[Continuation] Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero - Page 7

Arcade22 · 25th September 2019, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

Archie Gemmill Goal · 25th September 2019, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision?

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

What new law did they create?

this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about

Archie Gemmill Goal · 25th September 2019, 02:33 AM

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

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

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

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

P.J. Denyer · 25th September 2019, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?

Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves.

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

Darat · 25th September 2019, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

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

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

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

Especially the likes of Mogg.

ponderingturtle · 25th September 2019, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris.

Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.

timhau · 25th September 2019, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner"

So all the losing comes via nurture?

Nessie · 25th September 2019, 03:35 AM

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

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

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

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

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

zooterkin · 25th September 2019, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

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

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

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

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

Parsman · 25th September 2019, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go.

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

Dave

I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.

Captain_Swoop · 25th September 2019, 04:03 AM

Frankie Boyle tweeted
@frankieboyle

Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.

Nessie · 25th September 2019, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

Dave Rogers · 25th September 2019, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.

One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know."

Dave

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?'

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

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

If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 25th September 2019, 04:55 AM

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504

Quote:

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

“Yes”

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

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

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

Still looks like the government thinks there is a loophole to duck out of requesting a Brexit delay.

Darat · 25th September 2019, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

'tis

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

'tis

"Can" and ""shall" are matters of law.

"Should" is a moral question.

Mojo · 25th September 2019, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

Do you agree with psionl0?

Originally Posted by psionl0

If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 05:29 AM

The daily mail is so stupid.

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Do you agree with psionl0?

It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

jimbob · 25th September 2019, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket.

Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand

I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.

Wudang · 25th September 2019, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

There is no new law.

Edited by zooterkin:

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 6

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

There is no new law.

I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

Belgian thought · 25th September 2019, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

There is no new law. etc...

May I use this when I set up my new religion? It's a good chant.

Wudang · 25th September 2019, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

I'm glad I didn't claim there was one

Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

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

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

"If their toy manages to make a law without them"

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

IF

I made no claim if they did or not.

Giz · 25th September 2019, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

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

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

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

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

angrysoba · 25th September 2019, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

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

The Great Zaganza · 25th September 2019, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit.

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

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

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

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...

angrysoba · 25th September 2019, 07:25 AM

...and wait...

Originally Posted by Nessie

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

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

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

Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Giz · 25th September 2019, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

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

Indeed

Giz · 25th September 2019, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

...and wait...

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Maybe they took the average (rounding up) of James VI and James I ?

Ian Osborne · 25th September 2019, 07:58 AM

I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.

Mojo · 25th September 2019, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power.

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

BobTheCoward · 25th September 2019, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.

Nessie · 25th September 2019, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Giz

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

I presume it should be 1579.

(I checked, it should be 1579)

Dave Rogers · 25th September 2019, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Originally Posted by Giz

How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?

I presume it should be 1579.

A popular lass even in death then.

Dave

Nessie · 25th September 2019, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

...and wait...

...who the Hell is James IV?

Is this paragraph just entirely made up?

Should be James VI, who became James I of E&W with the union of the crowns in 1603.

catsmate · 25th September 2019, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

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

Demonstrating (again) that you do not understand the UK political system, the function, roles and powers of the UK Supreme Court and the concept of judicial review.

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

The idea of judicial review of administrative actions is well established. And that’s what this was: the court was reviewing the actions of the executive, not Parliament. See, for example, the comments in the section headed “What conclusions did the court reach” here:

Where is John Marshall when you need him?

catsmate · 25th September 2019, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

Parliament is hardly a matter or "common law".

Judicial review.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Not to mention that the SC has effectively overruled the Queen.

Not true.

Originally Posted by psionl0

Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ.

Why?

Originally Posted by psionl0

Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty.

Not true.

25th September 2019, 02:28 AM	#241
Arcade22 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 6,781	Originally Posted by psionl0 Parliament should have passed a no confidence motion against BJ. Allowing the SC to set new standards for the PM instead is an abrogation of their democratic duty. Why would they save him from making a fool of himself?
	__________________ We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

25th September 2019, 02:28 AM	#242
Archie Gemmill Goal Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 7,770	Originally Posted by psionl0 Which section of the constitution outlines these circumstances and why was there no reference to it in the SC decision? No matter what word smithing you use, the SC created a new law and applied it to the PM retrospectively. What new law did they create? this is nonsense. you don't know what you are talking about
	__________________ "I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

25th September 2019, 02:33 AM	#243
Archie Gemmill Goal Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 7,770	Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?' The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.' That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all. If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO'
	__________________ "I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"

25th September 2019, 02:41 AM	#244
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,821	Originally Posted by Arcade22 Why would they save him from making a fool of himself? Conservatives pass a law preventing the party in power to unilaterally call premature elections based on advantageous timing for themselves. Also Conservatives complain because the opposition parties won't agree to call a premature election in the narrow window of opportunity that is advantageous to Boris.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,821	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

25th September 2019, 03:09 AM	#245
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,841	Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?' The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.' That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all. If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO' Especially the likes of Mogg.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th September 2019, 03:09 AM	#246
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,412	Originally Posted by dudalb Still amazed that Bojo picked Rees Moss to be the House Majority leader. Apparenly a lot of Tories cannot stand him. Brilliant choice ,Boris. Makes sense, he didn't want someone who could be a threat within the party.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th September 2019, 03:26 AM	#247
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 14,462	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Michael Gove tells LBC Radio in an interview "The Prime Minister is a born winner" So all the losing comes via nurture?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

25th September 2019, 03:35 AM	#248
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,966	I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament "Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done. Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London." Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic Last edited by Nessie; 25th September 2019 at 03:36 AM.

25th September 2019, 03:48 AM	#249
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 48,369	Originally Posted by Nessie I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament "Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done. Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London." Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law. And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20

25th September 2019, 03:53 AM	#250
Parsman Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bonnie Scotland Posts: 740	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers The Mail is asking, "Who runs Britain?" They seem to have missed that the answer is, definitively, "Parliament." The Express is whingeing about Brexit, though we know from Boris that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit; they must have missed that bit. The Sun has decided, in its usual classy way, that personal abuse against Lady Hale is the responsible way to go. All the rest of the papers seem to be giving Boris the kicking he deserves. Dave I should mention that there are Scottish editions of all the UK papers. The Mail and the Express have followed the English line on this but the Scottish Sun has taken a very anti-Boris line.
	__________________ I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.

25th September 2019, 04:03 AM	#251
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,830	Frankie Boyle tweeted @frankieboyle Now understand that when Cummings implied he wanted to emulate Bismarck he meant the ship.

25th September 2019, 04:20 AM	#252
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,966	Originally Posted by zooterkin And it has been used much more recently to prevent embarrassment, as when John Major prorogued parliament in 1997 to delay the publication of the cash for questions report ahead of the election. That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

25th September 2019, 04:30 AM	#253
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,361	Originally Posted by Nessie That maybe should have been challenged at the time, but since it was just prior to a planned election, it was not considered serious enough to challenge. Major lost that election, with the cash for questions and other Tory sleaze scandals being one of the reasons for that loss. One of the entertaining aspects of the current crisis has been the very astute series of comments made by Major himself about the risks an unregulated power of prorogation poses to democracy. I frequently find myself thinking, "Well, of all people, he should know." Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

25th September 2019, 04:52 AM	#254
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal Just to be clear.... the SC were asked in effect 'is this ok? can a PM simply prorogue parliament for as long as he wants for any reason he wants?' The SC ruled 'No, there are limits to that power.' That's not a coup, not a new law, not anything out of the ordinary at all. If you had asked 1000 people prior to about a month ago whether a prime minister should be able to just shut down parliament for any reason for any length of time, 1001 would have said 'NO' I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question.

25th September 2019, 04:55 AM	#255
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 31,238	https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1176820359057813504 Quote: Significant: @NickBoles asks @Geoffrey_Cox if the government will abide by the Benn Act if there’s no new Brexit deal? “Yes” So we might not be leaving the EU on October 31 after all. On the Benn Act: Cox says the government will “obey the law” but “There is a question of precisely what the government needs to do to obey the law.” Still looks like the government thinks there is a loophole to duck out of requesting a Brexit delay.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

25th September 2019, 04:58 AM	#256
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,841	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question. 'tis
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

25th September 2019, 05:21 AM	#257
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Darat 'tis "Can" and ""shall" are matters of law. "Should" is a moral question.

25th September 2019, 05:25 AM	#258
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 33,720	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I don't see what "should" has anything to do with it. "Should" is not a legal question. Do you agree with psionl0? Originally Posted by psionl0 If there are to be limits placed on the ability of the PM or the Crown to prorogue Parliament then that should have been done by the Parliament itself and not left to the SC to make up a new rule on the conditions under which Parliament can be prorogued.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 25th September 2019 at 05:27 AM.

