A Day Which Will Go Down In British History: Justice Has Been Served

SpiderManFan2002

Today justice has been served. I am proud of the judges in the Supreme Court as a British citizen, and a law student. Today will go down in British history, and I am so thankful that justice has been served.

A Day Which Will Go Down In British History: Justice Has Been Served

What Happened Today Then?

Boris Johnson was planning to shut down the British Parliament for five weeks which sparked major controversy in Britain. Many people viewed shutting down parliament as undemocratic because if something major was to happen in Britain MPs would not have a vote or a say on whatever is happening. Many viewed it as a way of silencing MPs.

Not so long ago, England's higher court stated that shutting down Parliament was lawful because they believed it was a political matter, one in which the courts should not interfere in as a judge's decision has to be completely independent without external influences.

However, the Scottish court disagreed, and stated suspending Parliament was unlawful because it had the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament" in the vital period the Brexit deadline: 31st October 2019.

Today was the day when the Supreme Court would determine whether the suspending of Parliament was lawful or unlawful.

And today, the Supreme Court of the UK has ruled the government shut down of Parliament as illegal.

My Opinion As a Law Student on The Matter

I am so thankful to the judges of the UK Supreme Court that they made this decision.

Because if Boris Johnson had gotten away with this, then I as a British citizen and many other British citizens would feel like Boris Johnson is above the law. Like it's one rule from him and one rule for the rest of us. And that goes against the definition of the rule of law - that everybody in Britain, regardless of their position, is equal in the eyes of the law.

The other night, I was watching Question Time and one person which stood out to me was this man in the audience who asked this question with such frustration and anger in his voice (which didn't surprise me at all): "If Boris Johnson doesn't care about the law, then why should I?" And the rest of the audience applauded him greatly.

And to be honest, even I - even though I'm a Law student - was thinking the same thing.

And if Boris Johnson got away with this then what example is that setting to the youth of our UK? That the Prime Minister of the UK can get away with breaking the law just because he wants to get a job done? In that case, would it make it okay for everybody else to break to get a job done? What would even be the point in me, the students in my Law class, and any other Law student in the UK studying 'Law' if not even our government care about it and can get away with breaking it?

In my opinion, the government's theme song should be that song which goes: 'I broke the law and the law won'

But the fact that the amazing judges in the UK supreme court deemed the suspension of Parliament as illegal shows us that the rule of law is still in place and that nobody - not even the Prime Minister - sits above the law.

And the sorry excuse for a PM we have, Boris Johnson, (quote him) "strongly disagrees" with the decision of the supreme court. So- our PM disagrees with the law because it doesn't suit his agenda? That doesn't surprise me at all, the selfish buffoon doesn't care about anything except himself, and he is already getting urged to resign.

I think he should resign- do we want somebody who has broken the law to run the UK? Nope.

I dare anybody to defend him, I mean if you do, it will be written on here forever (because a digital footprint is never deleted) that you supported a law-breaking PM. It's up to you.

Anyway, I am more than satisfied because justice has been served and the PM got slapped with:

A) The Law

B) Equality

Thank you for reading this MyTake! :) <3

A Day Which Will Go Down In British History: Justice Has Been Served
17
4
Add Opinion

Most Helpful Guys

  • AlexanderBrunnrgaard
    Yes, instead of making actual progress and getting results, let's simply continue this drawn out farce with more delays and hollow debates etc.

    I would argue that a leader has a greater duty than that of always following rules and regulations to the letter. That of the welfare of the nation. What Boris did was to override the obseqious corruption of politics in order to go through with the exit Britain has already decided upon, but a desicion which is postponed and encumbered by politicians for as long as possible because they do not accept the outcome of the referendum. So who is undemocratic, really?

    When did we get to this point where it can all go to h*ll for all we care, as long as it *looks and feels* democratic. Is that truly worth more than what happens to the country?

    Is this still revelant?
    • Not to mention how this is an intrusion on the Royal prerogative. Something for a law student to reflect upon!

