Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday September 25 2019, @02:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the constitutional-upset dept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Mr Johnson suspended - or prorogued - Parliament for five weeks earlier this month, but judges said it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to Brexit on 31 October.

Supreme Court president Lady Hale said "the effect on the fundamentals of democracy was extreme."

[...]Delivering its conclusions, the Supreme Court's president, Lady Hale, said: "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."

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.

She added that it was important to emphasise the case was "not about when and on what terms" the UK left the EU, but about the decision to suspend Parliament.

Speaker of the Commons John Bercow said MPs needed to return "in light of the explicit judgement", and he had "instructed the House of Commons authorities to prepare... for the resumption of business" from 11:30 BST on Wednesday.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:11PM (5 children)

    by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 25 2019, @05:11PM (#898630)

    > Are they all becoming lawless?

    There is plenty of precedent for prorogation of UK parliament to prevent a distasteful law coming into effect, so the concept that this is a "new" or "lawless" thing is wrong.

    Actually, it is quite interesting that the judiciary felt they had the power to step in and tell the legislature that they *had* to sit. That is rather an exceptional event, and arguably overreach by the judiciary.

    * Disclaimer: I am swing/brexiter, but also have some knowledge of history.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:52PM (4 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday September 25 2019, @10:52PM (#898816)

    There is plenty of precedent for prorogation of UK parliament to prevent a distasteful law coming into effect.

    Is there? I can't find any.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Thursday September 26 2019, @08:40AM (3 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Thursday September 26 2019, @08:40AM (#899026)
      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday September 26 2019, @08:13PM (2 children)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Thursday September 26 2019, @08:13PM (#899288)

        It doesn't look like plenty to me.

        A few times would be my characterisation, in fact 6 times. Almost all of them to cover up some sort of corruption too.

        One of which produced this:

        This and the actions of Charles I were one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights 1689, where article 1 stated that:
        “the pretended Power of Suspending of Laws or the Execution of Laws by Regall Authority without Consent of Parlyament is illegall.”

        Which Boris may never have read.

        • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 27 2019, @08:16AM

          by PiMuNu (3823) on Friday September 27 2019, @08:16AM (#899477)

          I don't think anyone is proposing use of the suspending power.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:33AM (#900254)

          While Supreme Court justices never read article 9

          By Prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for Matters and Causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other Arbitrary and Illegall Courses.

          In modern English

          That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.