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 Today, 07:51 AM   #3361
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,396
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:52 AM   #3362
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,396
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 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: 29,474
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:05 AM   #3364
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,396
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:08 AM   #3365
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,396
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:22 AM   #3366
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,356
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 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 Today, 08:45 AM   #3367
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,481
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 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 Today, 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: 29,474
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:11 AM   #3369
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,481
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; Today at 09:13 AM.
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 Today, 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: 29,474
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:31 AM   #3371
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,481
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; Today at 09:36 AM.
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 Today, 09:41 AM   #3372
Delphic Oracle
Illuminator
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,452
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:55 AM   #3373
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,919
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:58 AM   #3374
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,919
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:59 AM   #3375
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,910
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 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 Today, 12:11 PM   #3376
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,001
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:13 PM   #3377
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 45,001
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:04 PM   #3378
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,489
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 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 06:04 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.