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)

catsmate 25th September 2019 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831895)
Legalistic trickery.

Lack of comprehension.
:rolleyes:

catsmate 25th September 2019 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831916)
The Bill of Rights is a red herring.

:rolleyes:

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

Not the way the Westminster system works, though this ommission may soon be corrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831916)
and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

Not what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831916)
The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

Again, you're moving goalposts to cover your previous mistakes.

ctamblyn 25th September 2019 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12831678)
Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims.

What is their evidence for their claim?

It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth.

If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

Darat 25th September 2019 10:26 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.

And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.

lomiller 25th September 2019 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831737)
That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.


No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

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.

The job of the SC is to interpret the law, and that is what they did.

The Crown cannot prorogue Parliament against its will or in order to prevent it from taking action. This is one of the best-established principles in English law. There was a long civil war fought to decide the issue. The only twist here is that the SC has established that this still applies when the Crown is acting in good faith but has been lied to by the PM.

Nessie 25th September 2019 10:54 AM

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

ponderingturtle 25th September 2019 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832570)
Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctamblyn (Post 12832514)
If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

I read it. Here is the thing. It provides very little support for the claims. It is focused almost entirely on the questions of justiciability and Johnson's behavior. It may be accepted premises over there, but there is no alien exception for skeptical inquiry.

GlennB 25th September 2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12832583)
Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

You win this year's star prize for understatement :)

Archie Gemmill Goal 25th September 2019 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12832570)
Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

The Scottish court found that he did and the SC didnt overturn that. Plus he refused to provide evidence on why he prorogued parliament to the court.

He could have plotted with the Queen to do this of course but i think its unlikely.

He lied to the public for sure. As did JRM. As did many Tories.

zooterkin 25th September 2019 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12832583)
Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

FTFY by removing unnecessary words.

BoJo's mendacity is almost in the same league as Trump's.

Garrison 25th September 2019 11:53 AM

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12832660)
Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Why is that considered sinking?

dudalb 25th September 2019 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12831853)
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?

dudalb 25th September 2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garrison (Post 12832660)
Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.:D

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

BobTheCoward 25th September 2019 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12832681)
Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.:D

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

Do their voters want them to play games or to govern?

Information Analyst 25th September 2019 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12831983)
The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers"

It says a lot that that could as equally be genuinely from the Scum as a piss-take of it.

Information Analyst 25th September 2019 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12832296)
...who the Hell is James IV?

The King of Spoonerised Roman Numerals, presumably.

jimbob 25th September 2019 01:07 PM

Quote:

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



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Nessie is Scottish.

James VI/I would fit

Information Analyst 25th September 2019 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12832583)
Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

Freudian.

jimbob 25th September 2019 01:22 PM

Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.

GlennB 25th September 2019 01:23 PM

Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)

GlennB 25th September 2019 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12832795)
Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.

In the background Rees-Mogg mutters "Hear hear", but then starts to look a little sheepish ...

jimbob 25th September 2019 01:51 PM

Here is a link to the exchange:

https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/statu...36614393720832

dudalb 25th September 2019 02:08 PM

Jesus, Bojo really is trying to be the British Trump, right down to being a horrible liar and having no sense of decency.

abaddon 25th September 2019 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12831734)
It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.

Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

angrysoba 25th September 2019 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12832858)
Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

:thumbsup::D

Filippo Lippi 25th September 2019 03:05 PM

More stuff today on Johnson, the pole-dancing technology guru, Steve Bannon, Milo.... Jesus, it stinks. I'm thinking "Kompromat"

Ian Osborne 25th September 2019 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12832858)
Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.

Belgian thought 25th September 2019 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 12833037)
I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.

A good point though since part of the Brexit argument was regaining sovereignty which was never taken away in the first place.
BJ has exposed another lie :-)

ceptimus 25th September 2019 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12832538)
And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.

Quite wrong. It was planned during Tony Blair's time in office, and opened under Gordon Brown. These were Labour Prime Ministers and governments - not Tory.

psionl0 25th September 2019 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12832678)
IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.

a_unique_person 25th September 2019 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833172)
What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.


So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.

SezMe 25th September 2019 08:02 PM

Quote:

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

Everybody has their own kink. :) :p

SezMe 25th September 2019 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12832798)
Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)

I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?

Mojo 25th September 2019 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833172)
What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.


But there is well established precedent from the courts that administrative actions must be done for valid reasons. Parliament hasnít overruled this, so it stands.

psionl0 25th September 2019 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12833177)
So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.

That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?

Captain_Swoop 26th September 2019 12:36 AM

James Cleverly in BBC interview “he [Johnson] did not use the word “betrayal.”

Martha Kearney: “we will not betray the people who sent us here”

Cleverly: “you‘re saying he said ‘betrayal’, he said ‘we will not betray’” !!!

Garrison 26th September 2019 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833236)
That is what Parliament is for. To set up the rules and procedures under which the business of government operates. The is nothing that could have prevented Parliament from creating a law that requires Parliamentary approval before it is suspended or prorogued.

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish. In this case, the SC has ruled in a way that met with overwhelming approval. What if they had ruled the other way?

Then they would still have to obey it, hopefully without throwing the sort of tantrum Johnson did. His performance in parliament yesterday was no different from the row he had with his girlfriend a few weeks back, someone told Boris no and he can't handle it.

Also there was nothing random about the decision, the 11 judges of the highest court in the land came to a unanimous decision after due consideration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12833358)
James Cleverly in BBC interview “he [Johnson] did not use the word “betrayal.”

Martha Kearney: “we will not betray the people who sent us here”

Cleverly: “you‘re saying he said ‘betrayal’, he said ‘we will not betray’” !!!

They've fully embraced the Trump school of dealing with the media.

Squeegee Beckenheim 26th September 2019 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12833193)
I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?

Very much so.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:45 PM.

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