SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday September 25 2019, @08:57PM (2 children)
Completely irrelevant - That was a referendum. It wasn't counted by constituencies. Parliamentary democracy is not a single-issue A/B referendum counted by consituency.
(a) there hasn't been a vote of no confidence in the government since January, against Theresa May, when the government still had a working majority, so that's irrelevant.
(b) a motion for a general election under the Fixed Term Parliament act is not a vote of confidence in the government - it is a vote on (duh!) whether to hod a general election. Since it was the government who proposed the last two such motions, describing its defeat as parliament "signaling their full confidence in said government" is an interesting bit of logic...
Also, the rationale for blocking a GE and being wary of a no confidence vote in the current situation has been quite clearly explained by the opposition: if a GE is called now, parliament is dissolved immediately leaving Boris as acting PM with the executive power to change the election date and keep parliament shut until after Oct 31st after which its 'no deal' by default. That would be Boris who was just found to have unlawfully prorogued parliament for (and don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining) the same purpose. Boris who keeps saying that we'll leave on the 31st no mater what, despite an act of parliament saying yes, it does matter what.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 25 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
If Parliament is a representative democracy, who is it representing? Opposition parties can remove the sitting Government by voting for a General Election.
Parliament activated Article 50 which was extended until October 31st and that is the date when we exit the EU. Why would the EU agree to extend the period under the surrender act when they know remain MPs will not be returned to Parliament?
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday September 26 2019, @02:17PM
MPs are representatives of their electorate, rather than delegates.
Delegates are told by their electorate how to vote on a particular issue, and then they go off and do so. Think of the US Electoral College, or of trade union conventions.
Representatives are given the time and/or expertise to learn about the important issues of the day, and take decisions that will be in the best interest of the individuals that elected them.
I think you overestimate the ability of the EU's election-poll crystal ball if you think they can predict what will come out of a general election here anytime soon!
They don't have to rely on the election of a lot of "remain MPs" (which I take to mean MPs who wish to see Article 50 revoked). The election of enough "leave MPs" that will ratify a withdrawal agreement would also do. I'm sure the EU would prefer an orderly withdrawal to a no-deal break, and hope an election could change the Parliamentary arithmetic so that a party (or coalition of parties) would be in a position to ratify a withdrawal agreement.
Remember that other than the extreme options of leaving with no deal or revoking and remaining a full member, every other option has to go through the first stage of a withdrawal agreement first.
Another reason is domestic politics: if no withdrawal agreement is ratified, and there is disruption and job losses in France, the Netherlands, Ireland, etc., I'm sure their leaders would much prefer to be able to say to their disgruntled electorate "it's not our fault; we didn't kick them out".