Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Suspending Parliament was unlawful, court rules
Source: BBC
Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.
...
But the UK's highest court said it was wrong to stop Parliament carrying out its duties.
The court's president, Lady Hale, said: "The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme."
She said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices was that Parliament had not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect - and it was for the Speakers of the Commons and Lords to decide what to do next.
Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261
Unanimous verdict. This means the prorogation did not legally take place, and parliament is still effectively in session - the speakers of the Houses can arrange new sittings any time they want, and there is no longer a Queen's speech scheduled.
Extract from the ruling:
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.
No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.
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.
It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/24/brexit-supreme-court-latest-news-labour-conference-starmer-says-it-is-obvious-labour-will-back-remain-despite-conference-vote-live-news?pagewith:block-5d89e6988f0834740f3c1253#block-5d89e6988f0834740f3c1253
No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.
The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.
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.
It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/24/brexit-supreme-court-latest-news-labour-conference-starmer-says-it-is-obvious-labour-will-back-remain-despite-conference-vote-live-news?pagewith:block-5d89e6988f0834740f3c1253#block-5d89e6988f0834740f3c1253
Link to tweet
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Boris Johnson’s Suspension of Parliament Was Unlawful, U.K. Supreme Court Rules
By Mark Landler
Sept. 24, 2019, 5:46 a.m. ET
LONDON — The British Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament, dealing him another heavy blow and thrusting the nation’s politics into even deeper turmoil, barely a month before it is scheduled to leave the European Union. The decision, which upheld a ruling from Scotland’s highest civil court, reopens a debate over Brexit that was short-circuited when Mr. Johnson asked the queen to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament for five weeks.
Though it has historically avoided politics, the court made a landmark decision to intervene in a fierce clash between Mr. Johnson and Parliament over when and how to exit the European Union. The court essentially endorsed the judgment of the Scottish court that Mr. Johnson’s suspension was an effort to stymie debate before an Oct. 31 withdrawal deadline, which he had pledged to meet even if Britain and Brussels did not reach an agreement on the terms.
As a practical matter, it was not clear how much the decision would change the government’s immediate approach to Brexit. In the days before they were dispersed, members of the House of Commons pushed through a law — over the prime minister’s fierce opposition — that would prohibit Mr. Johnson from pursuing a “no-deal Brexit.”
But in symbolic terms, the court ruling was a stinging rebuke for the prime minister. It raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II in asking her to prorogue the Parliament. And it added to the perception that his Conservative government was running roughshod over Britain’s most hallowed political conventions in its zeal to extract the country from Europe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html
By Mark Landler
Sept. 24, 2019, 5:46 a.m. ET
LONDON — The British Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament, dealing him another heavy blow and thrusting the nation’s politics into even deeper turmoil, barely a month before it is scheduled to leave the European Union. The decision, which upheld a ruling from Scotland’s highest civil court, reopens a debate over Brexit that was short-circuited when Mr. Johnson asked the queen to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament for five weeks.
Though it has historically avoided politics, the court made a landmark decision to intervene in a fierce clash between Mr. Johnson and Parliament over when and how to exit the European Union. The court essentially endorsed the judgment of the Scottish court that Mr. Johnson’s suspension was an effort to stymie debate before an Oct. 31 withdrawal deadline, which he had pledged to meet even if Britain and Brussels did not reach an agreement on the terms.
As a practical matter, it was not clear how much the decision would change the government’s immediate approach to Brexit. In the days before they were dispersed, members of the House of Commons pushed through a law — over the prime minister’s fierce opposition — that would prohibit Mr. Johnson from pursuing a “no-deal Brexit.”
But in symbolic terms, the court ruling was a stinging rebuke for the prime minister. It raised the question of whether he had misled Queen Elizabeth II in asking her to prorogue the Parliament. And it added to the perception that his Conservative government was running roughshod over Britain’s most hallowed political conventions in its zeal to extract the country from Europe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/world/europe/uk-supreme-court-brexit.html
When I was searching around earlier, I thought I saw a name floated. Can't find where I was when I saw it though!
He humiliated the Queen ffs
Only way to make this day better is if Pelosi comes out swinging for impeachment later today
