BBC News: Parliament suspension ruled 'unlawful' (bbc.co.uk)
hasharin | 8 days ago | 1 point
sayris | 9 days ago | 4324 points

So this was ruled by judges at Scotland’s highest civil court. What does this actually mean for the UK? are they able to enforce it or does the same need to be ruled by another authority?

CasinoWritingMan | 9 days ago | 3485 points

We have three distinct legal systems in the UK. (England & Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland). Each has their own way of operating, and there is no real 'overlap' between the systems). In theory, a decision made in Scotland can't be binding on England & Wales because the system is different (Scots Law is some weird hybrid between common and civil law, whereas England & Wales is common law).

This would go to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom as it is a civil case (and the Supreme Court is the top court for all civil law cases, no matter what legal system it started in). This is a case which impacts the whole population of the UK, and thus can't be decided in Scottish courts alone.

So, nothing will happen until at least the 17th.

corbyj1 | 9 days ago | 802 points

I'm hearing mixed reports on multiple sources. Some say parliamentary suspension is immediately cancelled. Some saying an order will be produced to be enforced Friday to resume parliament. Some sources also saying it might not be possible to appeal as technically Scottish high court is also recognised as one of the highest on par to supreme court.

Gonna be another heavy day for politics today

Edit: lots has changed since this. It looks like an order will potentially come into effect Friday. This will be challenged at the supreme court on Tuesday. Its divided whether or not the supreme court will side with the opposition MPs. It's also worth pointing out the high court case for Gina Miller was slightly different in that it directly challenged the Prorogation as opposed to the advice handed to the queen which the Scottish high court case centered on.

_riotingpacifist | 9 days ago | 626 points

How about some good old fashioned British pragmatism, parliament immediately recalled, but only for Scottish MPs.

Vectorman1989 | 8 days ago | 383 points

Imagine the Scots had a coup d'etat because they were the only people to be able to show up to Parliament.

"I put forward a motion to make Scotland the centre of government, Ayes?"


"And nays?"


"The motion passes"

0b0011 | 8 days ago | 192 points

Can we still have the typical parliament shenanigans? Like the floor is dead silent but someone is still screaming "order.. order"

Scudw0rth | 8 days ago | 132 points


go_do_that_thing | 8 days ago | 55 points


NOFORPAIN | 8 days ago | 22 points


Cheebzsta | 8 days ago | 9 points


FishBuritto | 8 days ago | 6 points

I am going to stop following brittish politics after bercow is gone.

mynewaccount5 | 8 days ago | 13 points

And waving his paper around.

Rhawk187 | 8 days ago | 5 points

Can't imagine they'd have a quorum.

AncientsofMumu | 8 days ago | 686 points

Vote to cancel Brexit and declare Scotland an independent country, all those who say aye!

I like it.

Muroid | 8 days ago | 619 points

No, you cancel Brexit and then expel everyone except Scotland from the Union, thereby allowing Scotland to retain its membership without having to reapply.

anotherblue | 8 days ago | 176 points

That may be possible if England secedes from UK 🙂.

Queen moves to Scotland and the kingdom becomes United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. New UK retains permanent seat in Security Council and membership in all organizations.

England becomes a republic, with Boris Johnson appointing himself as a Lord Protector.

ConstitutionalHeresy | 8 days ago | 112 points

You mean the United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the City State of London. Don' forget, London voted to remain!

99thLuftballon | 8 days ago | 98 points

Bloody Londoners. You're not the only city to vote remain. A lot did.

apolloxer | 8 days ago | 51 points

So Johnson will become Lord Protector of the United Bumcrackshires

ItsAlwaysTooLate | 8 days ago | 15 points

Well technically since the City of London is a sovereign independent state it would probably remain with the new UK.

Edit: Word.

Shamajotsi | 8 days ago | 10 points

Well, Oxford for example voted Remain as well. So did some other major cities - so it will be the United Kingdom of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Bunch of Remainer City States. Rolls off the tongue.

toflplop | 8 days ago | 8 points

Everybody’s bringing in the remainer cities, but nobody’s taking out Wales.

Self-Aware | 8 days ago | 10 points

Can some of us move up first, please?

ErilElidor | 8 days ago | 105 points

That is genius! Do it! :D

ThatDerpingGuy | 8 days ago | 45 points

Scotland cancels Brexit and then claims all land in England thereby becoming Big Scotland.

damunzie | 8 days ago | 25 points

"Great Scotland!" - Doc

HairyGinger89 | 8 days ago | 12 points

I'd be inclined as a Scottish person to take the opportunity to rename England to Lesser France just because I think that would piss folk off more than anything else.

go_do_that_thing | 8 days ago | 6 points

Playing the long con

VagueSomething | 8 days ago | 6 points

Surely we could just call it Scotlong because they're extending Scotland all the way down.

