The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has just unanimously ruled that the Government’s prorogation of parliament was null and void.
The PM’s advice to Her Majesty was “unlawful, void and of no effect”.
That means the order in council was also “unlawful, void and of no effect”.
That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.
Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.
Holy crap. I’m not sure what’s going to happen now, but this feels pretty dramatic.
Great! So now we can expect Labour to snatch victory from the jaws of victory by supporting Remain and embracing a “big tent” philosophy that would allow the other parties and moderate independent MPs to join them in a unity government.
I expected it. He obviously did it to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and created a constitutional crisis for political gain. He should obviously go and the main parties work together to deliver a deal based exit from the EU. There is only one available. This means that the laughably names ERG should be sidelined.
I don’t want Britain to leave but unless they do there is an even worse crisis. A sensible deal allows an orderly process and maybe even addressing issues in the long term.
You mean because of ignoring the referendum? The 1975 referendum was far more definitive (passing 2 to 1), and so there’s no reason for anyone to accept that Cameron’s folly is the One True Referendum.
Honestly, the disruption of leaving even with the May deal or something marginally better will do far more damage both to government and to human life than any constitutional crises sparked by retaining the status quo.
I do wonder whether all those people who campaigned for leaving the EU on the grounds that we needed to reassert parliamentary sovereignty and take back control’, etc. are all sitting around nodding to each other and saying, “Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing we meant”.
What do you mean by “compromise”? Suppose Luciana Berger and the ex-Tories agree to form a Labour-led coalition government; that’s their compromise. What does Corbyn give in return?
As I assume you know, what is stopping these people from supporting a non-Tory government is Corbyn himself. If he stepped down in favor of a candidate that still supported all the Labour values except Brexit and anti-semitism, that would open the door to a coalition.
Meanwhile, Mr. Johnson is trying to make out that falling back to the normal length of Parliamentary recess would still be a win for him:
I do think there’s a good case for getting on with a Queen’s Speech anyway and we will do that …
I don’t think the justices remotely excluded the possibility of having a Queen’s speech but what we will certainly do is ensure parliament has plenty of time to debate Brexit.
And of course, the victimhood complex continues:
More importantly, let’s be in no doubt that there are a lot of people who want to frustrate Brexit. There are a lot of people who basically want to stop this country from coming out of the EU.
Yeah, Boris. Like about half of the electorate for one thing.
This clown’s pathological lying has finally caught up with him but at least he has been consistent in his utter inability to pass anything through parliament. Maybe I should be happier about this ruling than I am but it feels like we’re being pushed into ever more uncharted waters.
ETA: what I mean to say is, all this shit we’re going through is just to get us back to normal but every constitutional crisis event is pushing us further and further from ever getting back to baseline. With the result being that even the bare minimum of a deal will still leave as worse off than if we remained. If the far right brexit arseholes want to drive this country over a cliff with a no deal then I’m not going to feel any guilt for supporting revocation of article 50.
What I think doesn’t matter, it is what these other leaders think, and what they think is a matter of record. And you haven’t said what concessions Labour should make as their part of the “compromise”.