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)

Arcade22 26th September 2019 07:15 PM

Britishers have been living under the yoke of the tyrannical eurocratic monster for such a long time that they forgot how manage themselves without some directive regulating them and their bendy bananas and kippers.

Like any backwards developing country subject to sudden and rushed decolonisation they probably need a couple of years of political conflict and communal violence.

a_unique_person 26th September 2019 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834573)
Why is that a reason to vote no?


Why would they vote to allow Parliament to pause for a week so that they can't attend a conference they aren't allowed to go to?

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12834728)
Why would they vote to allow Parliament to pause for a week so that they can't attend a conference they aren't allowed to go to?

Because they are not motivated by their own self interest, they don't have much business to do, and it is nice.

psionl0 26th September 2019 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834182)
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.

Common law is also known as judge made law and arises from decisions made by the courts. No court ever gave the monarch their powers. These were presumed to be a God given authority. Monarchs make statute law - not common law.

psionl0 26th September 2019 10:07 PM

Edited by kmortis:  Removed previously moderated content and response.


Since nobody is challenging the SC's authority to rule on the proroguing, that decision stands. My point is that they didn't do so on the basis of any existing law, they created a new law.

If it make you happy then you can call this decision an example of "common law".

zooterkin 26th September 2019 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834763)
Because they are not motivated by their own self interest,

Citation required.
Quote:

they don't have much business to do,
Citation required.
Quote:

and it is nice.
:dl:

The Great Zaganza 26th September 2019 11:44 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.

I assume Farage has the same demand with regards to the the UN, WTO, ICJ, Commonwealth and NATO.
How else will the UK have actual sovereignty ?

Darat 26th September 2019 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12834865)
I assume Farage has the same demand with regards to the the UN, WTO, ICJ, Commonwealth and NATO.
How else will the UK have actual sovereignty ?

We never needed those in the past!

Lothian 27th September 2019 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12834865)
I assume Farage has the same demand with regards to the the UN, WTO, ICJ, Commonwealth and NATO.
How else will the UK have actual sovereignty ?

Any deal with another country is a surrender deal and only a traitor would advocate one.

Nessie 27th September 2019 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12834776)
Common law is also known as judge made law and arises from decisions made by the courts. No court ever gave the monarch their powers. These were presumed to be a God given authority. Monarchs make statute law - not common law.

In the UK common law is law that was introduced centuries ago, before laws were being written as statutes. What you call "judge made law" is called case law and sets precedents regarding how existing laws are enforced. Parliament makes statutory laws.

Nessie 27th September 2019 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12834797)
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12


Since nobody is challenging the SC's authority to rule on the proroguing, that decision stands. My point is that they didn't do so on the basis of any existing law, they created a new law.

If it make you happy then you can call this decision an example of "common law".

No, the SC ruling is now part of case law and it clarifies an already existing common law.

Nessie 27th September 2019 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12834865)
I assume Farage has the same demand with regards to the the UN, WTO, ICJ, Commonwealth and NATO.
How else will the UK have actual sovereignty ?

He just hates Europe. He likes the rest of the world. That is because Europe was never part of the British Empire, but the rest of the world was.

P.J. Denyer 27th September 2019 01:30 AM

Quote:

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

Yes, but apparently that's not 'important'.:rolleyes:

I'm dragging myself out of the Bob Hole.

P.J. Denyer 27th September 2019 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12834268)
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.


Don't forget all those better Trade Deals the rest of the World were going to be queuing up for. Although we're currently begging countries to roll over the EU deals before we crash out of the 147(?) deals we are currently part of.

Still at least the Brexiters might not riot if we give them everything they've been told to want.

Squeegee Beckenheim 27th September 2019 02:19 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177281682585640960

Quote:

Sir John Major has found a way around the Benn Act (an Order of Council from Privy Councillors) which he suspects Boris Johnson will use use to leave the EU on October 31 without a deal. His speech tonight:
Quote embedded in tweet.

This is worrying, because although it would be challenged and see the government back in the Supreme Court, it could take us over the deadline and see us crash out without a deal.

Tolls 27th September 2019 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12834763)
Because they are not motivated by their own self interest, they don't have much business to do, and it is nice.

That you don't know what business they have does not mean they have no business.

There's a whole parliament website to find out what business they have.

For example, when the Parliament was non-prorogued they were forced to shelve legislation around domestic abuse. That is now back on the cards, so needs working on.
It is not the only piece of legislation that was stopped.

So stop JAQing off, and actually look into these things.

There's a whole website to explain all this to you, including what work the MPs are doing (It's Friday so not much today), and pages for what legislation is being worked on, and what draft legislation is being prepared.

All of which was shelved because of Johnson, and they lost a week of work (or more). And Parliament are claiming that week back off the Tory party. Seems fair to me.

So please just stop asking this nonsense and put some effort in.

Lothian 27th September 2019 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12834933)
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177281682585640960



Quote embedded in tweet.

