WhatAboutTheFinish Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Can Boris resign as Prime Minister but not as Tory leader in order to force an election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, cyrusr said: They haven't ruled it out. Whether this will be legit or not will be set out in the full judgment Looking at the full judgment (not read it all yet), this appears to be the test (from the full judgment pdf link available on this page of The Supreme Court website): Quote 50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course. A case by case basis then? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 It does seem that we are in a mad world at the moment. Political parties are becoming cult like. Scary to think where it will take us. The shit Trump has done and remained in office is crazy. I doubt there will be any repercussions for boris after this. Maybe I'm thinking fondly of the past and it's not accurate but it does seem like 10 years ago, this sort of behaviour would have led to immediate dismissal and resignations 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Well this is a remarkable day. I actually find myself in agreement with Farage. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said: Can Boris resign as Prime Minister but not as Tory leader in order to force an election? That wouldn't force an election. If he resigned as PM then the Queen would have a duty to appoint someone else (on advice). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted September 24, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, WhatAboutTheFinish said: Can Boris resign as Prime Minister but not as Tory leader in order to force an election? As @snowychap says. 2 different positions so yes. However if he does, it then the Queen has to invite another MP to form a government. This would be whoever can get a majority, be it Corbyn, Harman, Clarke or another it remains to be seen. In accordance with the Fixed Term Parliament Act, he cannot on his own accord call a GE. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted September 24, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: Looking at the full judgment (not read it all yet), this appears to be the test (from the full judgment pdf link available on this page of The Supreme Court website): A case by case basis then? Only got to paragraph 39 myself but that would seem the likely test! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, Chindie said: A PM being found by the highest court in the land to have lied to the monarch in an attempt to bypass Parliament, an attempt to subvert the foundation of our democracy, in a huge abuse of power. How is this not a resigning matter? I mean, he won't, but that should make his position untenable. It gives him an excellent escape route if he has realised he's well out of his depth. I thought his desire for a general election was an attempt at him passing the baby to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 24, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Dominic Cummings did say that he wanted to keep the Labour conference out of the news. Mission accomplished. F**k knows why 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xann Posted September 24, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 24, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, bickster said: F**k knows why That's what I thought. The Tories should be loving the car crash that is the Labour conference. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 24, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, mjmooney said: That's what I thought. The Tories should be loving the car crash that is the Labour conference. Maybe the Mekon was giving them more credit that they deserved before the actual conference, he didn't quite envision how implosive the left could be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, mjmooney said: That's what I thought. The Tories should be loving the car crash that is the Labour conference. Strangely, I've been talking to people who are there and they are all enjoying it. The news seems to be telling a different story, and most members know that Watson has been leaking things to destabilise for a long time. He got rid of Blair, Ed, and now Corbyn, he's a power hungry buffoon with a knife in one hand and flowers in the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Anyway, **** Boris. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, avfcDJ said: He got rid of Blair, I thought it was Brown and his blackmailing that did for Blair ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 42 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Having followed it as closely as is realistically possible without being in the courtroom, pretty much everyone I saw said that it was likely to be somewhere between 6-5 to 8-3 in one direction or another. And that even if they found against the Government then they had no idea what the remedy would be, or even if a remedy were needed. Who were the confident ones who were sure of what the result was going to be? VT's very own favourite The general expectation, however, is that the government will lose - which is very serious in and of itself - but we have no idea just how serious yet. Sky's political Editor We expected constitutional history leading to legal and political tremors , we got an earthquake I didn't follow it as closely as you appear to have done but the general expectation as I read it was that the govt would lose .... though I should clarify my "as expected" .. I meant the govt would lose , not the actual wording of the judgement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 It's just a relief that our country isn't entirely broken. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 24, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted September 24, 2019 Now let's see Trump impeached. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I didn't follow it as closely as you appear to have done but the general expectation as I read it was that the govt would lose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: VT's very own favourite Sky's political Editor I didn't follow it as closely as you appear to have done but the general expectation as I read it was that the govt would lose .... though I should clarify my "as expected" .. I meant the govt would lose , not the actual wording of the judgement Fair on the Kuenssberg one. Although on the Sky one, the bit you've quoted doesn't strike me as a prediction of the result. "Constitutional history leading to legal and political tremors" would also have been the result had the verdict gone the other way (the relationship between the English and Scottish legal system and the result of a British court overruling a Scottish court on a matter of Scottish law). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts