🔴UK'S "UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION" ALLOWS AUTHORITARIAN ABUSE OF POWERS BY THE PRIVILEGED:

🔴THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN IN "DEMOCRATIC" COUNTRIES

🔴SUPREME COURT VERDICT

🔴DID JOHNSON LIE TO THE QUEEN?

A protester dressed as Boris Johnson outside the supreme court in central London. Photograph: Hollie Adams/Getty Images

LADY HALE:
A CARRIER OF BREAKING BARRIERS IN THE JUDICIARY
https://youtu.be/rCxJhj7tMkc https://youtu.be/rCxJhj7tMkc

What issues were at stake?

The two main questions before the supreme court were whether Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament for five weeks in the middle of a constitutional crisis over Brexit was lawful, and whether the courts had the authority to intervene. Aidan O’Neill QC, the advocate who led on the anti-prorogation case in Scotland, had insisted the judges had a duty to ensure the prime minister was not abusing his powers.
The UK’s unwritten constitution is a tripartite system, with parliament, government and the courts playing supposedly complementary roles. O’Neill successfully persuaded three senior Scottish judges 13 days ago that Johnson was abusing the government’s powers to suspend parliament in order to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duties to scrutinise and approve the government’s decisions on Brexit.
Yet judges in London and Belfast had ruled in two very similar cases that Johnson’s action was lawful: they supported the government’s views that prorogation was a purely political decision and the courts had no right to interfere.

How did it end up in the supreme court?

The competing English and Scottish court decisions were immediately sent to the UK’s highest court on appeal; the justices rushed back from holiday to fast-track the hearing. A panel of 11 judges was assembled, the largest number they can convene, to hear the case. Twelve judges are on the bench but an odd number must sit to prevent deadlock.

How did the court reach its decision?

Much of the hearing was devoted to the issue of whether Johnson’s decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was “justiciable”, meaning that it could be subjected to examination by a court. Prerogative powers are often subject to legal challenge.
The prime minister’s right to recommend prorogation to a monarch was not in doubt. The question was whether suspending parliament for such a long period at a crucial, constitutional moment without sufficient reason undermined parliament’s authority and duty to subject the government to scrutiny.
The justices sidestepped challenges by government lawyers who claimed the court would have to specify precisely the number of days it would be legal to suspend parliament.
Having decided those questions, the 11 justices then had to address what remedy was appropriate in such politically sensitive circumstances.

The six key paragraphs in the supreme court's verdict

Did Boris Johnson lie to the Queen?

The inner house of the Scottish court of sessions concluded Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament”.

The supreme court in London, however, avoided making direct, personal criticism of the prime minister. It decided simply that the effect of a lengthy, parliamentary suspension at this time was unlawful. “We are not concerned with the prime minister’s motive in doing what he did,” the justices ruled.

Supreme court rules prorogation 'unlawful, void and of no effect' – video

They subjected the reasons given in cabinet documents, however, to searching analysis. Johnson, they said, was neglecting his wider constitutional responsibilities. “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court,” the judges said.

What conclusions did the court reach?

The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and Johnson’s advice subject to the law. Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.”

They then ruled the decision 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 added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”

In the most striking part of its ruling, addressing remedy, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords could reconvene both houses immediately. The UK judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that the prorogation was null and void. They also stated the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed”. In effect, Hale said “parliament has not been prorogued”.

Parliament to resume after supreme court ruling, says Bercow

What are the constitutional implications of the ruling?

By stating in such unambiguous terms that Johnson’s prorogation was illegal, it will make it extremely difficult for the prime minister to suspend parliament again immediately for anything other than a few days. The former prime minister Sir John Major gave evidence that preparation for a Queen’s speech at the start of a new session typically required only four to six days.
The court’s unanimous conclusion in upholding parliamentary sovereignty – consistent with its ruling in the article 50 case in 2017 – places firm limits on the power of the executive and helps empower MPs.
Resolving such a crucial political crisis will inevitably enhance the supreme court’s role as vital pivot in the UK'S UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION.
Other Brexit-related cases are already queuing up to lodge appeals. The justices will find it difficult to deny they are becoming a constitutional court.

UK POLITICS IN CHAOS

🔴 UNCERTAINTY IS THE MOTHER OF ALL EVILS AND THE GREATEST FEAR GENERATOR

🔴 UNBELIEVERS FALL EASILY TO THIS "STATE OF MIND" WHEN THEY BREAK THEIR OWN LAWS, ABUSING POWER, AND / OR COMMITTING "CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY {E.g Gps-Microchips Deployed On A NEGROID And Feeling Too CAUCASOID To Say Sorry}

WE ARE YET TO SAY SORRY FOR THE PART PLAYED IN THE HOLOCAUST OR SLAVERY:

✔THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS USUALLY THE WRONG THING TO DO

✔HUMAN BEINGS ACT OUT OF FEAR WHEN THEY THINK, USING DECEIT, DEVIOUSNESS ETC;
▪THEY CAN LEGISLATE THEMSELVES OUT BY PASSING "UNDEMOCRATIC LAWS" {Or Proroguing Parliament}
▪THEY CAN MAKE VICTIM OF TORTURE FEARFUL
▪THEY CAN CHANGE A JUDGEMENT MADE BY GOD:

🔴INSTEAD OF SEEKING GODS LOVE AND FORGIVENESS, THEY USE THEIR DEVILISH INSTINCTS, TO TRY AND CHANGE THE COURSE I.E:

●PASSING "UNDEMOCRATIC" LAWS TO FURTHER TORTURE

●MISLEADING PARLIAMENT

●PROROGUING PARLIAMENT

●COERCION TECHNIQUES

●AUTHORITARIAN ANTI-SEMITISM AND SLAVERY

●MISLEADING OR ESSENTIALLY LIEING TO HER MAJESTY

●REFUSING TO OBEY GUILTY VERDICTS BY UK COURTS AND EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS

ETC

🔴EFFECTS OF THE ABOVE IN SOCIETY

✔RISE IN ANTI-SEMITISM

✔RISE IN SLAVERY/RACISM

✔UNDEMOCRATIC NATION {Where Two Rules Apply; One For The Privileged Another For The Poor, Vulnerable And / Or Black}

✔A SUPPRESSIVE CULTURE {Slavery}
✔DISCRIMINATION {Religious, Race Etc}

✔DEVIOUSNESS

✔DISHONESTY

✔DECEPTIONS

✔DECEIT

✔WHITE DICTATORSHIP

✔AUTHORITARIAN SYSTEM

✔SOCIETY BREAK DOWN

✔RISE IN KNIFE CRIME

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-torture-mi5

MOST OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARE HAPPENING ALREADY:
BY THE WAY THE PICTURES ARE REAL AND DESCRIBES AN AUTHORITARIAN MODERN FORM OFSLAVERY, ONGOING:

🔴A MODERN FORM OF SLAVERY

AUTHORITY OR GOVERNMENT LABELS ALL NEGROIDS GUILTY OF ALLEGED CRIMES, {Before Any Trial} IT FINDS YOU GUILTY BY MICROCHIPPING YOU:
DURING SLAVERY THEY USED *CHAINS, HOWEVER, NOW THEY USE *GPS-MICROCHIPS

🔴IF YOU PROTEST OR ATTEMPT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE:
"SEVERE-HEART-WRENCHING-SPASMODIC-TEARING PAINS"
FROM THE MICROCHIP:

✔THEY DECLARE YOU MAD OR INSANE, USING MENTAL HEALTH OR THE METROPOLITAN POLICE