This is worrying, because although it would be challenged and see the government back in the Supreme Court, it could take us over the deadline and see us crash out without a deal.

I have also heard people say that it wouldn't stop the Benn Bill working.

There is also talk of a new measure next week aimed at addressing the Prime ministers statement that he will not write the the letter. Listening to the radio last night, I can't remember the particular Tory grandee being quized but I got the impression that, (they did not specifically say this), Boris may simply, resign as Prime Minister if he got to the stage where the law required him to sign. Not sure how it would work out of if it could possibly work out this way but if he stood down and someone else signed the letter to the EU Boris could then later get re-elected as leader and go into a General election as a man of principle.
That may be his plan but it could be that measure next week flips things round so that the default becomes that we remain if nothing is done.
I am clearly guessing, previously we appeared to have a limited choice of paths. Under Boris it is more chaotic and it does seem like anything could happen.

Squeegee Beckenheim 27th September 2019 03:48 AM

It's being reported that Johnson is planning to invoke the supremacy of EU law over UK law in order to avoid asking for an extension

GlennB 27th September 2019 03:59 AM

That would be hilarious :) So hilarious I find it hard to believe he'd do it.

It might also see him in a long process appealing to the EU for a judgement, while his opponents nip over the road to the UK's supreme court.

Darat 27th September 2019 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12834978)
I have also heard people say that it wouldn't stop the Benn Bill working.



There is also talk of a new measure next week aimed at addressing the Prime ministers statement that he will not write the the letter. Listening to the radio last night, I can't remember the particular Tory grandee being quized but I got the impression that, (they did not specifically say this), Boris may simply, resign as Prime Minister if he got to the stage where the law required him to sign. Not sure how it would work out of if it could possibly work out this way but if he stood down and someone else signed the letter to the EU Boris could then later get re-elected as leader and go into a General election as a man of principle.

That may be his plan but it could be that measure next week flips things round so that the default becomes that we remain if nothing is done.

I am clearly guessing, previously we appeared to have a limited choice of paths. Under Boris it is more chaotic and it does seem like anything could happen.

If he resigned then that would give the opposition parties the chance to go to the queen, so I don't think he'll risk that.

McHrozni 27th September 2019 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12834987)
That would be hilarious :) So hilarious I find it hard to believe he'd do it.

It might also see him in a long process appealing to the EU for a judgement, while his opponents nip over the road to the UK's supreme court.

How does he explain an earlier prolongation of Brexit?

I mean sure, I see what BJ is trying to do here, but not even he could pretend the Brexit deadline can't be extended.

McHrozni

Squeegee Beckenheim 27th September 2019 04:32 AM

Anything they try will be desperate nonsense, but so long as he can draw it out so that the deadline for leaving is passed, then he can get his No Deal. It doesn't really matter after that.

Garrison 27th September 2019 04:46 AM

Its utterly ridiculous that we have a PM who is constantly trying to subvert, parliament, the courts, and the democratic process in general. I don't believe for one moment Johnson is doing this in the name of some higher principle, he's just an entitled idiot who can't stand being told no.

BobTheCoward 27th September 2019 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tolls (Post 12834934)
So stop JAQing off, and actually look into these things.

Asking you guys questions is how I'm looking into things. I'm getting great answers. You are a good resource.

The Don 27th September 2019 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12835041)
Its utterly ridiculous that we have a PM who is constantly trying to subvert, parliament, the courts, and the democratic process in general. I don't believe for one moment Johnson is doing this in the name of some higher principle, he's just an entitled idiot who can't stand being told no.

To be fair, he and his backers also stand to make a fortune as well......

psionl0 27th September 2019 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834894)
No, the SC ruling is now part of case law and it clarifies an already existing common law.

There was no existing law - common or otherwise.

The SC didn't refer to any existing laws. They just said that the matter was "justiciable" meaning that they had authority to adjudicate on the matter.

jimbob 27th September 2019 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12835012)
How does he explain an earlier prolongation of Brexit?

I mean sure, I see what BJ is trying to do here, but not even he could pretend the Brexit deadline can't be extended.

McHrozni

Well the EU has said they're willing to extend for negotiations in good faith.


Would you think that it's possible for Honest Johnson to negotiate anything in good faith ?

Craig B 27th September 2019 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834895)
He just hates Europe. He likes the rest of the world. That is because Europe was never part of the British Empire, but the rest of the world was.

Europe? What about Malta, Cyprus, Heligoland and plucky little Gibraltar still holding out so courageously against the Spaniards?

Does he like us up here in Scotland? We're still in (what's left of) the British Empire after all.

Parsman 27th September 2019 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12834893)
In the UK common law is law that was introduced centuries ago, before laws were being written as statutes. What you call "judge made law" is called case law and sets precedents regarding how existing laws are enforced. Parliament makes statutory laws.

