An interesting point from the Supreme Court case

In a case which centred on his intention Boris Johnson did not file a witness statement. On the face of it this seems perplexing, but if you think about it there are a few inferences which can reasonably be drawn.

1. Prorogation was definitely about Brexit

If, as the PM maintained, the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit he would have filed a witness statement. There would have been no reason not to. If there was an ulterior motive then Boris' options were either to file an untruthful witness statement or do nothing.

2. There is evidence that it was about Brexit

Given Boris Johnson's shaky relationship with the truth I would have expected him to file a witness statement saying the prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit unless he knows that evidence exists somewhere to the contrary. In the absence of any such evidence it would be impossible to prove his intention, and so the fact that he gave no statement suggests that there may be evidence. If this is correct then he could not risk the possibility that it would emerge and prove that he committed perjury.

 

Whilst clearly Brexit is dominating everything at the moment the Supreme Court judgement as Lady Hale said wasn't directly about Brexit. This was an important point to make because the members of the Court will be aware of the problems with the USA Supreme Court which has become a highly politicised organisation.
Although this view differs to yours - I assure you I do have a functioning brain!

 

Does European Court trump our courts too?

 

Only on matters of European Law. This was purely domestic, there is no higher court of appeal.

 

Good explanations/arguments from yourself and Mansfield yet there are still some foolish individuals out there who respect and admire Boris. You couldn't make it up.

 

No

 

Reading an interesting article this morning, Guernsey are concerned that the ruling may affect their constitutional position...apparently their relationship is based purely on precedence and this judgment did not address precedence in its ruling.

 

Interesting how a few weeks ago Boris & his Brexiteer friends were at great odds to explain how the proroguing of parliament had absolutely nothing to do with Brexit.
Now they've lost the case, Micheal Gove et al are saying the court are being political & defying the will of the people which is get on with Brexit. seriously, how could anyone believe a single word they say.

 

I thought lying to the queen was a tower of london job? Just think if it was Corbyn. Thered be national meltdown.

 

Agree with all that, also by issuing nothing towards it they can hide in ambiguity(even though it was clear)

 

Am currently sat in the Guernsey government offices and haven't heard anything about that. I didn't notice it in the paper, but will watch out for any mentions.

 

I wish Barry Sheerman was as passionate about events that go on in his town. He's not that well liked here and seen as a guy of words (to keep himself in the media looking relevant) but not a lot of actions. Doing very little to stop our high street looking more boarded as time goes by. For ages he's been making it known that he wants the George Hotel (birthplace of Rugby League) to be reopened in time for the Rugby League World Cup, even mentioning about a compulsory purchase from the owner who can't afford to open it and nothing happens.

 

Unfortunately D.B, most of our politicians are self serving and appear to give little or no thought to their constituencies, this country is in a mess, a buffoon on the right, and a man who cannot lead on the left. We need someone who can convince us he is intrested in the country and the people, but I can’t see anyone who is up to the task

 

Jo Swinson.

 

You hold him responsible for the state of the High street. Jesus. Have you ever considered that might be down to the shopping decisions of your fellow constituents!
I think he should also take responsibility for the shocking goalscoring record we have. He might also have a word with our Board about their bonkers transfer policy.

 

To be fair there's very little that MPs can do about things like that, especially when they're in opposition. Responsibility for high streets lies with the council really, but they've had most of their powers to act stripped by successive centralising governments (of all colours). Compulsory purchase is particularly tricky to pull off.

My local MP is surprisingly good at representing local businesses and putting pressure on the council when asked, but they have very little power to do anything pro-actively if there isn't somebody with funding and a plan to actually get something done.

What exactly do you think an opposition MP could do that would open up shops? Nobody likes to see them, least of all representatives of an area.