Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[classycarra]

Absolutely nothing will come of that court ruling.

Disagree

[Cpt_Reina]

Disagree

Hope you're right.

[ShakaHislop]

If you have any spare cash, please consider supporting the lawyer and his Good Law Project that brought today's case, as well as the Article 50 revocation case.

https://goodlawproject.org/about/

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham

[Claire.]

Well. He's up to 252 parts in the thread, and is taking a break before continuing. I am not sure what I (or anyone else) is supposed to do with all that. Who is he? Why the link?

If you're not interested in the SCL/AIQ/CA interference in brexit/Trump then don't bother, but there may well be people interested here.

[CraigDS]

If you're not interested in the SCL/AIQ/CA interference in brexit/Trump then don't bother, but there may well be people interested here.

It makes for some very interesting reading. Never realised the web of companies / people who are all linked.

[HarryLabrador]

What will happen if the Supreme Court in London rules in favour of Boris? What will the Scots think of that decision then?

[classycarra]

Hope you're right.

I'm sure the government will try to straight bat it, as if it changes nothing or is just advisory (even though it's not). But if not today, I expect by next week that the prorogation will be lifted.

Campaigners, opposition MPs and Tory democrats will no doubt come up with some creative ways to shame the government while also making clear they are attacking democracy.

[classycarra]

If you're not interested in the SCL/AIQ/CA interference in brexit/Trump then don't bother, but there may well be people interested here.

I'm keen to give it a read

What will happen if the Supreme Court in London rules in favour of Boris? What will the Scots think of that decision then?

Seems unlikely, given the certainty of the ruling following disclosure of communications behind the scene. It would overturn the ruling from Scots courts to end the prorogation though

[Circa1892]

Watson needs to be sacked.

Disgrace. Everything going on and all you give a shit about is your tiny, factional insignificant little war. People like you are a reason this country has got to this state.

[Iska]

What will happen if the Supreme Court in London rules in favour of Boris? What will the Scots think of that decision then?

It would be perfectly normal - the Supreme Court is the highest Scottish judicial authority too, and Scottish judges sit on it.  It happens a lot.

[J_Kopite]

It makes for some very interesting reading. Never realised the web of companies / people who are all linked.

If it was published in a readable article I'd probably bother with it, but I'm simply not reading over 250 tweets at once.

[KillieRed]

What will happen if the Supreme Court in London rules in favour of Boris? What will the Scots think of that decision then?

I`d be more worried about the nationalism that will be whipped by those who oppose it, if it`s enforced.

[Zeb]

Fuck, those comments by the judges are damning.  Unless the Supreme Court says the opposite he has to resign immediately.  Then where are we?  This is the only show in town all of a sudden.

Has the Scottish case set out which elected officials were involved beyond Johnson? Presumably Cox and Buckland are in tricky positions regardless with Downing Street's current and ongoing response to following the law as well as any and all advice they may have given the government about this.

[HarryLabrador]

I`d be more worried about the nationalism that will be whipped by those who oppose it, if it`s enforced.

That's what I worry about as well. I shall again quote the Scottish poet, Sir Walter Scott, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!"

[Circa1892]

Has the Scottish case set out which elected officials were involved beyond Johnson? Presumably Cox and Buckland are in tricky positions regardless with Downing Street's current and ongoing response to following the law as well as any and all advice they may have given the government about this.

Cox and Buckland are finished in the law. They've sold their souls and their careers.

[J_Kopite]

"I've shot you Jeff. With a bullet made of Scottish finance regulations." - Mark Corrigan

"I've shot you Boris. With a bullet made of a decision from the Scottish Court of Session." - Joanna Cherry QC

[Iska]

Has the Scottish case set out which elected officials were involved beyond Johnson? Presumably Cox and Buckland are in tricky positions regardless with Downing Street's current and ongoing response to following the law as well as any and all advice they may have given the government about this.

The written reasons are released first thing Friday morning.  That they didn’t come out today suggests they might be pretty lengthy.  I doubt they’ll have said much more in open court than has been reported already, but that’s damning enough.  In fact I’m struggling to think of anything like it having been said before in something of such magnitude.

[Zeb]

Someone asked the other day about how a Speaker is chosen and seeing the number of those wishing to stand continue to rise... ParlyApp (a journalism project focused on Parliament and procedures) has the full break down in a twitter thread: https://twitter.com/PARLYapp/status/1171425622171668482

[Jiminy Cricket]

Fuck, those comments by the judges are damning.  Unless the Supreme Court says the opposite he has to resign immediately.  Then where are we?  This is the only show in town all of a sudden.

The Supreme Court could add their own comments condemning Johnson and the government - I doubt it would result in him resigning. We are different reality now. A really dangerous place. I warned (as did others) about this a couple of years ago - some thought I was scaremongering, invoking Godwin's Law, etc. This Government must be stopped and stopped now.

https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=328948.msg15712601#msg15712601

[Jiminy Cricket]

If you're not interested in the SCL/AIQ/CA interference in brexit/Trump then don't bother, but there may well be people interested here.

I was just looking for a bit of background. It seemed just a bit random, that's all.