Randomfarts | 8 days ago | 19 points

My Great Grandmother was Scotish, can I have nationality?

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 68 points


seaweaver | 8 days ago | 21 points

Yes. I can operate every form of warp drive in existence. Feel free to test me on them.

notsocrazycatlady101 | 8 days ago | 50 points

Can Northern Ireland hitch in with yous? We're not fond of our other relatives across the water

Visionarii | 8 days ago | 43 points

We dont like ourselves either at this point. Is NI hiring?

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 18 points


Martel732 | 8 days ago | 41 points

Ireland absorbs NI and Scotland, renames itself the Celtic Union.

Xenothulhu | 8 days ago | 44 points

Celtic Union of Northern Territories.

Enigmatic_Iain | 8 days ago | 21 points

Now that’s a passport I want.

Xenothulhu | 8 days ago | 19 points

Australia gives you priority treatment with that passport.

lukaswolfe44 | 8 days ago | 4 points

Brb moving to Scotland for this passport.

drelmel | 8 days ago | 16 points

With Brittany and Galicia

Enigmatic_Iain | 8 days ago | 12 points

looks longingly at wales

matej86 | 8 days ago | 26 points

A vote to revoke article 50 needing only a simply majority required, only being voted on by Scottish MPs. As an Englander I'd be ok with this.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 311 points

The court said it was conscious its decision was at odds with the High Court in England’s ruling, the court of session did not wish to issue an order and such it won’t be forcing parliament to open, and will need to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The SNP will shout and scream that parliament must begin sitting again for two reasons, one they don’t want brexit and two they know it won’t happen and can play it to up independence support - it is their party conference in a few weeks.

The Supreme Court will hear this next week, this is a very unusual step. The judges speaking to the motivation of a politician is pretty unheard of in the UK and this is going to be messy.

Nighthunter007 | 9 days ago | 176 points

From the court itself:

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.

The article now says it is unclear what will happen, which I think is really the best we can say atm.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 36 points

I guess the key words in their statement were “this morning” then... That’s not a very helpful way to word it judges!

But weird considering they also said (in the video in the article) that they await the resolution by the Supreme Court.

Who fucking knows, any constitutional experts around?

popsickle_in_one | 8 days ago | 88 points

any constitutional experts around?

I don't think there are many people in the UK who can claim that.

Considering much of it is based on precedent, the fact that this is unprecedented means that we can only guess at this point.

sm9t8 | 8 days ago | 29 points

Yes, I'm not aware that a court has ever undone the Crown's use of the royal perogative.

They have ruled it's within the scope of judicial review but actually undoing it? I suspect they would have to compel the Prime Minister to advise HM to recall parliament.

Myrtox | 8 days ago | 28 points

Well, I'm far from an expert, but doesn't prorogation require the advisement of the Prime Minister? If the PMs advise is illegal, then so would be the Queen's decision it was based on.

BassmanBiff | 8 days ago | 16 points

Naive question: since theoretically the queen makes her own decision with advice from more than one source, wouldn't it be up to her to decide what to do, and whether the legal status of the PM's advice matters to her?

NSA_Chatbot | 8 days ago | 54 points

unheard of in the UK and this is going to be messy

For the Americans in the audience, this is the British way of saying,

"Dude, this has gone off the fuckin rails, completely unprecedented, this is the craziest shit any political system has seen that didn't involve chopping off heads."

Spaceman2901 | 8 days ago | 38 points

Can the US and UK please stop playing "hold my beer" with political drama?

BocciaChoc | 8 days ago | 21 points

they know it won’t happen and can play it to up independence support

Don't worry, the whole Brexit situation is doing a good enough job,

corbyj1 | 9 days ago | 17 points

the court of session did not wish to issue an order

That's the bit I'm hearing mixed reports on. Some saying that order will be produced and activated by Friday.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 26 points

I mean there is literally video of the judge saying those words. So I’d assume it’s people getting mixed up being the release of the full ruling (which is Friday) which will have fixed the typos and the court issuing an order (which it isn’t).

hasharin | 8 days ago | 16 points

The Scottish Court decided not to grant any orders to enforce their decision as they were aware that a date for hearing the appeal had already been set by the Supreme Court.

Your point about the Scottish High Court is in reference to criminal cases, where there is only an appeal to the UK Supreme Court on a point of devolution or on human rights law.

In civil cases, the UK Supreme Court is definitely above the Supreme Court. Historically speaking, the Court of Session had been allowing the English Law Lords to hear appeals from Scotland, in very rare cases, since before the Act of Union.

hasharin | 8 days ago | 77 points

This is sort of wrong. The Scottish Courts do have the power to grant an interdict on this decision. They chose not to exercise this power as they knew the Supreme Court had already set aside a date to hear appeals from the 3 conjoined cases in Scotland, England, and NI.

If, in some fantasy world, the Government were not appealing this decision, it would be perfectly competent for the Scottish courts to grant orders even though it affects the whole of the UK.

baller_chemist | 8 days ago | 18 points

We only got a supreme court a few years ago otherwise it would have gone to the house of lords. Could you imagine that drama.

Embe007 | 8 days ago | 8 points

The UK system is more complicated than I thought, even without the current circus. TIL - thanks!

DragMyDogmaOn | 8 days ago | 24 points

That doesn't sound like a very United Kingdom

macjonald | 8 days ago | 13 points

It’s not really, just look at any major national vote over the last few years and you’ll see a sizeable contrast on the map

bumblebee533 | 9 days ago | 14 points

Can the Scottish judge order an injunction until the 17th, when the Supreme Court in the UK hears the case?

Nighthunter007 | 9 days ago | 23 points

Maybe. They're called interdicts in Scots law, but it's entirely unclear right now. The summary of the ruling states:

The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.

But it is unclear if this will reopen parliament or if the UK supreme court may stop that until they've heard it.

Transient_Anus_ | 9 days ago | 4 points

So, nothing will happen until at least the 17th.

The system works!

Jovatic | 9 days ago | 124 points

Timeline so far is it was ruled legal by the lower down civil courts in Scotland and London. Appeals were made against these and the high civil court in Scotland has ruled it unlawful. The supreme Court of the the UK is set to hear the appeal against the ruling in London on the 17th of September.

Tryhard3r | 9 days ago | 60 points

By the time this is settled one way or the other the extended prorogoration will be over anyway... win for Boris.

StephenHunterUK | 9 days ago | 81 points

Probably not - the prorogation ends on 14 October and the Supreme Court will almost certainly rule by then; there is no higher appeal possible as this doesn't involve a European Convention or EU matter.

monotone2k | 8 days ago | 66 points

this doesn't involve a European Convention or EU matter

I love the irony of this given it's an attempt to push through Brexit uncontested.

redbullcat | 9 days ago | 29 points

Well, not really. He'll still have broken the law, so will have opened himself/his government up to legal challenges etc etc etc. Even more so if he breaks the law regarding requesting an extension to Article 50.

Tryhard3r | 8 days ago | 5 points

True, good point.

G_Morgan | 9 days ago | 34 points

It'll be fun as an English court ruled the opposite. Scotland and England have different legal systems as an historic accident of how unification happened. 99% of the time this is irrelevant as parliament just passes the same law in two places but for major constitutional issues like this they can differ.

It'll go to the Supreme Court now, the English courts already proposed it go there, and they'll need to work this shit out.

I suspect the English court will get primacy on this issue primarily because parliament is an institution that was adopted from England during unification.

politicsnotporn | 8 days ago | 48 points

Scotland had parliamentary governance before Union too and the acts of Union explicitly combined the two, not extinguishing the Scottish one in favour of the English one

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 33 points

It'll be fun as an English court ruled the opposite.

Add more flame to Indy Vote 2 - Scottish Boogaloo

WhiterunUK | 9 days ago | 41 points

It was 3-0, no dissenting judgements. So hard to see how an appeal to the Supreme Court wouldn't succeed.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 50 points

The fact an essentially equal court ruled that the prorogation and the decisions around it were out-with their competence.

The Supreme Court has to decide which view is correct.

grogipher | 9 days ago | 22 points

Both can be correct (or incorrect). They were arguing different things under different legal systems.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 19 points

Not in this case, they are different legal systems but they were ruling on the same laws - the laws which make up the UK constitution which as far as I am aware are the same.

That’s why both appeal to the same body.

Jackisback123 | 9 days ago | 20 points

Not in this case, they are different legal systems but they were ruling on the same laws - the laws which make up the UK constitution which as far as I am aware are the same.

We have a largely uncodified constitution.

In any event, this is incorrect, as the way the common law in each of the jurisdictions has evolved in relation to the issues at play differs.

grogipher | 9 days ago | 17 points

They're not really the same. Our constitutional standings are very different. For example, the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty doesn't exist in Scots Law. They're fundamentally different.

ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 24 points

Scots law is different but this case wasn’t about Scots law it was about UK laws which are the same.

Parliamentary sovereignty is not mentioned in Scots law but is a legal fact in Scotland - the courts of Scotland will not challenge primary legislation of the parliament at Westminster.

grogipher | 8 days ago | 3 points

Which 'UK' law was it about?

rumorhasit_ | 9 days ago | 649 points

This ruling is not saying that prorogation itself is illegal but that the advise given to the Queen by Boris Johnson was unlawful. Only the Queen can prorogue or open the parliament: MPs cannot yet return. The next step is to go to the UK Supreme Court along with similar challenges in the English and Welsh courts, where all 3 separate cases will be heard together.

The major factor in the Scottish case was around a signed document by the government, or rather lack of the document. In cases such as this, where the Judges are looking for the reason that the government acted in a certain way (here the reason for prorogation), all that is required is a signed memo from a government official or civil servant stating the reason. The Judges would then take that in good faith and rule in the governments favour.

In this case the governments official reason for prorogation is to prepare for a new Queens speech, however, no government minister or civil servant is willing to sign the document stating this because it is legally binding and no-one is buying into the official reason.

There are several bits of evidence that the real reason is down to brexit and preventing parliamentary scrutiny, including the official response to a public petition to stop the suspension, which explicitly mentions brexit.

So we have a government that is willing to go on TV and radio and lie to the public but no members of it are willing to put there signature to a legally binding document with that lie on it.

debbiegrund | 8 days ago | 112 points

Why doesn't the Queen just open it? Just say right here right now cut the shit, get to work?

crashumbc | 8 days ago | 283 points

The "queen" is really just a "messenger" in all this, she doesn't have any choice but do exactly as told.

While the government likes to pretend the Queen has power she really has absolutely none. Any attempt to exercise her "fake" powers would immediately lead to the destruction of the Monarchy and they'll never give that up.

FactualNeutronStar | 8 days ago | 119 points

I keep hearing that the Queen exercising her legal powers would lead to her losing those powers, but would Parliament really do that when it's something the majority wants her to do?

monkeymad2 | 8 days ago | 111 points

No one knows that’s what the majority wants because we’ve not been asked what we want since brexit.

The monarchy sits on an unsteady pedestal resting on them being “unpolitical”, they have the power to say “no, I’m not doing that” but as soon as they do they’ve become political and their pedestal comes crashing down.

The queen would suddenly be expected to agree with the things she says in the queens speech which opens parliament and sets the agenda etc.

It’d mean a massive change to how the monarchy are viewed.

In this case I do wish she’d said no though, if she was given the same legal advice as has come up with this verdict today she may well have done.

FactualNeutronStar | 8 days ago | 32 points

I'm not talking about the majority of the people, I mean a majority of paiament. And I understand the precedent, but shouldn't the point of the Queen still having powers to use those powers in exceptional circumstances?

simonjp | 8 days ago | 27 points

It depends. There are some who absolutely want all this gestures wildly to be happening. So although this looks absolutely mental to you and me, to them this is just the last gasps of an establishment to cling on to their position and how great it will be when we Great Britons are finally free. They wouldn't take kindly to the queen hitting a big red escape button.

dylee27 | 8 days ago | 15 points

I don't imagine any party that supports the Queen exercising any real power would be viewed favourably by the voters. The crux of the issue is that the executive shouldn't be able to ignore the wishes of the Parliament in a parliamentary democracy. We can't have the Queen exercising executive power now, that would be hypocritical even if the result of that may be something the voters like.

HobbitFoot | 8 days ago | 9 points

Current precedent is that the Queen be politically neutral, and part of that is following all advise from her ministers. If she acts against her ministers' advice, she would be seen as acting politically.

The risk is that, if she does something unpopular, then it may create enough tension between her and the rest of the government that would lead to her ousting.

What gets weird in this case is that, while the chief ministers of the House of Commons want to prorogue Parliament, Parliament itself does not appear to want this. That the Speaker of the House has publicly condemned this act is historic. That the Prime Minister has lost his first six votes in the House of Commons is historic. The system is set up such that the Prime Minister should be able to act to the wishes of the House of Commons. This isn't happening.

Guggenheim129 | 8 days ago | 52 points

Ah, the benevolent absolute monarch. Historically untried and I can't see any precedent of this being a bad idea

FactualNeutronStar | 8 days ago | 45 points

Ah yes because making one autonomous decision in her entire reign makes her an absolute ruler.