    • For starters, the EU referendum itself, was undemocratic as the public were given misinformation about how much we pay to the EU. We do not pay £350 million like he claimed. It was blatant lie and it misled the public, vastly. Many people voted for Brexit, based on the fact we pay £350 million to the EU a week- because they believed instead of that money being spent on the EU it should be spent on other things- such as the NHS. Yet we do not pay this much to EU, so the public were misled. Do you really think voting based on a lie at all democratic?

    • While I am not versed in this debate as a non-Britt, it is true that 350 million pounds is incorrect. The UK in fact contributes with 4.2 *billion* to the EU budget, and even then it's a discount they receive for being large contributors. What the nation in actuality could pay would be 8 billion pounds. That is far more to put out than the UK receives in return.

      So yes, a false fact, but an understatement, not an exaggeration.

      Furthermore, the British people made their choice and voted en mass. Now following the referendum, it was recorded that a big score of Brits actually researched, "what is the EU". Humorous, but their own fault! They made their choice and must now stand with it. Lacking in knowledge or not.

      And even as there surely were those poorly informed, I have no doubts that a large number knew exactly what they wanted for and still voted out. It's not impossible to be opposed to the EU you know, it's current state is in desperate need of reform.

      So yes, I do still hold that the referendum was by all regards conducted properly. You furthermore did not answer my question, what's so democratic about pouting over the outcome of the referendum that you purposefully stall and hinder the Brexit deal from coming to pass?

      Then you still have the issue of intruding on the Royal Prerogative.

    • Show All
  • JimRSmith
    If the court had ruled in favour of Boris, then he wouldn't have broken the law, would he?

    As it is, his proposal has been ruled illegal, but that isn't the same as him being a knowing lawbreaker. The Attorney General did, in fact, advise him that this was a legal course of action.

    I'm not alone, in being concerned at the increasing tendency to drag the judiciary into politics, and for legislation via the courts.

    All this will do is increase the clamour for a written constitution. Which, as we were until now doing pretty well without one, is rather a shame, in my opinion...
    Is this still revelant?
    • Jamie05rhs

      Shoot. We Americans DO have a written Constitution, but that doesn't stop the courts for interpreting it whichever way they want to.

    • Let's talk about what DID happen. It was clear that that the suspension of Parliament was unlawful, because it failed to let Parliament carry out it's constitutional duties without a reasonable justification.

      Now he knows what he did was unlawful, and instead of apologising for breaking the law, he believes the UK high court was wrong. Isn't that what an unapologetic criminal would say after they had been sentenced?

    • Oram52

      Please, Boris Johnson ASKED attorney general to find a way to shut down parliament so he could by pass parliment. That is EXTREMELY undemocratic. Judiciary shouldn't interfere in politics but Parliment that is SUPPOSE to deal with such issues is undemocratically shut down, what exactly would you have proposed?

      Also courts didn't interfere in politics, they simply interpreted the law. Was the shut down legal or not that's it. It was Boris not attorney general, PM took the decision.

Most Helpful Girl

  • Britantic
    Sounds like yet an another attack on democracy and the will of the people being ignored.
    Is this still revelant?
    • How is this an attack on democracy?

      Boris Johnson suspending Parliament for 5 weeks whilst we are so close to the 31st of October is undemocratic as if something were to happen during that time period publicly elected members cannot have a say on it.

    • Oram52

      In what is shutting down the parliment as a dictator "DEMOCRACY"?

    • Britantic

      @Oram52 we voted for BREXIT, we voted for the conservatives.

    • Show All

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

315
  • nightdrot
    Actually, as an American who is an ardent Anglophile who follows these things but who does not have full familiarity with every jot and title of British constitutional procedures and precedent - the UK Supreme Court itself being a very recent innovation (as before a committee of the House of Lords served that role) - it is not clear what Johnson is obliged to do. Indeed, the fact that the court and its ruling are both unprecedented, it would seem that the Prime Minister has wide scope and thus is free to set his own precedent.

