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 25th September 2019 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831856)
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

Archie Gemmill Goal 25th September 2019 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831985)
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?


No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.

What new law did they create?

this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about

Archie Gemmill Goal 25th September 2019 02:33 AM

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

P.J. Denyer 25th September 2019 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12832021)
Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves.

Also Conservatives complain because the opposition parties won't agree to call a premature election in the narrow window of opportunity that is advantageous to Boris.

:D

Darat 25th September 2019 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12832024)
Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

Especially the likes of Mogg.

ponderingturtle 25th September 2019 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12831618)
Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.

Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.

timhau 25th September 2019 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12832015)
Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

So all the losing comes via nurture?

Nessie 25th September 2019 03:35 AM

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

zooterkin 25th September 2019 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832059)
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

Parsman 25th September 2019 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12831981)
The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves.

Dave

I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.

Captain_Swoop 25th September 2019 04:03 AM

Frankie Boyle tweeted
@frankieboyle

Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.

Nessie 25th September 2019 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 12832061)
And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

Dave Rogers 25th September 2019 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832084)
That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know."

Dave

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12832024)
Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

Squeegee Beckenheim 25th September 2019 04:55 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504

Quote:

Significant: @NickBoles asks @Geoffrey_Cox if the government will abide by the Benn Act if there’s no new Brexit deal?

“Yes”

So we might not be leaving the EU on October 31 after all.

On the Benn Act: Cox says the government will “obey the law” *but*

“There is a question of precisely what the government needs to do to obey the law.”

Still looks like the government thinks there is a loophole to duck out of requesting a Brexit delay.

Darat 25th September 2019 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12832101)
I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

'tis

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12832108)
'tis

"Can" and ""shall" are matters of law.

"Should" is a moral question.

Mojo 25th September 2019 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12832101)
I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.


Do you agree with psionl0?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831916)
If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.


BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 05:29 AM

The daily mail is so stupid.

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12832139)
Do you agree with psionl0?

It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

jimbob 25th September 2019 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12831975)
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand :)

I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.

Wudang 25th September 2019 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12832162)
It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

There is no new law.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edit for rule 6

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wudang (Post 12832200)
There is no new law.

I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

Belgian thought 25th September 2019 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wudang (Post 12832200)
There is no new law. etc...

May I use this when I set up my new religion? It's a good chant.

Wudang 25th September 2019 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12832213)
I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wudang (Post 12832232)
"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?

IF

I made no claim if they did or not.

Giz 25th September 2019 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832059)
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

angrysoba 25th September 2019 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12832287)
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.

The Great Zaganza 25th September 2019 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832059)
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...

angrysoba 25th September 2019 07:25 AM

...and wait...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832059)
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Giz 25th September 2019 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12832292)
Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.

Indeed

Giz 25th September 2019 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12832296)
...and wait...



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Maybe they took the average (rounding up) of James VI and James I ?

Ian Osborne 25th September 2019 07:58 AM

I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.

Mojo 25th September 2019 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12832145)
Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power.


Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12832376)
Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.

So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.

Nessie 25th September 2019 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12832287)
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

I presume it should be 1579.

(I checked, it should be 1579)

Dave Rogers 25th September 2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832424)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Giz (Post 12832287)
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

I presume it should be 1579.

A popular lass even in death then.

Dave

Nessie 25th September 2019 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12832296)
...and wait...



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Should be James VI, who became James I of E&W with the union of the crowns in 1603.

catsmate 25th September 2019 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831737)
However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.

Demonstrating (again) that you do not understand the UK political system, the function, roles and powers of the UK Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12831839)
England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction. The courts are perfectly entitled to make law as long as they don’t actually contradict Parliament.

The idea of judicial review of administrative actions is well established. And that’s what this was: the court was reviewing the actions of the executive, not Parliament. See, for example, the comments in the section headed “What conclusions did the court reach” here:

Where is John Marshall when you need him?

catsmate 25th September 2019 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831853)
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law".

Judicial review.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831853)
Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

Not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831856)
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ.

Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831856)
Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Not true.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:16 PM.

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