Mikey1874 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Smithee said: I can't understand how anyone can take them seriously after they were in government. Their principles went out the window, it could happen again, they're weak. Lib Dems seem to hate Labour more these days. Quite a change. Brexit has messed with their heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said: The Liberal Democrats vote to unilaterally revoke Article 50 and therefore ignore the referendum result while Willie Rennie states a Scottish independence referendum shouldn't be granted even if a majority of Greens and SNP's are returned. Democrats... I heard that little snivelling barsteward on the radio this morning. Feck me! Told the interviewer to listen then didnt even listen to her question. Erse of the highest order. I pray he loses his seat to the SNP at the GE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said: I heard that little snivelling barsteward on the radio this morning. Feck me! Told the interviewer to listen then didnt even listen to her question. Erse of the highest order. I pray he loses his seat to the SNP at the GE. MSP, so he's pretty safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec Eiffel Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 1 hour ago, ri Alban said: MSP, so he's pretty safe. Even if he lost his seat at Holyrood, he'd be far up the LibDem list, that he would automatically qualify for a seat. Sometimes I dislike PR. Roothie was the same before she won her seat last time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 It doesn't look good for the Supreme Court case(s). Lord Sumption (former SC justice) was on Newsnight last night and his language was definitely pointing to the SC going with the non-justiciable ruling. Basically said that 'convension' would be to go with the English court decision anyway. He suggested the SC would be wise to rule that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Is this the first time a situation like this has occurred? Just seems prime real estate for a constitutional clash, surprised it has taken 300 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 20 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: Is this the first time a situation like this has occurred? Just seems prime real estate for a constitutional clash, surprised it has taken 300 years. Heard one reporter this morning mention that back in the 1600's, Parliament said it wouldn't interfere in the workings of the Judiciary, and the Judiciary said that it wouldn't interfere in the workings of Parliament. For the last 300+ years that agreement has worked just fine........................until now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 15 hours ago, ri Alban said: Google Libdem Tory Pact. Take your pick. Denied, obviously, but hey... these are the same people who lied about tuition fees and tried to slur the FM. No, ri, *you* post a link to a (preferably trustworthy) source for your claim that "Jo Swinson has been in talks with Boris about tactical voting at the GE in Scotland." We have all got to start questioning the information we receive and pass on, even if it does match and nourish our own personal opinions and biases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alec Eiffel Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 14 hours ago, Mikey1874 said: Starting now. 2 appeals 1. Gina Millar against English court decision (in part using Court of Session decision arguments) 2. Government against Court of Session decision. Plus some representations including N.Ireland and John Major. From what I can gather the Gina Miller case presented to the High Court was poorer in content than the Joanna Cherry case submittmed to the CoS. She is now plagiarising the Scottish submission to strengthen her argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 8 hours ago, Victorian said: It doesn't look good for the Supreme Court case(s). Well that depends in what way you're looking at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 16 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said: Is this the first time a situation like this has occurred? Just seems prime real estate for a constitutional clash, surprised it has taken 300 years. Our unwritten constitution is partly based on everyone acting reasonably. People are rightly arguing Parliament should be allowed to act freely. But this is an act of Government. If Governments can prorogue Parliament when they want what is to stop someone doing it for 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: Our unwritten constitution is partly based on everyone acting reasonably. People are rightly arguing Parliament should be allowed to act freely. But this is an act of Government. If Governments can prorogue Parliament when they want what is to stop someone doing it for 2 years. Nail on head. It’s an abuse of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 On 17/09/2019 at 09:31, AlphonseCapone said: The Liberal Democrats vote to unilaterally revoke Article 50 and therefore ignore the referendum result while Willie Rennie states a Scottish independence referendum shouldn't be granted even if a majority of Greens and SNP's are returned. Democrats... I can see the argument for revocation of Article 50, if they stand in the general election with revocation on their manifesto and are then miraculously elected as the majority party, they arguably have a mandate for revocation without a referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 6 minutes ago, Martin_T said: I can see the argument for revocation of Article 50, if they stand in the general election with revocation on their manifesto and are then miraculously elected as the majority party, they arguably have a mandate for revocation without a referendum. I disagree. They could be the majority party with significantly less votes than those voting leave at the referendum. An election is too fractured and complex to act as a proxy for a binary issue like that. By all means have a second referendum in your manifesto and do that with a majority, that at least as the entire nation as the final arbitrator on the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 20 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: I disagree. They could be the majority party with significantly less votes than those voting leave at the referendum. An election is too fractured and complex to act as a proxy for a binary issue like that. By all means have a second referendum in your manifesto and do that with a majority, that at least as the entire nation as the final arbitrator on the decision. Beth Rigby from Sky pointed this very thing out to Jo Swinson during an interview the other day. She pointed out that in the 2015 GE the Tories got less than 37% of the vote share and had just over 11m votes, Rigby went on to say that, lets say the Lib Dems got the same, then how can 11m votes override 17m votes, in a democracy it can't. The only way it could is if the Lib Dems got more than 17.4m votes whilst standing on a manifesto of scraping