Boris Trump

[Bohannon]

Sad how once mighty democracies have withered.

[nemesystem]

lol just read about this.

Will the UK go into a recession? only time will tell....

[Banks]

lol just read about this.

Will the UK go into a recession? only time will tell....

The UK has been in a recession since 1776... :)

[Generous_J]

lol just read about this.

lool wtf

[Cat]

Sad how once mighty democracies have withered.

Now its Boris that is withering under the weight of Democracy. He may as well resign and get it over with.

[modern roots]

Sad how once mighty democracies have withered.

Now its Boris that is withering under the weight of Democracy. He may as well resign and get it over with.

What about parliament? Do you think any members of parliament should resign? The people voted to leave and parliament refuses to respect the will of the people. Shouldn't parliament respect the democratic vote of the people? What gives parliament the right to do an end run around the will of people? Isn't it time for parliament to go?
Sounds like you're a little confused. Boris is only attempting to make good on the stay or leave vote.
Where's your criticism for what parliament has done?

[Dazzler]

Your understanding of the parliamentary process is rivalled only by your wit, charm and self-possession.

[Dazzler]

So, for the hard-of-thinking and those who quite understandably find this whole saga complex and baffling and stopped paying attention weeks ago, this is what’s happened:

Boris Johnson became Prime Minister after May’s resignation as a result of a leadership election in which only members of his party were eligible to vote. The total number of people who participated in the election that made him Prime Minister was 160000, or 0.3% of the total British electorate. The number who actually voted for Johnson was 92,153. Remember that only members of his own party were eligible to vote for this man, who has seized control of the levers of power.

So much for his mandate.

When parliament (which is sovereign in the British political system) began exercising its constitutional duty to hold the government to account, Boris Johnson (with the backing of Dominic Cummings, an oily parasite of the kind you often find hanging around the waste outlets of decaying post-imperial states) decided that he would silence it by closing it down.

A man with no real mandate, a well-documented authoritarian, has seized control of a democracy and closed it down so it can’t ask him difficult questions.

If you are defending this, you are on the wrong side of history.

[alpha]

If you are defending this, you are on the wrong side of history.

And yet your supreme court is defending this. They've thrown a wrench into Boris' thinking, haven't they? And without much precedence, either, keeping this whole affair quite complex. Almost edge of the seat type stuff, as long as it isn't one's own wallet that's being hustled.

[slither]

Tread carefully Dazz, lest you be given the lash by the Yank equivalent of a UKipper.

[Dazzler]

If you are defending this, you are on the wrong side of history.

And yet your supreme court is defending this. They've thrown a wrench into Boris' thinking, haven't they? And without much precedence, either, keeping this whole affair quite complex. Almost edge of the seat type stuff, as long as it isn't one's own wallet that's being hustled.

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court has made the right decision.

[alpha]

If you are defending this, you are on the wrong side of history.

And yet your supreme court is defending this. They've thrown a wrench into Boris' thinking, haven't they? And without much precedence, either, keeping this whole affair quite complex. Almost edge of the seat type stuff, as long as it isn't one's own wallet that's being hustled.

What are you talking about? The Supreme Court has made the right decision.

I agree completely the court did make the correct decision, but from my understanding of how your courts work, (and it's pretty vague) is since there is no constitution per se, then all court decisions must be based on precedence? And if so, then from what i've read there is no precedence named, because your court had presumably decided differently from it's past history? Also, from what i've read Boris and his advisors had been surprised by the court's decision?

[Dazzler]

Yes, you’re right, and it is complicated by the fact that England and Wales and Scotland have separate legal systems.

The British constitution consists of a body of case law. The specific case before the Supreme Court arose because of an earlier judgement by the English and Welsh High Court that prorogation of parliament is a purely political matter and is not justiciable, chiefly in order to maintain the separation of powers.

This was challenged in the Scottish High Court, which ruled that the matter is justiciable and that the prorogation of Parliament is justiciable and that in this instance, prorogation was illegal because of the unusual length of the suspension and because the government had provided ‘no reasons, not even bad ones’ to explain why the suspension was so long.

The Supreme Court heard two appeals: one by the government against the Scottish case and one by Gina Miller challenging the English High Court’s ruling that they had no power to decide the case.

They concluded that prorogation is justiciable, that it cannot interfere with the constitution duties of parliament, and that in this case, prorogation was illegal, all instruments pertaining to it were null and for all practical purposes, the suspension had never happened.

This decision is now part of the British constitution.