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

Closed Thread
Old 19th September 2019, 07:51 AM   #3361
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've just listened to a podcast, recorded yesterday evening, and one of the contributors said a couple of things that I hadn't heard before. The first was that the lack of written statement from the government is because they went round civil servants trying to find one who would sign a statement saying that the memos were an accurate representation of what the government's motives were for prorogation, and basically everybody refused because they'd be committing perjury and would go to prison. The second is that all the planning for prorogation actually took place on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, on burner phones.
I had heard the first of those accusations but not the second. If the second is true I am not sure if any crime has been committed or not but it is certainly very sketchy.

Quote:
If his source is correct, then there can be no question that they knew that what they were doing was unlawful. It would also explain why their only defence has been to say that it's not a justiciable matter. I've not seen the reporting of this specific question myself, but it was said that a question put to the government's representation was that if someone gave the PM a massive bribe in order to prorogue parliament, would that still be non-justiciable, and he said yes.

A couple of the contributors also said that if the court case went Johnson's way, then there are plans for a second proroguement to help Johnson achieve his goals - although they were unspecific about exactly when.
I think the can of worms that would be opened otherwise will lead the SC to judge that prorogation is justiciable. Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 07:52 AM   #3362
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
It wasn't a "slip", it was a less cumbersome way of saying "in every legal system within the UK". There is absolutely nothing incorrect in what I said.
Well as I said its a confusing way to communicate what you meant and so is at best sub-optimal.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 08:00 AM   #3363
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.
I'm struggling to see how any second prorogation for the purposes of preventing parliament from sitting over the same period could be lawful, given that in essence the unlawful aspect of the current prorogation would be based purely on its being done with that intent. It seems tantamount to saying "If you rule that stealing is unlawful, then we'll take away our victim's property without paying by some other, lawful way."

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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 08:05 AM   #3364
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
I think it is reasonable to call laws that cover more than one part of the UK, such as the Road Traffic Act 1988, as UK law.
Perhaps in casual speech but its probably better termed UK legislation. Because while the rules may be the same the implementation is not.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 08:08 AM   #3365
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,463
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I'm struggling to see how any second prorogation for the purposes of preventing parliament from sitting over the same period could be lawful, given that in essence the unlawful aspect of the current prorogation would be based purely on its being done with that intent. It seems tantamount to saying "If you rule that stealing is unlawful, then we'll take away our victim's property without paying by some other, lawful way."

Dave
Really depends on the findings. If they find for example that a 5 week prorogation is unusual and thus suggests that this was done for motives other than just having a queens speech then they could prorogue again for say 3 weeks to have a queens speech.

Unless the judges specifically deal with that in the judgement I don't see what could stop them proroging again even if it ended up back to court again
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 08:22 AM   #3366
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,430
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I've just listened to a podcast, recorded yesterday evening, and one of the contributors said a couple of things that I hadn't heard before. The first was that the lack of written statement from the government is because they went round civil servants trying to find one who would sign a statement saying that the memos were an accurate representation of what the government's motives were for prorogation, and basically everybody refused because they'd be committing perjury and would go to prison. The second is that all the planning for prorogation actually took place on encrypted apps such as WhatsApp, on burner phones.
I had heard the first of those accusations but not the second. If the second is true I am not sure if any crime has been committed or not but it is certainly very sketchy.

Quote:
If his source is correct, then there can be no question that they knew that what they were doing was unlawful. It would also explain why their only defence has been to say that it's not a justiciable matter. I've not seen the reporting of this specific question myself, but it was said that a question put to the government's representation was that if someone gave the PM a massive bribe in order to prorogue parliament, would that still be non-justiciable, and he said yes.

A couple of the contributors also said that if the court case went Johnson's way, then there are plans for a second proroguement to help Johnson achieve his goals - although they were unspecific about exactly when.
I think the can of worms that would be opened otherwise will lead the SC to judge that prorogation is justiciable. Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.

I'd heard the second but not the first. In the context of the requirement to provide documentation on the planning of the proroguation of Parliament. Apparently slithy Gove (or Smeagol - is it just me that's noticed the similarity) was unaware of what a burner phone is.
__________________
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 online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 08:45 AM   #3367
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Otherwise there appears to be absolutely no checks and balances on the power of the PM to dispense with parliament other than the Queen going against protocol and refusing the assent.

I have seen discussion of a second prorogation either way. If its found to be unlawful they could in theory have a second 'lawful' one.
Wouldn't one of the checks and balances be that parliament, when in session, has the power to change the rules around prorogation? at any time in any way they please?