25th September 2019, 05:29 AM	#259
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	The daily mail is so stupid. Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. They created a vehicle to stick it to the prime Minister when they are away. Good for them.

25th September 2019, 05:39 AM	#260
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Mojo Do you agree with psionl0? It is a silly invention of parliament itself. Parliament is sovereign and can alter the legislative process if they wish. If their toy manages to make a law without them and they don't care, then I don't care.

25th September 2019, 06:07 AM	#261
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 22,774	Originally Posted by GlennB I daren't read what the UK tabloids (Sun, Mail, Express) are making of this for fear of blowing a gasket. Captain S, would you take the hit, the way you do with Trump's tweets? Just a summary would be grand I'm wondering whether to report this as advocating self-harm.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

25th September 2019, 06:22 AM	#263
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Wudang There is no new law. I'm glad I didn't claim there was one Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic.

25th September 2019, 06:31 AM	#264
Belgian thought Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,315	Originally Posted by Wudang There is no new law. etc... May I use this when I set up my new religion? It's a good chant.
	__________________ ... er, that's it

25th September 2019, 06:38 AM	#265
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 13,466	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward I'm glad I didn't claim there was one Some people have a very weird reaction to if-then logic. "If their toy manages to make a law without them" I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok?
	__________________ "Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

25th September 2019, 07:13 AM	#266
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Wudang "If their toy manages to make a law without them" I know you don't read most peoples posts but for ***** sake read your own, ok? IF I made no claim if they did or not.

25th September 2019, 07:20 AM	#267
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by Nessie I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament "Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done. Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London." Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law. How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759?
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

25th September 2019, 07:23 AM	#268
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,306	Originally Posted by Giz How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759? Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

25th September 2019, 07:23 AM	#269
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,614	Originally Posted by Nessie I think that another clarification about proroguing is needed. Proroguing is not merely a parliamentary procedure. It is part of constitutional law. It was a power that the monarch had when the first parliaments appeared, to call and then dismiss (prorogue) parliament as and when he (or she) determined if a parliament should sit. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament "Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done. Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London." Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law. so it is about Johnson's girlfriend...

25th September 2019, 07:25 AM	#270
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,306	...and wait... Originally Posted by Nessie https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk...ish-parliament "Proroguing was first used in the 15th century. Back then, governments were usually summoned for brief periods, then dismissed at the monarch’s whim. Those early parliaments were designed to approve taxes and royal expenditures, and were given the monarchical boot when they were done. Over time, though, parliament gained more power, and monarchs started using prorogation to put them in check. For example, in 1759 Elizabeth I prorogued parliament to avoid public debate of a potential suitor, Francis, Duke of Alencon. Other monarchs used the tactic for good reason—in 1608, for example, James IV issued a prorogation in response to a typhus epidemic in London." Proroguing is a common law that is part of the UK's Constitutional Law. ...who the Hell is James IV? Is this paragraph just entirely made up?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

25th September 2019, 07:29 AM	#271
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by angrysoba Any number would be surprising given she had been dead for over a hundred and fifty years. Indeed
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

25th September 2019, 07:30 AM	#272
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709	Originally Posted by angrysoba ...and wait... ...who the Hell is James IV? Is this paragraph just entirely made up? Maybe they took the average (rounding up) of James VI and James I ?
Giz Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 8,709

25th September 2019, 07:58 AM	#273
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,234	I thought this thread had gone quiet, and then I realised it's been split again. And the same people still don't get it.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

25th September 2019, 08:12 AM	#274
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 33,720	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Earlier I was saying it was parliament's job to set the rules of prorogration if they didn't like it. And they did. They made up the supreme Court and gave it it's power. Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

25th September 2019, 08:21 AM	#275
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,204	Originally Posted by Mojo Technically, perhaps, but the Supreme Court is really just a continuation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (judges appointed to the House of Lords to act as a supreme court). When the Supreme Court was set up, it effectively inherited its jurisdiction, powers, and indeed its judges, from the House of Lords. So who cares if it overrides Johnson? It is parliament's baby to do such things.

25th September 2019, 08:56 AM	#276
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 12,966	Originally Posted by Giz How many potential suitors did Elizabeth I have in 1759? I presume it should be 1579. (I checked, it should be 1579)
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic