Boris Johnson next British PM

[Jezza]

The political class have sold out their constituents in Britain.

What a joke this has become.

[Wokko]

MPs are overwhelmingly remain and are too out of touch to understand why people want to leave. They're hell bent on sabotaging the process.

[Tannin]

[think positive]

Great post Tannin,
This also effect other countries in the EU it needs to be sorted properly

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue

This is a reasonably resounding loss for Pudding Man. 11-0.

Here's a link to the reasons for judgment (or the summary, as you prefer): https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0192.html

[David]

Good news, I suppose – but you know, I have a feeling that this only plays into Johnson's bull-in-a-china-shop, us-against-the-elites (I know, the irony) electoral appeal. Anyway, at least they'll be actually getting the opportunity to hammer out a deal on time now, which seems preferable to running the clock down.

[Pies4shaw]

The most important thing about the decision is its insistence on the principles of representative democracy. The consequences of that jurisprudence could be far reaching. Here is the nub:

55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the Government to account.

56. The answer is that of course it did. 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 a possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on the 31st October. Parliament might have decided to go into recess for the party conferences during some of that period but, given the extraordinary situation in which the United Kingdom finds itself, its members might have thought that parliamentary scrutiny of government activity in the run-up to exit day was more important and declined to do so, or at least they might have curtailed the normal conference season recess because of that. Even if they had agreed to go
into recess for the usual three-week period, they would still have been able to perform their function of holding the government to account. Prorogation means that they cannot do that.