That seems way more balanced in parliament's favor than the prime minister.

Wait, does parliament have the power to just scrap the prime minister's office or any power they have? I'm not sure on the extent of parliamentary sovereignty.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:02 AM   #3368
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Wouldn't one of the checks and balances be that parliament, when in session, has the power to change the rules around prorogation? at any time in any way they please?
If the current prorogation is ruled as lawful, then that power would effectively be taken away, because any future government could frustrate any law parliament drafted by proroguing any and every time a law to do so was submitted for royal assent.

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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:11 AM   #3369
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
If the current prorogation is ruled as lawful, then that power would effectively be taken away, because any future government could frustrate any law parliament drafted by proroguing any and every time a law to do so was submitted for royal assent.

Dave
If it was already submitted....wouldn't it go in effect before the queen got around to assenting to the prorogue request?

Further, didnt the house of Lords vote on the extension request between the time the queen approved and it went into effect? In the short window, could they pass a new law?

Third, the parliament has had decades to evaluate the rule. It seems their lack of modification to the system demonstrates that the current system is as they wish.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 19th September 2019 at 09:13 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:24 AM   #3370
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If it was already submitted....wouldn't it go in effect before the queen got around to assenting to the prorogue request?
OK then, prorogue any time after the bill passes its first reading. Parliament is dissolved and all pending legislation immediately lapses.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Further, didnt the house of Lords vote on the extension request between the time the queen approved and it went into effect? In the short window, could they pass a new law?
Even if that's the case, it should be obvious that they can't. Since the passing of a new law requires multiple actions across both houses, it cannot by definition be done in less than the time taken for a single measure to be voted on in a single house.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Third, the parliament has had decades to evaluate the rule. It seems their lack of modification to the system demonstrates that the current system is as they wish.
Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.

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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:31 AM   #3371
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
OK then, prorogue any time after the bill passes its first reading. Parliament is dissolved and all pending legislation immediately lapses.



Even if that's the case, it should be obvious that they can't. Since the passing of a new law requires multiple actions across both houses, it cannot by definition be done in less than the time taken for a single measure to be voted on in a single house.



Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.

Dave
A) how long would it take them if they tried to pass something as fast as possible?

B) it would be a strategy sustainable only for 5 years? Then there would be an election?

C) we have the same inference. That is probability what happened. what you describe sounds like the will of parliament. Their prioritization and interpretation is on them.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 19th September 2019 at 09:36 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:41 AM   #3372
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,548
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
You think he has a plan
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:55 AM   #3373
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,060
Originally Posted by mkg View Post
From the horse's mouth ...“There is nothing in WTO rules that forces anyone to put up border posts,” said WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell on a visit to Dublin last week."

It's in the article I posted which you didn't read.
Oh but I did, and the next sentence:
Quote:
Someone has to bring a complaint and say that their interests have been hurt.
Your attempts at deception are truly pathetic.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:58 AM   #3374
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,060
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
I wonder if it is a breach of the Freedom of Information Act to deliberately try to proactively circumvent it...?
It is in Ireland.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 09:59 AM   #3375
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 20,361
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
You think he has a plan
EU: "Solution to Brexit? A solution to Brexit! At this latitude, at this time of day, localized entirely within that folder!"
Johnson: "Yes!"
EU: "Can I see it?"
Johnson: "No."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 12:11 PM   #3376
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,542
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
Never heard of him.
Well, the little episode is something many Brits would like to forget.....
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 12:13 PM   #3377
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,542
Originally Posted by Lothian View Post
You think he has a plan
" I have a cunning plan"......
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 03:04 PM   #3378
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,639
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Well, the little episode is something many Brits would like to forget.....
Done and done!
__________________
"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 offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 01:47 AM   #3379
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,520
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Wow government and negotiation by passive aggressive behavior. That is sure to work out well.
The thing is, they don't want to actually do anything. They want to give the appearance of doing something and then be able to blame the EU.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 01:53 AM   #3380
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 25,520
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Or that the current situation is one that parliament had enver anticipated, or had anticipated but considered so unlikely as to be too low a priority to over-ride the many other calls on their time. Yours is not the only inference that can possibly be drawn.
Yes, both the US and UK systems of government have up until now operated on a kind of honour system which has assumed that everybody involved would disagree, but would act in reasonable faith and in the interests of the country and of democracy itself. But they're now faced with such unprecedented levels of corruption that it's been made obvious that this just isn't good enough.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 02:39 AM   #3381
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A) how long would it take them if they tried to pass something as fast as possible?
A few days. The recent passing of the law requiring Boris to request an extension is an example of legislation passed as quickly as possible. The drawback, of course, is that laws passed in this much haste tend to be riddled with loopholes, which is why that law was so specific as to situations, dates and the exact wording of the letter that must be sent. Drafting a law for fundamental constitutional reform in such haste could be disastrous.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
B) it would be a strategy sustainable only for 5 years? Then there would be an election?
It would be a strategy which might allow a hypothetical despotic government five years in which to dismantle the structures of democracy and engineer suitable circumstances in which to prevent an election indefinitely. A simple study of 20th century history shows that five years is more than enough to do all that.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
C) we have the same inference. That is probability what happened. what you describe sounds like the will of parliament. Their prioritization and interpretation is on them.
Redefining concepts as their complete opposite is, of course, an option here; but if I hold a gun to your head and offer you the alternative of giving me all your possessions or shooting you dead, your choice to prioritise your survival over your possessions does not make it your will that I should have them.

