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.
Of course it was about Brexit Evidence is there for anyone with a functioning brain The fact that the Brexiteers - who argued for taking back control - are so upset that the court has given back control to parliament is a bit of a give away Also the fact that in his campaign to become PM he said he would prorogue to ensure leaving on 31 Oct is a bit of a clue Finally the fact that his prorogation was far longer than normal and conveniently stopped parliament from questioning his brexit strategy was something of a give away. Clearly Boris thought getting Rees Mogg to lie to the Queen was OK but actually lying to the court under oath when there was a good chance he could be proved to be lying was a bit too far even for him. If there had been a good reason for prorogation and that had been presented to the SC I think they would have ruled differently but they weren't given any reason at all other than we did it because we can. Pannick pointed out that with that logic there is nothing to stop a PM proroguing for a year or even more and that is clearly unconstitutional - the Judges agreed
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!
No You misunderstand me- The Supreme Court ruling as you say has nothing to do with Brexit - it was purely that it was unlawful to prorogue parliament for an extended period without any good reason. My post was about the reason Boris was proroguing parliament - this was clearly so that he could get his Brexit on Oct 31 almost certainly with no deal and with no chance for Parliament to act. That wasnt the reason given the the Queen though. The Government gave no reason to the SC for the extended prorogation so they ruled it unlawful I guess Boris could have given the real reason to them and admitted lying to the queen but as far as the SC was concerned there was no reason at all to procure for such a long time
Not in this matter - Strangely the Sovereignty that some Brexiteers claim we have given to Europe doesnt apply on our laws about how we are governed. ie parliament always had Sovereignty
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.
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
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.