Tuesday, 24 September 2019

I was only away a week..

Sorry for the lack of posts on my part this past week or two and now I am back in Blighty at last...boy what a mess you have made.

The legal ruling from the Supreme court today is simply stupendous. That it is unanimous is the most interesting part. After all, they have declared the Prime Minister has acted unlawfully in an area where there is no law. The court could easily have ruled that this matter was a matter for politicians. Indeed, in the not too distant past this is exactly what would have happened.

However, this is today and today he Supreme Court has made a big land grab to become the ultimate arbiter in the Country, above the Queen. In many ways, though it will be a while before people twig it, this is the end of the Monarchy entirely. No longer does the Queen serve a constitutional role at all, her advisers have not power nor authority. Yes, we have long known that Parliament is supreme, but now with the Courts too above the legislature why have a head of state other than the Prime Minister? The Court is exercising the powers of the Monarchy from now on. Why waste money on the Monarchy anymore.

For Boris, well the law is the law and he tried a reckless gamble and this has not paid off. Although unexpected, he has shot the bolt here. Really, he should resign as PM, go to the Queen and suggest there is no Government that can be formed. The only person in Parliament who could potentially lead a Government must be John Bercow, oh what a joyous moment that would be. If Boris clings on now it will be a terrible look, he should lead the Tories to the opposition benches and get his election that way. A Bercow rainbow Government will add about 1% to the Tory polling every day it sits.

Brexit Derangement Syndrome, phew, it sure is a nasty disease.


Matt said...

With a decent majority in parliament, a non-leftist party (assuming there is one) can remove Blair's supreme court and fix this problem.

Of course, there are likely more pressing issues to deal with so most likely this will never be done (see also the oft-proposed but entirely mythical Bonfire of the Quangos).

Graeme said...

It's a strange world where John Major is cited as an authority on how long it takes to draft a Queen's Speech

Bill Quango MP said...

It’s a strange world where John Major is cited as an authority on anything

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Screwing Edwina excepted one presumes.

E-K said...

You put my thoughts in order here.

Thank you, CU.

In no way was the Queen mislead. She's not stupid.

Timbo614 said...

All quite right CU. Nicely put.
I'm shocked to be honest I didn't expect this result I assumed we get "the court can't rule on this". Boris didn't break any laws so how are his actions unlawful?

I hope the remainers are happy that their machinatons have changed the how the country is governed and turned us into a republic.

Thud said...

There is no law to break, Boris is attempting to carry out the will of the people and should stay on and defy the now rogue Elite, just how many people would stand by Boris and defend him? I would.

Anonymous said...

This power grab by the Supreme Court is classic Common Purpose -- euphemistically named by that organisation as "leading beyond authority".

The Remainer establishment in general is now drunk with arrogated power -- a condition that seldom ends other than badly.

Anonymous said...

I presume no statute has been broken, the SC is just saying "this is the constitution, and Boris is in breach" - can they do that? We don't have a written constitution for a reason.

Do they realise they've removed the Queen's constitutional role?

CityUnslicker said...

Thud / Anon - Yup, at the moment Boris will just about lead the very weak crop of politicos. but he needs to force and election or make the remainers rule. Having them veto everything whilst proposing nothing of sense has to come to an end for the sake of the sanity of the country.

Anonymous said...

"I didn't expect this result": I did.

I expected a ruling justified by Because We Say So.

And that's what we've got, isn't it?

andrew said...

BJ took the piss and got called out for that.
Otherwise next fime when corbyn decides to nationalise the guardian and the telegraph and then prorogue parliament no one can stop him.

Anonymous said...

"Basically, since 1688 or so, the UK has not had a system of checks & balances to slow the exercise of power. Instead, it’s been organized on the model of a pirate ship in which the captain (the monarch’s chief minister) has tremendous powers, so long as he maintains the confidence of the crew enough to not be overthrown."

Andrew, I disagree. The courts have usurped the Queen's prerogative. I wonder if Boris asks for a dissolution (as is quite justifiable) the Queen will have to ask the SC if that's OK?

We know you don't like Boris (I don't trust him, but I like him), but this is an outrage, unlike prorogation, which was a reasonable response to a Parliament determined to sabotage Brexit but without the guts to simply vote to Remain - which would be honest, if disgraceful (the latter being why they won't do it).

The gulf between elites and the working class is huge. Just as Blair opening the borders in 2005 lit the Brexit fuse, this decision may have lit the civil war fuse.

andrew said...

The job of parliament is to hold the executive to account.
Any attempt by the executive to stop the parliament holding it to account is open to challenge.
This is the application of a limit to executive power.

I have not got the the end of the judgement but I think that is the essence.

BJ's own notes on the docs the Supremes saw indicated he was not proroguing for that long just so he could properly prepare for the next session. No-one ever believed that he actually needed the longest prorogation for 300 years.

Nothing to do with the queen. Just some chancer thinking he can get away with it.

This seems to be the new normal.
I expect martians to land next week. They will say 'Take me to your leader' Three weeks later they will leave in confusion.

Beagle said...

If you read the judgment then the prerogative is subject to judicial review and has been for a very long time.

Parliament is sovereign and the executive is and always has been the junior partner.

