Proroguing Parliament Was Legal

Most people, including some MPs, who should know better, think that all our law is made in Parliament. It isn’t. Most of the law in Britain is made by judges. They make it every day and they have been making it since 1066. This is called Common Law and is based on established precedent which is then continuously modified by judges to fit new circumstances.

Also in Britain we don’t have a written constitution. The way Parliament and Government are run is based on Custom. Some of which goes back more than a thousand years.

But Parliament is boss and can change anything it wants, any time it wants. So long as the Queen signs it off. Which she always does.

When Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament from mid September till mid October this year he was legally following Custom. What had been done before many times by many Prime Ministers, including twice by John Major. One of which was to hide the cash for questions scandal. And Clement Attlee prorogued Parliament to force through the nationalisation of the iron and steel industries.

The period of the Boris prorogue included the three week long party conference season, when Parliament is always recessed, so the effect of the prorogation was to close Parliament for about four days. This closure was for the preparation of a Queen’s Speech to announce a new legislative programme. This is perfectly normal and legal and constitutional and has been done many times before.

The fact that it was totally, utterly and completely legal was confirmed by the High Court by some of the top judges in the country when they were asked to judge on it.

It then went to the Supreme Court (created by Tony Blair). They promptly changed the law on prorogation, which they are perfectly entitled to do. And they then said that the current prorogation was not legal under this new addition to the law.

With the British system of judge made Common Law and no written Constitution what the Supreme Court did was 100% perfectly legal and was immediately accepted as such by the Government. But it was effectively a constitutional coup. And it can (and probably will be) reversed by Parliament at some time in the future.

What we have here is the Judiciary, a group of unelected judges, usurping the Executive, the democratically elected Government of the United Kingdom. It is therefore essential that the cleansing and disinfecting searchlight of publicity, which the Executive rightly lives under, should be extended to the Supreme Court. So let’s start doing it here.

Who are the Supreme Court judges?

And what are their own personal views on Brexit?

Once you are aware of the actual facts, as laid out above. You can see that much of the press reporting of events has been pure fake news. Also those politicians who have said that what Boris did was illegal, that he is a criminal and a liar and that he should resign are in fact themselves the liars.

5 Comments


  1. Thank you for the enlightenment! Let’s get it public somehow, what CAN we do? Our blood is boiling over the injustiice of not delivering Brexit

    Reply

  2. I think you’ll find that judges don’t make law. In common law the judges are there to oversee the case in front of them. To make sure it is convened lawfully and carried out fairly an impartial.

    It is the properly convened court de jure who come to a judgement and if it contradicts previous “case law”, then the law is changed to reflect a new “case law”.

    There are no properly convened courts of common law in this country as the crown was stripped of its authority when the queen was petitioned under article 61 of Magna Carta in march 2001.

    The queen found no remedy to the petition and article 61 was invoked.

    The security clause of article 61 is the greatest protection for the people against tyranny, like the current state of affairs!

    Reply

  3. How can the supreme court CHANGE the law? They have overstepped their jurisdiction. It is not a case of interpretation but of changing it.

    Reply

Leave a reply