Johnson, Rees Mogg etc should all be beheaded

Well that didn’t last very long did it!!?

Bye Boris and take your ‘master strategist’ with you, to the Tower hopefully.

Utter shambles.

Just waiting for the propaganda to start. Boris is a victim of a remoaner judicial system etc.

The whole thing is a complete shambles, form the initial vote on guesswork to everything that's followed. Blatant profiteering from those involved and everyone else is paying for it.

You would expect him to resign with immediate effect but we live in strange times and it would not surprise me that he hangs on.
I have a wager that he is the shortest serving PM ever..........i am on my prayer mat.

He’s broken the law, he has to resign.

He could always appeal to the European Court of Justice?

I have spent the last five minutes laughing on Twitter at the people speaking of ‘establishment remainer’ conspiracies. Are these people gone in the head? Boris Johnson is the epitome of establishment and self interest. Gullible fools.

The first defeat by the Scots over the English since Bannockburn.
I wonder if the English judges who backed Bojo will be relieved of their duties.

He should not only resign but should also be tried for treason.

Sadly though, treason no longer carries the death penalty. A good hanging is just what the country needs and also the BBC needs to justify the licence fee. (That was a joke before the do gooders jump on me)

Ah well, onto the next corrupt politician who will put themselves, money and their millionaire mates before the country.

You should see the state of the replies on that ‘Hartlepool TV’ Facebook page reacting like this is some sort of disgrace.

Boris Johnson probably hasn’t even heard of Hartlepool, anybody from here should be laughing very loudly at his predictably quick demise. It’s like half of the country have taken leave of its senses.

ITV News' report on this is full of outrage... that these judges dare defy the queen.

The fuck?!

Another thing, at the time of the prorogation we were told that it had ‘nothing to do with Brexit’

Now the same daft bastards are going spare about the usual stuff, death of democracy, elitist conspiracy, against the will of 17.4 million people. You couldn’t write this shit.

If you call people daft bastards, PJ, you can't really complain if they act like daft bastards.

Daft bastards “It has nothing to do with Brexit”

Judges “it was illegal Parliament must return”

Daft bastards “Why are you trying to stop Brexit”

The irony here is amazing; the whole slogan 'take back control' comes from the primacy of the supremacy of parliament in the UK constitution, a supremacy that they think the EU erodes. The main thrust of today's judgment is that the Government unlawfully suspended parliament, thereby frustrating parliamentary sovereignty. [shrugs]

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but has he broken the law or have the judiciary clarified the law to a degree which means that events have transpired to be unlawful?

And did the ruling say that Johnson had “lied to the Queen”? Or is that a crude interpretation being made by people who want it to be the case?

Just asking to establish if the comments above are fake news, although I can imagine there will be equal hyperbole in any responses as there has already been in this thread to date.

That's a bit like saying I didn't know stealing from Tesco was a law until the police told me. Ignorance of a law isn't absolution, perhaps he shouldn't have went ahead with his hasty plan before actually checking stuff out?

Get what you mean though.

Available in all good gift shops.

Agreed Mr Loop, ignorance isn’t a defence. But I was of the impression that in the absence of a written constitution then this element had not previously been tested and was therefore unclear.

Bearing in mind I listened to the verdict but not the case...

The Justices stopped short of saying that BoJo had outright lied, but they were very clear that he had given advice that was unlawful. The basis for their ruling on that point is essentially that the Government failed to make the case for an exceptionally long prorogation at a time when there are exceptional matters affecting the country. So in other words, had he gone for a more normal prorogation (ie a Queen's Speech at the end of September after closing the session 1-2 weeks before) then no problem - but the government needed to justify why they needed such a long period of prorogation and failed to do that. That doesn't automatically say he told porkies, though it does bring in to question those that advised BoJo that this move was legal...

The question of whether he knowingly broke the law is open, although it's more likely that he was told that it was technically legal; the ruling suggests that had he come up with a sufficiently strong case as to why such a long period was necessary he might have been OK. Lady Hale however seemed to suggest that the government didn't really try to justify the length of it - they relied on arguing that it wasn't a matter for the courts, an argument rejected by the Justices with some force.

Technically you can say BoJo lied, though the counter-argument is that he acted in good faith and believed he was acting lawfully - making any misleading inadvertent (though of course in government, even inadvertently misleading the Commons is usually a resignation matter - Amber Rudd when Home Secretary had to). Essentially it depends on whether you believe that Johnson genuinely wanted to prorogue in order to bring forward his government's new agenda, or whether you believe he was doing it to avoid scrutiny over Brexit and trying to force a deal through regardless of parliament's wishes. Believers in the former however must also swallow that a five week prorogation at a time of political crisis is a perfectly normal thing to do.

