[Continuation] Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero - Page 8

catsmate · 25th September 2019, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Legalistic trickery.

Lack of comprehension.

catsmate · 25th September 2019, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The Bill of Rights is a red herring.

Originally Posted by psionl0

If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself

Not the way the Westminster system works, though this ommission may soon be corrected.

Originally Posted by psionl0

and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

Not what happened.

Originally Posted by psionl0

The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections.

Again, you're moving goalposts to cover your previous mistakes.

ctamblyn · 25th September 2019, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims.

What is their evidence for their claim?

It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth.

If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

Darat · 25th September 2019, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.

And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.

lomiller · 25th September 2019, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves.

I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant.

No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial.

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws.

The job of the SC is to interpret the law, and that is what they did.

The Crown cannot prorogue Parliament against its will or in order to prevent it from taking action. This is one of the best-established principles in English law. There was a long civil war fought to decide the issue. The only twist here is that the SC has established that this still applies when the Crown is acting in good faith but has been lied to by the PM.

Nessie · 25th September 2019, 10:54 AM

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

ponderingturtle · 25th September 2019, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by ctamblyn

If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.

I read it. Here is the thing. It provides very little support for the claims. It is focused almost entirely on the questions of justiciability and Johnson's behavior. It may be accepted premises over there, but there is no alien exception for skeptical inquiry.

GlennB · 25th September 2019, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

You win this year's star prize for understatement

Archie Gemmill Goal · 25th September 2019, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?

The Scottish court found that he did and the SC didnt overturn that. Plus he refused to provide evidence on why he prorogued parliament to the court.

He could have plotted with the Queen to do this of course but i think its unlikely.

He lied to the public for sure. As did JRM. As did many Tories.

zooterkin · 25th September 2019, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest ~~when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority~~.

FTFY by removing unnecessary words.

BoJo's mendacity is almost in the same league as Trump's.

Garrison · 25th September 2019, 11:53 AM

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Garrison

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Why is that considered sinking?

dudalb · 25th September 2019, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?

dudalb · 25th September 2019, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Garrison

Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.

Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard.

Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....

Do their voters want them to play games or to govern?

Information Analyst · 25th September 2019, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers"

It says a lot that that could as equally be genuinely from the Scum as a piss-take of it.

Information Analyst · 25th September 2019, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

...who the Hell is James IV?

The King of Spoonerised Roman Numerals, presumably.

jimbob · 25th September 2019, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

...and wait...

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Nessie is Scottish.

James VI/I would fit

Information Analyst · 25th September 2019, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.

Freudian.

jimbob · 25th September 2019, 01:22 PM

Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.

GlennB · 25th September 2019, 01:23 PM

Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)

GlennB · 25th September 2019, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob

Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.

In the background Rees-Mogg mutters "Hear hear", but then starts to look a little sheepish ...

jimbob · 25th September 2019, 01:51 PM

Here is a link to the exchange:

https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/statu...36614393720832

dudalb · 25th September 2019, 02:08 PM

Jesus, Bojo really is trying to be the British Trump, right down to being a horrible liar and having no sense of decency.

abaddon · 25th September 2019, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.

Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

angrysoba · 25th September 2019, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by abaddon

Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

Filippo Lippi · 25th September 2019, 03:05 PM

More stuff today on Johnson, the pole-dancing technology guru, Steve Bannon, Milo.... Jesus, it stinks. I'm thinking "Kompromat"

Ian Osborne · 25th September 2019, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by abaddon

Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ

I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.

Belgian thought · 25th September 2019, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.

A good point though since part of the Brexit argument was regaining sovereignty which was never taken away in the first place.
BJ has exposed another lie :-)

ceptimus · 25th September 2019, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.

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.

psionl0 · 25th September 2019, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.

a_unique_person · 25th September 2019, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.

So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.

SezMe · 25th September 2019, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.

Everybody has their own kink.

SezMe · 25th September 2019, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad.

He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief.

(Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)

I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?

Mojo · 25th September 2019, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by psionl0

What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.

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.

psionl0 · 25th September 2019, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.

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?

Captain_Swoop · 26th September 2019, 12:36 AM

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’” !!!

Garrison · 26th September 2019, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

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?

Then they would still have to obey it, hopefully without throwing the sort of tantrum Johnson did. His performance in parliament yesterday was no different from the row he had with his girlfriend a few weeks back, someone told Boris no and he can't handle it.

Also there was nothing random about the decision, the 11 judges of the highest court in the land came to a unanimous decision after due consideration.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

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’” !!!