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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 03:41 AM   #3382
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,369
Now it's straightforward taking the piss:

"Downing Street’s secrecy over its “underwhelming” Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels.

The row centres on a demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as “Her Majesty’s government property”.

The European commission team was told by Whitehall that the three “confidential” papers it had sent on Thursday evening should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states.

Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress." link
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 03:55 AM   #3383
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,440
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Now it's straightforward taking the piss:

"Downing Street’s secrecy over its “underwhelming” Brexit proposals has caused a fresh rupture in the negotiations in Brussels.

The row centres on a demand that the EU’s negotiating team treat a long-awaited cache of documents outlining the UK’s latest ideas as “Her Majesty’s government property”.

The European commission team was told by Whitehall that the three “confidential” papers it had sent on Thursday evening should not be distributed to Brexit delegates representing the EU’s 27 other member states.

Sources in Brussels said that in response the point was being made forcefully to the British negotiating team that all proposals would need to be made available for the EU’s capitals to analyse for talks to progress." link

The proposals must be really embarrassingly pathetic.
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 04:15 AM   #3384
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,173
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
The proposals must be really embarrassingly pathetic.
Or, it is May's deal with a few word changes.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 04:16 AM   #3385
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,973
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Or, it is May's deal with a few word changes.
Or a massive misunderstanding of the phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
__________________
"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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 04:19 AM   #3386
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Or a massive misunderstanding of the phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Or it contains so many schoolboy insults directed at previous Prime Ministers that publication would be libellous.

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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 04:23 AM   #3387
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
 
Nessie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 12,173
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Or it contains so many schoolboy insults directed at previous Prime Ministers that publication would be libellous.

Dave
Or it was written in crayon and the EU want it typed.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 04:47 AM   #3388
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,839
Or all of the above...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:11 AM   #3389
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Redefining concepts as their complete opposite is, of course, an option here; but if I hold a gun to your head and offer you the alternative of giving me all your possessions or shooting you dead, your choice to prioritise your survival over your possessions does not make it your will that I should have them.

Dave
Except parliament decided to let the person have the gun, and the decision making power to put the gun up to the head, and the procedure on what to say.

If parliament is supreme, then they can legislate their own suicide pact. They may have done so, but that is their choice.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:25 AM   #3390
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Except parliament decided to let the person have the gun, and the decision making power to put the gun up to the head, and the procedure on what to say.
Except parliament recognised that in certain circumstances the gun was needed, and had to be used in a particular way, and didn't think they'd ever end up giving the gun to someone who might abuse it until they didn't have enough time left to do anything about it. Yes, it was a failure of imagination, but it wasn't a spoecific choice of parliament that there should be a loophole by which their will could be over-ridden whenever the government felt like it. Nobody expected a government that devious. If it were the will of parliament to be prorogued this way in these corcumstances, there wouldn't be a problem. But what you're doing is saying that parliament's will must include any unintended consequences of them enacting the laws they actually wanted. The case being brought before the Supreme Court is based, as I see it, on the principle that the will of parliament cannot be over-ridden by any previous act of parliament, which I believe is itself a well-established principle in the constitution.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If parliament is supreme, then they can legislate their own suicide pact. They may have done so, but that is their choice.
If parliament cannot be bound by previous acts of parliament, then they can nullify their own suicide pact; but the prorogation at present prevents them from doing that. The argument is that it is therefore incompatible with the supremacy of parliament.

