On 26/09/2019 18:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
....
No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does.Â* Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

As I am sure I said earlier, this was the opinion expressed by an expert
on constitutional matters during a TV interview. Hence, I can't give the
basis for that view, although I got the impression that it was the
decision itself, rather than any specific part of the ruling.

....
He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job
it is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the
opposition benches who might be just a tad biassed.

We don't actually know what the advice he received was. A former Cabinet
Minister says that, contrary to normal practice, the advice letter was
not distributed in Cabinet. So, only the Attorney General and Boris know
what the contents of that letter were. Labour is trying to get the
letter published, so we can see whether he was wrongly advised or
decided to ignore good advice.

....
No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice.Â* The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

Given that 14 senior judges, in Scotland and England, unanimously agreed
that the move was unlawful it does not seem to have been that difficult
a case to call. Indeed, there are now calls for the Attorney General, if
he did indeed advise the PM that the move was lawful, to 'consider his
position' (Parliamentary code for resign) as he got it so wrong.

....
The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme
Court specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the
High Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we
will never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only
the Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the
ruling that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in
uncharted areas in advance of doing what you want to do.Â* You may
succeed even in the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the
Supreme Court.Â* Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Although, in this case the success in the High Court was only insofar as
the Court decided it was not within its powers to decide the matter. It
did not provide a contrary opinion on the legality of the action to that
reached by the Court of Session and the Supreme Court.

.... Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't.Â* When
Boris made his decision, it wasn't.Â* And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide.Â* Indeed,
no-one had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after
all the arguments had been put.Â* Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Insiders at No 10 seem to have been fairly definite about it before the
decision came, both in speaking off the record to political reporters
and in the tweet from Larry the cat, which we can probably assume is not
actually written by the cat.

....
I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything.
Boris is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will
be stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the
Labour Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems,
who have already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely
to be more than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung
parliament. However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have
sought a further extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*.

I'm not sure what you think that will achieve. The most likely result is
still a hung parliament.

Now is the time we have a government in office but
not in power.Â* It is being prevented from governing by those who
apparently think it's a good game to stop it and have a good laugh.

They don't think they can trust Boris to request an extension to Brexit
without parliamentary overview. That is why he won't get a general
election until after he makes the request and probably not until after
31st October.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday.Â* It is
paralysed.Â* It can't do anything, and it won't do anything to resolve
the situation.

It is still possible (if highly improbable) for it to reach a deal with
the EU before 19th October.

It's all very dispiriting and childish.Â* I expect better.

I don't have such high hopes of politicians in general nor of Boris and
his cronies in particular.


--
Colin Bignell