/ emergency government required?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MargieB 12 Sep 2019

If proroguing Parliament is found to be unlawful. What next?

rescinding of order of prorogation.

Parliament sits.

PM has been found to have broken the law and must resign

Given the crisis nature of default WTO Brexit, the laws of a war situation are essentially relevant.

Government has essentially been eradicated- { the fact they did it to themselves is slightly unusual}

Parliamnent uses the laws that are applied as if in a war situation to create a government-

which given there is no majority, will have to be a coalition under Corbyn.

This government asks for extension. May,s deal has by law to be returned to Parliament as the only signed off deal.

but Corbyn faffs around a bit about a softer option but with referendum ..

Parliament agrees to deal with referendum

Referendum before Jan 31st 2020.

Post edited at 08:30
1
summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> which given there is no majority, will have to be a coalition under Corbyn.

A flaw in your cunning plan; the other party leaders would rather be dead in the ditch next to Boris than enter a coalition with Corbyn as it's leader. 

3
jkarran 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

We'll have to see whether or not parliament returns 'early', Johnson has set a dangerous precedent but the supreme court may allow it to stand. If the government loses the pressure for Johnson and the three he sent to mislead the queen to resign will become irresistible.

In parallel he's opened an appeal route back into the party for his recently sacked MPs, it looks increasingly like he's planning to put May's WA with or without tweaks back to MP's in October so he'll be needing moderate tory support, all of it. If so, that means he still needs to emphatically rule out a deadline extension to force the issue or it'll fail again, it needs to be a brexit/no-brexit choice. How he plans to achieve that still isn't clear but it makes no sense to bring the WA back unless he can.

Even if the 'progressive' parties cohesively (can he even secure the support of all Labour MPs?) fall in line temporarily for a Corbyn coalition to achieve a majority in a confidence vote he still needs the support of ex conservatives who simply will never ever back him for any reason. An emergency government may be possible but it won't be lead by Corbyn and its objectives will be modest.

jk

Post edited at 10:56
MargieB 13 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Maybe not a coalition under Corbyn then. The Greens once suggested all female unity cabinet and I think Clarke and Harman was suggested by Lib Dems. I think  these ideas may be revived, especially the latter.

Labour's Corbyn  is starting to confound the advantages gained by an incompetent Boris. IMO he lives in a world in his head- no eye to the fact no Brexiteer voted for a soft Brexit in EU elections when they had a choice for the softer Brexit he and May were discussing. No market for it as people probably would also vote for  full EU membership than a half way house membership because what's the point at not being at the EU table when you take the rules?? Gives you the chance to shape them.

The Cons have got us here. But that  complete  Corbynite lack of political nowse will secure a Con future if he doesn't deal with the situation via a referendum.!

Post edited at 07:30
3
Yanis Nayu 13 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Am I right in thinking that the English court didn’t actually consider whether he lied about the reason for prorogation; rather they didn’t consider it a matter for the court? 

If so, the narrative that’s being spun about the Scottish court finding that he did lie while the English one didn’t is wrong. 

The Lemming 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

The English courts were on holidays while the Scottish courts are open all year round. This is the reason the complaint went north of the border.

jkarran 13 Sep 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> Am I right in thinking that the English court didn’t actually consider whether he lied about the reason for prorogation; rather they didn’t consider it a matter for the court? If so, the narrative that’s being spun about the Scottish court finding that he did lie while the English one didn’t is wrong. 

I'm not sure, I've lost track. I'd assume each court heard different evidence and possibly considered slightly different questions. The NI ruling yesterday was subject to wildly differing headline interpretations by different 'news' sources, it's always hard to know how much of that difference is due to lobbying by the interested parties and how much is commercially/editorially driven.

jk

MargieB 14 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

So far my understanding of the difference between the Scottish Court ruling and the English court ruling is the following.

The Scottish court found it within their remit to decide that prorogation and its consequences were cause for its judgement because Scotland has a devolved situation and rights of representation. It judged prorogation to be deleterious to the scottish people.

The English court are making no judgement on prorogation as yet. This English court  sees a separation of powers between the legal system and the political system as an essential part of our democtratic constitution. Thus Prorogation is to be fought out in a political forum rather than a legal forum.

However the Supreme court will consider all three positions NI, Scottish and English legal rulings and try to resolve the contradictions to make a definitive judgement constitutionally and specifically on prorogation.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.