ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brexit

Reply
Old 25th September 2019, 02:28 AM   #241
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,575
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.
Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:28 AM   #242
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?


No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively.
What new law did they create?

this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:33 AM   #243
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,498
Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:41 AM   #244
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,761
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?
Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves.

Also Conservatives complain because the opposition parties won't agree to call a premature election in the narrow window of opportunity that is advantageous to Boris.

__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:09 AM   #245
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,720
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'
Especially the likes of Mogg.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:09 AM   #246
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.
Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:26 AM   #247
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
 
timhau's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 13,276
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"
So all the losing comes via nurture?
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.
- Emo Philips
timhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:35 AM   #248
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic

Last edited by Nessie; 25th September 2019 at 03:36 AM.
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:48 AM   #249
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 43,449
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.
__________________
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
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 03:53 AM   #250
Parsman
Muse
 
Parsman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 687
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves.

Dave
I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.
__________________
I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus

When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.
Parsman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:03 AM   #251
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,372
Frankie Boyle tweeted
@frankieboyle

Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:20 AM   #252
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.
That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:30 AM   #253
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,693
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.
One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know."

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:52 AM   #254
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.'

That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all.

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'
I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:55 AM   #255
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,651
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504

Quote:
Significant: @NickBoles asks @Geoffrey_Cox if the government will abide by the Benn Act if there’s no new Brexit deal?

“Yes”

So we might not be leaving the EU on October 31 after all.

On the Benn Act: Cox says the government will “obey the law” *but*

“There is a question of precisely what the government needs to do to obey the law.”

Still looks like the government thinks there is a loophole to duck out of requesting a Brexit delay.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 04:58 AM   #256
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,720
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.
'tis
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:21 AM   #257
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
'tis
"Can" and ""shall" are matters of law.

"Should" is a moral question.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:25 AM   #258
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,476
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

Do you agree with psionl0?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
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 and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 25th September 2019 at 05:27 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:29 AM   #259
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
The daily mail is so stupid.

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 05:39 AM   #260
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Do you agree with psionl0?
It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 06:07 AM   #261
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,451
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand
I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.
__________________
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
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 06:14 AM   #262
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 12,004
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.
There is no new law.
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edit for rule 6
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

Last edited by zooterkin; 25th September 2019 at 11:42 AM.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 06:22 AM   #263
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
There is no new law.
I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 06:31 AM   #264
Belgian thought
Master Poster
 
Belgian thought's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
There is no new law. etc...
May I use this when I set up my new religion? It's a good chant.
__________________
... er, that's it
Belgian thought is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 06:38 AM   #265
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 12,004
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.
"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:13 AM   #266
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?
IF

I made no claim if they did or not.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:20 AM   #267
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,516
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:23 AM   #268
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.
__________________
"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)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:23 AM   #269
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,904
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:25 AM   #270
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,700
...and wait...

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament

"Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done.

Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London."

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?
__________________
"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)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:29 AM   #271
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,516
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.
Indeed
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:30 AM   #272
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,516
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
...and wait...



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?
Maybe they took the average (rounding up) of James VI and James I ?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 07:58 AM   #273
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,006
I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.
__________________
"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
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 08:12 AM   #274
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,476
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power.

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.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 08:21 AM   #275
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,734
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
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.
So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 08:56 AM   #276
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
I presume it should be 1579.

(I checked, it should be 1579)
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:00 AM   #277
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,693
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
I presume it should be 1579.
A popular lass even in death then.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:00 AM   #278
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,190
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
...and wait...



...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?
Should be James VI, who became James I of E&W with the union of the crowns in 1603.
__________________
Audiophile/biker/sceptic
Nessie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:17 AM   #279
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,107
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
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.
Demonstrating (again) that you do not understand the UK political system, the function, roles and powers of the UK Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction. The courts are perfectly entitled to make law as long as they don’t actually contradict Parliament.

The idea of judicial review of administrative actions is well established. And that’s what this was: the court was reviewing the actions of the executive, not Parliament. See, for example, the comments in the section headed “What conclusions did the court reach” here:
Where is John Marshall when you need him?
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 09:20 AM   #280
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,107
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law".
Judicial review.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
Not true.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ.
Why?

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.
Not true.
__________________
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.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.