Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

What if Boris doesn't actually want a no-deal Brexit and never has. What if it's all a smoke screen, not as such as a bargaining chip for the EU, but for the opposition in Parliament, to make them concentrate all their efforts on opposing no-deal and therefore make them take their eyes off the ball as regards countering a deal Brexit. At the European Council summit, Boris will offer a "deal" Brexit. He'll then turn around to the opposition and say"You were afraid of No Deal - well look, I've got you a deal!" and will be feted by the right wing for getting the UK out of the EU, although admittedly alienating the ERG and the No-deal Brexiteers. If the opposition try to counter this, he will say "The deal is done" and bank on the fact that the opposition will look awkward for opposing him for doing exactly what they wanted, and that was to avoid a "No Deal". Just a (probably very naïve) thought.

 

Something like this has already been suggested.    Sacrifice the previously crucial support of the Brexoloonies and the DUP and surf in on the wave of 50 or so Labour MPs.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

Andrew Bridgen saying the the SNP pressurised the Court of Session.

 

Shameful stuff.

Unbelievable.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Something like this has already been suggested.    Sacrifice the previously crucial support of the Brexoloonies and the DUP and surf in on the wave of 50 or so Labour MPs.

 

It would also pull the rug from under the Brexit party. Although a Remainer myself, it would almost be fun to see this happen and see the no-deal Brexiteers wailing and thrashing about in protestation. Of course, in reality, I would probably want it to be a good deal too (and for me that means one with close ties) - I'm a bit of a party-pooper like that.

 

Weighing everything up (quickly), I reckon that this could be a great strategy from Boris, from his political point of view anyway. He's going to have at least 21 ex-Tory MPs a wee bit miffed at him though for having temporarily sacrificed them as part of his cunning plan...

[Cade]

The May Deal is the only deal on the table.

The ONLY thing even being informally discussed is the Irish Border question.

Even then it comes down to rewording the Political Declaration, which itself was only invented in an attempt to appease the swivel-eyed fanatics in the Tory party who thought that ignoring the Irish border and pretending The Good Friday Agreement wasn't a legally binding, UN registered multilateral peace treaty was viable.

Unless Boris and chums can somehow come up with a border that is both closed (Tory Brexit red line) and open (GFA requirement), nothing is going to move.

 

 

 

[Justin Z]

11 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

 

 

Almost seems like you are defending the British Empire here. I'm certain that isn't what you meant. 

 

[Victorian]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

It would also pull the rug from under the Brexit party. Although a Remainer myself, it would almost be fun to see this happen and see the no-deal Brexiteers wailing and thrashing about in protestation. Of course, in reality, I would probably want it to be a good deal too (and for me that means one with close ties) - I'm a bit of a party-pooper like that.

 

Weighing everything up (quickly), I reckon that this could be a great strategy from Boris, from his political point of view anyway. He's going to have at least 21 ex-Tory MPs a wee bit miffed at him though for having temporarily sacrificed them as part of his cunning plan...

 

Supposedly there has been some kind of move to try to reach out to them and return the whip.

[Don Dan]

15 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Was it a catfish?

 

😂     Brilliant 👍🏻

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

Supposedly there has been some kind of move to try to reach out to them and return the whip.

 

If true, that would make it difficult for Boris to enforce the same form of whip during future votes, thus reducing his armoury and control. As a result, I'm not so sure he'll do this.

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Zlatanable said:

Well, the USA sorta got rocket engines from the Nazis. 

The Brits invented their own jet engines, and later, rockets. 

 

I've read that Wernher von Braun was seen in SS uniform on multiple occasions but he claimed he only wore it the one time he was photographed and had no real relationship with the Nazi party. 

At the end of the day though the US wanted his brains for their rocket program so that was that. 

[Unknown user]

19 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Was it a catfish?

 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

I've read that Wernher von Braun was seen in SS uniform on multiple occasions but he claimed he only wore it the one time he was photographed and had no real relationship with the Nazi party. 

At the end of the day though the US wanted his brains for their rocket program so that was that. 

 

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? 😉

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I've read that Wernher von Braun was seen in SS uniform on multiple occasions but he claimed he only wore it the one time he was photographed and had no real relationship with the Nazi party. 

At the end of the day though the US wanted his brains for their rocket program so that was that. 

 

And Von Braun was only one of many German scientists and engineers who were recruited.     