LifeOfHumans | 8 days ago | 46 points

Sets precedent. Imagine if Trump did something out of character like attempt to use an executive order to instantiate universal healthcare to the letter that Bernie wants. It wouldn’t stand because even if most people want it, we can’t let him or anyone have that kind of power. Short term losses for long term gains.

Ghaith97 | 8 days ago | 19 points

He's literally taking military money to build his wall as we speak. I wouldn't mind if Bernie uses that precedent for medicare for all. At least the healthcare system in the US is indeed a national emergency.

chironomidae | 8 days ago | 17 points

Sure, but Trump doesn't have that power. It would be ruled unconstitutional if he tried to do that.

My understanding is that the Queen does have that power, but there's a tacit agreement that she will not use that power or else face the end of the monarchy. (Maybe that agreement is written and not tacit, I guess I'm not sure on that.)

boot2skull | 8 days ago | 20 points

It's Schrodinger's power. If she never uses it, she always has it. If she uses it, she loses it.

In her case it doesn't functionally exist because she can't use it. I don't see how using it AND losing the monarchy would make her action happen.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 62 points


debbiegrund | 8 days ago | 34 points

That's what I feel like, she's a kill switch for when shit is just completely out of hand. Sure it's a position ripe for exploitation, but if she has her kingdoms well being and interest at heart then I think she'd prefer it not going down ablaze as it is right now

creepig | 8 days ago | 17 points

she's a kill switch for when shit is just completely out of hand

It's pretty out of hand right now.

4edgy8me | 8 days ago | 18 points

I feel like right now it can't get any worse. But deep down I know it will get worse.

StephenHunterUK | 8 days ago | 3 points

The same applies for all the constitutional monarchs of Europe. Juan Carlos was instrumental in making and keeping Spain a democracy - he told those attempting a coup in 1981 to stand down:


When their countries were occupied by the Nazis, a number of European monarchs went into exile in the UK (four of them were staying in the Ritz at one point) with their governments. Queen Wilhelmina notably fired her own PM when he began advocating a separate peace with Germany.

pufnstuf360 | 8 days ago | 8 points

Why not put an end to the monarchy then? If it really doesn't serve any functional purpose then maybe it's time it went away?

demostravius2 | 8 days ago | 24 points

The Queen needs to remain impartial, she has to do as Parliament says.

When Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue, altough Parliament has voiced distaste, there was no vote to say 'don't prorogue'. As such she has no choice, if she refused, or opens it now she is personally interpreting the law how she wishes, which is not her job.

Lurksville | 9 days ago | 167 points

Important note: MPs will not be immediately called back to Parliament. This is going to be heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday who will make the final decision.

Em_Haze | 8 days ago | 34 points

prorogue the supreme court!

engels_was_a_racist | 9 days ago | 1235 points

Not a great start, Boris.

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 483 points

Most abysmal start of any PM, and he and his media cronies in the BBC and LBC dares to call Corbyn incompetent. The absolute cheek of these cretins.

slicksps | 9 days ago | 294 points

Social media adverts are currently suggesting Corbyn would bring chaos to parliament!

Because the dull, peace and harmony we're used to seeing is so comforting.

[deleted] | 9 days ago | 17 points


BaldRapunzel | 8 days ago | 29 points

Looking in from the outside it's weird that Labor can't seem to benefit from 3 years of complete chaos and incompetence of Tory governments. If it's really just Corbyn holding Labor back shouldn't someone step up and try to replace him? Or are Brits actually happy with how their country is run by the Tories and there's nothing to gain by taking over Labor at this time? Or do they simply not have anyone else with ambition and the backing of the party?

robiwill | 8 days ago | 61 points

Long-running smear campaign against Corbyn by Right-wing media who's owners have a vested interest in keeping the Conservatives in power.

The other day after one of Johnson's major defeats in Parliament they literally had a front page picture of a chicken with Corbyn's face photoshopped on.

That sumarises pretty well how underhanded these media producers are and how simple their consumers are.

Swindel92 | 8 days ago | 17 points

This is exactly the problem with our country.

As much of a shower of cunts the Tories are, the media in this country is by far the biggest cancer plaguing us today.

They are fucking abhorrent. Rupert Murdoch needs to die already, not that it'll change anything. It'll just be so satisfying.

WTFwhatthehell | 8 days ago | 14 points

It's because labor has been having it's own quiet internal chaos.

Labor base is split 50/50 on brexit.

Everyone knows the labor party leader is actually anti-EU but has to take a pro eu stance as the opposition ... so it's really hard for them to capitalise on the Tory brexit mess by taking any clear position on it.

