On 26/09/2019 15:20, The Todal wrote:
On 26/09/2019 15:00, Norman Wells wrote:
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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* It was perfectly excusable.Â* No-one knew
until the Supreme Court judgement whether it would be either
justiciable or unlawful.Â* And in those circumstances, it is clearly
not a resigning matter, however much you would like it to be.


Maybe his legal representation was incompetent. Did the government
lawyers not bother to prepare the second limb of the case, in case they
lost on "non justiciable"?

Or, more likely, Boris didn't want to lie under oath because he knew his
motive was to stop the debate about Brexit in the Commons. He pretended
to the world that prorogation was simply a routine matter, nothing to do
with Brexit. Then in the Commons yesterday he whinged and ranted about
how the court's decision has obstructed Brexit. He gave the game away,
didn't he? He can fool some of the people some of the time. He can
probably fool his Leave zealots indefinitely. The rest of the electorate
is rapidly losing faith in the Incredible Sulk.


Alternately, he knew if he lost it would enhance his standing with the
public- which it has- and further show the depths to which the Remainers
will stoop. Corbyn hasn't still won't risk an election, there have been
calls to dumb/reform the Supreme Court (a Labour invention). Plus the
Remainers are still chasing their tales- with Margaret Becket and the
pervert's friend Harriet Harman both being offered up as alternatives to
Corbyn.

All in all, Boris (who I never really rated) is playing a blinder.