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”.