[RobboM]

35 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

If you make a claim as Brigden did without offering evidence that can be challenged then that is wrong. It’s making a claim without offering evidence that’s the problem. 

 

It's become a common Donald Trump tactic. Number of times he'll state something unsubstantiated claiming "A lot of people are saying ...."

I guess I should really back that up with examples 😂

[Cade]

"I heard in Greggs............."

[Cruyff Turn]

19 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

Well, the USA sorta got rocket engines from the Nazis. 

The Brits invented their own jet engines, and later, rockets. 

Indeed. 

[Unknown user]

27 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? 😉

 

That's not my department 😉

[Pans Jambo]

 

A government adviser told this British businessman to replant his company in the European Union because they have “no information” about what to do after Brexit deadline.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/shelagh-fogarty/british-business-owner-government-advised-eu/

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Lovecraft]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

And Von Braun was only one of many German scientists and engineers who were recruited.     

1600

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

 

 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Lovecraft said:

1600

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

 

 

 

Cheers for the link, I knew there was quite a few but I didn't realise it was on that scale!

[Dagger Is Back]

3 hours ago, DarioHMFC said:

I tend to try and stay away from talking about politics on Internet forums because it makes me want to smash my head off a brick wall with some of the absolute melts you come across however, I’m going to try and convey my thoughts on the whole Brexit process and where we are now because I simply need to...

 

First off, the referendum was a complete sham from both sides. It was full of lies, smears and questionable funding. It was a difficult task to try a spin together a coherent argument for both sides and to let your average joe come to a completely informed opinion on the matter. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the referendum been legally binding there would have been a rerun ordered from the Supreme Court. 

 

Leave won, Cameron shat it and ran off into hiding.

 

May had an impossible task of trying to appease an entire country that is currently fractured in opinion as to how we should be proceeding. On one side you have hardcore Brexiteers who will literally support it at all costs, then you’ve got soft Brexiteers and Remainers who are open to leaving but with a meaningful deal and then you have hardcore Remainers who believe the only option we should be pursuing is remaining in the EU. You are not going to get all on side and let’s be straight, Mays deal is absolutely pitiful. I struggle to believe she’s spent the best part of two years negotiating with the EU and that’s the best she could muster.

 

Finally she threw in the towel and Brexiteers seen it as an opportunity to seize control of the process and push it through their way but it’s strengthened the resolve of every one on the hardcore sides. Those for leaving at all costs are pushing harder than ever for a no deal and those against no deal (whether leave with a deal or remain) are pushing back even harder.

 

We are FINALLY reaching a conclusion though and the final ‘battle lines’ are being firmly drawn. No matter Johnson’s talk, if he doesn’t come back to Parliament with an acceptable solution after the EU summit he will be forced to have ask for another extension and then we’re going to have a general election.

 

Tories and Labour are going to campaign on opposite tickets to try become the biggest party. Lib Dem’s are going to campaign to revoke article 50 in a hope they can get a concession of a second referendum should they enter into a coalition with Labour. SNP are going to push forward with independence at the core of their campaign based on Scotland being ignored at every step of the way. The Brexit party know they’ve got very little chance and going for a few seats with the hope of having some kind of power with the Tories.

 

Depending on how the election plays out will decide on where we go from here. Tories win in any form, be it majority or coalition, we’re heading for no deal on 31st January. Labour win, more than likely a coalition if they’re going to get a government, and it’ll be a second referendum. SNP are going to take 50+ seats here so it’s also possible they could be needed in any kind of coalition between Labour and Lib Dem’s, they will most definitely only agree to this if there’s a section 30 order granted.

 

In my opinion the only way out of this mess is a two question, legally binding referendum.

 

Q1) Should the UK govt formally request to revoke article 50?

 

A) Yes

B ) No

 

Q2) If the majority answer to Q1 is B, in what manner should the UK leave the EU?

 

A) On WTO terms

B ) With the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated

 

This puts all options on the table while not splitting the vote and giving remain supporters a say on the way we should leave. Aside from this, there’s no real way out of the current impasse.

 

For what it’s worth, I think we’d be absolutely mental to leave the EU without a worthwhile deal and I think the release of the Yellowhammer report will change a lot of minds.

 

Take a bow 👏

[Footballfirst]

Just some thoughts on this week's court decisions and what might happen at the Supreme Court next week.

 

I was actually in Court 1 at the Court of Session for Wednesday morning's judgement (I have been following another case which was delayed by the prorogation decision). I was pleased to have been there for what was an historic decision by the Scottish Courts.

 

In court, there were the two legal teams, a number of journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public.  I don't think that many in attendance were expecting the judgement to go the way it did.  One of the QC's in the case I had been following was sat in the public gallery immediately behind me.  When Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful" all I heard from the QC was "wow!". It sort of resonated around the courtroom.

 

So where does this leave us with the English and Northern Irish courts adopting the position that the issue was non-justiciable (one that was outwith the jurisdiction of the courts)?

 

It leaves the Supreme Court in a difficult situation. The Scottish Court has effectively judged that,  based on the information available to them, the PM lied to the queen about the reasons for prorogation, while the English and N Irish courts declined to consider the reasons for prorogation, saying that the matter was non-justiciable and that was as far as it got.

 

How does the Supreme Court resolve the issue? It could reject the findings of any of the courts and stick with one view or, as might create a further constitutional crisis, actually uphold both positions.

 

What if the Supreme Court agrees with the Scottish Court's decision and reasoning that the PM lied as to the reasons for prorogation, but still adopts the English and N Irish position of the matter being non justiciable?

 

It's a perfectly credible scenario where the Supreme Court agrees that the PM lied to the queen, but that it has no jurisdiction to make the PM do anything.  Would the PM's position be untenable? Would the queen ask for his resignation? Could parliament act while prorogued?

 

Roll on next week.  

[Pans Jambo]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Just some thoughts on this week's court decisions and what might happen at the Supreme Court next week.

 

I was actually in Court 1 at the Court of Session for Wednesday morning's judgement (I have been following another case which was delayed by the prorogation decision). I was pleased to have been there for what was an historic decision by the Scottish Courts.

 

In court, there were the two legal teams, a number of journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public.  I don't think that many in attendance were expecting the judgement to go the way it did.  One of the QC's in the case I had been following was sat in the public gallery immediately behind me.  When Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful" all I heard from the QC was "wow!". It sort of resonated around the courtroom.

 

So where does this leave us with the English and Northern Irish courts adopting the position that the issue was non-justiciable (one that was outwith the jurisdiction of the courts)?

 

It leaves the Supreme Court in a difficult situation. The Scottish Court has effectively judged that,  based on the information available to them, the PM lied to the queen about the reasons for prorogation, while the English and N Irish courts declined to consider the reasons for prorogation, saying that the matter was non-justiciable and that was as far as it got.

 

How does the Supreme Court resolve the issue? It could reject the findings of any of the courts and stick with one view or, as might create a further constitutional crisis, actually uphold both positions.

 

What if the Supreme Court agrees with the Scottish Court's decision and reasoning that the PM lied as to the reasons for prorogation, but still adopts the English and N Irish position of the matter being non justiciable?

 

It's a perfectly credible scenario where the Supreme Court agrees that the PM lied to the queen, but that it has no jurisdiction to make the PM do anything.  Would the PM's position be untenable? Would the queen ask for his resignation? Could parliament act while prorogued?

 

Roll on next week.  

Good stuff FF.

 

My opinion is that the PM would rather "die in a ditch" than admit he lied to the monarch to get the Parliament prorogued or even resign his premiership next week.

 

Looking forward to the shit show next week.

[Mikey1874]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Just some thoughts on this week's court decisions and what might happen at the Supreme Court next week.

 

I was actually in Court 1 at the Court of Session for Wednesday morning's judgement (I have been following another case which was delayed by the prorogation decision). I was pleased to have been there for what was an historic decision by the Scottish Courts.

 

In court, there were the two legal teams, a number of journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public.  I don't think that many in attendance were expecting the judgement to go the way it did.  One of the QC's in the case I had been following was sat in the public gallery immediately behind me.  When Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful" all I heard from the QC was "wow!". It sort of resonated around the courtroom.

 

So where does this leave us with the English and Northern Irish courts adopting the position that the issue was non-justiciable (one that was outwith the jurisdiction of the courts)?

 

It leaves the Supreme Court in a difficult situation. The Scottish Court has effectively judged that,  based on the information available to them, the PM lied to the queen about the reasons for prorogation, while the English and N Irish courts declined to consider the reasons for prorogation, saying that the matter was non-justiciable and that was as far as it got.

 

How does the Supreme Court resolve the issue? It could reject the findings of any of the courts and stick with one view or, as might create a further constitutional crisis, actually uphold both positions.

 

What if the Supreme Court agrees with the Scottish Court's decision and reasoning that the PM lied as to the reasons for prorogation, but still adopts the English and N Irish position of the matter being non justiciable?

 

It's a perfectly credible scenario where the Supreme Court agrees that the PM lied to the queen, but that it has no jurisdiction to make the PM do anything.  Would the PM's position be untenable? Would the queen ask for his resignation? Could parliament act while prorogued?

 

Roll on next week.  

 

Thanks.

 

One thing to add to the mix is that the Court of Session statement implied they also agreed actions that should be taken (maybe that Parliament should sit) but said they wouldn't state them because of the Supreme Court appeal. Also more information on ruling could be published today. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

8 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Just some thoughts on this week's court decisions and what might happen at the Supreme Court next week.

 

I was actually in Court 1 at the Court of Session for Wednesday morning's judgement (I have been following another case which was delayed by the prorogation decision). I was pleased to have been there for what was an historic decision by the Scottish Courts.

 

In court, there were the two legal teams, a number of journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public.  I don't think that many in attendance were expecting the judgement to go the way it did.  One of the QC's in the case I had been following was sat in the public gallery immediately behind me.  When Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful" all I heard from the QC was "wow!". It sort of resonated around the courtroom.

 

So where does this leave us with the English and Northern Irish courts adopting the position that the issue was non-justiciable (one that was outwith the jurisdiction of the courts)?

 

It leaves the Supreme Court in a difficult situation. The Scottish Court has effectively judged that,  based on the information available to them, the PM lied to the queen about the reasons for prorogation, while the English and N Irish courts declined to consider the reasons for prorogation, saying that the matter was non-justiciable and that was as far as it got.

 

How does the Supreme Court resolve the issue? It could reject the findings of any of the courts and stick with one view or, as might create a further constitutional crisis, actually uphold both positions.

 

What if the Supreme Court agrees with the Scottish Court's decision and reasoning that the PM lied as to the reasons for prorogation, but still adopts the English and N Irish position of the matter being non justiciable?

 

It's a perfectly credible scenario where the Supreme Court agrees that the PM lied to the queen, but that it has no jurisdiction to make the PM do anything.  Would the PM's position be untenable? Would the queen ask for his resignation? Could parliament act while prorogued?

 

Roll on next week.  

Thanks for that.

[Justin Z]

On democratic process

 

 

Not even the teensiest bit controversial in reality, when the picture is examined as a whole. Anyone who claims it is, especially if drawing parallels to Scottish independence referenda, is letting bias and motivated reasoning get in the way.

[Footballfirst]

38 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Thanks.

 

One thing to add to the mix is that the Court of Session statement implied they also agreed actions that should be taken (maybe that Parliament should sit) but said they wouldn't state them because of the Supreme Court appeal. Also more information on ruling could be published today. 

The full judgement has already been published, but not as yet on the Scottish Courts website.

 

https://socialsecuritychamber.scot/docs/librariesprovider2/default-document-library/2019csih49.pdf?sfvrsn=e3179adf_2

[Victorian]

I agree with FF that the Supreme Court has a job of work to do to somehow arrive at a ruling,  or rulings,  that recognise the two different decisions of the courts.     The only way I can see a judgement being arrived at that is in line with both would be one that recognises both were correct under their separate legal systems and interpretations.    Perhaps that only a legal interpretation of Scottish law allows for a court to see the action as pertinent to the court.    

 

If it goes along those lines,   that the courts having a role to judge these matters only applies in Scotland and not England or NI,   the question would then be whether the so-called unlawful prorogation in the eyes of Scottish law exists equally beside the non-justiciable,   therefore lawful,   prorogation in the eyes of English law.     Scottish MPs are of equal status to English,  Welsh or Northern Irish MPs in parliament.      In theory,    Scotland is an equal partner of the UK.     In theory,    a correctly judged ruling from a Scottish court should not be superseded or countermanded by a ruling which applies under another legal system in the UK.

[Victorian]

27 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

On democratic process

 

 

Not even the teensiest bit controversial in reality, when the picture is examined as a whole. Anyone who claims it is, especially if drawing parallels to Scottish independence referenda, is letting bias and motivated reasoning get in the way.

 

Very good.   