    Historically, the Prime Minister, acting as the agent of the Commons, set the schedule for the House. It was murky and all this court case has done is clarified where the power actually resides. This of course meaning that the Prime Minister is no longer master of the Commons ship and thus there is a further separation of the executive and the legislature in a system where the former had, in effect, had been a committee of the latter.

    This being the case, if the Commons wants Mr. Johnson out, then they need to vote accordingly. Johnson was acting as an agent of the Commons and had such authority delegated to him. If he misjudged the chamber that is to be expected. It can happen. If that is a firing offense, absent any prior precedent, than the Commons needs to vote accordingly.

    This being the funny part - as this the Commons will not do so. It is dominated by an anti-Brexit majority in a population that voted, by 52%, for Brexit. If the Commons ousts Mr. Johnson in a vote of "no confidence" no party in the Commons will want to form an anti-Brexit government in the face of public opinion. Indeed, the Commons has resisted all of Mr. Johnson's efforts to call for an election - not even the Leader of HM Loyal Opposition who is supposed to, by definition, want to seek the ouster of the government of the day.

    Of course, the Conservatives could oust Mr. Johnson as party leader, and thereby as Prime Minister. However, here again. A majority of Conservative MP's are anti-Brexit and certainly opposed to a "hard Brexit." However, a majority of the party outside Parliament is pro-Brexit and seems willing to support a "hard Brexit." So here again, there is no one to wield the dagger.

    The irony being that Mr. Johnson may wish to force a general election by resigning. Of course, there would have to be some attempt at cobbling together of a new government before that and it would have to fail before a new election could be called.

    Going into a general election, Johnson would likely have the edge insofar as he can define the vote as one between the politicians in Parliament on one hand and the people on the other. Indeed, even the latest polls give Johnson a 6 point edge. Not decisive by any means, but not a bad point to start.

    Add it all up, however, and it is too much to say that Johnson must resign. The Supreme Court threw its weight decisively behind parliamentary dominance over the government of the day where the previous order of the day had been ambiguity. So Johnson's own position is thus ambiguous and therefore it would seem, at best, premature that he be expected to resign.

    The path forward is then to sit tight and let Parliament have its way until the moment Johnson can force an election. One thing is for sure, domestically if Parliament keeps throwing itself in the way of the referendum results - a referendum whose results pleased me but that should never have been held to begin with - it will badly discredit itself. That is dangerous territory for a system guided by "an unwritten constitution."

    At the international level, if the UK cannot leave the EU except on terms set by the EU - with no threat of a hard Brexit to back the UK's negotiating position - the UK will be a permanently diminished power on the global stage. Effectively little more than a satellite of a Franco-German entente.

    That would be a sad ending, to say no more.
  • Guffrus
    If you had paid any attention to the ruling you would have understood that there was an element of not having a good reason for the action taken.

    If you knew anything about history you would understand that what Boris did is in fact not new or unique.

    Had Boris been more honest about what he was doing it and why it may well have been ruled differently.

    I am not sure what to think about the power to prorogue parliament now, initially I had thought that it might be a necessary evil in order to break a deadlocked situation which was balanced by the ability of the house to hold a no confidence vote.
    This is idea is not correct however as the Canadian PM was able to use the power of prorogation to delay a no confidence vote against him.
    Clearly something is wrong some where and i wonder if the Canadians will want to take another look at what they chose to do?

    So it seems to me that perhaps no power to prorogue parliament should exist at all and perhaps it is an obsolete and undesirable throw back to the days in which we were ruled by a monarch.
    • " If you had paid any attention to the ruling you would have understood that there was an element of not having a good reason for the action taken." I'm aware of that. Did they not say "there was no reason. Let alone a good one" for suspending parliament?

      "If you knew anything about history you would understand that what Boris did is in fact not new or unique." And I don't recall where it said it was "new" or "unique"?

    • Guffrus

      Do you have anything to say or not?