He hasn't 'broken the law'; he's acted outside of his lawful powers. That's what the term unlawful means in this context; he had no lawful power to suspend parliament, given the effects. If we have government according to law, the government can only act when parliament or (in this case) the constitution provide a legal basis for those powers.

You also raise an important point on his advice to the Queen; the court ducked that question. In assessing whether or not the suspension was unlawful, the court said this could be made out by asking 1) was the power exercised for an improper motive (which would mean he lied to the queen) or 2) the effects of the suspension had the effect of silencing parliament without a reasonable justification. The court only addressed the second question, and in deciding that it did have that effect, there were able to not pronounce on the second question.

But let's be clear; this is a massive decision, by a unanimous Supreme Court of 11 (they usually only sit as a panel of 5) that fundamentally ripped the Government's arguments to shreds. The language of the judgment is, in judicial terms, damning. I've not read a constitutional judgment put in such strong language before.

That's exactly what they said; suspension would be lawful if there was a reasonable justification for it. However, the court went further than saying they didn't really try to justify the length of suspension. They made in clear, in judicial speak, that the Government said absolutely bog all on this, the implication being that they had no reasons, no justification and (probably) no clue. Lawyers who read the judgment will marvel at the way the court ducked the big political question - the government's motives - but effectively, in that passage you refer to, made it clear that they thought the motives were dishonest.

From the summary of the judgment on the Government's justifications:

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.

No surprise that Johnson is treating the whole thing as water off a duck's back. What happens tomorrow in parliament is anybody's guess.

An immediate vote of no confidence in Johnson's government is logical, and I hope Corbyn has the guts to push it through, but the Lib Dems don't want him as interim prime minister and he's not going to step aside so Ken Clarke or Harriet Harman can lead a Lib Dem sponsored government of national unity.

On top of that, a lot of opposition MPs don't want an immediate election because they're afraid the Leave parties might win it. I'm inclined to the old fashioned view that the whole point of a general election is to find out if there's majority support for anything, but there's already an article in the Guardian arguing that the best course is to leave Johnson where he is for now (i.e. as Prime Minister of the bloody country) so he can make himself even more unpopular - with people who already hate him, presumably.

Does Boris stand to profit in some way from making the UK as big a laughing stock as possible? That's the only possible explanation for his actions to date surely?

Not a cat in hell’s chance

If the other parties don't vote to bring him down you could ask the same question of them.

On a point of order - the last time any party won a majority of the votes cast was 1931. Arguably we have not had a government that represents the majority of voters since, although there were some near misses in the 50s and 60s.

And this in a way is the problem: politicians on all sides just don't know if the one single issue of Brexit is enough to sway people to vote for them. The Brexit Party think it will, although when it comes down to brass tacks they can't be certain - don't forget UKIP, for all their poll numbers, never got a single MP elected. In all likelihood there will be those who would say they'd vote Brexit, only to think again when the idea of a gurning Farage being involved in actually running the country for the next five years is presented to them... Meanwhile the Lib Dems are hoping that by setting themselves up as the "Anti Brexit Party" they can stage their big comeback. Boris is living in a land of confusion where he's just ejected a large number of sitting MPs, and faces losing more if he outright backs a No-Deal Brexit in a Manifesto - but if he doesn't, risks losing votes to the Brexit Party. The beleagured Corbyn is standing for, well, anyone's guess really - and with his party seemingly engaged in a competition to see who can stab most people in the back, and a lurch to the left that isn't exactly going to win over the chattering classes, ironically looks less likely to be able to form a government than he was in 2017.

To sum up then - the pro-Brexit vote could well be split, the anti-Brexit vote is a gamble, and the ambiguous position of the second largest party means that we're as likely to end up with a deadlocked parliament next time as not. If you want a straightforward answer on a single issue, you don't hold a General Election on it. Then again, we tried the alternative to that and that's how we got into this mess....

Labour's position of 'we'll sort out two decent options then put it back to the people in a referendum' will cost the party seats in the south, but in constituencies like Sedgefield where I live it will be enough to keep it red.

Sedgefield is traditionally rock solid Labour, but nearly 60% voted for Leave in the referendum. If Labour had come out as 100% pro-Remain yesterday Sedgefield would have become a marginal contest in a general election at best.

I think the other party's need to tread very carefully here. A vote of no confidence in johnson might be just what he wants. Dont put it past dominic cummings to have engineered exactly this. A bit far fetched I know but it's worth considering. I would be inclined to leave him in charge and let him flounder for months.

