Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[annushorribilis III]

25 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

What law was broken? Genuine question. 

He didn't "break the law", he acted unlawfully. I did have a definition of the apparent difference but I can't find it. 

 

Just seen the later post on this.

Acting unlawfully is IIRC not following due process , if that's not too simplistic. Acting unlawfully in legal terms doesn't equate to illegality. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by annushorribilis III

[The Continental Op]

18 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

My mistake but the same point stands whether the word is unlawful or illegal surely? What law has been broken? I wasn't "calling him out" either just asking him a question. 

Scots law recognizes four sources of law: legislation, legal precedent, specific academic writings, and custom.

 

English law can be described as having its own legal doctrine, distinct from civil law legal systems since 1189.

There has been no major codification of the law, rather the law is developed by judges in court, applying statute, precedent and case-by-case reasoning to give explanatory judgments of the relevant legal principles. These judgments are binding in future similar cases (stare decisis), and for this reason are often reported.

 

Basically, if courts find that if you can be shown to have gone against any of these, you can be held to have committed an unlawful act.

[Sarah O]

49 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

Yes but if he was asked to give his political views whilst working for the BBC I am sure it would be frowned upon. 

But he wasn't giving his views under the guise of the BBC. Your frillies are needlessly twisted.

[Sarah O]

47 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

I appreciate not a direct employee in the sense that he does not operate under contract however whilst working there he will be bound by their rules freelance or not. 

That would mean everyone who doesn't work for the BBC should remain neutral, you know, just in case one day we need to do a job for them?

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

15 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

He didn't "break the law", he acted unlawfully. I did have a definition of the apparent difference but I can't find it. 

 

Just seen the later post on this.

Acting unlawfully is IIRC not following due process , if that's not too simplistic. Acting unlawfully in legal terms doesn't equate to illegality. 

 

Proroguing happens virtually every year in the run up to a Queens speech and as far as anyone can tell the due process (i.e. the way it's done) was followed by BJ the only difference appears to be the length of time. And for MP's to squeal that they are being denied the time to consider Brexit is farcical. The clowns have had three and a half years and made an utter James Hunt of it so how would four extra days make a difference? 

[Seymour M Hersh]

21 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

He didn't "break the law", he acted unlawfully. I did have a definition of the apparent difference but I can't find it. 

 

Just seen the later post on this.

Acting unlawfully is IIRC not following due process , if that's not too simplistic. Acting unlawfully in legal terms doesn't equate to illegality. 

 

So every historic prorogation of Parliament has been unlawful? 

[Don Dan]

4 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

On the contrary, I think this has been very positive for the power of Parliament in its role in holding the Government to account. Also, the general public are now more aware of and have taken a greater interest in the workings of Parliament, and now the Supreme Court. That can't be harmful to democracy.

 

What it done is shown that despite some people’s reservations that the Old School Tie would take effect  and Tory Vultures would stick together it is not the case. The law is the law no matter what. 

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

So every historic prorogation of Parliament has been unlawful? 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

So every historic prorogation of Parliament has been unlawful? 

 

Magic, you've found a loophole that the highest court in the land unanimously couldn't see.

You should tell them, you'll save the day, probably be on the telly. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Magic, you've found a loophole that the highest court in the land unanimously couldn't see.

You should tell them, you'll save the day, probably be on the telly. 

 

Conversely you could add to the discussion with a sensible post instead of a trite comment. 

[Cade]

The SC set out very clearly why THIS PARTICULAR prorogation was unlawful

 

Try reading the judgement instead of the gutter press

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Conversely you could add to the discussion with a sensible post instead of a trite comment. 

 

Well if you need my point coloured in, your uneducated opinion carries very little weight in the wake of unanimous judgement from the highest court in the land and digging away at it isn't repeating a good point, it's just emphasising that you don't know what you're talking about. 

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

So what Law has been broken here? I'll stick a quote in from a constitutional law expert here as it's above my pay grade.

 

"There is no law that says Parliament must be in continuous session, and no law which lays down what reasons a government may or may not properly take into account in deciding to prorogue Parliament."

 

58 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

What law was broken? Genuine question. 

 

54 minutes ago, Cade said:

The English High Court was quite correct:

Parliament is not governed by Laws.

It runs on tradition and custom and accepted practice.

This made it impossible for English law to identify what exactly had been done wrong.

 

It falls to the Supreme Court to act as the constitutional court.

This court has ruled that prorogation usually happens in a different way.

Boris' dictatorial ways run contrary to this established way of ending a session.

This has now set a legal precedent.

It's now actionable in Law.

 

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

5 weeks was deemed too long with Brexit on the horizon 

[Pans Jambo]

A few QC's on JKB. Who knew?

 

Folk on here questioning the highest court in the land. OK to have an opinion but to actually suggest that the 11 judges ken heehaw is pure JKB magic!

 

Anyway, BoJo in the tower yet for lying to her Maj???

Edited September 24, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Mikey1874]

14 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Proroguing happens virtually every year in the run up to a Queens speech and as far as anyone can tell the due process (i.e. the way it's done) was followed by BJ the only difference appears to be the length of time. And for MP's to squeal that they are being denied the time to consider Brexit is farcical. The clowns have had three and a half years and made an utter James Hunt of it so how would four extra days make a difference? 

 

For 5/6 days

 

Parliament would likely not have voted for a recess for party conferences 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

 

5 weeks was deemed too long with Brexit on the horizon 

It was also felt and quite rightly he called it to avoid scrutiny of Brexit by limiting parliamentary debate. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Well if you need my point coloured in, your uneducated opinion carries very little weight in the wake of unanimous judgement from the highest court in the land and digging away at it isn't repeating a good point, it's just emphasising that you don't know what you're talking about. 

 

I doubt anyone on here has an genuine understanding of this. I've never said I know what I'm talking about regarding this but was hoping someone could clarify it without the legalese. A couple of posters have done so unlike yourself. 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

A few QC's on JKB. Who knew?

 

Folk on here questioning the highest court in the land. OK to have an option but to actually suggest that the 11 judges ken heehaw is pure JKB magic!

 

Anyway, BoJo in the tower yet for lying to her Maj???

 

QCs that can't read

 

Bearing in mind (well done them) the judgement is in plain English 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said:

A few QC's on JKB. Who knew?

 

Folk on here questioning the highest court in the land. OK to have an option but to actually suggest that the 11 judges ken heehaw is pure JKB magic!

 

Anyway, BoJo in the tower yet for lying to her Maj???

[annushorribilis III]

15 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Proroguing happens virtually every year in the run up to a Queens speech and as far as anyone can tell the due process (i.e. the way it's done) was followed by BJ the only difference appears to be the length of time. And for MP's to squeal that they are being denied the time to consider Brexit is farcical. The clowns have had three and a half years and made an utter James Hunt of it so how would four extra days make a difference? 

I'm confused by your post - I'm not defending BJ , I simply tried to explain the difference between unlawful & illegal. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'm confused by your post - I'm not defending BJ , I simply tried to explain the difference between unlawful & illegal. 

 

No I appreciate that and it clarifies things a little.  

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I doubt anyone on here has an genuine understanding of this. I've never said I know what I'm talking about regarding this but was hoping someone could clarify it without the legalese. A couple of posters have done so unlike yourself. 

 

Yes, I chose to take the piss out of your scramble for a foothold. 

[RobboM]

"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. "

There you go 👍

[Mikey1874]

7 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I doubt anyone on here has an genuine understanding of this. I've never said I know what I'm talking about regarding this but was hoping someone could clarify it without the legalese. A couple of posters have done so unlike yourself. 

 

It's pretty straightforward. 

 

As has happened through the years the sovereignty of Parliament as been restated as more important than what the Government wants to do. 

 

Fair enough if you don't get that. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Seymour M Hersh]

14 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yes, I chose to take the piss out of your scramble for a foothold. 

 

You're not a very pleasant person are you? 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You're not a very pleasant person are you? 

 

This hasn't been a good news day for you has it?

[Seymour M Hersh]

13 minutes ago, RobboM said:

"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. "

There you go 👍

 

Has it really though? Obviously the SC thinks so but they've (the MPs) had 3.5 years to do just that. As for the without reasonable justification I wonder what would be considered reasonable? It was a political decision by BJ of that there is no doubt but is it the courts gift to decide if it is a good or bad political decision. I just think this opens a can of worms for the future where those with the financial backing will be free to go to the court to contest any decision passed in parliament they disagree with. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

This hasn't been a good news day for you has it?

 

I don't agree with it but it came as absolutely no surprise so it's neither a good or bad day. Thanks for your concern though. 

[Pans Jambo]

 

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Has it really though? Obviously the SC thinks so but they've (the MPs) had 3.5 years to do just that. As for the without reasonable justification I wonder what would be considered reasonable? It was a political decision by BJ of that there is no doubt but is it the courts gift to decide if it is a good or bad political decision. I just think this opens a can of worms for the future where those with the financial backing will be free to go to the court to contest any decision passed in parliament they disagree with. 

Flip side of that argument is that if the government had won their appeal, any arsehole in number 10 could shut down a sitting parliament at the drop off a hat. & Lie to the Monarch to achieve it too. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Pans Jambo

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, Pans Jambo said:

 

Flip side of that argument is that if the government had won their appeal, any arsehole in number 10 could shut down a sitting parliament at the drop off a hat. & Lie to the Mo arch to achieve it too. 

 

Only an Independence supporting Scottish QC has made that accusation and without any evidence to support it. The SC did not suggest that. But yes you are correct it could allow for indefinite proroguing which is something Parliament needs to deal with. 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Only an Independence supporting Scottish QC has made that accusation and without any evidence to support it. The SC did not suggest that. But yes you are correct it could allow for indefinite proroguing which is something Parliament needs to deal with. 

Is this turning into a lie/untruth/post truth/fake news type thing now???

[Class of 75]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

So you accept he can't be sacked like you said he should be then. Great.

If I was him I would keep my mouth shut. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

No law has been broken. Hence why the same point doesn't stand. They don't mean the same thing.

 

`You need to get in touch with Mr Corbyn he thinks Boris has acted illegally! 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Seymour M Hersh

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Is this turning into a lie/untruth/post truth/fake news type thing now???

 

There is no evidence he lied to the Queen. Show me it and maybe I'll get on board with the calls for him to resign.

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Only an Independence supporting Scottish QC has made that accusation and without any evidence to support it. The SC did not suggest that. But yes you are correct it could allow for indefinite proroguing which is something Parliament needs to deal with. 

 

The Supreme Court did raise that issue of a government proroging Parliament for say a year. Justices raised it and asked questions about it during the hearing. 

 

Likely it influenced their decision. 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

`You need to get in touch with Mr Corbyn he thinks Boris has acted illegally! 

 

 

 

I imagine he's purposefully misrepresenting things to suit his agenda as well to be fair.

[Mikey1874]

"without reasonable justification" 

 

The issue of why Government didn't give a statement to the court of its reasoning.

[Class of 75]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I imagine he's purposefully misrepresenting things to suit his agenda as well to be fair.

Funny to see Comrade Corbyn state that the unelected PM should resign. I take it he is conveniently forgetting an unelected Gordon Brown taking over from Blair. 

[The Mighty Thor]

10 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Is this turning into a lie/untruth/post truth/fake news type thing now???

It has to.  The whole Brexit premise has been exposed as being a tissue of utter weapons grade bullshit and now we're getting to the vinegars those championing this nonsense are becoming more frantic and brazen in their lies. 

Yet still the hard of thinking keep chugging out the 'party' line. 

Remarkable.

[Cade]

Anywho.....

A legal precedent has been set.

What a "normal" prorogation looks like has now been determined.

Any future governments will have to stick to this.

Democracy is saved once again.

[The Mighty Thor]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

"without reasonable justification" 

 

The issue of why Government didn't give a statement to the court of its reasoning.

The same reason they commit nothing to writing on Brexit by 31st October.

If you write it. You own it. 

[Sarah O]

14 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

If I was him I would keep my mouth shut. 

He is intelligent though and what he says is a possible outcome. 

 

If you had anything worth while to say, I'm sure we'd all love to read it. Unfortunately you spout more shite than an Elephant with the skits.

[shaun.lawson]

17 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You're not a very pleasant person are you? 

 

I've mentioned this before. I make no apology for mentioning it again.

 

Somehow, you're a Liverpool supporter who supported Thatcher and supports No Deal Brexit. That is to say: you're a Liverpool supporter while simultaneously hating the city of Liverpool. wanting its people to suffer and who rejoices in their suffering. There is no other explanation. Try mentioning your curious politics in Liverpool and see how other people react.

 

I'm not even saying this to have a pop, by the way. I'm highlighting it because it's completely bewildering. It's like someone from Detroit cheering the devastation of the car industry there. Or someone from Newcastle cheering the destruction of heavy industry. Or someone from Wales celebrating the impoverishment of the entire country. It's absurd. But for you to be a Liverpool supporter while having your politics requires lashings and lashings of this thing called... cognitive dissonance.

 

Watching you on the last few pages desperately trying to square your prejudices with reality has been, well, quite the spectacle. It always is with No Deal Brexiteers. At what point you're going to wake up and have the humility to admit "you know what? I got this wrong. I got something big wrong", I have no idea. I realise hell will probably have to freeze over first. 

 

Brexit is a shitshow. An absolute shitshow. And the reason it's a shitshow is because it's not and has never been based on facts, or anything even on the same planet as reality. Brexiteers keep smashing into reality and keep blaming it on everyone else. Looking at themselves and realising they got it wrong is, clearly, beyond terrifying to them. As though their entire world will come crashing around their ears if they ever do. 

 

What will it be next, Seymour? You support the Tories because they're the party of the economy? You support the Tories because they're the party of law and order? This is a party which actively wants to lay waste to the UK economy and isn't interested in following the law unless it involves locking up the poor. It's a party which deserves to die, and couldn't possibly be less patriotic if it tried. In any other democracy not named the USA, the Prime Minister would now be required - including by his own party - to resign. For misleading the sovereign and trying to break the law for nakedly political purposes. But this is the Banana Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - so let's have a bunch of excuses, distractions and drivel instead. 

[maroonlegions]

51 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

I'm confused by your post - I'm not defending BJ , I simply tried to explain the difference between unlawful & illegal. 

Unlawful and illegal. Made up cop outs by the wealthy.

 

Confusing is this game here. And its not by anyone else than Boris and the ultra right wingers he serves.

 

Brexit was and will always be a con made up by the Tories. 

 

No deal really means that Trump and all he supports ,funds and agrees with will have free rain on our public services like the NHS. 

 

Your are defending or trying to separate an unlawful act with a justification  based on legalities. 

 

See your argument regarding unlawful and legal, can you imagine explaining that to this young chap.

 

See sometimes , regardless of the scaremongering of the wealthy on wage rises ect , having a heart is fecking priceless .

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Labour’s leader pledged to stop big pharma firms charging the NHS sky-high fees for medicines - after young Cystic Fibrosis sufferer Luis Walker handed him a letter asking for help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by maroonlegions

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Class of 75 said:

Funny to see Comrade Corbyn state that the unelected PM should resign. I take it he is conveniently forgetting an unelected Gordon Brown taking over from Blair. 

 

The PM should resign. 

 

You don't elect a PM so to speak anyway.

[Unknown user]

**** me I agree with Shaun 

[annushorribilis III]

10 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Unlawful and illegal. Made up cop outs by the wealthy.

 

Confusing is this game here. And its not by anyone else than Boris and the ultra right wingers he serves.

 

Brexit was and will always be a con made up by the Tories. 

 

No deal really means that Trump and all he supports ,funds and agrees with will have free rain on our public services like the NHS. 

 

Your are defending or trying to separate an unlawful act with a justification  based on legalities. 

 

See your argument regarding unlawful and legal, can you imagine explaining that to this young chap.

 

See sometimes , regardless of the scaremongering of the wealthy on wage rises ect , having a heart is fecking priceless .

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Labour’s leader pledged to stop big pharma firms charging the NHS sky-high fees for medicines - after young Cystic Fibrosis sufferer Luis Walker handed him a letter asking for help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're insane. 

Either that or you can't read. 

 

I didn't defend anything - and Imade that clear.

 

but since you've decided to go  on the attack (and at least that's a change from your usual UFO nonsense) - here's what the Supreme Court said 

the “effect [of prorogation] upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.”

 

Deal with it. 

 

 

[Toggie88]

33 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Only an Independence supporting Scottish QC has made that accusation and without any evidence to support it. The SC did not suggest that. But yes you are correct it could allow for indefinite proroguing which is something Parliament needs to deal with. 

 

 

I've heard/read numerous people talk about it, including it being questioned by BBC news presenters. 

 

Trying to desperately spin this as fake news peddled by the SNP, which is what you are essentially trying to do, is just ignorant. 

 

But maybe you're right after all...

 

Edited September 24, 2019 by Toggie88

[Pans Jambo]

18 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I've mentioned this before. I make no apology for mentioning it again.

 

Somehow, you're a Liverpool supporter who supported Thatcher and supports No Deal Brexit. That is to say: you're a Liverpool supporter while simultaneously hating the city of Liverpool. wanting its people to suffer and who rejoices in their suffering. There is no other explanation. Try mentioning your curious politics in Liverpool and see how other people react.

 

I'm not even saying this to have a pop, by the way. I'm highlighting it because it's completely bewildering. It's like someone from Detroit cheering the devastation of the car industry there. Or someone from Newcastle cheering the destruction of heavy industry. Or someone from Wales celebrating the impoverishment of the entire country. It's absurd. But for you to be a Liverpool supporter while having your politics requires lashings and lashings of this thing called... cognitive dissonance.

 

Watching you on the last few pages desperately trying to square your prejudices with reality has been, well, quite the spectacle. It always is with No Deal Brexiteers. At what point you're going to wake up and have the humility to admit "you know what? I got this wrong. I got something big wrong", I have no idea. I realise hell will probably have to freeze over first. 

 

Brexit is a shitshow. An absolute shitshow. And the reason it's a shitshow is because it's not and has never been based on facts, or anything even on the same planet as reality. Brexiteers keep smashing into reality and keep blaming it on everyone else. Looking at themselves and realising they got it wrong is, clearly, beyond terrifying to them. As though their entire world will come crashing around their ears if they ever do. 

 

What will it be next, Seymour? You support the Tories because they're the party of the economy? You support the Tories because they're the party of law and order? This is a party which actively wants to lay waste to the UK economy and isn't interested in following the law unless it involves locking up the poor. It's a party which deserves to die, and couldn't possibly be less patriotic if it tried. In any other democracy not named the USA, the Prime Minister would now be required - including by his own party - to resign. For misleading the sovereign and trying to break the law for nakedly political purposes. But this is the Banana Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - so let's have a bunch of excuses, distractions and drivel instead. 

Hole in one Shaun!!!

[Class of 75]

23 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

He is intelligent though and what he says is a possible outcome. 

 

If you had anything worth while to say, I'm sure we'd all love to read it. Unfortunately you spout more shite than an Elephant with the skits.

Thanks for that. Just because I don't have the same point of view as you does not mean that my opinion is invalid. I appreciate this place is a broad church and that my opinion is in the minority.