Jump to content

London court rejects bid to stop PM Johnson's suspension of parliament

Recommended Posts

London court rejects bid to stop PM Johnson's suspension of parliament



Britain's Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaks during Prime Minister's Questions session in the House of Commons in London, Britain September 4, 2019. ©UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor/Handout via REUTERS


LONDON (Reuters) - London’s High Court on Friday rejected a legal challenge against British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament before Brexit, but said it could still be taken to the Supreme Court for a final appeal.


Johnson announced at the end of August that he would suspend parliament from mid-September to mid-October, just before Britain is due to leave the European Union on Oct. 31, so the government could announce a new legislative programme.


That prompted campaigner Gina Miller, who defeated the government over another Brexit issue two years ago, to bring a legal challenge. She was later joined in the process by former Prime Minister John Major and opposition political parties.


Miller told reporters outside court that parliament should be sitting during such a crucial time for Britain’s democracy, and she would not give up the fight.


“The Supreme Court has pencilled in Sept. 17 for the appeal hearing,” she said. “My legal team and I will not give up the fight for democracy.”


Miller’s lawyer, David Pannick, argued on Thursday that comments from Johnson showed an important part of his reasoning for the prorogation, or suspension, was that parliament might say or do something that impeded the government’s Brexit plans.


The legal challenge has lost some of its impact after lawmakers voted this week to force Johnson to seek a three-month delay to Brexit rather than leave without an agreement on Oct. 31, a move that is likely to lead to an election.


Separate legal challenges to Johnson’s Brexit plans are also being heard in Scotland and Northern Ireland.



-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-06

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How does Miller gain access so quickly inc wall-to-wall media coverage when the likes of Robin Tilbrook doing exactly the same take months and are completely de platformed?

I really don't know about this, and you are right information does seem relatively hard to come by- a quick search throws up a David Icke site near the top of the results.   However, it looks to me that the case was dismissed.  (I'm happy to be corrected).  Still I don't see how he could have been de-platformed in some sort of sinister way.  Surely there are plenty of pro-brexit sites and media outlets who would presumably be champing at the bit to cover it if they found it at all newsworthy?

EDIT: Thanks again 7x7 for filling in some blanks.

Edited by Slip
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, allow me to share an anecdote 'at the side', but not out-of-topic, as it tells 'a thing or two' about 'discrepancies' between the remains of British Empire, and modern (continental) Europe.

I once accepted an offer to work for a, continental, subsidiary of an, important, British, ...English, 'group'. 

Let me here only focus on one item: 'time', otherwise this could become a very long novel...

The Roman calendar has been adopted about everywhere around the globe for business dealings.

Well, this English group, as other UK major 'players', had adopted a different, brilliant (no, really), division of time: the year was not divided in 12 months of 28 to 31 days with all its irregularities, no, it were 13 'periods' of 4 weeks.

When I remember well, the bookyear ended on some Sunday, was it in February or April (for some internal 'historic' reason, for the next to start on a Monday (Saturdays being working days in the UK), or was it the opposite

Result of: every, of the 13(!) periods a year was divided into, constituted of 4, same, weeks, every year. Fabulous for large groups' management: year-on-year identical weeks and 'periods' to 'budget' and control, no discrepancies between longer and shorter months, with more or less Sundays.

Really brilliant I mean it, ...was it that the 'rest of the World' would have been playing according to this rule, what it didn't, at all.

We, as a subsidiary, had to follow the English organisatory rules, while none(!) of the companies we bought from were, only about 10% of our purchases coming from the group, and 100% of our customers over several continental countries, including major international institutions, just following the Roman calendar!

Even our official(...!) book-keeping having to follow the basic Roman calendar, same as for salaries, the Tax Office, the Customs (bondes stores...), you name it.

I didn't hide my admiration for our, 'baba-cool' (alternative: suicidal), administrative manager was great.

I even had to swallow bitter criticism from some old London imperialists, after I had had a wall 'conversion calendar' printed, internally, putting,  Roamnd calendar with, numbered, weeks and days next to the 13 periods, with their 4 weeks each, in regard, ...to make the jobs easier, for us, and all concerned. I was 'betraying the integration efforts of the group in the long attempt to have the staff and all related offices to adopt the group's internal time division and work accordingly in a fluent way'! Not 100% same as the reprimand I got, but quite near.

This just a tiny small example (I have a lot of other, more 'hard' ones) of, maybe plain normal to you, but how strange, very awkward, erm, backwards your insular, self-centered, old-fashioned, imperial, dominant, ways can be experienced by us, folks from the continent...

Nota Bene: In itself, let me repeat it, that division of time could have been fab, ...when everyone would have adopted it. In such, a lot more 'practicable', still, than the guys who came up (long ago, well before the EC existed in a couple enlighted minds) with the division of a square angle into 100, 400 to the full circle, which is though still used in specific airtraffic.

P.S.: Sorry for the orthograph, I wrote this piece quite fast, but still hoping you'll choose, for a moment, to look at just a detail about our differences seen from the opposite side of the channel. Thank you for it.


Edited by bangrak
  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Slip said:

EDIT: Thanks again 7x7 for filling in some blanks.

Agreed; Thanks to both of...you! 🙄

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tuesday JRM was asked if he knew of the intentions of the Government on the 16th of August prorogue Parliament, he replied "I was out of the country then" side stepping the question, clearly anyone who understands how the ERG works will realise that JRM is the ring master and would have been consulted, if not the instigator, and that could have been done by phone, conference call or Email even if he was out of the country.


One thing was clear from this court case was that Boris was clearly intending to Prorogue parliament two weeks before they claim to have. papers, emails and memos released by the court clearly show that Boris was intending to do so on the 15th and claims by him to the contrary were lies...   

Edited by Basil B
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...