or another, and typical tactics for Leavers when things go against them. That's what leads to Daily Mail headlines about enemies of the people. Frankly I trust the courts far more than any off the politicians or other interested parties involved in this.

[NotAllThere]

The courts do not normally have jurisdiction over political decisions, unless they may be breaking the law..

Yep. Happens quite often - a political decision is made (e.g. by the Home Office, stripping some ISIS girl of British citizenship) and it is challenged in court. Sometimes ministers acted unlawfully and their decision must be reversed. Same applies to Prime Ministers.