web analytics

ACTIVIST JUDGES NOW DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION

By Pete Moore On September 11th, 2019

A coven of Scots Euro-commie activist judges today declared, on appeal, that the prorogation of Parliament is unlawful. The Edinburgh Court of Session ruling does not cancel prorogation, though many anti-demicrat MPs have pretended otherwise. The real showdown will be in the Supreme Court next week when the government’s appeal is heard. Crucial to the absurd ruling is the idea that the Prime Minister misled the Queen in advising her to prorogue Parliament.

A few thoughts.

The judges have no idea what advice the Prime Minister gave to the Queen. Anything which passes between her and her Prime Minister is strictly confidential. Always has been, always will be.

The ruling effectively dissolves the central tenet of of the constitution, that of Royal Prerogative powers. The moment the Queens assents to Parliament being prorogued, she takes it over and owns the decision. It is her prorogation of her Parliament. It is entirely lawful because she has the absolute and sole right to prorogue Parliament. To rule that it is unlawful is patently absurd.

Having failed (so far) to overturn our decision to leave the EU, Remoaners are increasingly attempting to have it litigated away. Yes, it is entirely right and fair to criticise activist judges to who entertain these attempts. An independent and impartial judiciary is one of our great gifts to the world. That European courts are relative strangers to such notions has long informed British attitudes to them. But judges can’t hide behind the idea of being independent and impartial, safe from criticism, if they are clearly anything but independent and impartial.

19 Responses to “ACTIVIST JUDGES NOW DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION”

  1. The real showdown will be in the Supreme Court next week when the government’s appeal is heard. Crucial to the absurd ruling is the idea that the Prime Minister misled the Queen in advising her to prorogue Parliament.

    Two thoughts:

    1. Is Johnson incapable of misleading the Queen, especially given his long track record as a serial liar? We already know that he was planning for a lengthy progoration in early August at the same time that he was “categorically” ruling it out.

    2. Will the Supreme Court be condemned as “a coven of English Euro-Commie activist judges” if they give the “wrong” decision next week?

  2. & you think that the seventeen million, four hundred and ten thousand, seven hundred & forty two people who voted to Leave the EU in June 2016 are in any way impressed with the ever convoluted bollox that the political class are still employing to deny the result ?

  3. From Bob Peston:

    “Has any member of Cabinet seen the full legal advice given to the Prime Minister, which persuaded Johnson proroguing or suspending parliament is lawful? Julian Smith asked for it, on the day Cabinet was bounced into agreeing prorogation. Amber Rudd asked for it subsequently. I am not aware that either got it. Instead they received a ‘trust me’ from Boris Johnson.

    This could be a problem for him and ministers because the ministerial code, amended after Chilcott Enquiry into the legality of going to war in Iraq, says all ministers have right to see full legal advice – not just summaries – on all contentious issues. Will Cabinet now get the advice after today’s Court of Session judgement? For their own self-preservation perhaps they should see it, and have that deferred (ahem) robust Cabinet debate on whether closing Parliament is appropriate.”

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/will-the-cabinet-get-to-see-boriss-legal-advice-for-proroguing-parliament/

  4. I think the Supreme Court will not back the Scottish judges and will say it is a matter to be resolved within Parliament and between MPs and the government. To me the obvious logical resolution to this , and I am surprised it isn’t the case already, is that Parliament should be required to give its assent to being prorogued. The PM should require an assenting vote agreeing both to the prorogement and the length of it.

  5. To me the obvious logical resolution to this , and I am surprised it isn’t the case already, is that Parliament should be required to give its assent to being prorogued.

    Nope.

    Prorogation from a higher authority is the backstop against a governmental/Parliamentary tyranny. (It also demolishes the idea of “Parliamentary sovereignty”. If Parliament were sovereign it could initiate or prevent its own prorogation, but it can’t.)

  6. Wow! Is this the same Pete Moore who’s always telling us how British law is made in Brussels and imposed on Britain?

  7. that Parliament should be required to give its assent to being prorogued

    Soon, sentenced criminals will be required to give assent to being jailed. Pure Colmism, at its most unbelievable

  8. What a stupid and illogical response Allan, typical of you. Of course viewing elected Parliamentarians as being similar to convicted criminals is only to be expected of a supporter of real tyranny.

  9. A recent poll showed that 60% of Tory Party members in England would kiss goodbye to Scotland and Northern Ireland in the good cause of Brexit. It would be interesting to know how many of them would be prepared to see tanks on Whitehall and it would be surprising if that question is not soon included in the opnion polls, because that’s where we have got to.

    I have a suspicion that one or two hereabouts would be quite happy for that to happen, even if it meant the end of the (treacherous) monarchy. Step forward “Sir” Nigel! Speak for England! Patriot!

  10. Imagine if the tables were reversed and the default position was that on Oct 31st if Parliament didn’t ratify a deal then article 50 would automatically lapse and the U.K. remained. Let’s say a remain supporting government wanted that to happen and prorogued to try and prevent a leave supporting Parliament effecting an out vote, would the Petes and Allans of this world be so cavalier in supporting Executive powers over Parliament then .

  11. Good point Colm. Except for the inconvient truth that the referendum voted 52:48 in favour of Leave. That result needs to be respected and implemented.

    I would hate to see a no-deal Leave on 31 October, because of the economic damage it would do, never mind the possibly disastrous consequences for the Union. But a no-Leave revocation of the referendum result would be a democratic disaster whereby the 48% Remain voters prevailed over the 52% Leave voters. Let’s not go there.

  12. Peter

    Yes I do accept that point despite being a strong remain supporter, and on another post a few days ago I said Parliament should have ratified the deal the elected government reached with the EU. Having voted to trigger article 50 Parliament were giving the government the go ahead to effect Brexit and they should have , regardless of misgivings allowed the govt to proceed with delivering it.

  13. //Soon, sentenced criminals will be required to give assent to being jailed. Pure Colmism, at its most unbelievable//

    Yes, because the principles of constitutional law are exactly the same as those of criminal law.

  14. Although of course We know why Allan oppose the pesky inconvenience of Parliamentary authority but I can’t really understand why Pete has suddenly become a fan of executive dictat.

  15. //I can’t really understand why Pete has suddenly become a fan of executive dictat.//

    You can’t?

    Then let me explain it to you: all talk of sovereignty of the people or parliament or the law or the monarch or of this or that right or of free speech or whatever yer havin yerself is all just a load of old guff.

    What is important is political goals: what promotes them is good, what frustrates them is bad.

    But did you not explain something very similar to me just a day or two ago?

  16. Noel

    I was being rhetorical about Pete’s volte face. Of course I understand why he is suddenly a big fan of the PM having the power to wield a big stick to knock down elected MPs. Allan however has always been consistent in his belief in the power of the dictatorial state to effect ‘the correct order’ – whereas Pete has spent most of his time here on ATW in recent years traducing the powers of government only to now sing its praises.

  17. Yep, there’s no principle. Facts can be distorted or simply made up just to create a certain set of beliefs. Propaganda is the name of the game today.
    They may want the PM now because he does what they think is right, but tomorrow they’ll be calling for him to cast into the Tower as soon as he does something they don’t want.

    Theirs is the way of constant conflict and disorder. Everyone simply tries by all means possible to get what he wants. Compromise or balance or justice? – forget it.

  18. To be honest, I think that can also be laid at the feet of many remainers including to some extent myself. I think the May deal should be passed by Parliament but equally I wouldn’t lose any sleep if parliament just revoked article 50 which isn’t very democratic of me !

  19. But just be clear I would like article 50 to be revoked but I accept it would have to be ratified by another referendum.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.