Boris JohnsonBrexitLawPolitics

Try reversing it, then get back to me

As I posted on Tim Newman’s most excellent blog this morning:

Legal judgements at this level are very subjective. For those that are insisting that Tony Blair’s ‘Supreme Court’ has made the right judgement, I ask you whether you really think that this court, packed with staunch Remainers and progressive activists, would really have come up with exactly the same reasoning and judgement had the Remainers been in power and prorogued Parliament just as Boris did for the purpose of preventing Brexit.


Pig’s arse they would have.

To which someone replied:

You’re missing a crucial point here; the Govt’s official position was that proroguing Parliament was nothing to do with Brexit. So either you think the decision to prorogue was dishonest and therefore you basically agree with the court’s finding. Or, you believe the Govt official position and therefore the court decision is trivial and any Remainer bias is irrelevant. Surely there has to be some level of intellectual consistency?

My response was this:

Why is whatever reason the government gives a court matter in the first place? Don’t you think that if things were the other way around that “Tony Blair’s Supreme Court” would say ‘”Nothing to do with us guv”, or, if forced to make a decision, they’d say “It’s all fine, it’s not for us to infer dishonesty”, or “Whether or not there’s any dishonesty is irrelevant, Parliament has been prorogued before, it’s no biggie, it’s only three days longer than the traditional break”.


Share this article on social media:

2 thoughts on “Try reversing it, then get back to me

  1. We know what it was. It was a group of powerful remainers giving Boris and his government a metaphorical kick in the nuts. It also violated the Bill of Rights regardless of what they said because, the monarch is part of parliament not just the two houses. So their definition of parliament was wrong. They did interfere in parliamentary process which the Bill of rights says they must not do.

  2. We’re dealing with lawyers here, they are all accomplished liars. They stand up in court and spout lies on behalf of their clients day in day out, stuff they ‘know’ is lies, but because its plausibly true (‘my client is very remorseful Your Honour’) they get away with it. In fact I think they do it so often they have actually convinced themselves they’re not lying. Hence the maiden aunt impression when anyone accuses the legal profession of political bias – ‘Judges??? Biased??? How could you, we are all as pure as the driven…’ etc etc ad infinitum.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *