Jump to content

Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )


jumpship

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 25.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    1494

  • ri Alban

    1425

  • Cade

    1385

  • Victorian

    1348

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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... :rofl:

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Real Maroonblood
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... :rofl:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting bit of comment from Lara Kunesberg in the last few mins. (she is normally very much pro government in her writings)

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
17 minutes ago, gjcc said:

Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. :lol: 

 

Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” 

 

That was a mental response :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, gjcc said:

Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. :lol: 

 

Boris in to the sound of camera shutters: “there’s no press here” 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DETTY29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gjcc said:

Boris getting confronted in hospital by an angry bloke is glorious. :lol: 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mikey1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All roads lead to Gorgie
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! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • davemclaren changed the title to Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...