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 24th September 2019, 11:00 AM   #161
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,866
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
None yet, he just acted outside of his authority. His whole lying to parliament thing that has caused some issues before will be the actual law he broke. I know brexit is all about destroying parliament and restoring sovereignty to a new Sovereign(Boris) but until then he does have to abide by some laws.
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 11:06 AM   #162
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. .
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 11:06 AM   #163
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
If you actually care I'm sure you can find the details of the decision online.
__________________
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
Garrison 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 24th September 2019, 11:13 AM   #164
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
Exactly, if it doesn't fall to the Supreme Court to decide such matters then who would? Dominic Cummings? BoJo must be so unhappy he can't just stack the court with political hacks like his buddy Trump.
__________________
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
Garrison 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 24th September 2019, 11:16 AM   #165
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: I try to be a moving target
Posts: 14,932
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
United Kingdom Law.
Lothian 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 24th September 2019, 11:18 AM   #166
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 11:21 AM   #167
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
Read the decision(s). It is explained.

11 Supreme Court judges found the law had been broken. Your lot lost. Suck it up.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 12:17 PM   #168
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,880
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 24th September 2019 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Added source
ctamblyn 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 24th September 2019, 12:29 PM   #169
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 22,280
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
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 24th September 2019, 12:39 PM   #170
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
He should be the first to resign after Boris.

Perhaps this will be what his address is? Yes, he will have found his sense of decency and decided to resign. That's all it can be. Right?
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 12:50 PM   #171
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,979
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I see that there is already some talking heads pointing out that the SC decision is about the effect rather than the intent of BoJo (i.e. they didn't say he was dishonest, just that the result of his action was a problem) but that's BS because the SC upheld the Scottish decision which clearly stated that he had been dishonest about his intent.
A number of commentators have said that the SC did the absolute minimum within their legal remit and then handed the issue back to Parliament. They wanted to keep the focus on the key issue being the supremacy of Parliament. IANAL.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 01:03 PM   #172
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Maybe he will say
"The Court had made it's decision. Let them enforce it".
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 01:04 PM   #173
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
United Kingdom Law.
What, the law is not what Dear Leader says it is?
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 01:06 PM   #174
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,836
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Yeah, of course. More likely he will be announcing the fate of the chosen scapegoat, probably the Attorney General based on earlier statements.
__________________
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
Garrison 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 24th September 2019, 01:13 PM   #175
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,880
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?
The SC didn't overrule the queen, technically. They found that the advice given to HM to prorogue was void, and so that which followed from the advice was nullified:

Quote:
[The] advice was unlawful. It was outside the powers of the Prime Minister to give it. This means that it was null and of no effect: see, if authority were needed, R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51, para 119. It led to the Order in Council which, being founded on unlawful advice, was likewise unlawful, null and of no effect and should be quashed. This led to the actual prorogation, which was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper. It too was unlawful, null and of no effect.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 24th September 2019, 01:37 PM   #176
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
I guess Boris thought he was Oliver Cromwell dismissing the Long Parliament; did not work out that way.

If I were a Labor member, I would throw Cromwell's famous statement in the dismissal right in BoJo's face:

"You have been sitting here too long for any good you have been doing.In the name of God, go".
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 01:48 PM   #177
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
So Parliament will meet tomorrow,no matter what?
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 01:50 PM   #178
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
So Parliament will meet tomorrow,no matter what?
Tomorrow's agenda is already published, it will meet tomorrow.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 01:50 PM   #179
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,908
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
He should be the first to resign after Boris.
I'm not fussed what order they do it in. Hell, I'd help them pack.
__________________
He bade me take any rug in the house.
commandlinegamer 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 24th September 2019, 01:56 PM   #180
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.
Eh....no. Not in the Real World anyway.


Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision.
Yes. They've enumerated and detailed in the judgement.
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 02:06 PM   #181
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Read the decision(s). It is explained.

11 Supreme Court judges found the law had been broken. Your lot lost. Suck it up.
Brexiteers never admit defeat. Obviously the facts are wrong.
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 02:08 PM   #182
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Sky News reports a Government official says House of Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg will address Parliament tomorrow when MPs return following Supreme Court ruling that proroguing Parliament was unlawful

I’m sure this will be fine and he won’t piss everyone off even more.
Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 02:10 PM   #183
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Maybe he will say
"The Court had made it's decision. Let them enforce it".
Contempt of Court. Bench warrant. Arrest. Imprisonment.
Pretty simple.
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 02:17 PM   #184
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,655
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There was a diabetic guy on the news the other day who was asked whether he still supported Brexit, even though it meant that he might die due to lack of insulin. He said yes, because it was what people had voted for.

