Frustrating parliament by avoiding debate

“LOCK her up, lock her up”: the chants from the Republican loyalists to Donald Trump referring to Hilary Clinton in the 2016 election campaign. This diatribe was sanctioned by emails indicating Mrs Clinton may have had communications outside government channels with foreign parties considered to be unconstitutional and improper.

The High Court originally upheld the application for the British government decision to prorogue parliament, but now a Scottish court believes the suspension of parliament to be flawed on the basis that the application put to the Queen was unlawful. Simply put, it seems the Scottish judges have had access to documents (emails, texts) not previously available, which seems to indicate the Queen may have been misled by Mr Johnson in his original application.

The application would have been to prorogue parliament in order to seek a mandate to fulfil government policies, however it seems the true intention (suspected by many) was to frustrate parliament by avoiding Brexit debate.

The Supreme Court will revisit this on Tuesday and rule (contrary to Mr Farage’s initial assertion of judicial bias, who I note has now retracted that original evaluation) on the evidence and the rule of law. If the evidence is there, then the court will rule as the Scottish judges did.

Has this new world of the ‘Nasty Party’ come to be the downfall of Mr Johnson?

Misleading the Queen?

“Lock him up, lock him up”?

Bryan Griffiths, Bedworth