Political parties across Britain and Ireland have urged British Prime Minister
Boris Johnson to resign following an unprecedented ruling today by the
Supreme Court in London that his suspension of the Westminster
parliament was unlawful.
Protesters celebrated outside the Supreme Court in London after judges
ruled that Johnson’s advice to the English queen to prorogue Westminster
for five weeks was unlawful.
The decision of the eleven judges on the panel was announced by the
court’s president Lady Hale. She said this was not a normal prorogation
of parliament, and it took place in “quite exceptional circumstances”.
“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.
The speaker of the British House of Commons has said that Westminster
will resume its business tomorrow morning.
The decision is another black day for a political establishment and a
system of governance which have crumbled under the failure to agree a
deal to leave the European Union.
Despite a unanimous decision, there were lingering doubts over whether
Johnson’s extreme-right administration would even recognise the
parliament’s return. He has previously declared his willingness to
ignore the rule of law in pursuit of a Brexit deadline of October 31.
Today, Johnson said he “strongly disagrees” with the court ruling but
that he accepted that Westminster “will come back”.
Speaking from New York he said: “As the law currently stands, the UK
leaves the EU on October 31st come what may. But the exciting thing for
us now is to get a good deal, and that is what we are working on. And to
be honest it is not made much easier by this kind of stuff in parliament
or in the courts.”
Sinn Fein vice-president Michelle O’Neill said today was “another one of
those meltdown moments” for the current Tory regime and that “Boris
Johnson should go”.
“What is demonstrates for me is more of the chaos, the dysfunction, the
mess that is happening and unfolding day on day in Westminster.”
Opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Johnson’s contempt for
democracy and his abuse of power had been exposed.
“A Labour government would want to be held to account. I invite Boris
Johnson in the historic words to consider his position.”
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson said the judgement “confirms what we
already knew – Boris Johnson isn’t fit to be prime minister. He’s misled
queen and country, and unlawfully silenced the people’s
representatives.”
Sinn Fein President Mary Lou McDonald said the judgement was a
“constitutional earthquake” which reflected the chaos that has arisen.
“Boris Johnson needs to understand that Ireland will not be the
collateral damage for his Tory Brexit ambitions,” she said.
“It comes as no surprise that the Tory party would disregard democracy.
“The British Government has ridden roughshod over the democratic will of
the people of the north of Ireland who did not consent to Brexit and who
voted to remain.
“Brexit has been driven by the hardliners in the Tory party. It is our
job to defend our national interests. The backstop, in its entirety, is
the bottom line to protect Irish rights and agreements. It is imperative
that Irish leaders remain steadfast in this position. Now is not the
time to blink.
“We should not be distracted by the ongoing drama at Westminster. We
need a united front to stand up for our people, to protect our
livelihoods and our hard-won peace agreements. Planning must also start
for constitutional change and ultimately, the ending of partition in
Ireland.”
The DUP oppose the Good Friday Agreement …When Unionists talk about consent, read a veto. It’s useful to remind the Irish government of that.
Brian Feeney. Irish News. Belfast. Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Fundamentally Ulster unionism came into existence over a century ago as a political route to avoid living on equal terms with the rest of the people on this island.
Of course, there were other elements in the mix like bigotry, ethnic hatred, anti-Catholicism, notions of supremacy, though supporting all those reasons was not a necessary requirement for supporting Unionism. As a political ploy however, Unionism acted as an umbrella for all those elements; it filled the bill.
The latest ploy Unionism has taken up is the notion of consent. They claim, on the basis of nothing whatsoever, that there can’t be any Brexit deal that doesn’t have Unionist consent. Some in the DUP even claim that any deal without their say-so would be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement.
That’s an astonishing piece of hypocrisy, even for Unionists. After all, the DUP oppose the Good Friday Agreement, though, whisper it, they accidentally signed up to it in the Confidence and Supply Agreement with Theresa May, so eager were they to land it. Nevertheless, one of their chief spokesmen on Brexit, Jeffrey ‘I could live with 40,000 job losses’- Donaldson, walked out on David Trimble [defecting to the DUP] on the day of the GFA. Now it’s the holy grail.
On the other hand, it never occurred to the DUP to seek the consent of Nationalists for Brexit before they rushed off to Westminster to advocate the hardest Brexit which would guarantee a newly solidified British Border in Ireland. Their leader in Westminster, Deputy ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’- Dawds—in defiance of a substantial majority in The North—has spent the last three years misrepresenting people here without ever asking the consent of that majority.
Some people, who should know better, have bought the DUP line that they must consent to any change here. Fine Gael Minister Pascal Donohoe last week rejected the DUP claim that their consent to any backstop was needed, but then added that it is possible to ‘amplify’ the consent provisions in the GFA. No it isn’t. What the DUP are trying to do is to extend the requirement that the consent of a majority in The North is required for constitutional change – and note, it’s the consent of a majority – into a guarantee that consent of political Unionism, now a minority, is needed for any change. In other words, an attempt to resurrect the Unionist veto which political Unionism wielded since their military wing the UVF[Ulster Volunteer Force] brought the gun into Irish politics in 1913. They lost it in 1985. Surely that’s not what Donohoe was implying?
The notion of parallel consent applies only to measures introduced by a party in a Stormont Assembly, if one ever reassembles, not to measures introduced by a UK government. After all, the UK government has made provision for abortion here despite Unionist dissent. Besides, the idea that a regional Assembly could somehow decide what divergence from EU standards in food or manufactured goods could be permitted is something Brussels could never accept.
Last year, Lord Trimble and his adviser, Unionist historian Lord Bew, toyed with the idea of going to court to show that absence of Unionist consent for measures in Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, especially the “Backstop”, contravened the GFA. It’s telling that, on mature reflection, as Brian Lenihan used to say, they decided to save their money.
Luckily, despite the willingness of Irish ministers to ‘understand the fears of Unionists’, curiously never needing to consider the fears of Nationalists, the EU will not allow such appeasement because it would damage the Single Market. Michel Barnier has pointed out this red line explicitly in the last week. Equally Michelle O’Neill has made it clear Sinn Féin would never accept an arrangement whereby the DUP would be able to exercise a veto in an Assembly or anywhere else.
When Unionists talk about consent, read a veto. It’s useful to remind the Irish government of that.
An established Fire Life Safety Company in New York is looking to hire a Fire Life Safety Director with a F-89 for a hi-rise setting in Lower Manhattan. The company is looking for individuals with high rise experience.
Candidates must be flexible and be available days and evenings, including part of the weekend. Candidates must be professional and willing to accommodate the schedule given by the Site Supervisor.
Applicants should be willing to train, and be motivated and committed individuals with the ability to think on their feet and respond appropriately in the event of emergency incidents.
Both full-time and part-time positions are available. Salary is $29.00/hour.
A banner erected along Lisburn Road in south Belfast earlier this year. Picture by Ann McManus
Brendan Hughes
UVF flags in Cantrell Close in south-east Belfast
A COUNCIL bid to force a Stormont department to remove all unauthorised banners would have a disproportionate adverse impact on unionists, internal legal advice said.
Belfast City Council had sought to take legal action against the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) to remove from its property all paramilitary flags and unapproved banners.
The original Sinn Féin motion had sought for the council to take legal action against DfI forcing them to remove all paramilitary flags and all unauthorised banners erected in the absence of agreed community protocols.
Subscribe to our most read headlines in the evening newsletter
It had followed criticism of banners across the north supporting ‘Soldier F’, a former paratrooper facing a murder trial over Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972.
Legal opinion was sought after unionist councillors challenged the motion through the ‘call-in’ process, which examines whether a decision was properly reached or would adversely affect a section of the community.
UVF flags in Cantrell Close in south-east Belfast
The legal advice found that taking legal action against DfI to remove paramilitary flags would not have an adverse impact.
However, it found that such efforts to remove “all banners” would adversely and disproportionately impact the ‘PUL (Protestant Unionist Loyalist) community’.
It said that the scope of the motion was wide enough to include flags, and that erecting public banners and flags in the north is mainly linked to the PUL community.
The advice also concluded that the decision taken in July had not been properly considered as there had been no equality screening.
Last week, a majority of councillors on the city’s Strategic Policy and Resources Committee agreed to a city-wide flag consultation “on the presence of flags and banners in the city”.
The decision is set to be ratified at the next full council meeting in October, while the format and details of the consultation will the discussed at a later stage.
DUP councillor David Graham said his party has been “consistently opposed to the flying of any paramilitary flags” but dismissed the consultation as “politically contrived”.
“There has been clear legal advice to the council that the PUL community would be unfairly impacted due to the cultural and historical traditions within that community,” he said.
Alliance councillor Emmet McDonough-Brown welcomed the consultation plan.
“The unregulated and illegal flying of flags from lampposts is without doubt a significant issue for a lot of people living and working in Belfast, judging by the volume of correspondence we receive as elected representatives,” he said.
A Stormont body set up in 2016 to address flags issues – the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) – has yet to issue any recommendations.
Irish News. Belfast, Wednesday, September 25, 2919
VINDICATED : Raymond McCord THE Supreme Court ruling that Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended parliament represents a victory for the whole of Northern Ireland, a victims campaigner who challenged the prime minister’s move claimed yesterday. Hours after undergoing major surgery, a jubilant Raymond McCord declared himself fully vindicated by the unanimous decision reached by 11 justices in London who examined the prorogation step taken in the lead up to Brexit. The Belfast man also called on any critics who questioned his legal action to issue an apology. Speaking from his hospital bed after undergoing surgery, he said: “I couldn’t have got better news when I woke up after coming out of theatre. “This is a victory against Boris Johnson for all the people of Northern Ireland, not just for me or Remainers. “It shows the government can’t just treat us any way they want.” Mr. McCord was granted permission to participate at the Supreme Court hearing into the legality of Downing Street’s decision to shut down parliament for five weeks before the October 31 deadline for leaving the EU. His lawyers argued that the suspension was wrong, and aimed at forcing through a no-deal Brexit. Northern Ireland would suffer worse than any other UK region, they contended. It formed part of the campaigner’s wider challenge to quitting the EU without an agreement, with arguments about an alleged breach of the Good Friday Agreement still being examined by appeal judges in Belfast. Ciaran O’Hare of McIvor Farrell law firm added: “My client has stood up to defend Northern Ireland against this unconstitutional decision to suspend parliament, whilst the vast majority of our politicians have taken a back seat and not voiced the case for Northern Ireland. “He hopes that parliament will now resume its business and will not be stymied in terms of having its say in regards to Brexit.”