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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:30 AM   #3391
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Except parliament recognised that in certain circumstances the gun was needed, and had to be used in a particular way, and didn't think they'd ever end up giving the gun to someone who might abuse it until they didn't have enough time left to do anything about it. Yes, it was a failure of imagination, but it wasn't a spoecific choice of parliament that there should be a loophole by which their will could be over-ridden whenever the government felt like it. Nobody expected a government that devious. If it were the will of parliament to be prorogued this way in these corcumstances, there wouldn't be a problem. But what you're doing is saying that parliament's will must include any unintended consequences of them enacting the laws they actually wanted. The case being brought before the Supreme Court is based, as I see it, on the principle that the will of parliament cannot be over-ridden by any previous act of parliament, which I believe is itself a well-established principle in the constitution.



If parliament cannot be bound by previous acts of parliament, then they can nullify their own suicide pact; but the prorogation at present prevents them from doing that. The argument is that it is therefore incompatible with the supremacy of parliament.

Dave
How do you know it is the will of parliament to not be in this situation?


Note to Archie....see... someone that thinks the will of parliament is a factor. This is why I ask.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:30 AM   #3392
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,583
I think any ruling on this will be based on the supremacy of Parliament. And I suspect that the ruling will not be in favour of the applicants, the judgement will be if Parliament wanted it could have at any time set conditions on the prorogation of parliament but it didn't.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:39 AM   #3393
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How do you know it is the will of parliament to not be in this situation?
I would think the principle is that parliament can act according to its will, and this situation prevents it from doing so. The actual will of parliament doesn't have to be established for that to be the case.

However, I can see your and Darat's point, and as a ruling that would make sense. The counter-argument would be that parliament failed to envisage this situation until it was too late to respond to it, which I think would also make sense. It's a tough decision either way.

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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:17 AM   #3394
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I would think the principle is that parliament can act according to its will, and this situation prevents it from doing so. The actual will of parliament doesn't have to be established for that to be the case.
If true, doesn't every prorogration ever limit that parliaments ability to act according to it's will?
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:30 AM   #3395
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: 29,639
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If true, doesn't every prorogration ever limit that parliaments ability to act according to it's will?
Trivially, yes, but parliament accepts brief prorogations as a part of normal operation. It seems fairly clear that parliament objected to being prorogued at this time and in these circumstances, and it's been very strongly argued that the aim of this prorogation was to frustrate the will of parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Trying to view this situation in the absence of the details of the situation won't yield useful results.

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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:38 AM   #3396
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Trivially, yes, but parliament accepts brief prorogations as a part of normal operation. It seems fairly clear that parliament objected to being prorogued at this time and in these circumstances, and it's been very strongly argued that the aim of this prorogation was to frustrate the will of parliament to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Trying to view this situation in the absence of the details of the situation won't yield useful results.

Dave
It doesn't seem fairly clear that parliament objected. It seems the only way to determine if parliament objected is with a vote.

Individual members expressed opposition.

Without a vote, how do we determine which prorogues are objected to by parliament and which are 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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:00 AM   #3397
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,036
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What has the EU been doing to come up with something better than the current backstop?
This isn’t an EU responsibility. If the UK wants to leave the EU it needs to start taking some responsibility for it’s own affairs instead of insisting the EU keep looking after it.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:27 AM   #3398
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,692
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
This isn’t an EU responsibility. If the UK wants to leave the EU it needs to start taking some responsibility for it’s own affairs instead of insisting the EU keep looking after it.
Let me be clear, I wasn't talking about resolving the backstop. I'm talking about making it better such that if the UK changed their mind and decided to go with the backstop, then they have an even better agreement to sign on to.

Of course it isn't their responsibility. Better service to the citizens requires going above and beyond.
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:30 AM   #3399
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: 13,248
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Or it was written in crayon and the EU want it typed.
That was my guess as well.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 07:50 AM   #3400
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,036
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What is the case history on courts being allowed to impute the intent of parliament from things other than votes?

This is what the courts do. It's been what courts do for centuries. It's built into every case that has gone before the courts for hundreds of years.

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post

These seem like straightforward questions of law.
There is no such thing as “straightforward questions of law” without legal precedent.

There is no precedent for this specific situation, but the general principle established over the last 500 years is that it is not legal to bypass the will of Parliament, or prevent Parliament from sitting in order to prevent them from making decisions you don’t like. The law and precedent is clear on this in regards to the Crown, it’s now up to the courts to decide whether this applies to the PM as well.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 01:28 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.