Francis Albert Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Victorian said: Seems reasonable. Everyone knows this saga will go on and on. Why not just take the first damage minimising steps and move the process on? Only the death cult no deal right now lot seem to believe there's any absolute necessity to leave in a tearing hurry. A tearing hurry probably doesn't seem an accurate description for the majority who voted Leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: I've mentioned 'respecting' the Leavers who won the Referendum. But we also need to respect the Remainers who for example want the freedom to travel and work in Europe. And the way to do that is to Leave but have a close ongoing relationship through the single market/ Customs Union or similar. Obvious really. If only we had spent the last three years negotiating the future relationship between the UK and EU instead of the transition agreement. We have done the latter because of the refusal of Remainers to accept the result of the referendum. Oh and I think the refusal of the EU too. It has never been keen on accepting popular votes which oppose "the project". Edited September 23, 2019 by Francis Albert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Victorian said: They would hold a referendum to leave on pre-determined terms. Yes they would leave if the referendum resulted that way. It's no longer a question of leave or remain. The only credible path is how the next 10 years or more are managed. Remain is temporary. A softer Brexit is temporary. The LD jokers have even said that leave is temporary - they would campaign for BRENTRY. When the Brexit referendum result was announced, a Ukrainian friend of mine joked that his country would now be campaigning for UKRENTRY. He argued that it would be really easy for his country to enter the EU because the EU would just need to add "raine" to all the instances of "Uk" in the various documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 What's the story with Boris and conflict of interest, whilst he was Mayor of London? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 13 hours ago, Francis Albert said: Lovable tolerant all welcoming Scotland at its best Just thought I'd play your wee fake game, FA. While I'm here. As a Brexiter, could you please square an English court overruling a Scottish court and your stance on ECJ. You know, getting away from it's so called interference? There's a good Lad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 There's nothing coming out of the Labour party conference that will win votes, win seats or put Labour anywhere near forming a government. It gives the moderate voter nowhere to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, ri Alban said: What's the story with Boris and conflict of interest, whilst he was Mayor of London? Access to business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Jambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 11 hours ago, Victorian said: They would hold a referendum to leave on pre-determined terms. Yes they would leave if the referendum resulted that way. It's no longer a question of leave or remain. The only credible path is how the next 10 years or more are managed. Remain is temporary. A softer Brexit is temporary. The LD jokers have even said that leave is temporary - they would campaign for BRENTRY. But it is a suicidal position in terms of winning an election. 1. If you support hard brexit then no way would they vote labour. 2. If you support a very soft Brexit then you might vote labour 3. If you support remaining why risk voting labour when you could vote Lib Dem. all the polling and analysis says all the votes are in buckets 1 and 3. Labours policy is aiming at a very small percentage of the electorate. labour might have a radical domestic policy agenda but this election will be fought on brexit whether they like it or not. Given their current position they cannot win this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Jambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 2 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said: There's nothing coming out of the Labour party conference that will win votes, win seats or put Labour anywhere near forming a government. It gives the moderate voter nowhere to go. I agree and the crazy thing is this is their big chance, it’s an open goal and they are going to Hibs it. a just read that one of Corbyns closest allies quit citing ‘the lack of professionalism, competence and human decency’ in Corbyns team. They are in free fall and so divided. This conference has been a disaster for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said: Access to business 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) That is Court can decide on decision. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) Going back to 1611 when courts have been involved to justify decision. "Case is about limits of power" to prorogue. Stopping Parliament doing its job. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) Not sounding good for Government. Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) Delete, jumped gun a bit. Edited September 24, 2019 by DETTY29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, DETTY29 said: Unlawful prorogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Oh dear. Baw Jaws is not having a good time of it is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) "Void" Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) Oh dear. We have a blank piece of paper government. Who knew? Edit 'blank sheet' Edited September 24, 2019 by DETTY29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Speakers can act Prime Minister doesn't have to do anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ri Alban Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Unanimous decision 11-0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Bad Boris. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashauskis9 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 By Patel’s view then, surely we should hang him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just in time for the Tory Party Conference. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 So prorogation is dead in the water all business to resume as if nothing had happened. Boris to be hung drawn and quartered at the first opportunity. 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 This also means that any non-Brexit legislation that was stopped in its tracks due to the prorogation is still now technically "live", which will be of comfort to those who had spent so much time on working on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Yassssssss. Up ye Boris. Well done the Scottish Courts. Well done the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Ineteresting view from Jim Spence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Oh dear. Get yer arse back to parliament ye lying *****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 In normal times you'd think that Boris should resign, but these are far from normal times, so who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: In normal times you'd think that Boris should resign, but these are far from normal times, so who knows. He will claim that he was badly advised, and/or that he was acting in good faith, and that he is happy that the matter has now been legally clarified. And the fun, games and parlour tricks will continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Anything could happen now. Who gets in first? Speaker has to restart things. Boris could prorogue again though he needs to be careful after decision. Could be a vote of no confidence and new government if the opposition can agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, redjambo said: He will claim that he was badly advised, and/or that he was acting in good faith, and that he is happy that the matter has now been legally clarified. And the fun, games and parlour tricks will continue. More than likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, redjambo said: He will claim that he was badly advised, and/or that he was acting in good faith, and that he is happy that the matter has now been legally clarified. And the fun, games and parlour tricks will continue. The Supreme Court has made clear that they are not questioning his motives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Boris first appearance at the dispatch box will be a must watch popcorn moment. He’ll get slaughtered and rightly so. That’s if he is PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Well the Tory party conference is due to start in a couple of day's time. Labour and LibDems will be back in the chamber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Unanimous anaw. That's significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said: The Supreme Court has made clear that they are not questioning his motives. Lady Hale stated that no justification had been put before the court for the prorogation. If that's not questioning the motives behind the prorogation, I don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Overall as someone who favours the system we have it's a good decision. If it had gone the other way it could have led an extremist government to close Parliament down for any period it wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said: Boris first appearance at the dispatch box will be a must watch popcorn moment. He’ll get slaughtered and rightly so. That’s if he is PM. He could just take the a similar line to the one regarding the press when he spoke to that bloke at the hospital. “I didn’t prorogue parliament” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, redjambo said: Lady Hale stated that no justification had been put before the court for the prorogation. If that's not questioning the motives behind the prorogation, I don't know what is. She actually said "we are not questioning the motives". That is about failure of government to put forward the reasons in a statement which I think badly harmed their case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen’s Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen’s Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end. This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices. It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 In retrospect was John Majors prorogation also unlawful? Slightly off topic I know. Is prorogation now a poisoned chalice for any PM to try and use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gashauskis9 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, gjcc said: He could just take the a similar line to the one regarding the press when he spoke to that bloke at the hospital. “I didn’t prorogue parliament” He’ll probably blame the Queen and call her a “posh remainder”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Crime doesn’t pay. Nae luck, dough boy ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 Just now, Dannie Boy said: In retrospect was John Majors prorogation also unlawful? Slightly off topic I know. Is prorogation now a poisoned chalice for any PM to try and use? Fine for a few days not 5 weeks. The Court made the point a recess allows business to go on. The problem Boris had was it was likely Parliament would have voted against a recess for the party conferences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 26 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: Going back to 1611 when courts have been involved to justify decision. "Case is about limits of power" to prorogue. Forcing Parliament doing its job. Ftfy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Gashauskis9 said: He’ll probably blame the Queen and call her a “posh remainder”. Complicit with her German cousins no doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2,986
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.