In the absence of any evidence from the PM the only reason given was a note from Da Costa which said having Parliament sitting was a "rigamarole."

The advice to prororgue was unlawful as it had the effect of denying the senior partner, parliament, the ability to scrutinise the executive at this crucial time.

The Court can only go on the evidence and case law put before it. The case law was not in PM@s favour (see Unison and Padfield cases that were relied on.)

Anonymous said...

"the ability to scrutinise the executive at this crucial time"

Thay have been scrutinising the executive for more than three years. All they've done in that time is try to emasculate the executive at the negotiating table. They are cowards who want to stop Brexit by any means except openly opposing it, because they know how bad that will look. Utter scum.

I'm not too fond of their apologists, either.

Anonymous said...

The role of Parliament is to legislate. Boris has broken no law. The SC is making up the constitution as it goes along.

Beagle said...

"All they've done in that time is try to emasculate the executive at the negotiating table"

Theresa May drew the redlines and then agreed the sequencing with the EU ie withdrawal agreement first and then trade talks.

Parliament were not involved in either the drawing up of the redlines or the decision on sequencing. But don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudice.

UK's negotiating position was emasculated by the PM from the start. Parliament has not emasculated the negotiating position.

Ruling out no deal is not an emasculation as no deal is not a credible negotiating strategy as eventually a deal will have to be struck on both withdrawal and FTA so no deal is really deferred deal.

Elby the Beserk said...


Anyone who goes into a negotiation and is not prepared to pull out of it is at the mercy of those he or she is negotiating with. May should have started by saying - we're going in 12/18/24 months regardless - what have YOU got to offer? Instead she handed over the WA (aka Articles of Submission) to Merkel and co, - and here we are today, FUBAR, our constitution destroyed by the rule of law being supersede by the rule of lawyers. As one suspects was Blair's intention when they set up the Supreme Court

"Kill all the lawyers" some bloke once had a character in a play state - quite so.

Anonymous said...

Beagle - do you think I'm defending May, or are you just trolling? She's as big a traitor to the vote as any of them.

You cannot go into ANY negotiation without being prepared to walk away if the deal is bad. You might make an exception if your child is kidnapped, but that's about it.

When you announce you won't leave without a deal, you are asking for a crap deal to be presented to you, which was May's WA. Then all the EU have to do is sit on their hands - which is what they are doing.

AndrewZ said...

In most negotiations you can walk away because you will be no worse off than before. A “No Deal” Brexit means losing a great deal of access to European markets and taking a big hit to the economy. So, if May had threatened to walk away from the beginning the EU would probably have dismissed it as an obvious bluff. It’s like starting a negotiation with a car dealership by threatening to burn your existing vehicle if they won’t give you a better deal than they’ve ever offered to anybody else. If they had believed her, they would probably have said “go ahead, decimate your exporters and then you – or your replacement – will be back here begging for a deal on any terms we choose to dictate”. It was never a credible threat.

Anonymous said...

First off, claims this usurps the Queen is bollocks - the judgement makes it plain that prorogation is only unlawful when the Executive is playing silly buggers. I was genuinely expecting a judgement that would allow this one, but to curtail future efforts given the febrile atmosphere.

As it stands the Royal aspects of our constitution are very much pantomime, any Monarch actually trying to do anything other than glorified pageantry would be drummed out of of the nation. This judgement is all about stopping Buttons hamming up the stage, not saying the Fairy Godmother has to toss her bacofoil wand away.

But it is what it is. Some of the tools the Corbynistas may have been inclined to use are now off the table, so for Grandpa Spart and mini-Beria it's not a victory either.

It seems that it ties into what Cummings are Boris are up to - which is to make this a battle between Parliament and the People, now the Judiciary are to be seen as Enemies of the People. It's a dangerous game, moreso if Brexit is frustrated.

It's pretty clear we're fucked, unless there is some rabbit to be pulled out of a hat before Hallowe'en, there'll be an extension and still a Parliament too terrified to actually leave, and equally terrified of not leaving. And so the rigmarole will go on, the divisions will grow wider.

Short of an election, it's BINO or Revoke as it stands, and even with an election then I'm unsure if any other option would be allowed by Parliament.

Prediction: ten years hence, we'll still be in the EU, Scotland will have gone indie, NI rejoined ROI, MPs will be too scared to face their constituents after a few more Jo Cox moments and we'll have had a succession of hung Parliaments as Labour and the Tories will have seen many of their voters abandon them, either to other parties or just a refusal to vote. Turnouts will drop to under 50%.

The only bright side will be when Cthulu is summoned, and we'll feel a sense of satisfaction as it turns out the politicians from the last couple of decades will be spending eternity having their souls tentacle-raped whilst the rest of slide into oblivion, which will seem like heaven by that time.

andrew said...

Cthulhu was summoned between 1913 and 1937.
Look at the missing person stats
It wasnt just global warming that has a hockey stick graph.

Anonymous said...



It has proved sufficient so far.

Anonymous said...

Boris, you ain’t no Prime Minister, bruv. Just a fat spoiled kid, found to have his fingers in the sweetie jar and complains that everyone is against him.

Just love Cummings though. A true anarchist working on the inside, trying to dismantle millenia of checks and balances - only to find they are there.