More to the point, will they have a Fixed Session Parliament bill in their back pocket that removes any need for prorogation at all but times out private members' bills on 31 September each year?
No. My guess is the Court will say an extra long prorogation for a Queens speech albeit with other political motivations is on the limit of what is not justiciable but a further proroguement fully and solely for the purpose of preventing parliamentary intervention and scrutiny would be illegal.
Parliament may remain suspended even if Boris Johnson loses at the supreme court.
Documents submitted to the court on his behalf on Thursday reveal three possible scenarios in the event the 11 justices conclude the prime minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
The first envisages a situation where the judges find it was unlawful, but their reasoning leaves open the possibility that parliament could be prorogued for the same length of time in a lawful manner.
The document, submitted by Sir James Eadie QC and advocate general for Scotland Lord Keen, states: “In that scenario, the court would and could not make any order purporting to require parliament to be reconvened... Parliament would remain prorogued.”
The second possible outcome is that the court could find the suspension was unlawful and that the recall of parliament before October 14 is the “only option lawfully open to the prime minister”.
In this scenario, the document states Johnson would comply with the terms of the ruling, but that it would also be “open to the court to consider whether to make a mandatory order”.
However, Johnson’s lawyers urge the court to consider the “very serious practical consequences” as the recall of parliament would require a meeting of the privy council and a new Queen’s speech.
The document continues: “A Queen’s speech, and the state opening of Parliament which accompanies it, is a significant political, constitutional and ceremonial occasion, which ordinarily involves the Sovereign attending in person.
“As the court will be well aware, the proper preparations for a Queen’s speech are a matter of thoroughgoing importance, including in relation to the content of that speech.
“Extensive arrangements would have to be made, including as to security, to enable this to occur.
“These considerations lead to the need for any order that the court makes, if necessary, to allow for these steps relating to the earlier meeting of parliament to occur in an orderly fashion.”
In the third possible outcome, the document states the court could rule that the prorogation was unlawful, with the effect that parliament was not prorogued and remains in session.
However, Johnson’s lawyers assert that, depending on the court’s reasoning, it may still be open to the prime minister to consider a further prorogation.
LOL @ the idea that we can't have our democratic representatives sitting during the biggest crisis since Suez because it would inconvenience the Queen.
If the SC strikes down the prorogation as unconstitutional then presumably its void ab initio? Or at least they could declare it as such.
Hence Parliament was never properly prorogued and so doesn't need a Queen's speech or any of the associated nonsense - they just all go back in and start working again on Monday.
Would be super-lolsome if thats the actual result and the Tories turned up whilst Labour were in conference and passed a no deal Brexit bill*.
"Lord Kerr asks Pannick to clarify that, following a ruling from the supreme court, parliament could meet without the PM having to reconvene it.
Pannick says that is his submission. MPs and peers would ask the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to reconvene parliament, so parliament could then decide.
All that would stand in the way of that would be the PM refusing to take action.
He says his argument is that, if the PM did not act, the Speaker and the Lord Speaker could act.
Another judge says, even if the court ruled prorogation unlawful, it would still stand prorogued, unless there were a proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 initiated by the PM."
0
0
I'm going with NO...
0
0
no
0
0
No
0
0
labour conference continues until Wednesday next week. lots of time, money, effort spent etc.
0
0
Wednesday, in time for PMQs.
0
0
no
0
0
No chance.
0
0
I find it interesting that Pannick has brought his twin brother to court
0
0
All three people currently in shop buy their glasses frames from SpodsRus.
0
0
More to the point, will they have a Fixed Session Parliament bill in their back pocket that removes any need for prorogation at all but times out private members' bills on 31 September each year?
0
0
sorry wrong thread.
0
0
Roger that, Red Leader. You are green to go. Agent 3-Quax in place. May God be with you.
0
0
sorry wrong thread also.