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, Victorian said:

I agree with FF that the Supreme Court has a job of work to do to somehow arrive at a ruling,  or rulings,  that recognise the two different decisions of the courts.     The only way I can see a judgement being arrived at that is in line with both would be one that recognises both were correct under their separate legal systems and interpretations.    Perhaps that only a legal interpretation of Scottish law allows for a court to see the action as pertinent to the court.    

 

If it goes along those lines,   that the courts having a role to judge these matters only applies in Scotland and not England or NI,   the question would then be whether the so-called unlawful prorogation in the eyes of Scottish law exists equally beside the non-justiciable,   therefore lawful,   prorogation in the eyes of English law.     Scottish MPs are of equal status to English,  Welsh or Northern Irish MPs in parliament.      In theory,    Scotland is an equal partner of the UK.     In theory,    a correctly judged ruling from a Scottish court should not be superseded or countermanded by a ruling which applies under another legal system in the UK.

 

The difficulty with that is that the Court of Session ruling applies to the United Kingdom, not just Scotland. 

 

This relates to arrangements for devolution including the new Scottish Parliament and how the courts operate under that. 

 

Suppose the Supreme Court could change that but would be risky. It could effectively be saying Scotland is now independent. A different sort of UDI. 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Victorian]

9 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The difficulty with that is that the Court of Session ruling applies to the United Kingdom, not just Scotland. 

 

This relates to arrangements for devolution including the new Scottish Parliament and how the courts operate under that. 

 

Suppose the Supreme Court could change that but would be risky. It could effectively be saying Scotland is now independent. A different sort of UDI. 

 

It all seems a bit unweildy.

 

One legal system says something is unlawful.    A thing has been done not in accordance with the law.     Is there a requirement for the deed in question to be reversed?    A legal ruling to say that the thing that was done must be un-done?     Another legal system says the thing was non-justiciable,   therefore lawful.     Is there an 'injured party'?     If there is,   who or what is it?     The law itself,   parliament,   Scottish MPs,   the people,   Scottish voters only?     

 

 

[Justin Z]

I think given how easily the Supreme Court was able to discard Sewel, both in its conventional and statutory form, and show complete contempt for the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament, it'll have no problem discarding the Scottish court ruling. Double points if it's declared to be erroneous in law.

[Cade]

Hartlepool Council is now under Brexit Party control after they made a deal with the Tories overnight.

 

Good luck, Hartlepool.

 

*this is the same town that hanged a monkey as a French spy in the napoleonic era

Edited September 13, 2019 by Cade

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I think given how easily the Supreme Court was able to discard Sewel, both in its conventional and statutory form, and show complete contempt for the sovereignty of the Scottish Parliament, it'll have no problem discarding the Scottish court ruling. Double points if it's declared to be erroneous in law.

 

This could happen.     On the face of it,   it would seem to be a real blow for the credibility of the Court of Session,   but maybe they simply take a very dispassionate view and treat it as a new legal precedent.     But if the Court of Session is seen to have ruled erroneously,    it will inevitably lead to more accusations of impartiality.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

This could happen.     On the face of it,   it would seem to be a real blow for the credibility of the Court of Session,   but maybe they simply take a very dispassionate view and treat it as a new legal precedent.     But if the Court of Session is seen to have ruled erroneously,    it will inevitably lead to more accusations of impartiality.

 

Which of course, in a precedent-based system, it shouldn't. But the UK seems hellbent on heading down that slippery slope, and ending up with a politicised court system just like the US has allowed itself to have. Shame.

[DETTY29]

4 minutes ago, Cade said:

Hartlepool Council is now under Brexit Party control after they made a deal with the Tories overnight.

 

Good luck, Hartlepool.

Should go for a council by council federal system.

 

Hartlepool can be the first to discard their local NHS and move to a 100% health premium service.

Edited September 13, 2019 by DETTY29

[Cade]

Tommy WubWub is out of jail.

 

Place yer bets on how long it takes for him to be banged up again.

[Mikey1874]

10 minutes ago, Cade said:

Tommy WubWub is out of jail.

 

Place yer bets on how long it takes for him to be banged up again.

 

Another dangerous example of 'judge bias'. 

[Cade]

Boris having a "working lunch" with Junker today.

 

I'm thinking along the lines of Alan Partridge's lunch with the Program Commissioner, putting forward a never-ending stream of pure gobshite suggestions more or less made up on the spot.

Boris being Alan, obviously.

