Don’t miss out!

Get all the most important news and events to your inbox.

Lichfield and Burntwood’s MP has said a decision by judges that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament was “a victory for the law but not for democracy”.

The Supreme Court said it was wrong for the Prime Minister to suspend the House of Commons for five weeks in the run-up to the Brexit deadline.

Eleven judges unanimously decided the move was unlawful.

Conservative MP Michael Fabricant said not delivering Brexit would go against the country’s democratic decision.

Lady Hale, the Supreme Court’s president, said the move to suspend Parliament had had an “extreme” impact on the fundamentals of the country’s democracy.

“The decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification,” she said.


Founder of Lichfield Live and editor of the site.

25 replies on “Lichfield and Burntwood MP says Supreme Court decision that Parliament suspension was unlawful is not a victory for democracy”

  1. Oops.

    At 11.43 Amanda Milling, Deputy Chief Whip, sent an email to all Conservative MPs not to make public comment about the Supreme Court judgement.

    She needed to be a bit quicker than that to stop the Twitter twit.

  2. Regardless your views on whether it’s a victory for democracy…. it’s a victory for the rule of law and a victory for the sovereignty of parliament. It’s a loss for bully-boy style government.
    The courts don’t, and indeed cannot, consider the outcome of votes. They just look at the law. If you don’t agree with the law, then vote in a Govt who will change the law in they way that you want. That’s how our laws work. Don’t like it? Go live somewhere else ;¬)

  3. Boris hasn’t even tabled a new deal and frankly the Irish backstop is just a diversion ,taking the eye away from a horrendous deal.
    A deal that was hashed together in Brussels ,favouring the EU by a Government that was so arrogant in the belief the British would vote to stay in the EU they were unprepared for a leave event .
    Now they are finding themselves the puppets of Domenic Cummings
    All Johnston has done has huffed ,puffed and lied his way through what I can only hope will be a very short stay in No.10 and Michael we care lite for your opinion it’s only ever the opinion of the PM of the day .

  4. Is his wig getting too heavy?

    Johnson, Cox, Mogg & Gove all said this [proroguing] was a normal operation of the constitution and nothing to do with Brexit.

    What’s the problem?

  5. “To seek any way to deliver Brexit”? Any way – including misleading the Queen, stopping democratic debate and scrutiny and breaking the law?
    It would seem that Mr Johnson is not the only Member of Parliament who should consider his position.

  6. It is interesting that other law lords have seen the situation differently. The age old question of who judges the judges (or elects them for that matter). Many thought the outcome could be different or certainly not unanimous. To create this presidence might well have long term consequences. Personally I think it was wrong to curtail the business of parliament but then so much is wrong with our legislative assembly it should only be seen in context. A former member of the high court said on television this morning that “Because 52% of the electorate voted to leave it does not mean they should expect 100% of the spoils”. This I find interesting. Does it imply that all winning parties should incorporate part of the opposition manifesto into their intended legislation? Well of course not. Our first past the post system does not work like that. Our voting is based on a time honoured tradition and the losers have to accept the outcome and try harder next time to convince the electorate of the validity of their argument. To cry foul or question the sanity or intelligence of those who came to a different conclusion is not democracy. It is the failure to observe this that has brought us to the present situation. A good agreement on trade and issues of mutual interest is of course desirable. Any agreement that effectively minimises our autonomy is not leaving the EU. Until the result of the 2016 referendum is implemented in the way it was presented to “The People” there is no way forward.

  7. Mr Allso have you ever run a business that is trading with or importing from a UK state. When you have you are free to comment until then do not comment on that which you no nothing about

  8. @Mike…. Please read your comment again and rewrite it so that it makes sense. I would however respectively suggest that my qualifications for expressing opinions do not need your approbation. You do not indicate the basis on which you feel entitled to do so.

  9. @Philip

    Only England & Wales, you forget Scotland, and there are 11 Supreme Court judges and they were unanimous. They were also at pains to explain that this was not about Brexit, something Fabricant has failed to acknowledge, and you in a way.

    The rest is rambling about trade and FPTP and irrelevant.

  10. Darryl, I rather suspect you find everything irrelevant that does not suit your argument. Not great analysis or any attempt to understand a different point of view. I have always stated that our departure from the EU is not entirely desirable and I will not cover old ground again, especially since it appears to be falling on deaf ears. If discussion cannot lead to consensus then it is just ranting. Too much of that on this topic now I think. Incidently I notice that both you and Mike (ML) write under two different headings why is that? Oh, sorry perhaps that is irrelevant.

  11. What has become very apparent from just about any commenter including Mr Fabricant, is that the prorogation was obviously intended to stop Parliament interfering with Government strategy, and not part of ‘normal process’ after all. So the judges were clearly correct.

  12. Well (Asellus aquaticus) that might be an obvious assumption. There have been other instances which other high courts thought as case history in support of the prorogation. I have stated my position above. Was it realy any worse than a parliament preventing a general election because they wanted to thwart the implementation of a public vote? The situation now is that any unfinished bill going through parliament or any Parlamentory committee which feels aggrieved can go to the high court and prevent closure of any Parlamentory session. The law is always about presidence and this ruling has created a new law. I personally do not see that as too clever. Of course parliament can later annul the new law, but what would that say about its introduction? It is far safer for parliament to make laws and not involve the judiciary.

  13. It is not relevant it was an original error that I can’t correct so it is pot luck how it is posted .the posts are what is relevant stop wriggling

  14. Since the Domestic Violence legislation fell due to prorogation, Parliament clearly prevented from doing its business. Its all about massive ££££ for Johnsons backers, a bonfire of legislation, acquiring land and property at fire sale prices and becoming the 51st state. Don’t try to obfuscate like the odious Fabbo.

  15. @Mike…. I don’t “wriggle” Mike. I express opinions under my own name not some pseudonym like you. Give me your name and business number (or just the company name if you were a PLC) and I will research through Companies House to see if you have right to an opinion greater than mine. I try to write honestly and with consideration to others point of view. There is no detail or reasoning in many comments posted on here (yours included). There was nothing wrong with my comment on trade. I will quote it for you again. “A good agreement on trade and issues of mutual interest is of course desirable”. That must hold good wheather you are in or out of the EU. The answer for you is easy; if you don’t like what I write don’t read it! If you are so bigoted in your opinion you will probably not gain anything from it anyway. In any case the editor is the final arbiter of what is published on this site. Give us a detailed account of why bi-lateral trade needs to be approached in a different way and you might gain some respect.

  16. The political disruption is only just starting.

    The opposition parties will soon be tabling a no confidence vote in the government. An emergency government will then be installed.

    Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Jo Swinson probably as Brexit Minister. Ian Blackford will get a high position also.

    They will then say we need 12 – 18 months in control. This will continue past this date. They will then all fall out and there will finally be a general election.

    This parliament is doing very little. Politicians seem to love shouting at each other. Or telling their leaders how wonderful they think they are.

    If any of us behaved at work like this. We would be fired immediately. For them, its a guaranteed salary and loads of expenses.

  17. Philip Allso It would seem as if any disagrees with your thoughts you throw a wobbly. I post under my initials the company I ran was neither a PLC or a LTD company I put my money where my mouth was. It was very successful but no longer in existence so no point in you looking for it.
    Have you owned your own company.

  18. I disagree with you Philip, on many things, but particularly your claim that you simply address points, you do not.

    Your posts ramble on about issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, yes you tend to address the issue in the first instance, but within a short space of time we’re reading about joining the EU, unconstitutional Maastricht issues and the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (the latter point may be an embellishment).

    In respect of the article, Fabricant is wrong, the ruling is in every way a victory for democracy, the ruling specifically acknowledges that it prevents an out of control executive from proroguing parliament at will, in fact they acknowledge the argument put forward that if the prorogation wasn’t found justiciable there were no other barriers in the way to prevent an executive from proroguing parliament to force their own legislative agenda through without dissent from parliament.

    Fabricant is a fool and I hope the citizens of Lichfield can see beyond his populist bluster.

Comments are closed.