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)

Nessie 26th September 2019 01:41 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?

Parliament sets the rules, the courts enforce them.

Governments often end up being accused of breaking the law and it ends up in court. Other examples of the courts ruling that a government has broken the law include Gurkha residency rights and police pensions. The courts have also previously ruled on Brexit;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

"Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own."

Dave Rogers 26th September 2019 01:45 AM

I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Dave

Garrison 26th September 2019 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833401)
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Dave

It rather sums up the Brexiteers, never mind the cost or consequences so long as they get what they want now.

Ian Osborne 26th September 2019 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833401)
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.

Ken Clarke's awesome. He'd get my vote as an interim PM in a government of national unity.

psionl0 26th September 2019 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12833398)
Parliament sets the rules, the courts enforce them.

Governments often end up being accused of breaking the law and it ends up in court. Other examples of the courts ruling that a government has broken the law include Gurkha residency rights and police pensions. The courts have also previously ruled on Brexit;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785

"Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.
This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own."

What has any of that got to do with the post you quoted? Parliament didn't set any rules for prorogation.

Dave Rogers 26th September 2019 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 12833415)
Ken Clarke's awesome. He'd get my vote as an interim PM in a government of national unity.

+1. It would be the one thing that would give me a shred of hope that this all might turn out reasonably OK. I've never voted Conservative in my life, but I'd trust Clarke to do what's right.

Dave

Nessie 26th September 2019 02:17 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.

Prorogation is common law, which developed from the Monarchy and the first Parliaments and the government needs to obey common law.

Parliament has developed proroguing into a primarily ceremonial act, with occasional exceptions, such as John Major in 1997. But his proroguing was not challenged. If it had, it may have been ruled unlawful.

abaddon 26th September 2019 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833421)
+1. It would be the one thing that would give me a shred of hope that this all might turn out reasonably OK. I've never voted Conservative in my life, but I'd trust Clarke to do what's right.

Dave

Far as I can see, Ken Clarke is the last voice of reason in the Tory party. There may be others, but they are rather quiet.

Darat 26th September 2019 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12833424)
Far as I can see, Ken Clarke is the last voice of reason in the Tory party. There may be others, but they are rather quiet.

Remember he is not a tory MP he is an independent MP.

jimbob 26th September 2019 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12833450)
Remember he is not a tory MP he is an independent MP.

Whilst Nick Morgan is embracing the role of those GOP Senators who criticize Trump then vote for him.

Ian Osborne 26th September 2019 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833421)
I've never voted Conservative in my life, but I'd trust Clarke to do what's right.

This. Many times this. I've never voted Tory in my life either, but if he was the leader, I might actually be tempted.

a_unique_person 26th September 2019 03:24 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?

The courts rule on law.

ponderingturtle 26th September 2019 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12833214)
But there is well established precedent from the courts that administrative actions must be done for valid reasons. Parliament hasn’t overruled this, so it stands.

Exactly her execution was a victory for brexit over remain. Other remainers need to get with the program if they know what is good for keeping their blood on the inside.

Squeegee Beckenheim 26th September 2019 03:34 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177147467160281088

Quote:

1/ EU officials and diplomats were dismayed by last night's furore in Parliament, and events in general over the past few weeks. They have left them questioning how they will deal for years - even decades - to come with a Britain that looks increasingly divided and dysfunctional.

2/ The 'acrimony' in Parliament last night and the hostile line taken by PM Johnson has shocked some. They are worried by how much he alienated even moderate MPs on all sides of the House, without whom he can't get a majority for a deal.

3/ This follows the prorogation debacle and comments No 10 and ministers made about judges, which were clocked with concern here. A large part of the UK's plan involves the EU trusting its 'world class' institutions. 'But now we're no longer sure the institutions are holding.'

4/ Combined with the UK's alternative backstop plan, which the EU sees as unworkable and unserious, it's a bleak outlook. 'We're changing our focus from getting a deal to how to manage the potential fallout of enduring instability in the UK. We’re waking up to that reality now.'

5/ The EU side can take no comfort in looking to the Opposition as it equally unimpressed with Jeremy Corbyn's approach to Brexit. They have no desire to negotiate a new deal with Labour that it may very well then disown. And they think it's 'nowhere near' winning an election.

6/ 'The combined effect of the Labour conference, the court verdict and last night's session has done nothing to stem our concern. How are we ever going to come to a deal with this arithmetic?' They now think it's highly likely PM Johnson will walk out of the Oct 17 summit.

7/ But the Benn Act provides scant comfort either. Most here don't believe PM Johnson will break the law, and say they'll grant an extension if the UK asks. The EU will always do everything it can to avoid any blame for No Deal. Officials laugh off the idea any leader would veto.

8/ But they believe another delay will only increase the chances of No Deal down the line. Their calculation is the UK is now so riven with division that the next General Election will result in a hung parliament which will have a majority for nothing, including a further delay.

9/ And this is where PM Johnson maybe has a glimmer. The EU is tired of Brexit and wants to move on. 'If indeed there’s a small window to make a deal we should absolutely seize it, because the prospect of the UK in an extension is simply carrying over the abyss for three months.'

10/ So the outlook from Brussels' perspective this morning is pretty grim. A huge amount of the lingering hope rests on the idea PM Johnson is playing tough before the Tory conference so he can pull a rabbit out of the hat after it. But not even the optimists are that convinced.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status...57530948182016

Quote:

If there was any shred of doubt on the EU side about what @BorisJohnson tactics are here ahead of #euco it seems to have evaporated after last night.

Not seen EU sources so animated for a while... despair on several levels 1/thread

First despair at the whole Boris 'Trumpson' routine and what it says about sincerity of any attempts to strike a deal which Parliament will back with help of Labour MPs.

"A new low" as one official put it. /2

Second, despair at the pitiful 'non-papers' that have been presented...the fourth one this week (on goods from GB-NI) was by all accounts barely even connected to the others. Clearly not a serious basis for a border solution /3

Third, despair - or rather a weary assumption - that Mr Trumpson will continue this grandstanding and outrage-stoking right up to an including the European Council #euco on October 17.

Understand meets with EU leaders at #UNGA19 in New York did nothing to suggest otherwise /4

Fourth, and last, and most genuinely I think despairing (since all of the above had been long expected) was the feeling that the UK really is about to go the full Trump.

A new politics based on division and unilateralism - and what that means for EU-UK in long term. /5

Where does this lead? Does it belatedly bring Parliament to its senses?

Is there a majority for May's deal, which protects trade and the Union? Perhaps allied to a second confirmatory referendum?

That's the closest thing that's ever shown a majority. Might it yet? 6/ENDS
Article embedded in first tweet, quotes embedded in subsequent tweets.

Information Analyst 26th September 2019 04:14 AM

Quote:

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

No, she was a member of the Labour Party and a Remainer. It's what got her killed by a far-right terrorist.

Information Analyst 26th September 2019 04:16 AM

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’” !!!

Saw that. Sickening. Right down to him effectively saying that the best way to deal with the debate over whether or not to throw the baby out with the bathwater is the throw the baby out with the bathwater. The only good thing about that interview was Naga Munchetty.

a_unique_person 26th September 2019 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12833401)
I heard that Ken Clarke tried to make the point to the Conservative Party last night: Would you be happy if Jeremy Corbyn was PM and had the right to shut down Parliament whenever he wanted to? Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the right time for sensible people presenting rational arguments.



Dave

And for as long as he wanted to.

uke2se 26th September 2019 04:55 AM

I find it amazing that so many people are still onboard with the Tories. What causes this apparent disconnect from reality? I have a feeling that in a hundred years, vast new areas of Psychology as a subject will be studies based on Trumpists and Brexiteers.

psionl0 26th September 2019 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12833423)
Prorogation is common law, which developed from the Monarchy and the first Parliaments and the government needs to obey common law.

Have you got a reference for this or are you just making it up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 12833482)
The courts rule on law.

Not in this case.

McHrozni 26th September 2019 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 12833578)
I find it amazing that so many people are still onboard with the Tories. What causes this apparent disconnect from reality?

Many of them may consider alternatives as worse. Labour for obvious reasons, LibDems because their main selling point is "not as bad as the big two". They simply disagree slightly with LibDems, fear Corbyn and take what's left.

That's what you get with FPTP system.

McHrozni

Lothian 26th September 2019 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833580)
Have you got a reference for this or are you just making it up?

[2019] UKSC 41

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 05:01 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?

Parliament created the supreme Court. If they created a roundabout way to change the law, that is their authority. They did as you described, just more convoluted.

Mojo 26th September 2019 05:15 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.


And there was nothing to prevent Parliament creating a law that said that the actions of the executive, with respect to prorogation or anything else, are not subject to judicial review. They (unlike some here) know how the law works. They are fully aware of the current law of judicial review (and it was widely discussed a few years ago after several high-profile cases in which ministerial decisions were quashed) and have chosen not to change it. That means, as Parliament is fully aware, that the law is determined by the judicial precedents on the matter.

Quote:

Leaving it up to the random rulings of a court is foolish.

Nice* attempt to poison the well. Court decisions are not random; they are decided on the basis of legislation and precedent. This was a unanimous decision made by 11 of the most highly experienced lawyers in the country, on the basis of the law. There is nothing random about it.


*For very small values of “nice”.

Mojo 26th September 2019 05:25 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.


Therefore the common law precedents set the rules. That’s how the system works. Parliament knows this, and has seen no need to legislate.

Nessie 26th September 2019 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833580)
Have you got a reference for this or are you just making it up?

I have previously provided you with links.

Quote:

Not in this case.
Prorogation is a law. The courts apply the law.

zooterkin 26th September 2019 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 12833484)
Exactly her execution was a victory for brexit over remain. Other remainers need to get with the program if they know what is good for keeping their blood on the inside.

:confused: Who ‘her’?

ponderingturtle 26th September 2019 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 12833711)
:confused: Who ‘her’?

That seems to have been tied to the wrong post, it was about Boris praise for Jo Cox and who her killers desires need to be taken into account.

catsmate 26th September 2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12833121)
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.

And the relevance of this is?
It's fascinating, but completely expected given your habits, that you make no mention of BoJo's unlawful, politically motivated, prorogation of parliament to avoid scrutiny but focus on this irrelevance.
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 12833172)
Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"?

Because, unlike you, they understand what the terms mean.

Quote:

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

Yes, murdered by a far-right, Brexit supporting, loon.

catsmate 26th September 2019 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 12833415)
Ken Clarke's awesome. He'd get my vote as an interim PM in a government of national unity.

Come back John Major, all is forgiven...

Captain_Swoop 26th September 2019 07:27 AM

Govt loses vote on suspending Parliament for Tory Party conference.

P.J. Denyer 26th September 2019 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 12833415)
Ken Clarke's awesome. He'd get my vote as an interim PM in a government of national unity.


I never thought I'd say this about a member of Margret Thatcher's Cabinet, but I agree.

Filippo Lippi 26th September 2019 07:36 AM

If he stands in Rushcliffe again, I might well vote for an Independent Ken Clarke

Garrison 26th September 2019 07:44 AM

And Johnson loses his 7th vote as parliament rejects a motion to grant a recess for the Conservative Party conference next week. And in what may be further bad news for Boris the Domestic Abuse Bill gets a second reading next week...

catsmate 26th September 2019 07:45 AM

[With respects to Cat and Callie]
The People's Republic of Britain, is it all that you hoped to attain?
The glories that shone in your daydreams, are they dimmed by the blood of the slain?
While yesterday's shining successes get harder and harder to top.
Boris, you are riding a tiger. How are you going to stop?

The Proles only follow a leader who will keep them well feted and fed,
With trial and war for your circus, you'd better not run out of bread!
The curs that have fawned at your fingers will tear out your throat if you drop.
Boris, you are riding a tiger. How are you going to stop?

Squeegee Beckenheim 26th September 2019 07:46 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177197018420322305

Quote:

Bloody hell - even Rachel Johnson just now on R4 actually saying BJ under pressure from individuals who have invested billions in shorting the £ on assumption of no deal - she actually said that, out and proud#failedstate
Rachel Johnson is Boris Johnson's sister.

BobTheCoward 26th September 2019 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12833781)
Govt loses vote on suspending Parliament for Tory Party conference.

Why didn't the Tory majority want to suspend?

Archie Gemmill Goal 26th September 2019 08:08 AM

Quote:

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

Im only guessing but is it becaude they dont have one and haven't for some time?

psionl0 26th September 2019 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12833678)
I have previously provided you with links.

Not to the idea that prorogation is common law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12833587)
[2019] UKSC 41

Link?

zooterkin 26th September 2019 08:10 AM

Quote:

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

What Tory majority would that be?

Dave Rogers 26th September 2019 08:11 AM

Quote:

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

The Conservative party doesn't have a majority.

Dave


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:07 PM.

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