Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829074)

Boy, you really hate the US, don't you?

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12829190)

Interesting post, McHrozni, but I'd bet this latest scandal is more to do with his inability to keep it in his trousers. I think it was Max Hastings (his boss for several years) who described Johnson as having the morals of an alley cat. There can't be many world leaders whose wiki entry gives their number of children as "5 or 6".

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829073)

I get the impression that Bojo supporters are pretty much interchangable with Trump supporters.

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12829165)

Well, the Supreme Court mainly debated about how to deal with an illegal prorogation. It didn't debate much whether the government had a case or not, it clearly misled the queen. They must treat carefully, because this will be a precendens by which the country will run from here on. They're basically writing down a moment in constitutional history. It is a solemn occasion, what they do today (or later this week) may be taught to children in the civic class a century from now, as one of the constitutional foundations on which British democracy (or otherwise) stands.

The only proper way to go is to declare BJ guilty of lying to the queen and order his immediate arrest and trial for misconduct in public office (his guilt is predetermined, but he needs a trial anway), or something of that nature.

The Misconduct in public office offence is committed when:

- a public officer acting as such;
- wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
- to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
- without reasonable excuse or justification.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...-public-office

I argue misleading the queen on prorogation of Parliament scores at least four out of four. Possibly more, since it scores at least double on some of those lines. All that is left is to determine the length of the sentence, the maximum is life in prison, which seems appropriate. Follow the procedure in place for the eventuality of a PM that dies on office.

There is a procedure that gives a new PM in case the old one snuffs it, right?

McHrozni

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829250)

I imagine it will be much less controversial than this. The absolute most I'd expect is for an order for MPs to be recalled, and I wouldn't exactly bet a huge amount of money on that.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829249)

The difference being that the UK government is prepared to stand up to Johnson.

Originally Posted by Arcade22 (Post 12828632)

I think Corbyn has never really changed his mind about how leaving the EU would be a good thing. He only wants to turn the UK into a socialist utopia, where coal mines and steel mills are kept running no matter what, and there's no unemployment because all industry is subsidised by the state.

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829071)

How many times had Trump had a career ending scandal?

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12829255)

Agreed. Con MPs have voted in significant numbers against their own government and many are outspoken in public. I can't see much of a parallel here with the GOP, who seem devoted to defending their power no matter how much hypocrisy is involved.

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12829254)

I'm saying what should be done. BJ already suggested if that's what happens, he'll just prorogue Parliament on more sound legal grounds. If that stands the court basically said it's no big deal to illegaly prorouge Parliament. If the prorogantion is deemed unlawful it can just be done again, with a better reason. This would mean, essentially, the PM is allowed to prorogue Parliament at will, especially if (s)he wants to stop the institution from passing laws the PM doesn't want passed. That may amount to a veto power or sorts.

This is a problem. It's not something that can be solved by just recalling the MPs and leaving it at that. UK is ruled by precendens, there is no precendens for this situation. The judges must do it right.

McHrozni

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829281)

It's a tightrope, though, because the courts are explicitly not allowed to be political. The only people who can actually change the rules on prorogation is parliament.

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12829277)

If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters.

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12829285)

The reason why we're having this debate at all is because BJ advised the queen to prorogue Parliament and several MPs thought he lied to her for the reason. Assuming the court agrees with MPs and judges the prorogation to have been illegal, they absolutely must declare severe consequences for the PM.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829287)

We'll see. The court will be aware of how historic this ruling is going to be, and will be as careful as they possibly can be.

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12829288)

Indeed. Season 4 may well be the best season of Brexit yet!

McHrozni

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12829289)

Except for the people who lose jobs, homes and lives of course.

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12829277)

If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters. His promiscuity and self serving dishonesty have been public knowledge for decades. The message for future politicians is that any behaviour however abhorent can be balanced by being slightly self depreciating, in a suitably patronising way, on HigNfY. It even worked for Rees-Mogg and when I look at him I almost believe David Icke.

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer (Post 12829277)

If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters. His promiscuity and self serving dishonesty have been public knowledge for decades. The message for future politicians is that any behaviour however abhorent can be balanced by being slightly self depreciating, in a suitably patronising way, on HigNfY. It even worked for Rees-Mogg and when I look at him I almost believe David Icke.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829249)

The difference being that the UK government is prepared to stand up to Johnson.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12829399)

Supreme Court ruling tomorrow at 1030 apparently.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12830478)

On Channel 4 News Boris claimed that once out of the EU we can ban the sale of shark fin soup.
Shark finning was banned in the EU years ago, but the trade in shark fins cannot be banned due to WTO rules, not because of the EU.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12830480)

Boris made it his job to lie about the EU in his role as a "journalist" - and got fired for it.
Why would he stop lying now when it got him into Downing Street ?

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12830509)

Because the last time he did it, he got fired for it.

It seems like a solid line of reasoning to me.

McHrozni

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12830514)

Getting fired launched his political career.

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12830518)

I hope it does so again.

Into the Sun.

McHrozni