On 26/09/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:27, Norman Wells wrote:

Why should he resign?Â* He ventured into uncharted waters, which even
the English High Court said would be OK, unfortunately got into
difficulties, and was only told *after the event* that he shouldn't
have done it.

Wrong. As I've explained to you before, the English High Court said that
the issue is non-justiciable.

Exactly. It said the courts had no place interfering in political
decisions, and that therefore he had acted perfectly legitimately. With
such a high authority, it's plainly ridiculous to say he was clearly
wrong and should have known what he did was unlawful. It took the
Supreme Court to decide new principles in uncharted areas.

Future cases will have to be considered bearing in mind the Supreme
Court judgement, but when Boris did what he did, there was no precedent,
and no apparent unlawfulness.

It didn't say that his behaviour was okay.
Once you concede that the issue is justiciable you are driven to the
conclusion (as stated clearly in the Supreme Court judgment) that he has
offered no explanation let alone a reasonable explanation for proroguing
the House for a long period. His behaviour is inexcusable. He should
have the courage to resign, but Boris "King of the World" Johnson would
never resign.

When the High Court says it has no jurisdiction, and it takes the
Supreme Court to say that it does, it cannot be said that Boris's
behaviour was inexcusable. It was perfectly excusable. No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either justiciable
or unlawful. And in those circumstances, it is clearly not a resigning
matter, however much you would like it to be.