International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=339007)

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833843)
The Conservative party doesn't have a majority.

Dave

What happened to the 317 members and the coalition they formed with DUP?

They got 289 votes today.
Where did they go?

Dave Rogers 26th September 2019 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833899)
What happened to the 317 members and the coalition they formed with DUP?

They got 289 votes today.
Where did they go?

You really haven't been following this, have you? They chucked 21 MP's out of the party for voting for the bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Those MPs are now independents, and the Conservative party is well short of having a majority.

Dave

Filippo Lippi 26th September 2019 09:23 AM

Bobs' [sic] gonna Bob

Lothian 26th September 2019 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833839)
Link?

No it is a reference which is what you asked for. If you want a link I am happy to provide one of those annoying ' here let me Google that for you' things that make you feel like an idiot

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833902)
You really haven't been following this, have you? They chucked 21 MP's out of the party for voting for the bill to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Those MPs are now independents, and the Conservative party is well short of having a majority.

Dave

No, I'm not really following. I live a few thousand miles away and no one would describe me as an anglophile.

Why don't the other parties want to suspend for the conference? Are they doing something important? Is it sticking it to the PM? Would having the conference while suspended provide some strategic advantage to conservatives others wish to avoid?


ETA: (Francophile, actually)

Captain_Swoop 26th September 2019 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833832)
Why didn't the Tory majority want to suspend?

They don't haver a majority. Boris kicked a whole load of MPs out.

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12833941)
They don't haver a majority. Boris kicked a whole load of MPs out.

Why would those kicked out oppose suspension?

Lothian 26th September 2019 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833943)
Why would those kicked out oppose suspension?

They were kicked out for wanting to avoid a hard brexit. An election would probably mean a hard brexit as Boris would time it so that we left by default.

Archie Gemmill Goal 26th September 2019 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833943)
Why would those kicked out oppose suspension?

Becaude they just took the government to court to get parliament to sit and would look ******* stupid suspending it days later so the Tories can have a shindig.

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12833955)
Becaude they just took the government to court to get parliament to sit and would look ******* stupid suspending it days later so the Tories can have a shindig.

Are all the other shindigs done?

Mojo 26th September 2019 11:07 AM

Yup.

Pixel42 26th September 2019 11:07 AM

Parliament have just returned to work after being unlawfully suspended against their will. You can't really blame them for refusing to immediately suspend themselves for the convenience of the bugger responsible.

Mojo 26th September 2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833943)
Why would those kicked out oppose suspension?


You think they’ll be going to the conference of a party that’s kicked them out? See the observation from Mr Morganfield.

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12834058)
You think they’ll be going to the conference of a party that’s kicked them out? See the observation from Mr Morganfield.

I don't see why you would impair the ability of others to go to a party you can't attend other than being small.

Lothian 26th September 2019 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834062)
I don't see why you would impair the ability of others to go to a party you can't attend other than being small.

They haven't stopped anyone going to the party. All Tories have have a free choice work or party.

Mojo 26th September 2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834062)
I don't see why you would impair the ability of others to go to a party you can't attend other than being small.


Just think of it as being a bit like seeing a thread about something you don’t really understand and can’t be bothered to learn about, and bogging it down with pointless questions.

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12834085)
They haven't stopped anyone going to the party. All Tories have have a free choice work or party.

I didn't use the word stop.

Nessie 26th September 2019 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833839)
Not to the idea that prorogation is common law.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi.../prorogation1/

"In centuries past, the Sovereign used the power of prorogation to suit his own purposes, both summoning Parliament so it could authorise taxes, and proroguing it to limit its activities and power."


Quote:

Link?
Summary

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...92-summary.pdf

"On 11thSeptember, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect...."

The key word is justiciable. Then;

"The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."

It was the Monarch who had the power to prorogue and as power moved from the Monarch to Parliament, the power moved as well, such that now the Monarch's role is purely ceremonial.

Common law is "the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes."

Nessie 26th September 2019 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12834050)
Parliament have just returned to work after being unlawfully suspended against their will. You can't really blame them for refusing to immediately suspend themselves for the convenience of the bugger responsible.

It will make the Tory Party Conference interesting and possibly not very well attended, as the MPs will need to be at Westminster.

Captain_Swoop 26th September 2019 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834121)
It will make the Tory Party Conference interesting and possibly not very well attended, as the MPs will need to be at Westminster.

Why? they don't have a majority anyway.

Lothian 26th September 2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834107)
I didn't use the word stop.

And....? the choice is still that for each MP. If they want to party nothing that parliament did affects that in any way.

If you have tickets for Beyonce and Taylor Swift decides to have a gig on the same night that doesn't impair your ability to see Beyonce. It is not Taylor Swift's fault if you decide you would rather see her and give up your Beyonce Tickets. It is your choice you are free to see who you want.

P.J. Denyer 26th September 2019 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833926)
No, I'm not really following. I live a few thousand miles away and no one would describe me as an anglophile.

Why don't the other parties want to suspend for the conference? Are they doing something important? Is it sticking it to the PM? Would having the conference while suspended provide some strategic advantage to conservatives others wish to avoid?


ETA: (Francophile, actually)

They are the Parliament of a country facing arguably it's greatest crisis since the Second World War. Yes, they are doing something important.

psionl0 26th September 2019 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834115)
"In centuries past, the Sovereign used the power of prorogation to suit his own purposes, both summoning Parliament so it could authorise taxes, and proroguing it to limit its activities and power."