    • Guffrus

      Just so we are clear that you dont know what you are talking about.

      There was no way for Boris to know before hand that what he was doing would be consider unlawful because there is a history of this power being used in exactly the way in which Boris used it.

      Had Boris given reasons the ruling may have been different. You are not countering that point by saying that no reason was given you are just restating something already known, undisputed and acknowledged.

      You fail to grasp the fact that if it is not new or unique then it is reasonable for Boris to believe that it was a lawful action based on the historical usage of the power.

  • tartaarsaus
    Generally speaking, governments do break laws relatively frequently, which is bad but correctable.

    The actual problem really starts when the government does not respect the rule of law. Naturally, it is bad when government willingly breaks the law, but at least when respecting the court they cannot press on.

    As Johnson decided to respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and it would be so incredibly stupid to not respect it regardless of what you think of it, I don’t think he should necessarily resign over this. Say he would go against the Supreme Court, then he can fuck right off.

    Same in the Netherlands. Dutch government broke their own laws on nitrogen pollution (which has thoroughly fucked up for them by putting 18000 construction works at effectively standstill, including major security works) and on taking away passports of jihadis.

    But the courts give them a slap in the face, correct it and force government to change course.

    Especially the nitrogen, that is a really weird case where the government essentially kicks the ball in the net and then goes “I recognize that goal, it’s mine”.

    Ideally, it would not happen and it is not good government breaks laws, but at least they respect the trias politica.

    After all, all this is the whole point of administrative courts existing; to prevent the government from breaking the law or to correct their behaviour.

    • To be honest, I agree with Corbyn- I do believe he should resign. There should be a vote of no confidence. He doesn't want what is best for the British people, he wants what is best for himself.

    • The “he doesn't want what is best for the British people” naturally depends on perspective, but I am not up to date of British politics so 🤷🏽‍♀️

      A motion of no confidence would be interesting if they are actually going for it. I can imagine Brexit going on for a couple years, but I guess we’ll see what happens in the next week. It’ll be a crucial week

    • Oh, you mention a new Queen’s speech as being his reason for suspending parliament.

      I imagine that (and this is a common thing) the reason Johnson gave was misleading to dismiss parliament, and therefore it is not legally valid. Just a thought, though

    • Show All
  • A-man-22
    The first thing we need after the 31st is an election for a new prime minister.

    Boris and Teresa weren't voted in and have been showing that they would have never gotten in under regular terms.

    Boris can't stay in legal terms as well.
    • I totally agree with you.

      He needs to resign or there needs to be a vote of no confidence. We need Corbyn! <3

  • Edanurus
    I dont think resigning is going to do any good. The extension we have ends next month and we're nowhere near a solution to brexit.

    Also what law has he broken? He made a proposal, was told it was illegal and so its not happening.

    I may not like the guy but I'll defend him if I believe its correct. The threat that its written here forever doesn't phase me.
    • It's not a threat, that it will be written here forever, it is a fact. If you choose to see it as a threat then that is on you.

      He suspended Parliament. It was deemed an unlawful suspension because (quote the high court) "no reason, let alone a good reason" to suspend Parliament. Boris Johnson believes the UK high court was wrong. Isn't that similar to what a criminal would say once they have been convicted? Is that correct?

    • Edanurus

      'I dare you...' I don't know how else to take that other than it being the threat that if you defend him there are consequences, right?

      I was wrong that he hasn't broken the law but my question still stands. What has he done thats illegal?

  • ObscuredBeyond
    Now if only the smear campaign against Tommy Robinson could be undone. I saw a video of him, asking various Antifa goons why they despise him so much. They couldn't form a single coherent argument. So he simply laughed at them, and they responded by threatening to harm his children. But he's the "terrorist"? NWO types need to get thermal depolymerized.
  • Katerina_Belle
    No not really.

    John Major suspended parliament for like 3 weeks back in 1997.
    • You talk about "back in 1997" but talk about what happened today.

      Today Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament got deemed illegal.