You do realise there are 3 different systems of law in the UK don't you? English, Northern Irish and Scottish law. Scottish law is different from English law in its derivation and application. Indeed that was one of the reasons the Supreme Court became involved as the Scottish Court of Session ruled the prorogation of Parliament illegal. So there is no such thing as "UK common law".

Squeegee Beckenheim 27th September 2019 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12835041)
Its utterly ridiculous that we have a PM who is constantly trying to subvert, parliament, the courts, and the democratic process in general. I don't believe for one moment Johnson is doing this in the name of some higher principle, he's just an entitled idiot who can't stand being told no.

His own sister said that friends of his have billions invested in shorting the pound and who are therefore relying on No Deal. I think that's his primary motivator.

Archie Gemmill Goal 27th September 2019 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12834987)
That would be hilarious :) So hilarious I find it hard to believe he'd do it.

It might also see him in a long process appealing to the EU for a judgement, while his opponents nip over the road to the UK's supreme court.

I dont think that works. If he asks for an extension and the EU approves it then that becomes EU law and applies to the UK automatically. The Benn bill is in compliance with the Att 50 process.

Any other wheezes would be knocked down in court I think. Not even Supreme Court. Any court could act to render any action void pending appeal

Archie Gemmill Goal 27th September 2019 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12835083)
There was no existing law - common or otherwise.

The SC didn't refer to any existing laws. They just said that the matter was "justiciable" meaning that they had authority to adjudicate on the matter.

11 Supreme Court judges disagree with you. What are your legal credentials?

Simply repeating the same misapprehensions isnt a convincing argument

Arcade22 27th September 2019 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833418)
What has any of that got to do with the post you quoted? Parliament didn't set any rules for prorogation.

Exactly, which means it's a part of common law. Common law is how rules and laws are established based on tradition and precedent instead of formally enacted legislation.

A great example of this is that the crime of murder is (at least in England and Wales) not formally defined by legislation. In spite of this there is nothing preventing people from being convicted of murder there, because the definition is determined by common law rather than statuary law.

Lothian 27th September 2019 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12835226)
I have. The only time the SC referred to an actual law was when they rejected the argument that this was parliamentary business as defined in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you. I have been looking for an example to explain the difference between reading something and understanding it.

lomiller 27th September 2019 07:57 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?

If you had paid attention to what people were telling you over the last 20 pages you would understand.

-A majority of Parliament opposes a no deal Brexit.
-BJ is trying to prevent that that majority from voting on things that would
prevent a no deal Brexit by obstructing, suspending or Proroguing Parliament.
-Everyone sees through him, so the people who oppose a no deal Brexit are going to vote against obstructing proroguing or suspending Parliment.

Vixen 27th September 2019 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12832426)
A popular lass even in death then.

Dave

I recently fell and injured my chest. This really made my ribs hurt. Don't do it!

Nessie 27th September 2019 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12835083)
There was no existing law - common or otherwise.

The SC didn't refer to any existing laws. They just said that the matter was "justiciable" meaning that they had authority to adjudicate on the matter.

OK, so if the court has the authority to adjudicate on proroguing, that means proroguing is a law, not a parliamentary procedure.

From the House of Commons Library website;

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...of-parliament/

"On 11 September, the High Court of England and Wales held that the legality of the prorogation was not justiciable in a court of law. That meant that the High Court had determined the question to be beyond the scope of judicial review. On the same day, the Court of Session in Scotland reached the opposite conclusion. It determined that the issue was justiciable."

That disagreement is why it went to the Supreme Court. The SC ruled in favour of the Scottish Court of Session;

"The Court held that the power to prorogue Parliament is a prerogative power: “a power recognised by the common law and exercised by the Crown… on advice” of the Prime Minister."

From the judgement itself;

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...2-judgment.pdf

"30.Before considering the question of justiciability, there are four points that we should make clear at the outset. First, the power to order the prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative power: that is to say, a power recognised by the common law and exercised by the Crown."

Prorogation is a common law.

dudalb 27th September 2019 11:54 AM

Man, that would win the hypocrite of the year award.

This is going into Monty Python loony territory now.

Nessie 27th September 2019 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 12835146)
You do realise there are 3 different systems of law in the UK don't you?

Yes.

Quote:

English, Northern Irish and Scottish law.
England & Wales, NI and Scotland.

Quote:

Scottish law is different from English law in its derivation and application.
There are also many similarities and many laws which apply to the whole of the UK, for example the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Quote:

Indeed that was one of the reasons the Supreme Court became involved as the Scottish Court of Session ruled the prorogation of Parliament illegal.
Whilst courts in E&W and NI had ruled it was not a matter for the courts.

Quote:

So there is no such thing as "UK common law".
Yes there is, for example, rape and of course prorogation.

GlennB 27th September 2019 01:36 PM

Boris Johnson
PM referred to police watchdog over Jennifer Arcuri allegations


Almost funny.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.

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