Breaking News

Supreme Court rules Johnson’s suspension of Parliament unlawful

Speaker says Commons must resume

The Supreme Court has agreed with the Scottish Supreme Court that Boris Johnson’s ‘proroguing’ of Parliament was unlawful.

Commons Speaker John Bercow has called for the immediate resumption of Commons proceedings.

Downing Street said it was ‘processing the verdict’. Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings is reported to have told aides this month that the constitutional crisis had barely begun.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. “Downing Street said it was ‘processing the verdict’. Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings is reported to have told aides this month that the constitutional crisis had barely begun.”
    Translation: Cummings is projectile shitting himself at Number Ten – prognosis dire.

    1. I’m beginning to think we may be at a turning point and that a year from now the BBC will be explaining knowingly why everybody missed the significance of this episode in the complete downfall of the Tories.
      Bercow just stated the HoC opens tomorrow at 11.30am.
      PMQ’s I hope.

  2. Latest episode in the Remain coup against the 17.4 million Leave voters by the establishment elite, with the judiciary playing their customary role of keeping the working class down.

    This was politics, not law. How many of those Justices voted Leave? Who elected them? How do we get rid of them?

    Corbyn and Labour siding with the establishment elite as per usual.

    The Commons had ample opportunity to no-confidence Johnson or to pass an emergency Act against the prorogation (they passed the Benn bill ater all). Since the Labour Left is now overwhelmingly left-liberal as opposed to being democratic socialist, they will doubtless applaud this move (latest in a long line) towards a more judiciary-empowered British constitution.

    1. Yeah, right, Dummy. All the so-called ‘lawyers’ being interviewed expressing shock – when the 11 most senior judges in the land were unanimous.
      And Dummy calling for them to be ‘got rid of’.
      Pretentious fucking ‘professor’.

    2. Danny….you know as well as all of us that big changes will happen after this fiasco.Basically the new wtitten costitution and a bill of rights and removal of the royal prerogative with full sovereignty of an elected parliament.The British public will not accept any more rubbish from our politicians and leaving it to a court to defend democracy is unacceptable.

    3. Danny 24/9/19 11.34 am

      “”Corbyn and Labour siding with the establishment elite as per usual””

      I had seen some value in some of your previous posts but this just seems moronic .

      In what nightmare did you get this from ?

    4. If there ever is a Leftish future Labour government they will rue the day the entirely ruling class- based higher judiciary gained the power to overrule a government. A Corbyn government would be taken to court every week by the likes of Gina Miller, on behalf of her Big Business backers !

      The Left Liberals who now compose the majority of the supposed Left simply don’t grasp that the state machine , including the judiciary are not neutral. This judgement will come back to bite the Left, but not for many years , given Labour’s adoption of a suicidal Brexit policy yesterday.

      1. Penny no incoming Labour government will leave it to the judiciary to defend democracy and any Labour government will on taking office put forward a written constitution and the removal of the royal prerogative.If they didn’t then any government would be vulnerable to a public that want change whatever the politicians think You are experienced in politics and you must realise that the country will and have to change.Corbyns not perfect but he will deliver and we have to have a Democratic socialist Labour government now!

      2. The courts have a reputation to uphold – they’re about the only organ of the establishment that can be relied upon to make decisions relatively impartially.
        Sure, property is king.
        Certainly the poor are held more likely to be guilty – but judges decide as impartially as anyone of an establishment mindset could be expected to – in a system biased in favour of property.
        Many speak up for a return to the legal aid provisions axed by the Tories.
        I’d choose the courts over a Tory government any time.
        A Labour government acting for the people need fear less from the British courts than from the MSM, the army, the police or the security services. In fact we’ll be relying heavily on the courts for protection from those levers of Tory misrule.

      3. Ha’Penny.

        Your allegiance to the constitutional integrity exhibited by Hitler Stalin, and sundry tin pots is duly noted. Thanks for the confirmation and clarification – they always pretend to be on the side of ‘The People’. You could try something original.

      4. The naive Left Liberal politics of some of our pro Corbyn posters are showing here ! (Mind you, that supposed ‘ex-Marxist’, Paul Mason, nowadays thinks the state machine will protect our rights against the forces of the capitalist status quo ! ). I’ve no objection to a written constitution, the current unworkable part federal, part centralist, legislative set-up, the role of the unelected House of Lords, the role of the monarch, etc, etc, all need radical reform. But that Written Constitution will be adjudicated on by the Courts. The judiciary aren’t neutral, they are real life people drawn from social classes, with distinct class perspectives and interests. The UK senior judiciary, and the higher up military men, are overwhelmingly drawn from the very limited inter-married ranks of the UK hereditary ruling class, united by history, family, education and social connections. It is naivety of the worst kind to see the judiciary , in any country, as neutral in politically charged cases. Any Labour government trying to implement a Left agenda that threatens the class interests ( ie, their wealth and power) of the wider family-based capitalist class connections of the senior judges, will find it is facing a very partisan blocking force, not an independent judiciary.

        As for the incoherent ramblings of the perpetual paid troll, RH, his ‘comments’ simply highlight that his own politics are drawn entirely from the septic tank sloganising of the Daily Mail and other rabidly anti-socialist MSM organs. Where did you dredge up that non sequitur incoherent ‘Hitler, Stalin’ stuff from, you loony ? Bit of a giveaway for you there , RH ! You don’t want to make it too obvious that you are a daft Tory troll.

      5. Make that “ignored for nearly half a century”, junior !
        Is that Steve H’s dual personality posting ?

      6. The SP didn’t ‘gain’ the power today, pink pinny, it had the power all the time.
        Given that your whole schtick is that the European courts will prevent Labour carrying out its redistributive policies you ought to have known that.
        You must have the memory of a goldfish.

      7. As I’ve written here before, the courts can only act when they’re presented with cases to judge.
        Previously it’s been in regard to the AS scam.
        Too late now to make that happen before an election but if we’d challenged the liars in the beginning we’d have had their and the MSM’s fucking trousers down in court.

    5. Looking to replace Cummings, Danny? – I can see you’ve been writing a speech for Johnson.

      Just get it over with and join the Brexit Party since you’re so keen on their policies and populist rants.

      Your inability to grasp the *principle* of the rule of law indicates a bear of little brain. The attempt at arguing against the ruling is indeed pathetic.

  3. This is historic. I await the analysis of what it means from a range of opinion over the next days and weeks.

    Personally it’s been pleasant to have a slightly longer break from the tired old, going nowhere, soap opera that this Parliament has become.

    1. I post this thought provoking article, that is not from a left perspective but fairly neutral, mainly as a reminder of the changes Blair and Cameron/Clegg Govs made that have led in a major part to the ineffective, faction fighting Parliament we have had for years and the consequences of creating the supreme court etc.

      I believe we do need to read and discuss widely and think very carefully about major constitutional changes that have happened and may be proposed.

      1. “… in the Anglo-Celtic world, today, radicals are deadest [deadset] against the torch of liberty …. might well be drafted by the likes of a fiend [huh?] Tony Blair rather than by the likes of an enlightened and wise man like Thomas Jefferson.”

        Jefferson – yeah, right. Slave owner and slave rapist, master/slave sex being rape by definition.

        I can’t help thinking this dross was written by a bot.
        Eurasia Future calls itself a think tank but all articles (on page one anyway) are written by ‘Adam Garrie’ and his opinions are mutton dressed as lamb.

        eg. “Energy Self-Sufficiency Avoids Wars – The Green Cult Starts Them” or “The Green Movement is a Pro-War Movement” or “Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats Are The True Winners of Labour’s Conferece” [sic]

      2. Fine David, I posted the article for a reminder of the laws passed to provoke thought but I see your intention is to discredit the article entirely.

        That’s your right.

        Blair will never, ever be defended by me on any subject. His Gov laid the groundwork for many changes towards ‘privatise (and reshape) the world’ agenda of ‘centrists’ .

      3. ps, Garrie is not a ‘bot’ as you insultingly call him.

      4. Indeed, Maria, he writes perceptively for the Duran and appears often on RT’s Crosstalk.

      5. Maria, I didn’t actually call him a bot, just that the writing made me think it might be.
        On the substance, I would favour a single document constitution (but not virtually immutable, as in the US model) mostly because the alternative is worse, allowing charlatans constantly to poke it with a stick to see if it gives or resists.
        Prorogation to handcuff parliament would be established had the SC given in as Cox anticipated, instead of resisting.
        “Bill of Rights” would better fit my idea of the purpose of such a document.

        I’m surprised you don’t find the putatively global, single-author “think tank” with a PayPal button as suspect as I do.

      6. Most of the independent writers and journalist sites I follow have paypal or Patreon buttons/links they have no other funding. Re the think tank thing, why not be a thinker? Don’t really know about the tank, I suggest you ask Garrie to explain it.
        Most think tanks are wildly partisan and working towards a larger agenda and are often Gov funded via Gov institutions and then ‘advise’ Gov!

        Plenty of posters on here for eg. post like ‘bots’ but I would never express my opinion on that in public, I have been on the receiving end of such indirect slurs so know how it feels.

        Not sure what you mean by putatively Global? Do you mean Globalist? My impression is Garrie takes a Global perspective, I try to as well.
        I never start out suspicious of anyone but it doesn’t take much for me to become suspicious of everything they do and say, perhaps from bitter experience, Garrie has never made me feel that way even though I often don’t agree with him. Not to put Garrie in the same box but Hitchens and Oborne I trust to be genuine as well. Not agreeing with someone is not the same as them being untrustworthy or having a nefarious agenda in my book.

        Anyway, Garrie does lay out steps that changed things in UK fundamentally. I thought it was important to revisit them in light of current events and for a way to ‘control’ or limit future UK Govs.

        I’m no fan of single document bills of rights, they tend to try to bestow on us rights we already inalienably have and have won, when laws can only take rights we have away as a punishment. I wouldn’t trust anything as important to politicised legal ‘experts’ and Parliament in contemporary UK. As I said any troublesome rights given to us (urgh) would just be ignored if wiggle room wasn’t built into such a document, which these days you bet it would be.

        Many don’t seem to care but the Assange case, as well as a human rights and legal atrocity, is also of vital importance in maintaining free speech and freedom to publish in the public interest which is already being closed down even by people shouting down their peers they don’t agree with.

        I see i’ve fallen into ramble mode again, I thought I’d cracked that.

  4. Two presumably Tory fucktards being interviewed just now – both claiming that the unwritten constitution has been proven to work – ignoring the fact that a private individual had to bring the case that settled the legality of prorogation.
    We need a written constitution that leaves the monarch and the house of lords out of the business of government completely, and parliament’s sovereignty recognised as only conditionally gifted to it by the people.

    1. David spot on and,it comes better from you.I think that some on here see me as an old fenian rebel,and your spelling punctuation etc is better regards on a good day for democracy!

  5. What happens next is probably more interesting, once we’ve got over the unanimity of the Supreme Court ruling.

    So Johnson falls flat on his face again – it could almost have been scripted to teach the lying narcissist a lesson, whilst illustrating what a nonsense is the Tory Party for electing him.

    So what does he do? Double down – or face a confidence vote and try to brazen it out?

    The problem for Labour is that there are sufficient duggies in the electorate who will still back Johnson on the basis that he’s been done down by the ‘establishment’. They aren’t bright enough to spot a serial liar with a record of incompetence and work out that his alliance with Brexit says all that needs to be said about this sad Leave story of national descent into the circus ring.