They've fully embraced the Trump school of dealing with the media.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 26th September 2019, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by SezMe

I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?

Very much so.

25th September 2019, 09:21 AM	#281
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 24,341	Originally Posted by psionl0 Legalistic trickery. Lack of comprehension.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

25th September 2019, 09:23 AM	#282
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 24,341	Originally Posted by psionl0 The Bill of Rights is a red herring. Originally Posted by psionl0 If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself Not the way the Westminster system works, though this ommission may soon be corrected. Originally Posted by psionl0 and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued. Not what happened. Originally Posted by psionl0 The stage has now been set for the SC to meddle with the timing of elections. Again, you're moving goalposts to cover your previous mistakes.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

25th September 2019, 10:05 AM	#283
ctamblyn Data Ghost Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: The Library Posts: 2,898	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Those paragraphs lack supporting evidence for the claims. What is their evidence for their claim? It just seems so different. Just yesterday while reading Twitter someone referenced Pickering v. Board of education. There isn't a major case on it or anything. But finding specific references on UK issues is like pulling teeth. If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer.
	__________________ Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

25th September 2019, 10:26 AM	#284
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,842	Originally Posted by Mojo Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords. And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th September 2019, 10:38 AM	#285
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,490	Originally Posted by psionl0 That seems to sum up the responses to my question. There is no written law that limits any discussions between the PM and the Queen and the SC has no explicit authority to adjudicate on these discussions. They have just assumed that power for themselves. I'm guessing that the Privy Council either doesn't exist any more or it is irrelevant. No, I would prefer the Queen's position to be elected - even if it is mostly ceremonial. However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's and uses those powers to usurp the parliament's function of creating laws. The job of the SC is to interpret the law, and that is what they did. The Crown cannot prorogue Parliament against its will or in order to prevent it from taking action. This is one of the best-established principles in English law. There was a long civil war fought to decide the issue. The only twist here is that the SC has established that this still applies when the Crown is acting in good faith but has been lied to by the PM.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

25th September 2019, 10:54 AM	#286
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,119	Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997?
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

25th September 2019, 11:07 AM	#287
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,746	Originally Posted by Nessie Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997? Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th September 2019, 11:09 AM	#288
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,435	Originally Posted by ctamblyn If you're asking for a more detailed argument in support of the SC's decision, I think the rest of the document I linked, together with the cases it references, should provide an answer. I read it. Here is the thing. It provides very little support for the claims. It is focused almost entirely on the questions of justiciability and Johnson's behavior. It may be accepted premises over there, but there is no alien exception for skeptical inquiry.

25th September 2019, 11:36 AM	#289
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,545	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority. You win this year's star prize for understatement
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

25th September 2019, 11:42 AM	#290
Archie Gemmill Goal Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 7,810	Originally Posted by Nessie Have we any evidence Johnson lied, as opposed to he genuinely thought he could prorogue Parliament, after someone pointed out what John Major did in 1997? The Scottish court found that he did and the SC didnt overturn that. Plus he refused to provide evidence on why he prorogued parliament to the court. He could have plotted with the Queen to do this of course but i think its unlikely. He lied to the public for sure. As did JRM. As did many Tories.
	__________________ "I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

25th September 2019, 11:44 AM	#291
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 48,846	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest ~~when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority~~. FTFY by removing unnecessary words. BoJo's mendacity is almost in the same league as Trump's.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 Last edited by zooterkin; 25th September 2019 at 11:46 AM.

25th September 2019, 11:53 AM	#292
Garrison Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: UK Posts: 5,567	Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election.
	__________________ So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/ And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX

25th September 2019, 12:02 PM	#293
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,435	Originally Posted by Garrison Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election. Why is that considered sinking?

25th September 2019, 12:03 PM	#294
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,581	Originally Posted by psionl0 Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen. IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for?
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

25th September 2019, 12:04 PM	#295
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,581	Originally Posted by Garrison Johnson keeps finding new depths to sink to, now actually daring the opposition to call a vote of no confidence in him in the hope that he loses it and can force an election. Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard. Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while....
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 25th September 2019 at 12:05 PM.

25th September 2019, 12:15 PM	#296
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,435	Originally Posted by dudalb Boris out to look out his window,see that Statue of the Lord Protector outside of the Houses of Parliament, and think hard...really hard. Though I think smart thing for Labor to do is just let Boris hang and twist in the wind for a while.... Do their voters want them to play games or to govern?