.

“It’s the people’s will! Up yours Delors!”
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 03:06 PM   #185
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,045
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
At this point you really have to ask what the hardcore brexiteers actually expect Brexit to achieve? It's not going to bring any economic benefits, its not going to stop immigration and their attitude to parliament and the courts makes it clear that restoring UK sovereignty was another lie so what the hell is it for?
It's all just a useful tool to get their own agenda of a libertarian Paradise implemented in the UK.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 24th September 2019, 04:23 PM   #186
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Brexiteers never admit defeat. Obviously the facts are wrong.

Gee, exactly like Trump supporters. What a coincidence.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 04:26 PM   #187
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Sigh. At the risk of heading into political nostalgia it is less than two centuries since Prime Ministers fought duels...
Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 05:31 PM   #188
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,701
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Johnson has not been found guilty of committing a crime. What the SC decided was that the advice to HM to prorogue was unlawful (i.e. invalid), void and of no effect.

The SC stated that to be lawful, a prorogation must not frustrate Parliament's legislative and supervisory functions unless proper justification is given. No justification, good or otherwise, was given by the PM, therefore the advice to prorogue was unlawful, void and of no effect, meaning that the prorogation itself was void.

Source: see paras 50 and 55-61 at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/41.html
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.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 24th September 2019 at 05:37 PM.
BobTheCoward 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 24th September 2019, 05:38 PM   #189
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,543
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.
__________________
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 24th September 2019, 05:41 PM   #190
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,701
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law..
If you need a final decision, you can flip a coin. If you accept the premise that the ultimate authority gets it right, then their opinion may be no more correct than the experts that disagree with them. The question is how do you actually get the right answer.
BobTheCoward 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 24th September 2019, 06:33 PM   #191
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,555
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Its important to point out that this is the whole point of having a final court of appeal: it is the ultimate authority on the law.

If BJ is upset about the decision he is free to try and enact legislation preventing any legal challenges from succeeding. That's how it works in a country under the rule of law. The fact that ministers in BJ's government weren't willing to say that they would unconditionally respect the courts decision is a worrying indication of their lack of respect for the rule of law.
It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 24th September 2019, 06:38 PM   #192
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,938
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
The Supreme Court decision defines the legal grounds.
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.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
are you a Monarchist?
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 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
psionl0 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 24th September 2019, 06:49 PM   #193
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,045
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
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 Queen is not supposed to have any real power. The courts are.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 24th September 2019, 07:07 PM   #194
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,564
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
It's like the American Supreme court;it's the court of last appeal;once it rules the case is over.
There's a growing list of countries that seem poised to run a test to see what happens after that.
Delphic Oracle 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 24th September 2019, 08:07 PM   #195
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,938
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
The Queen is not supposed to have any real power. The courts are.
Wrong. The Parliament is supposed to. The Queen only acts on advice received but that is not codified anywhere.
__________________
"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
psionl0 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 24th September 2019, 08:29 PM   #196
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,045
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Wrong. The Parliament is supposed to. The Queen only acts on advice received but that is not codified anywhere.
I didn't mention parliaments power.



You said


Quote:

However, it terrifies me when an unelected body like the SC takes on powers for itself that are greater than the Queen's



I also note the Queen is not even appointed based on merit, but purely on inheritance.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person 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 24th September 2019, 08:36 PM   #197
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,938
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
II also note the Queen is not even appointed based on merit, but purely on inheritance.
You didn't read the post that you selectively quoted.
__________________
"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

Last edited by psionl0; 24th September 2019 at 08:38 PM.
psionl0 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 24th September 2019, 08:56 PM   #198
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,443
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.

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:
Quote:
The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and Johnson’s advice subject to the law. Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.”

They then ruled the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”.
__________________
"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 24th September 2019, 08:58 PM   #199
llwyd
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 504
Actually this decision continues the centuries long tradition of stressing the supremacy of the parliament. As there is no such clear and formal separation of powers as in the US, this might confuse the American commentators. The PM and the cabinet have not been elected by the people - their position is founded on the command of majority in the parliament. This case goes against the cabinet and PM and for parliament - and only one of these bodies is directly elected by the people.
llwyd 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 24th September 2019, 09:28 PM   #200
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,938
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
England and Wales is a common law jurisdiction.
Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law". Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.
__________________
"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
psionl0 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 05:36 AM.
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.