https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1173380211401994242
Parliament pushes through law forcing Boris to ask for an extension. Boris tells EU the UK won’t accept an extension if offered.
No doubt he has a cunning plan though
1 Like
https://mobile.twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1173367758588981249
Won’t accept an extension and also refused the deal.
Heard some mouthpiece on the radio saying, like the other week, that they will respect the law but that we will leave on Oct 31st whatever happens. I can only imagine their plan is as cunning as the one about “technological solutions” to the border in Ireland - a purely rhetorical one by a bunch of bluffing no marks.
It rises when the young don’t get polled. 
https://mobile.twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1173324425984393219
https://mobile.twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/1173145606484873217
https://mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1173462797247811584
https://mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1173497184228139008
https://mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1173122931746115589
All true Marty…
This twitter feed is pretty good for factual info.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Femi_Sorry
https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1173583928000753665?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1173584594760810503
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1173591033441112066
Live feed on youtube is excellent…
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1173592481994293252
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1173591548442873856
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1173589781055508483
Shit face shatit…
The Boris Johnson/Xavier Bettel press conference has been cancelled, Sky’s Aubrey Allegretti is reporting.
It was due to take place outside the prime minister’s office, and presumably the decision to shelve it had something to do with the large crowd determined to make it inaudible. (See 2.39pm.)
1 Like
15:30 from the end to finish.
1 Like
https://mobile.twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1093478425715716101
https://mobile.twitter.com/TimInSuffolk/status/1093480018318188546
1 Like
https://mobile.twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1172076801331515393
https://mobile.twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1173660608589381633
https://mobile.twitter.com/novaramedia/status/1173573759007174656
Far from requiring the court to determine whether the duration is excessive, the issue in Cherry and Miller (No 2) requires the court only to determine whether, to begin with, prorogation was undertaken for a purpose that was legally impermissible because it lies outside the range of purposes for which the power can lawfully be deployed. This is a crisp question of constitutional law concerning the scope of the discretionary power to prorogue, as distinct from a question about whether discretion has been lawfully exercised. Such a question of law, about the scope of the executive’s legal powers, is manifestly one that lies within the field of matters with which courts can properly deal.
The result is that to approach Cherry and Miller (No 2) in terms of whether the courts can stretch the bounds of justiciability in a way that facilitates judicial scrutiny of the exercise of the prorogation prerogative is misconceived. It is misconceived because the legal issue at stake is not one upon which the non-justiciability doctrine can properly bite. That doctrine is concerned with limiting judicial involvement in the evaluation of the exercise of governmental powers whose use is capable of giving rise to questions that are unsuited, under the separation of powers, to analysis by courts on legal grounds. The justiciability doctrine is, however, logically incapable of biting upon questions about whether a given power exists and, if so, what its legal boundaries are. Questions about the purposes for which legal powers can and cannot lawfully be used are legal questions about the scope of such powers. It is questions of precisely that nature which are raised by the Miller (No 2) and Cherry cases. Consequently, the non-justiciability doctrine has no relevant application — and the suggestion by the divisional court that the “political” nature of the issue shields it from judicial review is entirely wide of the mark. Whether the supreme court will be prepared to treat the matters before it as justiciable remains to be seen, but there is no good legal reason for treating them as non-justiciable.
Lady Arden says the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allows for prorogation.
Pannick says he is not challenging the power of the government to prorogue. But, given the junior role of the executive, he is arguing that it is implicit in the power of the executive that it will not remove the power of scrutiny other than for a legitimate purpose.
He says ending one session and starting another is a legitimate purpose.
But he says it is not proper to prorogue for so long as to frustrate scrutiny. He says in this case prorogation had the effect of “frustrating the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and supremacy over the executive”.
Another judge asks if obtaining political advantage automatically makes a motive improper.
Pannick says if the purpose is to prevent scrutiny by the executive, then the purpose is improper.
But he says there is nothing wrong with proroguing just to have a Queen’s speech.
Pannick is turning to the third of his three main arguments, relating to justiciability. (See 10.41am.)
This is probably the most important aspect of this case. If Pannick cannot convince the supreme court that the PM’s decision to prorogue was justiciable, it will throw out the case, as the high court in London did.
Pannick describes prorogation as a “pre-emptive strike” that “takes parliament out of the game” for the whole period of prorogation.
He says the sovereignty of parliament is the principle underlying the whole constitution.
But the PM’s prorogation sought to undermine this sovereignty, he says.
42m ago 12:07
Pannick says the junior body in the constitution, the executive, cannot remove the power of the senior partner, parliament, to do its job, particularly when that job is scrutinising the executive.
Pannick refers the court to what Lord Drummond Young said about the role of parliament in paragraph 99 of the Scottish judgment (pdf). This is what that paragraph says:
Parliament has a second equally important function, namely that of holding the executive to account. The policies and actions of the government are subject to scrutiny in parliament by members of parliament. The United Kingdom operates by a system of representative democracy, and it is members of parliament, representing the interests of their constituents and the wider interests of the country, who are responsible for ensuring that the executive operates in the national interest. In particular, parliament is responsible for ensuring that the policies of the executive are properly considered in a democratic body, and that the actions of the executive are subject to critical scrutiny, with representatives of the government reporting on and explaining those actions. In this way parliament performs the fundamental role of protecting the country from the arbitrary exercise or abuse of executive power. The importance of the latter function is obvious, both in the abstract and in the light of the events during the 17th century that gave rise to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Pannick is still addressing the argument that a power can only be used for its proper purpose.
He says, in constitutional terms, ministers are the junior partner. Parliament is the senior partner, he says.
Pannick says the five-week prorogation meant parliament could not legislate during this period, and it could not ask questions of ministers during this period, or hold debates.
A judge asked if there was any evidence that questions could not be asked. Pannick says that is how parliament operates; there are no questions during prorogation.
He refers the court to a House of Commons briefing paper (pdf). And he reads out this extract from it.
During prorogation parliament does not meet. This means that legislation cannot be considered or introduced by MPs and peers. Debates in the chambers or in Westminster Hall are not held, written and oral parliamentary questions cannot be asked, and committees do not carry out their usual business of inquiries and evidence-taking.
This temporary suspension of activity is not normally significant, as a new session typically begins shortly thereafter. For a longer prorogation, however, this suspension of activity weakens the ability of parliamentarians to hold the government to account.
1 Like