25th September 2019, 01:00 PM	#297
Information Analyst Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 10,099	Originally Posted by Lothian The Sun "Debbie, 19 from Stevenage, what a crackerjack unlike the supreme court who are simply crackers" It says a lot that that could as equally be genuinely from the Scum as a piss-take of it.

25th September 2019, 01:06 PM	#298
Information Analyst Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 10,099	Originally Posted by angrysoba ...who the Hell is James IV? The King of Spoonerised Roman Numerals, presumably.

25th September 2019, 01:07 PM	#299
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,914	Originally Posted by angrysoba ...and wait... ...who the Hell is James IV? Is this paragraph just entirely made up? Nessie is Scottish. James VI/I would fit
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

25th September 2019, 01:09 PM	#300
Information Analyst Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 10,099	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Well it seems rather unlikely he was being honest when he claimed it had nothing to do with brexit, and preventing parliament from exorcising its authority. Freudian.

25th September 2019, 01:22 PM	#301
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,914	Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

25th September 2019, 01:23 PM	#302
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,545	Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad. He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief. (Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum)
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

25th September 2019, 01:34 PM	#303
GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Usk, Wales Posts: 26,545	Originally Posted by jimbob Meanwhile Johnson has gone completely off the rails, dismissing the request from a friend of the murdered Joe Cox to tone down his language as she'd had death threats as "humbug" and then saying that the best way to honour Joe Cox's memory would be to get Brexit done. In the background Rees-Mogg mutters "Hear hear", but then starts to look a little sheepish ...
	__________________ "Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

25th September 2019, 01:51 PM	#304
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,914	Here is a link to the exchange: https://twitter.com/ashcowburn/statu...36614393720832
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

25th September 2019, 02:08 PM	#305
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,581	Jesus, Bojo really is trying to be the British Trump, right down to being a horrible liar and having no sense of decency.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

25th September 2019, 02:11 PM	#306
abaddon Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Republic of Ireland Posts: 21,473	Originally Posted by dudalb It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over. Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ
	__________________ Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes...

25th September 2019, 02:59 PM	#307
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,610	Originally Posted by abaddon Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

25th September 2019, 03:05 PM	#308
Filippo Lippi Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,433	More stuff today on Johnson, the pole-dancing technology guru, Steve Bannon, Milo.... Jesus, it stinks. I'm thinking "Kompromat"
	__________________ You can't defeat fascism through debate because it's not simply an idea, proposal or theory. It's a fundamentally flawed way of looking at the world. It's a distorting prism, emotionally charged and completely logic-proof. You may as well challenge rabies to a game of Boggle. @ViolettaCrisis

25th September 2019, 04:11 PM	#309
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,264	Originally Posted by abaddon Dunno. Boris could still appeal to the ECJ I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

25th September 2019, 04:20 PM	#310
Belgian thought Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,315	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne I know that's a joke, but for the record, he can't. The ECJ has no jurisdiction over UK constitutional matters. A good point though since part of the Brexit argument was regaining sovereignty which was never taken away in the first place. BJ has exposed another lie :-)
	__________________ ... er, that's it

25th September 2019, 06:25 PM	#311
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460	Originally Posted by Darat And now the Tories are saying it needs to be curtailed, abolished and so on. For those outside the UK, it was the Tories that created the SC and set what it can and can't do.... Yes you really couldn't make this up. 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.
ceptimus puzzler Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 6,460

25th September 2019, 07:48 PM	#312
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,175	Originally Posted by dudalb IN the US the Supreme Court can rule a act of congress or something the POTUS does unconstitutional . DO you even understand that is what a Supreme Court is for? What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

25th September 2019, 07:57 PM	#313
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 43,086	Originally Posted by psionl0 What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Do you know why the SC used the word "unlawful" instead of "unconstitutional" or "illegal"? Because there is no constitution or written law that says that the PM must have a good reason to prorogue parliament. So he can just prorogue it for any reason, including wanting to shut it down for years.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

25th September 2019, 08:02 PM	#314
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,124	Originally Posted by angrysoba Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years. Everybody has their own kink.

25th September 2019, 08:15 PM	#315
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 25,124	Originally Posted by GlennB Stunningly shameful display by Johnson in the HoC tonight. Christ on a bike, but it was bad. He reckoned the best way to honour murdered MP Jo Cox's memory was to get Brexit done. Beyond belief. (Jo Cox, mother of two, fatally shot and stabbed in June 2016 by a far-right extremist in the run up to the Brexit referendum) I read that she was a member of the Labor Party. Was she a remainer?