Brexit Correction

The subsequent claim of the opposition parties that Johnson‘s action [in proroguing Parliament] was ‘illegal’ demands further scrutiny. How could a man avoid transgressing a law which did not exist until defined by the Supreme Court after the event? One, moreover, which might (or might not) subsequently have been devised to outlaw the very action he was contemplating?

That is what I said in my post (The Death of Brexit, below).

A kind correspondent informs me that in Common Law such judgments have a puzzlingly metaphysical dimension. Court decisions of this kind operate retrospectively – that is to say that what nobody knew to be the case before the judgement was arrived at is assumed always have been the case; and ignorance of that fact is no excuse.

Poor Boris! For him there was no escape. Such is justice; such apparently is the Law.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is an ass “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s