    • But nothing has actually happened... and it still hasn’t served justice though. It merely serves as a disapproval of a proposal made by Bojo.

      Injustice has already incurred and will continue to incur especially given the fake propaganda promoted by Farage and Bojo during the referendum campaign.

      As usual all of that has been brushed under the rug. The government now need to deliver the Brexit result and they’re failing miserably.

      You should realise that politicians are all talk. You really think Bojo would have realistically shut down parliament? And then done what?

      It’s all a farce, a distraction from a finalised Brexit deal.

  • Ámayas_20
    He was advised to do something which he did because he though it was right, it was proven to be illegal and now parliament is open again. Honestly some people really like to make shit shows out of nothing, boris hasn't in this case broken the law it's scary that as a supposed law student you don't understand that. He's a shitty PM yup but at least he's better than our other option and will actually carry out brexit.
  • White-American89
    Sounds like the judges over rides democracy but then again Britain is not really a democracy.
    • The public did not vote for Parliament to be suspended. The government actually suspended Parliament without letting the members of Parliament (who are elected by the public) have a say, nor did the government let the public vote about whether Parliament should be shut or not, so this was immoral and illegal and those judges confirmed that yesterday.

    • The public voted for BREXIT

    • Based on lies. Turns out we do not pay £350 million to the EU, like Johnson claimed. See the politicians like Farage and Johnson only told us one side of the story, they failed to tell us both sides so we can come to a decision ourselves.

      fullfact.org/.../

      Stephen Fry tells us the truth, Allah bless:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o

    • Show All
  • Gedaria
    Sorry , they set a president. Next time someone doesn't like what a elected government does not like they go to court. Taking away the Democracy of the country. This was a stunt to stop brexit. Nothing more, majority voted to leave the minority are doing as all they can to break that vote. Just be careful what you think is a good result...
  • wankiam
    great mytake... shame the memo never got through to boris but did you really imagine it would?
  • N192K001
    I'm torn on this, so I'm glad that I'm not a U. K. citizen that has to deal with it directly affecting my life.

    In 1 sense, enforce a vote of direct-democracy (which may or may not have been made in an informed manner) by autocratic means or to demand continued representative-democracy via legislature (whose individual members may or may not have the public's benefit in mind) that may move to negate the direct directive of the voting citizenry.

    This seems to be the result of unclear, oversimplified wording in the vote: 'Leave' or 'Remain'? Had they replaced 'Leave' with the specific arrangements (return Ireland, install checkpoints at the inter-Irish border, etc.), the way forward would probably be clearer for the Executive & Legislative branches.

    Instead, P. M.'s May & Johnson seem to have been hired for an impossible enforcement job.
  • Oram52
    I completely agree it was dictatorial. Under no circumstances PM be allowed to shut down parliment. I agree results of referendum should be honoured as it is democracy, however people didn't vote for hard Brexit. Only 37% of people agree with it.

    It is unacceptable such things be tolerated in democracy. However MPs should honour referendum results and should've voted for deal Theresa May secured. That's also undemocratic to ignore referendum results.

    I think there should be 2nd referendum now, choice between stay or hard Brexit, if MPs can't agree on new deal.
  • Agape93
    Unanimous against the British trump. Now if only our courts were that unpartisan
  • Xyline789
    Wasn't he just suspending it for a week or two because the other time was going to be shut down anyway?
    • What do you mean by "the other time?"

      As far as I am aware, Johnson informed the British public that he believed it was necessary to suspend parliament for 5 weeks to allow for a new Queen's speech.

  • Sevenpointfive
    i didn't vote for him
    • Nobody did. Literally, he was voted in by the Conservative party because Theresa May resigned.

      And you wouldn't have anyway because you live in America.

    • i know lol. i thought you'd appreciate a stupid comment, but it must be serious to you

  • madgoat
    We need the Scots to save us from the Etonians.
  • Texaskid1
    Except for the Queen. She is above the law.
Loading...