0
0
No. My guess is the Court will say an extra long prorogation for a Queens speech albeit with other political motivations is on the limit of what is not justiciable but a further proroguement fully and solely for the purpose of preventing parliamentary intervention and scrutiny would be illegal.
0
0
I reckon parliament will not sit again until after 31 October.
Yes I know there is meant to be a queens speech before then. I just don't think there will be
0
0
Don't you think there'd be an uprising tho, hoolz?
0
0
It is most worrisome and does not go unnoticed
0
0
Ok, meet you there - I'll bring the box of dildos, you bring the chocolate sauce.
0
0
R u 3dux in disguise?
0
0
Sorry wrong thread
0
0
I vote no.
0
0
no, sadly.
0
0
Reply|
Report
| DM
Don't you think there'd be an uprising tho, hoolz?
no I don't.
0
0
PA article
Parliament may remain suspended even if Boris Johnson loses at the supreme court.
Documents submitted to the court on his behalf on Thursday reveal three possible scenarios in the event the 11 justices conclude the prime minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks was unlawful.
The first envisages a situation where the judges find it was unlawful, but their reasoning leaves open the possibility that parliament could be prorogued for the same length of time in a lawful manner.
The document, submitted by Sir James Eadie QC and advocate general for Scotland Lord Keen, states: “In that scenario, the court would and could not make any order purporting to require parliament to be reconvened... Parliament would remain prorogued.”
The second possible outcome is that the court could find the suspension was unlawful and that the recall of parliament before October 14 is the “only option lawfully open to the prime minister”.
In this scenario, the document states Johnson would comply with the terms of the ruling, but that it would also be “open to the court to consider whether to make a mandatory order”.
However, Johnson’s lawyers urge the court to consider the “very serious practical consequences” as the recall of parliament would require a meeting of the privy council and a new Queen’s speech.
The document continues: “A Queen’s speech, and the state opening of Parliament which accompanies it, is a significant political, constitutional and ceremonial occasion, which ordinarily involves the Sovereign attending in person.
“As the court will be well aware, the proper preparations for a Queen’s speech are a matter of thoroughgoing importance, including in relation to the content of that speech.
“Extensive arrangements would have to be made, including as to security, to enable this to occur.
“These considerations lead to the need for any order that the court makes, if necessary, to allow for these steps relating to the earlier meeting of parliament to occur in an orderly fashion.”
In the third possible outcome, the document states the court could rule that the prorogation was unlawful, with the effect that parliament was not prorogued and remains in session.
However, Johnson’s lawyers assert that, depending on the court’s reasoning, it may still be open to the prime minister to consider a further prorogation.
0
0
LOL @ the idea that we can't have our democratic representatives sitting during the biggest crisis since Suez because it would inconvenience the Queen.
0
0
Johnson can lie to her face but god forbid she's put out
0
0
That is just pure bullshit isn't it?
If the SC strikes down the prorogation as unconstitutional then presumably its void ab initio? Or at least they could declare it as such.
Hence Parliament was never properly prorogued and so doesn't need a Queen's speech or any of the associated nonsense - they just all go back in and start working again on Monday.
Would be super-lolsome if thats the actual result and the Tories turned up whilst Labour were in conference and passed a no deal Brexit bill*.
*[code]yeah, yeah I know they can't[/code]
0
0
Or maybe not:
"Lord Kerr asks Pannick to clarify that, following a ruling from the supreme court, parliament could meet without the PM having to reconvene it.
Pannick says that is his submission. MPs and peers would ask the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to reconvene parliament, so parliament could then decide.
All that would stand in the way of that would be the PM refusing to take action.
He says his argument is that, if the PM did not act, the Speaker and the Lord Speaker could act.
Another judge says, even if the court ruled prorogation unlawful, it would still stand prorogued, unless there were a proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 initiated by the PM."
0
0
Heh; so Bercow would be the one sending the text to the HoC WhatsApp group telling them to get their arses back to work?
Join the discussion