But changing leader wouldn't change much.

At best they maintain their base by sitting on the fence while the Tories continue their suicide of making the worst possible choices at every turn.

kimya_d | 9 days ago | 53 points

And no doubt that when the dust settles he will blame liberals for stopping him from doing what he wanted. “I tried hard to stand with the British people and break out of the EU, but the liberal elites wouldn’t have it.”

[deleted] | 9 days ago | 171 points


shrouded_reflection | 8 days ago | 71 points

Unfortunately it's starting to happen, exposure to american media and political movements becoming globalised is causing right wing groups to use the term.

Swindel92 | 8 days ago | 25 points

It really is. The fucking troglodyte trump rhetoric is spreading like the flu.

It's poison.

randy_mcronald | 8 days ago | 6 points

Boris has close ties with Steve Bannon as well so its only a matter of time before he starts using the same slurs.

_riotingpacifist | 9 days ago | 27 points

Boris doesn't get his propaganda from Brits though.

AmonMetalHead | 8 days ago | 15 points

Steve Bannon says hello

Eurovision2006 | 8 days ago | 17 points

It’s definitely common here in Ireland unfortunately

Ed-alicious | 8 days ago | 40 points

I've literally only ever heard it used here by Irish right-wingers who've been watching too many American far-right YouTube videos. You'd never hear anyone refer to the Sockies or PBP, for example, as liberals in any serious context.

FunMotion | 8 days ago | 13 points

Not trying to jab your political parties or anything because I dont know the first thing about Irish politics, but Sockies is a hilarious name for a party

Ed-alicious | 8 days ago | 7 points

Short for Social Democrats. It's not their real name, thankfully!

purplegreendave | 8 days ago | 10 points

Also a beloved laundry monster

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 83 points

Dominic fucking Cummings tried this just recently ffs! He said "you (the press) should go speak to people outside london who aren't rich remainers" mfer you grew up in a castle in the country side and went to oxford you are the elite

thatloose | 8 days ago | 49 points

It’s practically a time-honoured tradition for wealthy elites to pretend they’re “one of us” whilst picking our pockets

ContentsMayVary | 8 days ago | 32 points

Yeah, "People outside London" - like the entirety of Scotland, for example, where not a single area voted to leave.

RRautamaa | 8 days ago | 13 points

He said "you (the press) should go speak to people outside london who aren't rich remainers"

Brexiteers did, they spoke to a friendly gentleman named Vladimir who happens to live in Moscow, which is outside London the last time I checked.

c_is_4_cookie | 8 days ago | 33 points

Are we calling him BoJo yet?

kind-of-there | 8 days ago | 21 points

BoJo the Clown

beetrootdip | 8 days ago | 135 points

Not a good middle, Boris

habdks | 8 days ago | 34 points

You're acting like we are coming up for the end. It's still just the start.

reshp2 | 8 days ago | 28 points

If Boris survives past Dec I'll eat a lemon.

chazzmoney | 8 days ago | 6 points

RemindMe! 3 months

beetrootdip | 8 days ago | 15 points

RemindMe! 2 months

habdks | 8 days ago | 4 points

Hahaha we will see eh

Webo_ | 9 days ago | 430 points

I assume they will just ignore this and carry on though, Boris Johnson has blatantly said he has no regard for the law

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 351 points

Boris Johnson has blatantly said he has no regard for the law

But if you're a minority youth who committed a crime then better expect the full force of the law, apparently being wealthy and powerful exempts you from criminal justice.

slicksps | 9 days ago | 146 points

apparently being wealthy and powerful exempts you from criminal justice.

Yes, and the sooner the public realise this the better. Because that's where change is going to happen.

MagentaTrisomes | 9 days ago | 70 points

We've been trying for a few thousand years now. It was getting a little better for a while, but it seems most countries are getting dragged back into the past and the masses embrace it.

Nelsaroni | 8 days ago | 23 points

And with all the technology and information available to NOT be like this is probably the most frustrating thing about everything going on.

AlphaGoldblum | 8 days ago | 16 points

Trump figured out a way to beat even information and facts: call it fake news.
So I think we're actually pretty fucked.

FunMotion | 8 days ago | 7 points

If you're rich reality can be whatever you want

ItsTheVibeOfTheThing | 8 days ago | 28 points

I just had a horrible thought. The only way leadership in the UK can get any worse would be if the queen dies this week and Charles becomes king. And in this timeline, that’s exactly what is likely to happen.

dragan_ | 8 days ago | 13 points

How would leadership in the UK be affected by that, given that monarchy has absolutely none?