 

[Footballfirst]

David Allen Green @davidallengreen

Breaking news from @UKSupremeCourt that they will now sit with *eleven* justices for the prorogation appeal next week. Increase from the nine announced a few days ago. Same number as in the last Miller case

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

 

 

*this is the same town that hanged a monkey as a French spy in the napoleonic era

 

Because that's relevant somehow? 

[Seymour M Hersh]

18 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

David Allen Green @davidallengreen

Breaking news from @UKSupremeCourt that they will now sit with *eleven* justices for the prorogation appeal next week. Increase from the nine announced a few days ago. Same number as in the last Miller case

 

You're not actually a qualified Solicitor are you FF? More of an enthusiastic Court attender I believe (like some folk love going to random funerals)?

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Because that's relevant somehow? 

 

A town historically famous for incredulous decision making?

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You're not actually a qualified Solicitor are you FF? More of an enthusiastic Court attender I believe (like some folk love going to random funerals)?

 

Or attending a football match every week etc etc etc?

 

Equating going to watch court proceedings with attending a random funeral is a bit cheeky, imo.

[Mikey1874]

3 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The full judgement has already been published, but not as yet on the Scottish Courts website.

 

https://socialsecuritychamber.scot/docs/librariesprovider2/default-document-library/2019csih49.pdf?sfvrsn=e3179adf_2

 

Summary 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49683936

[Cade]

Poor old Boris is having a bad day in Doncaster.

Heckled in the street, heckled during his speech, folk asking difficult questions and throwing his own comments back at him.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Cade said:

Poor old Boris is having a bad day in Doncaster.

Heckled in the street, heckled during his speech, folk asking difficult questions and throwing his own comments back at him.

 

It's probably just the pesky doomsters & gloomsters and the odd girly swot.

[scott herbertson]

12 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Just some thoughts on this week's court decisions and what might happen at the Supreme Court next week.

 

I was actually in Court 1 at the Court of Session for Wednesday morning's judgement (I have been following another case which was delayed by the prorogation decision). I was pleased to have been there for what was an historic decision by the Scottish Courts.

 

In court, there were the two legal teams, a number of journalists, MPs, other legal bods and members of the public.  I don't think that many in attendance were expecting the judgement to go the way it did.  One of the QC's in the case I had been following was sat in the public gallery immediately behind me.  When Lord Carloway said the word "unlawful" all I heard from the QC was "wow!". It sort of resonated around the courtroom.

 

So where does this leave us with the English and Northern Irish courts adopting the position that the issue was non-justiciable (one that was outwith the jurisdiction of the courts)?

 

It leaves the Supreme Court in a difficult situation. The Scottish Court has effectively judged that,  based on the information available to them, the PM lied to the queen about the reasons for prorogation, while the English and N Irish courts declined to consider the reasons for prorogation, saying that the matter was non-justiciable and that was as far as it got.

 

How does the Supreme Court resolve the issue? It could reject the findings of any of the courts and stick with one view or, as might create a further constitutional crisis, actually uphold both positions.

 

What if the Supreme Court agrees with the Scottish Court's decision and reasoning that the PM lied as to the reasons for prorogation, but still adopts the English and N Irish position of the matter being non justiciable?

 

It's a perfectly credible scenario where the Supreme Court agrees that the PM lied to the queen, but that it has no jurisdiction to make the PM do anything.  Would the PM's position be untenable? Would the queen ask for his resignation? Could parliament act while prorogued?

 

Roll on next week.  

 

 

Thanks - very interesting  and good to hear a 'layman's' view of it.

My layman's tuppenceworth  is that the Supreme Court could surely just back the E & NI position of it being 'non justiciable'  and therefore rule that the Scottish Court of Session was wrong to rule  on the matter and therefore their view was inadmissible for consideration - case closed?

 

Clearly I hope they don't and if it is proved the pM has lied he should get his comeuppance (or come'tuppence')

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Because that's relevant somehow? 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7063366.stm

 

They piss on the dying, too. 

[Horatio Caine]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Or attending a football match every week etc etc etc?

 

Equating going to watch court proceedings with attending a random funeral is a bit cheeky, imo.

Indeed.  More like equating a football match (Hearts) with a random funeral.

[The Mighty Thor]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You're not actually a qualified Solicitor are you FF? More of an enthusiastic Court attender I believe (like some folk love going to random funerals)?

Because that's relevant somehow?