brexit, then and only then would the Lib Dems have a legitimate mandate to scrap brexit, and one which couldn't be dragged through the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Beth Rigby from Sky pointed this very thing out to Jo Swinson during an interview the other day. She pointed out that in the 2015 GE the Tories got less than 37% of the vote share and had just over 11m votes, Rigby went on to say that, lets say the Lib Dems got the same, then how can 11m votes override 17m votes, in a democracy it can't. The only way it could is if the Lib Dems got more than 17.4m votes whilst standing on a manifesto of scraping brexit, then and only then would the Lib Dems have a legitimate mandate to scrap brexit, and one which couldn't be dragged through the courts. That's exactly as I see it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: Our unwritten constitution is partly based on everyone acting reasonably. People are rightly arguing Parliament should be allowed to act freely. But this is an act of Government. If Governments can prorogue Parliament when they want what is to stop someone doing it for 2 years. I think we need a written constitution. We've done well to get this far with folk respecting conventions and playing fair but the world's changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: I think we need a written constitution. We've done well to get this far with folk respecting conventions and playing fair but the world's changed. It works both ways, just take the 2nd amendment in the states for an example, when that was written down, they had single shot flintlock guns, now the same 200 year old written constitution is being used to justify the ownership of assault rifles etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Beth Rigby from Sky pointed this very thing out to Jo Swinson during an interview the other day. She pointed out that in the 2015 GE the Tories got less than 37% of the vote share and had just over 11m votes, Rigby went on to say that, lets say the Lib Dems got the same, then how can 11m votes override 17m votes, in a democracy it can't. The only way it could is if the Lib Dems got more than 17.4m votes whilst standing on a manifesto of scraping brexit, then and only then would the Lib Dems have a legitimate mandate to scrap brexit, and one which couldn't be dragged through the courts. Arguably the Brexit Party's existence and it's advocacy of an extreme No Deal Brexit, or 'clean break' as they are trying to market it, needs a counter balance of a party advocating the polar opposite if that which is in effect what the Lib Dems are doing. It's been done to death, but given that the 2016 referendum was both advisory and has since been found to have been won based on legally dubious campaigning, a parliamentary party elected on a manifesto pledge to revoke would have more democratic legitimacy. Further in the referendum there were only two choices, in a GE there are multiple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: It works both ways, just take the 2nd amendment in the states for an example, when that was written down, they had single shot flintlock guns, now the same 200 year old written constitution is being used to justify the ownership of assault rifles etc. ...and that amendment was based on the circumstance of being able to raise militia against imperialist forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 13 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: It works both ways, just take the 2nd amendment in the states for an example, when that was written down, they had single shot flintlock guns, now the same 200 year old written constitution is being used to justify the ownership of assault rifles etc. True but there are better examples of written constitutions out there. I'd never argue America as an example of anything. The Irish constitution is a decent example, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution but it requires a referendum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 12 minutes ago, Martin_T said: ...and that amendment was based on the circumstance of being able to raise militia against imperialist forces. Indeed, and it's now been manipulated for an entirely different reason. 1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said: True but there are better examples of written constitutions out there. I'd never argue America as an example of anything. The Irish constitution is a decent example, there are mechanisms for changing the constitution but it requires a referendum. Tbh I don't know enough to give an informed view as to whether a written constitution is better than it's unwritten counter part. I would guess, that both would have their own merits and drawbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Government lawyers have been referring to the quick no deal legislation as an argument in their favour whereby Parliament could have passed legislation to stop the government. When the government was arguing that taking over Parliament to pass that legislation was unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 I've never watched the supreme court before but it all feels really messy and disorganised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: I've never watched the supreme court before but it all feels really messy and disorganised. Heard it reported that this was in part due to the rapidness in which the cases were brought, but even still, you'd think that the information on page 400 would be the same for the lawyers and m'lords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said: I've never watched the supreme court before but it all feels really messy and disorganised. I can assure you that it is much more organised than the High Court and the Court of Session, where QCs waste endless hours over the period of a hearing searching for documents and other references and ensuring that both the judge and the legal teams are looking at the same thing.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Footballfirst said: I can assure you that it is much more organised than the High Court and the Court of Session, where QCs waste endless hours over the period of a hearing searching for documents and other references and ensuring that both the judge and the legal teams are looking at the same thing.. You'd almost think that they were all being paid on an hourly basis or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Interesting bit of comment from Lara Kunesberg in the last few mins. (she is normally very much pro government in her writings) Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak 1. This is all very unpredictable, but if you are following Supreme Court case the expectation in govt might be shifting a bit 2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but... 3. Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else 4. Obviously has implications for what Johnson may be able to do next - remember in our interview this week he didn’t rule out trying prorogation again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) Justice making point / question government could have asked to vote on a recess of Parliament for party conference season alongside prorogation. But that would have needed a vote. Which I expect would have been voted down. Government lawyer still going on about Parliament having the option to stop Government but didn't. Risky approach I think. Hopefully that will be countered this afternoon or tomorrow. Government previously said opposition/ Parliament taking over business to make laws was wrong. Justice also questions whether it would be right or not for witness statement to be made by government. Which they didn't. Edited September 18, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 15 minutes ago, Footballfirst said: Interesting bit of comment from Lara Kunesberg in the last few mins. (she is normally very much pro government in her writings) Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak 1. This is all very unpredictable, but if you are following Supreme Court case the expectation in govt might be shifting a bit 2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but... 3. Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else 4. Obviously has implications for what Johnson may be able to do next - remember in our interview this week he didn’t rule out trying prorogation again And got this from BBC live page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphonseCapone Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 17 minutes ago, gjcc said: Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” That was a mental response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 49 minutes ago, gjcc said: Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said: I've never watched the supreme court before but it all feels really messy and disorganised. I think what is key is that all the Supreme judges have read the submissions in full ahead of the actual hearings. So while it appears disorganised, the judges themselves understand what the QC submissions are getting at. Edited September 18, 2019 by DETTY29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 hour ago, gjcc said: Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” After the last few weeks, I wonder if Boris, if he could turn back time, would be so keen to get into number 10. Looks to me, he's been thrown straight into the lions den, granted much of that is his own making. I can see him walking tbh, as the gig is turning out to be a poisoned chalice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobboM Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: After the last few weeks, I wonder if Boris, if he could turn back time, would be so keen to get into number 10. Looks to me, he's been thrown straight into the lions den, granted much of that is his own making. I can see him walking tbh, as the gig is turning out to be a poisoned chalice. It's just a huge gamble for him I think, like supporting Leave over Remain. Interesting piece by Robert Peston on what he perceives to be Johnson's brexit policy. I'd listened to an interesting podcast recently called the Irish Passport, which does give an interesting and fresh perspective on the issue. Interestingly, one of the journlists interviewed thinks the Irish government may regret having taken such a hard line on the border issue as it gives little room for them to manouevre, though they do know that the EU is 100% in their camp if they call it. https://www.itv.com/news/2019-09-17/hl-revealed-the-brexit-deal-johnson-wants-and-why-its-success-all-hinges-on-dublin-writes-peston/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) Scottish lawyer for the Cherry Court of Session case saying Johnson having preset interview questions and 'People's PMQs' instead of answering questions in Parliament is a parody. Talking in riddles a bit but I think he has a strong case. Talking of "effect and intent". Edited September 18, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Cherry group lawyer Aiden O'Neill has been a bit of a slaver so far tbf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Victorian said: Cherry group lawyer Aiden O'Neill has been a bit of a slaver so far tbf. Getting to his main points finally. I think he was trying earlier to say Court of Session is a major constitutional player. Talking in riddles earlier but maybe understood by the Judges. Basically prorogation cannot be a blank cheque and court must adjudicate because Parliament is not able to. Edited September 18, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 "Mother of Parliament shut down by the Father of Lies" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All roads lead to Gorgie Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: "Mother of Parliament shut down by the Father of Lies" Not sure a comment like that shows Scottish law in a good light even if it is true. Could well swing the judgment in favour of Boris. A wee bit unprofessional! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 He's been arguing against the legality of a no deal Brexit. Not sure that's relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Victorian said: He's been arguing against the legality of a no deal Brexit. Not sure that's relevant. Yes, seems like pre-empting the next of no doubt many more legal challenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 40 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: "Mother of Parliament shut down by the Father of Lies" The sort of sound bite for media consumption you'd expect in the Commons not in Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxy Hearts Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 5 hours ago, Mikey1874 said: If that was a mental hospital he would've been kept in. He's a lunatic and looks like one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 By all accounts, Boris had a totally shambolic, embarrassing and inept trip to Luxembourg. Par for the course then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 25 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said: If that was a mental hospital he would've been kept in. He's a lunatic and looks like one. Which one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49746701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Z Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said: Trump strips California of power to set auto emission standards https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49746701 Wrong knob thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 First time I've seen that hospital footage. What a ****ing cretin. "There's no press here... ". Either utterly oblivious to what's right there in front of him or so conditioned to deception that he just blurted out another lie in the expectation it would be believed. The guy wasn't the most coherent so he didn't really embarrass the ***** as he should have been. Then some arrogant ****er says "You're going to have to lower your voice now... ". **** off. Ask the guy to kindly lower his voice. The guy's visiting his child in hospital ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.