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)

Archie Gemmill Goal 27th September 2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12835671)
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.

Some of this seems.confused. the english and scottish cases were two seperate things. its not right to frame it as the SC deciding which one was right.

Arcade22 27th September 2019 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12835671)
Prorogation is a common law.

There shouldn't be any problem with recognizing that, since the Supreme court of the UK has been given the responsibility of being ultimate authority on British law (at least in this case, from what I understand other courts have remit over certain other matters), their conclusions determine what the British law is simply by definition.

This is not an endorsement of this or any other decision they have made or will make in the future. Again, if the prime minister objects to the law there is a very straight forward solution to the problem: enact legislation to permit proroging parliament for any reason whatsoever.

Archie Gemmill Goal 27th September 2019 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12835862)
There shouldn't be any problem with recognizing that, since the Supreme court of the UK has been given the responsibility of being ultimate authority on British law (at least in this case, from what I understand other courts have remit over certain other matters), their conclusions determine what the British law is simply by definition.

This is not an endorsement of this or any other decision they have made or will make in the future. Again, if the prime minister objects to the law there is a very straight forward solution to the problem: enact legislation to permit proroging parliament for any reason whatsoever.

Given his 0% success rate enacting anything seems far from straightforward for this PM

dudalb 27th September 2019 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12835826)

This saga was missing one thing:Sexual Shennigans. Now Boris might have provided that...

SezMe 27th September 2019 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12835826)

At the risk of a derail, what does this mean?
Quote:

An official from the Greater London Authority, the city’s devolved government...
Is there no longer a "London" city government?

Mojo 27th September 2019 08:22 PM

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.


Again, as anyone can see by reading the judgment, they cited numerous judicial precedents. In a common law system, judicial precedent is a source of law.

If you want to claim that the precedents cited are not “actual law”, you will need to cite legislation (or judicial precedent) that overturns them.

Mojo 27th September 2019 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12836054)
Is there no longer a "London" city government?


There is, it’s called the Greater London Authority.

Mojo 27th September 2019 11:55 PM

Tory MP says we should abolish the Supreme Court.

Quote:

"In the long term, I also believe that in the election manifesto we should have a commitment to abolish the Supreme Court and return to the status quo ante.

"After all its only in the last decade we had the law lords in Parliament resolving great disputes rather than a Supreme Court of people that are frankly accountable to no one."

timhau 28th September 2019 01:16 AM

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 think what he actually wants is no Brexit. As long as he can campaign for Brexit without actually getting it, he has a nice little racket going.

Nessie 28th September 2019 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timhau (Post 12836246)
I think what he actually wants is no Brexit. As long as he can campaign for Brexit without actually getting it, he has a nice little racket going.

It is notable that rather than rejoin UKIP, he formed a new party. I suspect there was more money in it for him that way.

Squeegee Beckenheim 28th September 2019 02:43 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177863339902476288

Quote:

It’s official. Philip Hammond in today’s Times confirming that Boris Johnson is committed to a hard Brexit because the disaster capitalists who backed his campaign will make money millions.
The embedded article is paywalled, so I can't comment on what it actually says.

Squeegee Beckenheim 28th September 2019 04:20 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177905489159626752

Quote:

NEW: Jeremy Corbyn says emergency government to extend Brexit deadline "getting more likely every single day"

catsmate 28th September 2019 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12836054)
At the risk of a derail, what does this mean?

He's facing an investigation for corrupt activities while in public office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SezMe (Post 12836054)
Is there no longer a "London" city government?

Not a such. There is a Greater London Authority which is a local authority with a mayor and elected assembly that handles matters relating to London; principally transport, policing and emergency services, and economic planning and development but lacks real revenue raising powers.

jimbob 28th September 2019 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12836358)
He's facing an investigation for corrupt activities while in public office.


Not a such. There is a Greater London Authority which is a local authority with a mayor and elected assembly that handles matters relating to London; principally transport, policing and emergency services, and economic planning and development but lacks real revenue raising powers.

Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?

Arcade22 28th September 2019 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12836216)

Quote:

"After all its only in the last decade we had the law lords in Parliament resolving great disputes rather than a Supreme Court of people that are frankly accountable to no one."
Of course it's only proper for judges to be held to account for frustrating the elective dictatorship of the day. If they dare to make a perfectly reasonable legal decision that is unpopular with a part of the legislature then the legislature should be able to unseat them immediately and vacate their judgement.

It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws in such a way that it's pleasing to elected politicians, instead of the elected politicians making sure that the laws can only reasonably be interpreted in the way they want.

Mojo 28th September 2019 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12836446)
Of course it's only proper for judges to be held to account for frustrating the elective dictatorship of the day. If they dare to make a perfectly reasonable legal decision that is unpopular with a part of the legislature then the legislature should be able to unseat them immediately and vacate their judgement.

It's the job of the judiciary to interpret laws in such a way that it's pleasing to elected politicians, instead of the elected politicians making sure that the laws can only reasonably be interpreted in the way they want.


The thing is that under “the status quo ante” the Appellate Committee was really no more accountable to Parliament than the Supreme Court judges are. The basic principle of judicial independence has been established for several hundred years.

ETA: There’s certainly a provision in the legislation setting up the SC allowing for removal of a judge by Parliament.

catsmate 28th September 2019 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12836364)
Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?

The GLA incorporates the old City as well as Greater London (the 32 boroughs). All 33 districts (in the local government sense) have a lower level of local government, either by Borough Council or the City's unique arrangements.

It's complicated. And I haven't even got down to wards or the Temple liberties yet.....

Vixen 28th September 2019 07:36 AM

What did peeps think of Geoffrey Cox' theatrics on the return of parliament t'other day? He has a great Shakespearean voice(could always get a job introducing the X-Factor) but what caught the news headline here in Finland was...Barry Sheerman (sp_?) spitting with rage in reply. Cox only got a short clip as a follow up to show viewers what Barry was so angry about.

Cox is a better orator than BoJo, with his all too predictable punching the air, silly quips and three-words per breath sentences.

Mojo 28th September 2019 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12836532)
What did peeps think of Geoffrey Cox' theatrics on the return of parliament t'other day? He has a great Shakespearean voice(could always get a job introducing the X-Factor) but what caught the news headline here in Finland was...Barry Sheerman (sp_?) spitting with rage in reply. Cox only got a short clip as a follow up to show viewers what Barry was so angry about.

Cox is a better orator than BoJo, with his all too predictable punching the air, silly quips and three-words per breath sentences.


Here’s a report of the proceedings: Incredible Sulk's anger is compounded by ranting of Geoffrey Cox.

ThatGuy11200 28th September 2019 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12836364)
Isn't there also the City of London, for the Square Mile?

The City of London Corporation governs the Square Mile, which was the extent of the city through the Roman, Saxon and the Medieval periods. They are headed by the Lord Mayor of London, which many people confuse for the Mayor of London. They've been around for about a thousand years and their rights and privileges are guaranteed by Magna Carta, which is still part of English law.

commandlinegamer 28th September 2019 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12836306)
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1177863339902476288



The embedded article is paywalled, so I can't comment on what it actually says.

I've read this numerous times; that billions will be made by shorting the pound, but I was under the impression that this is what hedge funds (if they are involved) do: the clue's in the name. Would be helpful if somebody with better knowledge could chime in.

Captain_Swoop 28th September 2019 08:38 AM

The Cabinet Office confirms that Matthew Coats, the director-general for EU Exit Implementation and head of the Border Delivery Group, (a body that co-ordinates the work of all government departments on planning for the Dover-Calais strait) is to leave his job.

Darat 28th September 2019 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12836606)
The Cabinet Office confirms that Matthew Coats, the director-general for EU Exit Implementation and head of the Border Delivery Group, (a body that co-ordinates the work of all government departments on planning for the Dover-Calais strait) is to leave his job.

Well it could hardly have been a permanent job, and one has to assume that he's done all the preparations so what else could he do?




;)

GlennB 28th September 2019 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer (Post 12836566)
I've read this numerous times; that billions will be made by shorting the pound, but I was under the impression that this is what hedge funds (if they are involved) do: the clue's in the name. Would be helpful if somebody with better knowledge could chime in.

No 'knowledge' here, but nothing obliged them to short the pound rather than the Euro, and Johnson does seem utterly frantic to crash out on Oct 31st. He's close to delirious about it, afaics.

Mongrel 28th September 2019 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200 (Post 12836565)
The City of London Corporation governs the Square Mile, which was the extent of the city through the Roman, Saxon and the Medieval periods. They are headed by the Lord Mayor of London, which many people confuse for the Mayor of London. They've been around for about a thousand years and their rights and privileges are guaranteed by Magna Carta, which is still part of English law.

CGP Grey has a couple of videos explaining London that break it down pretty well.
First;
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Second;
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Archie Gemmill Goal 28th September 2019 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer (Post 12836566)
I've read this numerous times; that billions will be made by shorting the pound, but I was under the impression that this is what hedge funds (if they are involved) do: the clue's in the name. Would be helpful if somebody with better knowledge could chime in.

Indeed, but its unusual to have politicians actively working in your favour to make it happen because they stand to benefit one way or another personally from it.

P.J. Denyer 28th September 2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12836260)
It is notable that rather than rejoin UKIP, he formed a new party. I suspect there was more money in it for him that way.

Can you really call it a party when it has no members? It's a Ltd company where people give it money for the pleasure of being called supporters but receive no benefit or rights in return and the leader is an unelected managing director with no means of removal.

P.J. Denyer 28th September 2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12836216)

Both Nick Ferarri on LBC & Toby Young have called for the Supreme Court to be replaced with political appointees. I don't know muck about the former except that he's pro-Brexit, but my general rule is that if I don't know what the moral position is on any issue I look at what Toby "Daddy got me into Oxford" Young's take on the matter is and run in the opposite direction as fast as my little legs will carry me.

It's an approach that hasn't failed me yet.

P.J. Denyer 28th September 2019 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer (Post 12836566)
I've read this numerous times; that billions will be made by shorting the pound, but I was under the impression that this is what hedge funds (if they are involved) do: the clue's in the name. Would be helpful if somebody with better knowledge could chime in.

What makes the situation unique is that many of the hedge funds doing this have donated heavily to a Prime Minister who is defying Parliament to force through a course of action that the overwhelming majority of experts think will crash the pound & damage the economy for decades while benefiting no-one in the country except those hedge funds.

GlennB 28th September 2019 02:37 PM

Meanwhile ...

Boris Johnson is deliberately whipping up fears of riots and deaths so he can try to invoke emergency powers and avoid extending the UK’s EU membership beyond 31 October, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, claimed on Saturday.

Desperate stuff, if true.

Mojo 28th September 2019 11:58 PM


I see he also wants to introduce “political screening” of the judiciary:
Quote:

On Saturday night, Johnson signalled that he would again challenge the judiciary by introducing US-style political screening of supreme court judges before they are appointed. Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister said: “If judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability. The lessons of America are relevant.” The Law Society and the Bar Council both said last week that politically appointed judges would threaten the independence of the judiciary.

Captain_Swoop 29th September 2019 02:25 AM

From the people who brought you aircraft carriers without aircraft: 40 new hospitals when we’re short of 40000 nurses and 10000 doctors.

Darat 29th September 2019 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12837313)
From the people who brought you aircraft carriers without aircraft: 40 new hospitals when we’re short of 40000 nurses and 10000 doctors.

Naive person, you only need a handful of people wearing nurses uniforms and a few wearing scrubs for a photo opportunity, what else are these buildings called "hospitals" for?

Squeegee Beckenheim 29th September 2019 02:48 AM

This is something I've seen floating around for a few days. It's worth taking comfort in the fact that to use these powers someone is going to have to detail exactly what the emergency is, why it requires the suspension of law, etc. This will then be open to scrutiny and, if found not to be on the level, will be breaking the law and subject to a prison sentence of anything up to life.

Given that Johnson, for fear of perjury, couldn't find someone to sign a witness statement saying that the content of his memos was accurate it seems even less likely to me that he'll be able to find someone willing to go to prison for life for him for such a transparent ruse.

P.J. Denyer 29th September 2019 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12837313)
From the people who brought you aircraft carriers without aircraft: 40 new hospitals when we’re short of 40000 nurses and 10000 doctors.

Build it and they will come......





They won't stay when they aren't paid but that's a problem for another Prime Minister.

Arcade22 29th September 2019 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12837313)
From the people who brought you aircraft carriers without aircraft: 40 new hospitals when we’re short of 40000 nurses and 10000 doctors.

With the amount of money they are going to get from the Brexit dividend they will be able to literally purchase thousands doctors from abroad like slaves.

Trebuchet 29th September 2019 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo (Post 12836216)
Tory MP says we should abolish the Supreme Court.
Quote:

"In the long term, I also believe that in the election manifesto we should have a commitment to abolish the Supreme Court and return to the status quo ante.

"After all its only in the last decade we had the law lords in Parliament resolving great disputes rather than a Supreme Court of people that are frankly accountable to no one."

Conservatives in the USA have been similarly whining about "unelected judges" for decades. Of course, now that the courts are being rigged in their favor, it'll be different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12837313)
From the people who brought you aircraft carriers without aircraft: 40 new hospitals when we’re short of 40000 nurses and 10000 doctors.

"Hospital" and "Hospitality" are derived from the same root. Obviously they are planning on building 40 new hotels. Maybe Trump will put his name on one.

jimbob 29th September 2019 02:06 PM

Interesting potential curveball solution

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/queen-so...inister-638320

The Don 29th September 2019 11:46 PM

Another £25bn found for road upgrades. That magic money tree is really doing well :rolleyes:

Squeegee Beckenheim 30th September 2019 01:14 AM

https://twitter.com/Byline_Media/sta...56106882252802

Quote:

Big scoop from @Byline_Media - extraordinary amounts of money amounting to £8.3bn placed by Boris Johnson and Vote Leave backers on a no deal crashout on 31 October #DisasterCapitalism https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/b...leave-backers/
Article and excerpt embedded in tweet.

I'm shocked. Never saw this coming at all.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM.

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