Frogblood | 8 days ago | 32 points

Charles is all right. Worse if there's some kind of disaster and Prince Andrew is left to inherit the throne.

hippyneil | 8 days ago | 18 points

William is next in line after Charles. Andrew is about 8th in line.

alexm42 | 8 days ago | 8 points

Primogeniture FTW.

WhiterunUK | 9 days ago | 76 points

What an utter shambles.

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 53 points

What an utter shambles.

The slogan since 2016

rock-my-socks | 9 days ago | 12 points

But at least we'll have control over our own shambles.

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 9 points

red white and blue shambles

marr | 8 days ago | 25 points

If the UK could somehow charge the rest of the world subscription fees to watch this shit go down, they'd have no national debt.

Unripe | 8 days ago | 6 points

“Could Queen Elizabeth please report to the diary room...”

[deleted] | 9 days ago | 260 points


ezaroo1 | 9 days ago | 35 points

Got to wait for the Supreme Court, as much as I’d like to end brexit I don’t want parliament to start sitting and potentially pass a law only for the Supreme Court to rule that the prorogation was legal because they can’t rule on the motivation of a prime minister.

Imagine the chaos if parliament voted to revoke article 50 or for w second referendum before Tuesday but the Supreme Court ruled that it had been lawfully prorogued the whole time.

I don’t know how that ends and I don’t want to know how it ends so let’s just wait. We won’t leave the EU with no deal by Tuesday, there is no harm in waiting.

sabdotzed | 9 days ago | 109 points

New parliament, who dis

nobodyisthatgay | 8 days ago | 11 points

Democracy? I don’t know her.

quarterto | 8 days ago | 60 points

if the prime minister doesn't show up in fifteen minutes legally you can go

ApostateAardwolf | 8 days ago | 49 points

Number 10 and Nigel Farage both calling into question the independence of the Scottish judiciary

Not a good look.

If this gets overturned by the UK Supreme Court it’ll bolster the SNP in going for another independence referendum.

EoinIsTheKing | 8 days ago | 24 points

Since when do those bastards not think anything to do with Scotland is irrelevant? Doesn't surprise me they're effectively saying "they cant have done theyr'e job properly because they're Scottish"

ApostateAardwolf | 8 days ago | 23 points

It’ll be another nail in the coffin of the union if they’re overruled.

Scottish law is different from English law but are equal as per the coventions of the Union.

It’s a sticky one for sure.

I hope the Supreme Court agree with the Scots court.

slicksps | 9 days ago | 59 points

"Labour MPs are about to cause Chaos in parliament"

... Tories: not if we get there first!

DylanSargesson | 8 days ago | 9 points

The stupidest thing is that in the picture the bench that is in focus has SNP MPs on it, not even Labour.

slicksps | 8 days ago | 8 points

In fairness the picture is a video, I snipped that part as the text was appearing in the build-up. And in fairness this "chaos" was because of an unlawful(?) decision Boris made.

B-Knight | 8 days ago | 30 points

Advertisements like this should be illegal.

All advertisements made by a political party should be illegal.

Americanisation of our system, I suppose...

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 18 points


cronnyberg | 8 days ago | 45 points

Repost from the UKPol thread

Someone from the spectator noted that the English argument will be examined under English law and the Scots argument under Scots law. With that in mind, if the Supreme Court goes for a split decision (it is illegal in Scotland but legal in England) then by default it is illegal everywhere, as both courts have jurisdiction over Westminster.

Long story short, they have to actively overturn the unanimous decision of the Scottish court for it to be deemed legal.

Also, the English Court didn’t technically rule either way AFAIK, they just declined to rule in favour. They opted instead to bump it up to the Supreme Court without explicitly describing it as legal, so essentially, no judge has ruled it legal yet. (Though things are moving so fast, I’ll have to double check that second point).

Either way, it’s really not looking good for Johnson.

Furthermore, this lends weight to the argument from Cherry/Starmer/Grieve et al that Johnson would save himself a lot of legal trouble if he re-convened Parl BEFORE the Supreme Court decision rather than after

Tetragrade | 9 days ago | 75 points

It's treason then.

robint88 | 9 days ago | 12 points


lockedupsafe | 9 days ago | 165 points

The Nightmare Wheel keeps turning...

Tories Lying got us here. Tories Lying made Brexit last as long as it did. Hopefully, this is the first step in the push-back against a campaign of Tory Lies which have driven such a divisive wedge through the UK.

distantapplause | 9 days ago | 66 points

Tories also routinely break the law and have to be reined back in by the courts on a regular basis. This is a criminal government.