The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834115)
"On 11thSeptember, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect...."

The words "common law don't appear in that quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834115)
"The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."

The words "common law don't appear in that quote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834115)
It was the Monarch who had the power to prorogue and as power moved from the Monarch to Parliament, the power moved as well, such that now the Monarch's role is purely ceremonial.

Common law is "the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes."

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12834147)
They are the Parliament of a country facing arguably it's greatest crisis since the Second World War. Yes, they are doing something important.

That describes who they are. But what are they doing?

Nessie 26th September 2019 11:55 AM

There was a party political broadcast the Brexit party this evening. Farage complained that May's deal was still giving the EU too much power over the UK and that Johnson is just pushing for something very similar. With time running out I waited with bated breath as to what Farage's plan was.... It turns out he wants a "clean break" so that the UK will get all its power and sovereignty back.

That's it. Farage is selling no deal as if it is a deal. But it is not. There will need to be negotiations to get trade deals, travel, residency, customs etc etc

He is a snake oil salesman.

dudalb 26th September 2019 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834115)
https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi.../prorogation1/

"In centuries past, the Sovereign used the power of prorogation to suit his own purposes, both summoning Parliament so it could authorise taxes, and proroguing it to limit its activities and power."




As anybody with any knowledge of British history should know.....
Hell, anybody who watched "The Tudors" should know that...,

dudalb 26th September 2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12834147)
They are the Parliament of a country facing arguably it's greatest crisis since the Second World War. Yes, they are doing something important.

Hell, I think it is the greatest constituoinal crisis since The Great Civil War...

Nessie 26th September 2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12834153)
The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.

The quotes explain how proroguing is a law, not a parliamentary procedure (it is justiciable) and how that has developed over time rather than by statute, which is how we get common law.


Quote:

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".
Common law originates with the laws passed by the Monarch. Common law precedes the appearance of Parliament. The introduction of Parliament and its development as the body that passed laws in the country resulted in what we call statutory laws.

Mojo 26th September 2019 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12834153)
The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".


Is there legislation governing the procedure for prorogation?

GlennB 26th September 2019 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".

Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12

It wasn't the 'exercise of power by the monarch' that was found to be unlawful in this case - she just did what she was told - but the government's decision.

"In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law) is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals."

[SNIP]

Nessie 26th September 2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12834189)
Is there legislation governing the procedure for prorogation?

No. I have already linked to Parliament's own website where it has prorogation under the evolution of Parliament and its short history of how prorogation started "in centuries past" and how it has developed.

Interestingly, the website has prorogation in the section titled "Offices and Ceremonies"

https://www.parliament.uk/about/livi...nd-ceremonies/

That is what was being argued by some Tories, such as Sir Christopher Chope (he of upskirting fame). They did not think proroguing was a law, they thought it was a procedure set by Parliament. But the SC pointed out that proroguing was a power not set by Parliament, it came from the Monarch and as such is justiciable. It is a law created that allows the Monarch to end Parliaments.

Garrison 26th September 2019 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834160)
There was a party political broadcast the Brexit party this evening. Farage complained that May's deal was still giving the EU too much power over the UK and that Johnson is just pushing for something very similar. With time running out I waited with bated breath as to what Farage's plan was.... It turns out he wants a "clean break" so that the UK will get all its power and sovereignty back.

That's it. Farage is selling no deal as if it is a deal. But it is not. There will need to be negotiations to get trade deals, travel, residency, customs etc etc

He is a snake oil salesman.

And by sovereignty he means MPs and Judges who will simply nod and go along while Farage and his cronies take a wrecking ball to the economy to help his friends in the City asset strip the UK.

Archie Gemmill Goal 26th September 2019 12:46 PM

Ok let me see... reasons for Brexit.

We save 350m a week.... and lose far more in GDP
We take back control of our borders... but have to leave the land border wide open to comply with the GFA and all thr others the same to comply with WTO rules
We take back sovereignty of our law... and then undermine the judiciary who oversee it and promise to break it when ee dont like what it says.
We take back control from the undemocratic EU ... and our unelected PM suspends our own elected parliament so they wont pass legislation he doesnt agree with
And.... well there was something about vaping and buying carrots from Botswana. And ... well thats about it.

Archie Gemmill Goal 26th September 2019 12:59 PM

And its looking more and more like this thing with Boris wasnt just paying 126k to get his dick wet but rather siphoning off funds to an alt right glee club.

Darat 26th September 2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12834176)
Hell, I think it is the greatest constituoinal crisis since The Great Civil War...

You mean the 1775 one?





;)

a_unique_person 26th September 2019 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12833832)
Why didn't the Tory majority want to suspend?

The Tories that Johnson kicked out recently won't be welcome at any Tory conference.

jimbob 26th September 2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12834133)
Why? they don't have a majority anyway.

At work I said that I could see it being a problem because if there were some votes during the conference, the government might suffer a humiliating defeat, and that would be um business as usual

jimbob 26th September 2019 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12834176)
Hell, I think it is the greatest constituoinal crisis since The Great Civil War...

There is a reason why the Scottish Court of Session referred to 17th Century precedent.

dudalb 26th September 2019 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12834407)
There is a reason why the Scottish Court of Session referred to 17th Century precedent.

Maybe Boris should take damn good look at that honking big statue of Oliver Cromwell outside of the Houses Of Parliament and remember why it is there...

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12834340)
The Tories that Johnson kicked out recently won't be welcome at any Tory conference.

Why is that a reason to vote no?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.