    The obvious scenario is to bring a GE closer. But, at present, that’s not necessarily to Labour’s advantage in terms of timing, given yesterday’s inconclusiveness and bad hair day – and unfinished business.

    The best thing for Labour would be to let Mr Toad and the Tories twist in the wind for a bit – but that may not be feasible, since *not* pushing for a GE wouldn’t be a good look. In fact, this whole thing could work to Tory advantage if they get their ducks in a line before Labour..

    So … interesting times

    1. The problem for Labour is that there are sufficient duggies in the electorate who will still back Johnson on the basis that he’s been done down by the ‘establishment’.

      Yes, but a fair few of them might also get the hump over him lying to the Queen!

      1. You certainly have a point, timfrom – but my guess is that support for the Court Jester will prevail.

  6. Will this court judgment lead to the largest peace time evacuation off the beaches of our holidaying mps in UK history of parliament.Will our mps be price hiked or do we bring in the RAF…and can the Tory party foot the bill instead of the taxpayer’s

  7. I’ll bet kuenssberg’s circuits are frying right now, desperately trying to compute a way to make this look like a win for the imbecile…

  8. Quite extraordinary we have a known lair and racist PM but also now a criminal … Vote Tory get a criminal PM …

  9. The BBC as usual interviewing blairites. Now S Kinnock saying BoJo should “apologise” to the people. And now the plank reporter changing focus to “Labour incompetence”.

    Bloody unbelievable.

    1. wlbcarepants 24/09/2019 at 12:28 pm

      All too believable , sadly . I don’t watch the BBC “”news”” as they are so predictable . Might as well cut out the middle “”man”” ( allowing for Kuensberg) and get the lies direct from the tory source if one really wanted to increase ones blood pressure .

  10. Under the circumstances conference is bringing Corbyn’s leader speech forward to this afternoon. OH DEAR! I hope Tom Watson’s speech is not going to be rescheduled until tomorrow as a result.

    As it’s likely that by tomorrow everyone will be attending or concentrating on events around Parliament Tom might end up addressing an empty hall with no or very few journalists.

    Oh cruel fate!

  11. So … we have a lying twat of a Tory PM banged to rights with his knickers round his ankles – and there’s still space here given up to slagging off unliked bits of the Labour Party, and utter (fill in the blank)s like Ha’penny and Danny pursuing their own little corner of the extreme ‘Friens of the ERG’ outer darkness moaning about a judiciary showing its independence as being the ‘establishment’.

  12. I saw this headline in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago:

    Tories: “It’s either us or chaos under Corbyn”

    The Conservatives are really good for irony.

  13. Off-topic

    Just realised I hadn’t had Skwawkbox posts for a few days. It seems I was unsubscribed by forces unknown yet again. Last one received at 23:59 on 21 Sept, so I imagine it happened at midnight. Just in time for the conference! Funny, that.

    Anyone else been experiencing weird shit?

    1. Can’t remember… haven’t been getting notifications for a while but sometimes I turn them off when there are too many and they interrupt other stuff.
      Just turned them back on but don’t remember turning them off 3 days ago.

      1. Ha ha very funny. Thought it might’ve been you, all-powerful one!

      2. Heh heh heh… hadn’t occurred to me it could be read as a denial of fallibility by the Notifications Overlord 🙂

      3. But seriously, I wonder if anyone else on here gets this. Creeps me out. Which I guess is the intention!

  14. David McNiven 24/09/2019 at 12:55 pm ·

    David , completely agree .

    Judges , from County Courts upwards , make their decisions based on statutes created by Parliament , subject to the Jury system , and as varied by precedent from Case Law .

    Their decisions are not made on a whim and are open to scrutiny .

    You are quite correct in your caution in trusting the services. Their hierarchy are appointed by politicians and do their bidding in their own self-interest . Instructions that are given behind closed doors .

    The individuals on the ground have no choice but to silently obey their “”superiors”” , or face dismissal .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: