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)

Dave Rogers 1st October 2019 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12839749)
I wonder what punishment they might be handed if a court decided it was a flagrant attempt to avoid the consequences of the Benn act?

I wonder what could be the possible basis of an opinion that it was anything else.

Dave

ceptimus 1st October 2019 06:06 AM

The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.

And with a single bound, the UK would be free! :)

GlennB 1st October 2019 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12839761)
The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened ...

A court might "pretend" something or other? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain.

The Don 1st October 2019 06:13 AM

Greggs are stockpiling pork to ensure continuing supplies of sausage rolls post-Brexit:

Quote:

High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

"We are preparing for the potential impact of the UK's departure from the European Union by building stocks of key ingredients," the firm said.

Around 20% of a Greggs sausage roll is made from pork.

It has previously said a no-deal Brexit may mean it has to find alternatives for fresh tomatoes and lettuce.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49890034

ohms 1st October 2019 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12839749)
:eek:

I wonder what punishment they might be handed if a court decided it was a flagrant attempt to avoid the consequences of the Benn act?

Some detail here:

https://davidallengreen.com/2019/09/...ng-article-50/

GlennB 1st October 2019 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms (Post 12839771)

Goodness. Thanks for that. The 'damages for losses' section is very interesting and the amount might put a bit of a hole in his bank balance, at a guess. Cummings' too.

catsmate 1st October 2019 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12839761)
The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.

Another subject on which you are utterly wrong; the penalties for misconduct in public office range up to life imprisonment.
:rolleyes:

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12839828)
Another subject on which you are utterly wrong; the penalties for misconduct in public office range up to life imprisonment.
:rolleyes:

You are jumping ahead. The hypothetical step being taken is a group like parliament seeking relief like with prorogration. I don't think that court can punish or charge a person with a crime.

ceptimus 1st October 2019 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12839763)
A court might "pretend" something or other? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain.

That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened." Here's what the Supreme Court said using more fancy legal language.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Supreme Court
This court has already concluded that the prime ministerís advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.


Dave Rogers 1st October 2019 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12839939)
That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened."

No, it wasn't; it was that it never happened. Parliament was not prorogued, any more than it would have been if a random person had come in off the street shouting "I hereby prorogue parliament." The action of MPs, therefore, in acting as if parliament had been prorogued, was in error, and they had no need to remain absent from the house.

Dave

Delphic Oracle 1st October 2019 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12839954)
Yes. That will probably have to change now that this precedent has been set.



Dave

I think they adequately demonstrated discontent/rejection of the idea with Benn.

Parliament essentially declared they intended to continue exercise of powers in the same period propagation would have suspended them. Ruling the other way would have ETA:resulted in left unresolved a constitutional crisis already taking place.

ceptimus 1st October 2019 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12839956)
No, it wasn't; it was that it never happened. Parliament was not prorogued, any more than it would have been if a random person had come in off the street shouting "I hereby prorogue parliament." The action of MPs, therefore, in acting as if parliament had been prorogued, was in error, and they had no need to remain absent from the house.

Dave

Yes, but all the MPs missed a week or so of "work", and the lawyers all got paid, so something happened even if the court tries to maintain otherwise. I think "pretend that it never happened" is a more accurate description of their ruling.

lomiller 1st October 2019 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12839905)
How does that work? How do you know when parliament does or doesn't consent?

For the most part it comes down to the crown following the advice of the PM. What this ruling says is that if the PM is lying the courts can step in and reverse the prorogation. If there is still doubt at this point Parliament can immediately hold a vote on whether to prorogue or not.

P.J. Denyer 1st October 2019 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12839649)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-off-by-allies



So, according to Young, not only are the stories true, but it was such common behaviour that it was noteworthy if it didn't happen.


Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.


I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12840063)
For the most part it comes down to the crown following the advice of the PM. What this ruling says is that if the PM is lying the courts can step in and reverse the prorogation. If there is still doubt at this point Parliament can immediately hold a vote on whether to prorogue or not.

A) did we ever establish he lied to the queen? I understand he lied to other people?

B) and if he didn't lie it would have gone through?

catsmate 1st October 2019 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12839939)
That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened." Here's what the Supreme Court said using more fancy legal language.

Sigh, no it's not. The judgement meant that the prorogation did not happen.

catsmate 1st October 2019 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12840020)
Yes, but all the MPs missed a week or so of "work", and the lawyers all got paid, so something happened even if the court tries to maintain otherwise. I think "pretend that it never happened" is a more accurate description of their ruling.

You think not.

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12840193)
Sigh, no it's not. The judgement meant that the prorogation did not happen.

It did happen. MPs didn't show up for parliament. Labour demanded to be recalled after the Scottish ruling.

GlennB 1st October 2019 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12840170)
Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.

I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.

:thumbsup:

dudalb 1st October 2019 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus (Post 12839761)
The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.

And with a single bound, the UK would be free! :)

You think a no deal Brexit would be good for the UK??????

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12840262)
You think a no deal Brexit would be good for the UK??????

Better to die as free men rather than live as slaves.

Archie Gemmill Goal 1st October 2019 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840213)
It did happen. MPs didn't show up for parliament. Labour demanded to be recalled after the Scottish ruling.

they were in error. parliament didnt need to be recalled and the speaker didnt recall it. it simply resumed.

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12840273)
they were in error. parliament didnt need to be recalled and the speaker didnt recall it. it simply resumed.

That is some real 1984 garbage right there.


Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.

GlennB 1st October 2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840283)
That is some real 1984 garbage right there.

Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.

Hey! Good to see you get all fired up and opinionated for once :)

Go Bob!
Go Bob!
Go Bob!

Delphic Oracle 1st October 2019 12:49 PM

We certainly don't want anyone in government appearing to respect lawful procedures even as they object to them through other channels.

a_unique_person 1st October 2019 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12839749)
:eek:

I wonder what punishment they might be handed if a court decided it was a flagrant attempt to avoid the consequences of the Benn act?


They will appeal the decision.:thumbsup:

a_unique_person 1st October 2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840263)
Better to die as free men rather than live as slaves.


False dichotomy there Bob.

Archie Gemmill Goal 1st October 2019 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840283)
That is some real 1984 garbage right there.


Please ignore your own eyes and ears where everyone acted and talked about how they were prorogued illegally and took their normal prorogration actions. Your eyes are deceiving you.

Sorry if the facts bother you. Hansard reflects what i said.

Unlawful actions have no effect. If someone sells you stolen goods for example the title cannot pass to you because the person never had the title to sell to you.

Equally if a PM is acting unlawfully then their actions have no effect. Parliament was never legally prorogued so it just resumed and got on with its business.

They should have done it sooner to be honest. The Scottish court decision gave them that right

catsmate 1st October 2019 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12840262)
You think a no deal Brexit would be good for the UK??????

Brexiteers rarely have much connection to the Real World.

jimbob 1st October 2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12840170)
Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.


I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.

Did you see Johnson's denial on ITV?

"How do you know it didn't happen if you can't remember the meal and she can?"
"It didn't happen"
"But how can you be sure?"
I think he said there were lots of personal reasons he wasn't going to go into but it didn't happen.

It was quite telling about his behaviour. A normal, non-assaulty bloke could just say, "because I've never done anything like that in my life"

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12840380)
Sorry if the facts bother you. Hansard reflects what i said.

Unlawful actions have no effect. If someone sells you stolen goods for example the title cannot pass to you because the person never had the title to sell to you.

There is a difference between saying it doesn't have an effect and it didn't happen. People would say my stuff was illegally sold. People would say my stuff was never sold in the first place.

Archie Gemmill Goal 1st October 2019 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840566)
There is a difference between saying it doesn't have an effect and it didn't happen. People would say my stuff was illegally sold. People would say my stuff was never sold in the first place.

legally it didn't happen. just as legally your stuff wasn't sold.

Its amazing that people will argue this stuff.

Read the decision. It was as if they had walked in with a blank piece of paper.

It would have been VERY interesting if the speaker and opposition MPs had continued to sit and pass legislation because there's every chance it would have legally stood.

P.J. Denyer 1st October 2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12840512)
Did you see Johnson's denial on ITV?

"How do you know it didn't happen if you can't remember the meal and she can?"
"It didn't happen"
"But how can you be sure?"
I think he said there were lots of personal reasons he wasn't going to go into but it didn't happen.

It was quite telling about his behaviour. A normal, non-assaulty bloke could just say, "because I've never done anything like that in my life"


I've found the people queuing to defend him quite disgusting, I've repeatedly heard 'it was different in offices then', we're talking about around the millennium not the 1950's ffs. I was working in offices then and no-one I worked with would have considered it normal behaviour.

BobTheCoward 1st October 2019 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12840573)
legally it didn't happen. just as legally your stuff wasn't sold.

Its amazing that people will argue this stuff.

Read the decision. It was as if they had walked in with a blank piece of paper.

It would have been VERY interesting if the speaker and opposition MPs had continued to sit and pass legislation because there's every chance it would have legally stood.

"Legally, it didn't happen."

No, it didn't happen legally. It did happen.

Just as someone takes the life of another when they were not legally permitted so, the person still died.

Archie Gemmill Goal 1st October 2019 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12840590)
"Legally, it didn't happen."

No, it didn't happen legally. It did happen.

Just as someone takes the life of another when they were not legally permitted so, the person still died.

Hmmm.... look i can give you the facts but I can't understand them for you

McHrozni 1st October 2019 11:13 PM

An almost sensible proposal from the 'government'!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-its-no-deal

Details have emerged of the prime ministerís final Brexit offer that he will lay out on Wednesday, with Northern Ireland staying under EU single market regulations for agri-food and manufactured goods until at least 2025, at which point its assembly in Stormont will decide whether to continue alignment with EU or UK standards.

With a few modifications this can maybe replace the backstop. All it needs is to be inclusive enough to work at all, have permanent continuation of the arrangement as the legal default and demand any change is subject to a referendum in NI, perhaps with a 60% treshold.

This would make it a backstop with a guaranteed way to remove it that doesn't rely on passing legislation with 50%+1 vote.

McHrozni

The Don 2nd October 2019 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12840919)
An almost sensible proposal from the 'government'!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...or-its-no-deal

Details have emerged of the prime ministerís final Brexit offer that he will lay out on Wednesday, with Northern Ireland staying under EU single market regulations for agri-food and manufactured goods until at least 2025, at which point its assembly in Stormont will decide whether to continue alignment with EU or UK standards.

With a few modifications this can maybe replace the backstop. All it needs is to be inclusive enough to work at all, have permanent continuation of the arrangement as the legal default and demand any change is subject to a referendum in NI, perhaps with a 60% treshold.

This would make it a backstop with a guaranteed way to remove it that doesn't rely on passing legislation with 50%+1 vote.

McHrozni

Well there's all kinds of rumours flying around but if this one is true, what about the 79% of the economy which isn't "agri-food and manufactured goods" ? Is the EU supposed to ignore that ?

McHrozni 2nd October 2019 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12840975)
Well there's all kinds of rumours flying around but if this one is true, what about the 79% of the economy which isn't "agri-food and manufactured goods" ? Is the EU supposed to ignore that ?

Well, customs union would cover mostly "agri-foods and manufactured goods" and not services anyway. Presumably this proposal wouldn't need significant changes to make this a customs union by another name.

Give it no default expiry date and require a positive action to change the status quo with a referendum and it might work.

In that scenario it's really just the original backstop with a minor addition that allows Northern Ireland to choose who it wants to be more closely tied to. By itself this shouldn't be a problem. The only necessary modifications are that it's not Stormont that decides but the NI populace on a referendum, that the treshold to change status quo of the referendum is 60%+1 vote and unless something else gets over the treshold, things stay as they are. Another necessary modification may be to include something that would be a part of the customs union but is not "agri-foods and manufactured goods", I guess raw materials might qualify.

These modifications seem doable, even in the two weeks that remain. What you're left with is a slightly modified original backstop.

This just goes to show what a trainwreck Brexit has been.

McHrozni

The Don 2nd October 2019 12:51 AM

Meanwhile, the Labour Party is doing everything it possibly can to scupper the idea of a government of national unity :mad:

Quote:

Labour has rejected the idea of a "government of national unity" - headed by a figure like Ken Clarke or Margaret Beckett - to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said any interim government - formed after the removal of Boris Johnson - must be headed by Jeremy Corbyn.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500

This reinforces two things IMO:
  1. Jeremy Corbyn, just like Boris Johnson, simply wants to be Prime Minister regardless of the national interest
  2. Jeremy Corbyn is just as (more ?) enthusiastic about Brexit as Boris Johnson

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.

angrysoba 2nd October 2019 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 12840997)
Meanwhile, the Labour Party is doing everything it possibly can to scupper the idea of a government of national unity :mad:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49891500

This reinforces two things IMO:
  1. Jeremy Corbyn, just like Boris Johnson, simply wants to be Prime Minister regardless of the national interest
  2. Jeremy Corbyn is just as (more ?) enthusiastic about Brexit as Boris Johnson

I'm not sure which of the two of them would be a worse UK Prime Minister.

I think Corbyn could be the next circle of Hell after Johnson. But if you think thatís bad, wait until itís Farage.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:10 PM.

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