[oldfordie]

Going to be very interesting seeing how the evidence is presented to the Supreme Court.
If his defence is this, calling Johnson a liar is a outrageous attack on his character then good luck with that.
If this is about proving Johnson is a prolific liar and this is just another example of his contempt for honesty then Johnson will be crucified.

[Zeb]

The written reasons are released first thing Friday morning.  That they didn’t come out today suggests they might be pretty lengthy.  I doubt they’ll have said much more in open court than has been reported already, but that’s damning enough.  In fact I’m struggling to think of anything like it having been said before in something of such magnitude.

Ta Iska. Reading through what clever people are saying, seems that the Supreme Court's decision is really whether it matters in law that Johnson lied about the reason or not (Scottish court says it does, English court says it doesn't). That said, if it finds that he did lie but it doesn't matter then, as you suggest, it seems difficult to see how Johnson carries on as PM unless Parliament turns a blind eye to it.

[CraigDS]

If the Supreme Court agree then I think the Queen can effectively sack him can’t she?

[Trada]

People saying the Government Lawyers made a basic error after the judgment they didn't ask for the ruling to be suspended until after the appeal next week.

So the Government will now be breaking the law if they don't recall Parliament.

[[new username under construction]]

If the Supreme Court agree then I think the Queen can effectively sack him can’t she?

Does she have the balls to? She seems pretty pointless to me

[Iska]

People saying the Government Lawyers made a basic error after the judgment they didn't ask for the ruling to be suspended until after the appeal next week.

So the Government will now be breaking the law if they don't recall Parliament.

The court said nothing was to be done until the Supreme Court makes its decision.

[TepidT2O]

If the Supreme Court agree then I think the Queen can effectively sack him can’t she?

Depends on the precedent really ..

[Red Beret]

Labour putting a second referendum commitment into their manifesto might give them an edge over the Lib Dems with Remainers wanting the Tories out at all costs - but then even if Labour win power they would still have to pick a side in the referendum. 

And by Labour picking a side I mean Corbyn.

In the last referendum Cameron was Remain, but his colleagues and cabinet members were allowed to campaign for whichever side they chose.  Labour can also do that, but it's whichever side their leader chooses that will attract attention - and picking neither side is also a choice in itself.

As for whether the GE should happen before or after any possible referendum, there will be two weeks after Parliament returns to decide this issue.  I think there's enough sway in Parliament to form a GoNU that could both delay Brexit and institute a second referendum; the leavers have now dug their position in so hard, and Boris has been such a jackass, that there's sufficient consensus amongst individual MPs on taking control.  What we need to see are more Labour MPs taking a stand on the matter.

The leave campaign promised Brexit would be easy; simple to negotiate and a smooth transition out of the EU.  After three years of chaos, that has been patently shown to be utter bollocks.  Therefore the leavers need to defend their record in a second referendum.  Their unicorn promises wont wash so well a second time round imo.

[Iska]

Edward VIII is I think the right precedent for Johnson.

[FlashingBlade]

Interesting how Tory media play this...anti Scottish Judge approach and ' ignore it ' would be manna to Scottish independece.

[Zeb]

Depends on the precedent really ..

She can. Not been done explicitly since 1834 though (William IV hated the government's policies) and obviously current Queen has spent her whole reign trying to avoid the monarchy getting involved in political controversy.

[FlashingBlade]

Telegraph already has headline of ' No 10 questioning impartiality of Judges'....'England has spoken'

[Snail]

If this were anyone else - any other time - he'd already have resigned. Instead they're calling the courts biased. What the fuck is going on?

[stevo7]

Going from the coverage of Prorogation Monday Night/Tuesday Morning, I reckon the Queen won't turn up for the Queen's Speech. Another kick in the teeth for Bozo.

[Qston]

Edward VIII is I think the right precedent for Johnson.

I am sure the french would love to have him.......

[scouseman]

I was watching bbc news ch this morning and Stephen Kinnock said that his party had more positions on brexit then the  Kama Sutra. He was saying thatt they need to stick to a position and stick to it rather then trying to cater for all interests leave/remain

[Zeb]

Peston's now asking the question I asked whether Iska had heard an answer to in court.

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 (Secretary of State for NI) asked for it, on the day cabinet was bounced into agreeing prorogation. Amber Rudd (ex-DWP) asked for it subsequently...

I am not aware that either got it. Instead they received a “trust me” from Alexander Boris de Pfeffel 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 that 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.

This will snowball on. Like Sian says, resignations should follow. And, if they don't, then I'm thinking that Parliament will have to act to remove the government - just to nip this shit in the bud.

[Iska]

Peston's now asking the question I asked whether Iska had heard an answer to in court.

This will snowball on. Like Sian says, resignations should follow. And, if they don't, then I'm thinking that Parliament will have to act to remove the government - just to nip this shit in the bud.

I wasn’t in there today I should clarify, I was talking about having popped in to the actual hearing.

Yes to both points in your second para.  If the Tories back him on this, and assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t exonerate him, then the rule of law itself is up for grabs, and that might have to be at a General Election.  The stakes are about as high as they can be right now.

[Machae]

Well to be honest in any other times this would be a massive abuse of power and resignations would follow but as is the case with Trump, for Brexit at least, all rule books and normal conventions no longer apply and people seem to do what they please.

[KillieRed]

Perhaps we're seeing another reason for Rudds hasty exit?