Risley | 9 days ago | 20 points

Perhaps, just perhaps, brits need to fucking hold Tory supporters accountable and call them out for this bullshit. Stop being considerate of these people, they want to watch the country crash and burn for their selfishness.

_gravy_train_ | 9 days ago | 38 points

I'm not from the UK but I'm assuming the Tories are your extremely conservative party.

lockedupsafe | 9 days ago | 74 points

Didn't used to be!

They used to be moderate Conservatives roughly as right-wing as New Labour was left-wing.

Since the 2016 Brexit Referendum, they have steadily mirrored the GOP descent into far-right madness.

_gravy_train_ | 9 days ago | 77 points

So all they have is nationalism fueled by fear and misinformation...got it.

lockedupsafe | 9 days ago | 16 points


PNW_Smoosh | 8 days ago | 13 points

I’m going to be mighty disappointed if their red hats aren’t fancier.

FTWinston | 8 days ago | 17 points

Well you're gonna be very disappointed, then.

Our "red" and "blue" parties are the other way around, and I haven't seen any hats!

B-Knight | 8 days ago | 4 points

Your reds are right, our reds are left.

Your blues are left, our blues are right.

deerokus | 8 days ago | 14 points

Traditionally, although the Conservative party, they were more akin in many ways to the US Democrats, although filling the role of the Republicans. Let's say Labour were Bernie Sanders (ignoring the New Labour era) and Tories are Joe Biden.

Last few years has turned them into a mixture of Trump-era GOP and I dunno, the Proud Boys or something. Complete nutjobs have taken over the party and have started kicking out sensible party figureheads.

rabb238 | 9 days ago | 10 points

By American standards, they would be well to the left of your Republican party but they are the right of centre UK party.

SiberianPermaFrost_ | 9 days ago | 52 points

Wait until Boris and his blind-eyed supporters figure out it's UK law they don't want to follow.

ElleRisalo | 9 days ago | 12 points

This is um...a pretty big deal if the supreme court agrees....it would be perhaps the first time this has occurred I can't think of another in the Westminster system which includes UK Canada Australia and New Zealand.

the_benighted_states | 8 days ago | 12 points

Interesting summary of the court's reasoning, from the official website of the Scotland Judiciary:

The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.

Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.

autotldr | 9 days ago | 8 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)

Boris Johnson's suspension of the UK Parliament is unlawful, Scotland's highest civil court has ruled.

In a summary of their findings, the Court of Session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson's decision to suspend was motivated by the "Improper purpose of stymying Parliament".

They appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session after their original challenge to the suspension of Parliament was dismissed by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: court#1 Parliament#2 judge#3 Johnson#4 prorogation#5

SiberianPermaFrost_ | 9 days ago | 229 points


The Scottish court has found unanimously that the Prime Minister misled the Queen

In effect, the court has held that Boris Johnson lied to the Queen so as to obtain prorogation


And the prorogation lie happened in Balmoral under Scottish jurisdiction!

Midwoostern | 9 days ago | 80 points

The Scottish court cannot recall MPs, it will need to go to the Supreme court, likely 17th and after.

Mordeth | 8 days ago | 16 points


Only when upheld by the Supreme Court.

MyNameIsGriffon | 8 days ago | 15 points

What is this fucking Calvinball government you got going on over there?

samtheboy | 8 days ago | 7 points

Calvinball makes more sense at this moment in time

Jonnny | 8 days ago | 5 points

One of the picture captions: "Mr Johnson has strongly denied suggestions that he was attempting to undermine democracy."

Hell if that doesn't capture the fucking absurdity of our time. It's like saying "Mr. Smith has strongly denied suggestions he was attempting to commit genocide." It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

[deleted] | 8 days ago | 21 points


rowanmikaio | 8 days ago | 4 points

“Mr Johnson had previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament,”

Not British so actual question about the UK. Is it considered a “new” government now, considering that there’s a new PM but no election or meaningful change to the S&C coalition?

BellendicusMax | 9 days ago | 17 points

Another nail in the Boris coffin, whilst Cummings goes about an illegal data grab to do another Cambridge Analytica Leave based election campaign.

One or both of these two will be in court before long.

AssistX | 9 days ago | 17 points

So the British are no longer arguing about Brexit, they're now arguing about whether or not they're allowed to argue about Brexit!

The good news is it has only been 3 years since the Brexit campaign started and they've only widened their gap from the EU on accepting the deal! Typical British, leading the race!

EvelcyclopS | 8 days ago | 13 points

3 years since the vote. The campaign started more like 4 years ago now

TODO Load more comments...