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)

Pixel42 22nd September 2019 11:55 PM

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".

Information Analyst 23rd September 2019 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829074)
Boy, you really hate the US, don't you?

You really have a massive chip on your shoulder, don't you?

Expecting us to know some minor detail about something more relevant to your (shorter) history than our (much longer) one is like us expecting you to know some minor detail about the Battle of Towton.

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 01:24 AM

Quote:

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".

No, I'm rather sure he didn't illegaly prorogue Parliament in order to produce or hide yet more children :)

McHrozni

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829073)
I get the impression that Bojo supporters are pretty much interchangable with Trump supporters.

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

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 01:32 AM

Quote:

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

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.

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 01:34 AM

Government guidelines to healthcare professionals admits to delays in medicine supply, contrary to their public messaging

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 01:45 AM

Quote:

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.

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

GlennB 23rd September 2019 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829249)
The difference being that the UK government is prepared to stand up to Johnson.

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.

Nessie 23rd September 2019 02:13 AM

Quote:

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.

God damn communists.

Nessie 23rd September 2019 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12829071)
How many times had Trump had a career ending scandal?

More than Regan, maybe the same as Clinton, less than Nixon.

P.J. Denyer 23rd September 2019 02:22 AM

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.

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 02:23 AM

Quote:

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.

I think this is (in part) because British constituencies are far smaller than their American counterparts. UK has ~650 MPs for 66 million people, USA has 435 Congressmen for 320 million people.
The second factor is that USA only has two viable parties, but UK has several - three nation-wide (Tory, Labor, LibDem) and several more local ones (DUP, SNP, Cymru, SinnFenn).

It's not that Tories are fundamentally better people than Republicans, no. The nature of the British democracy is such that the country is inherently more resillient to such abuses of power.

McHrozni

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 02:25 AM

Quote:

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

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.

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 02:30 AM

Quote:

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.

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 - or else the PM can use prorogation irrespective of legality.

The easy way out is judge PM did not lie to the queen, thus avoding the question altogether. However since most debate was alledgedly not whether or not the claim is factual but how to deal with it that doesn't seem to be all that likely.

McHrozni

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 02:30 AM

Quote:

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.

As has already been said in this thread, the first rumblings of the big scandal came out after the Jennifer Arcuri story was front page news, so it's not what's already in the public domain. There are rumours that it's connected, but is concerned with information that isn't yet public, and which is much worse.

Whether it deserves all the hype is a question we won't know the answer to until we find out what it is, but it's definitely not just that he gave his girlfriend money from the public purse.

Squeegee Beckenheim 23rd September 2019 02:32 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 02:34 AM

Quote:

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.

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

McHrozni

catsmate 23rd September 2019 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12829288)
Indeed. Season 4 may well be the best season of Brexit yet!

McHrozni

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

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 12829289)
Except for the people who lose jobs, homes and lives of course.

From the perspective of a viewer, of course.

McHrozni

Darat 23rd September 2019 04:32 AM

Quote:

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.

Or simply being shameless.

ohms 23rd September 2019 04:45 AM

Quote:

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.

What with the Thomas Cook failure and Labour's desperate attempts never to win another election, this story seems to have been lost by most of the media.

Pixel42 23rd September 2019 05:21 AM

Supreme Court ruling tomorrow at 1030 apparently.

ponderingturtle 23rd September 2019 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12829249)
The difference being that the UK government is prepared to stand up to Johnson.

Yes and no, it seems there are people other than congress and especially the senate that can do things against Johnson while Trump would need to be impeached. Also the different ways parties and PM vs President are elected make it likely the Boris can have a much smaller percentage of people actually supporting him.

Wudang 23rd September 2019 08:07 AM

On the attempt to remove Watson. Today Lansman (who put forward the motion to abolish Watson's role) tweeted
Quote:

I'm completely supportive of Jeremy's leadership but Iím incredibly disappointed with the process by which todayís NEC statement on Brexit was produced. There was no meeting, no discussion, no consultation with the membership
To which Watson replied :
Quote:

Irony is not dead.

McHrozni 23rd September 2019 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 12829399)
Supreme Court ruling tomorrow at 1030 apparently.

I'll play the appropriate music. The beauty of the piece is that it is appropriate regardless of what the verdict reads.

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


McHrozni

Captain_Swoop 24th September 2019 12:55 AM

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.

The Great Zaganza 24th September 2019 01:00 AM

Quote:

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.

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 ?

McHrozni 24th September 2019 01:36 AM

Quote:

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 ?

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

It seems like a solid line of reasoning to me.

McHrozni

The Great Zaganza 24th September 2019 01:42 AM

Quote:

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

Getting fired launched his political career.

McHrozni 24th September 2019 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 12830514)
Getting fired launched his political career.

I hope it does so again.

Into the Sun.

McHrozni

KDLarsen 24th September 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Supreme court rules Boris Johnson's prorogation was 'unlawful'
Hale says the court is “bound to conclude that the decision to advise her Majest to prorogue parliament was unlawful”.
More to follow once the Supreme Court releases the full judgement along with its press summary.

Klimax 24th September 2019 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12830518)
I hope it does so again.

Into the Sun.

McHrozni

NASA has SLS (SpaceSenate Launch System), so why not BLS (Boris Launch System)

Lothian 24th September 2019 02:39 AM

All 11 Supreme Court judges find against Boris. Which git wanted to sideline the ECJ?

Wudang 24th September 2019 02:39 AM

Via David Allen Green twitter : The prorogation was unlawful. Unanimous decisions. Waiting to see now if we get a declaration or a notice. I.e will CS hand this back to politicians to sort out or will they decide an acttion themselves?

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/...803416064?s=20

KDLarsen 24th September 2019 02:44 AM

Quote:

That means the prorogation had no effect. She says it is as if the royal commission had no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued, she says.

She says it is for the Speaker to decide what happens next.
I'd imagine that the Speaker would move fairly swiftly to arrange for parliament to be seated.

Edit:
Summary of the judgement: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...92-summary.pdf

Full judgement: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...2-judgment.pdf

McHrozni 24th September 2019 02:44 AM

Suspension was ruled unlawful. Chopping block sales skyrocket (alledgedly).

McHrozni

GlennB 24th September 2019 02:45 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Anyone notice the "Boris the Spider" motif on her top?

Coincidence? I don't think so :D

McHrozni 24th September 2019 02:55 AM

This prorogation has been a phenomenal own goal. First it galvanized the opposition to do something (the law requiring PM to ask for an extension) and only after that happened, the prorogation was also declared null and void.

Not only BJ now has to deal with Parliament, the very reason he pushed for prorogation in the first place has been eviscerated by a timely legal action. He may face another trial for misconduct in publci office and has absolutely nothing to show for it.

Except for a legal precendens on how not to act as PM that will be taught in British constitutional law class until the end of time, or at least a couple of centuries.

It's a claim to (in)fame, so he has that going for him, which is nice.

McHrozni

The Great Zaganza 24th September 2019 02:59 AM

On top of that, European Leaders must ask themselves: what is the point of talking to him anymore?

jimbob 24th September 2019 03:01 AM

As an aside, anyone else noticed the similarity between Aaron Banks and Herbert Lom's Inspector Dreyfus?

Even down to the eye twitch


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM.

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