It's also worth adding that labour are unelectable as well with their cult like loyalty to corbyn. Yesterdays vote result was embarrassing beyond belief. There is an open goal for labour just now but they are going to miss it.

STILL not voting for Corbyn.

The reality is that it matters not. Brexit may be put back a month or two but if you think that Boris will lose votes on this you're crackers. The populous will see a load more 'posh' people getting other posh people to continue to frustrate Brexit.

The court had no evidence that Boris lied. They found that the timescale of prorogement was in their view unreasonable but as always with a court that's merely an opinion.

No doubt dome will be sucking each others cocks over this but it takes us closer to an election in which many people in both Labour and some Conservatives will get a severe reality check and a P45.

The promises made by the labour party seem attractive to ordinary people.

Free personal care for old people.
Free tuition fees
Free Prescription Fees
Abolish zero hours contracts
£10/ hour minimum wage
Rights to food/elimination of food banks
Environmental initiatives 37 wind farms
Resume Surestart programme
Northern cross rail
Resumption of withdrawn bus services
etc etc

Brexit is only a smokescreen for austerity and Corbyn is only one bloke in the labour party if you dont like the look of him.

The court has made the decision and has ruled and without the law we are all knackered.

You’re probably right on some of that (only some), but you can’t deny this is a constitutional crisis and raises serious questions about our political system.

But one important point Mr I, the judgment wasn’t just on the timescale; as my quote above points out, it was the complete lack of a justification from the government that mattered. And while it may be an opinion on what is legal, it was a unanimous decision. We have a legal system where minority and dissenting judgments are common, especially in the Court of Appeal with only 3 judges sitting. This is a majority of 11! As legal opinions go, that’s remarkable.

Words like unlawful, illegal and broken the law have been repeated hundreds of times since 1130 hrs on Tuesday but could someone explain which law has been broken. So far nobody has done so on the news programmes or Newsnight.

It appears to me that the eleven law lords decided that five weeks was too many but did not say what would be acceptable. Maybe bojo should try again with four weeks, then three weeks etc until we know what is acceptable to them in future. Clearly we are talking about opinions as mentioned earlier by Mr I.

"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."

So, since proroging parliament and the reasons for doing so the tories have been adamant that they did it for the good of the house of commons and the queens speech because those lovable tories wanted to get back to national politics and it wasnt to deny debate on brexit. All through the supreme court hearing the governements brief stated this was nothing to do with brexit. So roll on to last night and Johnsons statement on the supreme court decision. Johnson spent the first ten minutes talking about brexit. In relation to the judgement.

In the opinion of someone (me) whose living depends on writing accurately, that is lousy English from such a high authority. It says almost the exact opposite of what is meant.
Allow me to correct it for them: "The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because there was no reasonable justification for an action whose effect was to frustrate or prevent the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions ."

Otherwise it means Parliament should be able to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification but the blond bombshell got in their way.

What would happen if someone stood up in the commons on a point of order and said ‘Prime Minister I think you are odious and a f....king arsehole’ after he used Joe Cox’s death to manipulate and validate his agenda was nothing short of disgraceful

Parliament and it's MP's have been playing politics for over three years and now are up in arms because Bojo is doing the same.
If the two animated Labour MP's from Yorkshire had resisted using the name Jo Cox, bojo would have had to give them a better answer.
You give a politician an opportunity and he/she will take it.
I gave everybody the answer the day after the referendum when I said that the people have decided and we should all work together to achieve the best possible outcome.
Now after over three years politicians are saying that the division in this country needs to be addressed
and we need to be brought back together
Welcome to the club.
Parliament is still playing politics by refusing the offer of a general election and bojo is playing politics by offering one.
I am surprised that anyone is surprised at anything they do, to be honest.
None of them are worth arguing over.
If any of our kids behaved like that................... I'll leave others to finish the sentence but i know what i would have got if i had behaved like them when i was a kid.

Er, I explained this in response to the ginger one.

Yeah but what do you know? These guys have been the the university of life.

I think anyone on here arguing law with the fat man is like me trying to point score with Brian Cox about space your onto a loosing battle and will look a fool.

I only empty bins in a University; that post was written by a professor of public law.

That reminds me, I saw some gammon crap on facebook where people are saying Brian Cox is paid by the elite to push climate change etc.

thing is one day is too many. there must be loads of other business to be discussed in parliament with actually could affect peoples lives as much as brexit might or might not do. this one issue parliament needs to adress this issue one way or another. problem is millions are not going to be happy for decades after and any suggestions on how this can be stopped would be really welcome.

I had to have 4 interviews for such a role previously, along with a presentation.