Some Brexit

Do you have difficulty sustaining your election?

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Käsemeister @ Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:06 am

Image
User avatar
Käsemeister
 
Posts: 37534
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation.

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Clown Ice Skater #4 @ Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:11 am

This post intentionally left blank.
User avatar
Clown Ice Skater #4
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Melos Station

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Il Duce @ Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:39 am

Jeez, there's very little difference in the photos.
Il Duce
Italian Person
Italian Person
 
Posts: 14000
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:08 am
Location: #tuttoandrabene

Re: Some Brexit

Post by thekungfury @ Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:52 am

As amusing as the picture is the Andy character is the one with the brains who actually fools Lou into doing stuff. We’re Lou and that cuts almost too deep to be funny.
User avatar
thekungfury
 
Posts: 37551
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:27 pm
Highscores: 1

Re: Some Brexit

Post by CJ+ @ Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:03 pm

The absolute fcuking brass balls on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ver-brexit
User avatar
CJ+
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:39 pm
Location: Lave Orbital Station
Highscores: 1

Re: Some Brexit

Post by desertweasel @ Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:42 pm

CJ+ wrote:The absolute fcuking brass balls on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ver-brexit


I'm sure "call me dickhead Dave" will be fine whatever happens, it's the rest of us that have to worry, all so completely unnecessary, a stupid referendum with no detail, not run on proper terms that would have allowed it to be challenged in court for the cheating, results in millions of lives being turned on their heads
desertweasel
 
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:11 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Käsemeister @ Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:16 am

Image
User avatar
Käsemeister
 
Posts: 37534
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:24 pm
Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation.

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Careless Whisperer @ Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:15 pm

Saw this on twitter - sums things up nicely...

...You can't claim that the past you want to go back to was both the golden age of our nation and an endurance test you did well to survive...

Schrödinger's past. See also Schrödinger's immigrant who both steals your job and doesn't work/sponges benefits and Schrödinger's Brexiter who simultaneously knew what they voted for but also claim no one knows what will happen once we're out.
User avatar
Careless Whisperer
 
Posts: 16105
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:07 pm
Location: The Real World
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:58 pm

Given how precedent is such a powerful force in our unwritten constitution it is interesting to see some of precedents of proroguing in the past (these have been cited as part of the govts argument)

He mentions the prorogation of Parliament in 1914, at the outbreak of the World War One.

"That clearly was not for the purpose of the King's Speech," he says.

He adds: "Parliament was prorogued for 87 days in 1930 during the onset of the Great Depression."

Lord Keen gives another example of 1948, when Parliament was prorogued to force a bill to be passed.

"This last example was clearly for a party political purpose," he says. "It was a naked political reason."
Last edited by Dirk on Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Greg66 @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 4:27 pm

Dirk wrote:Given how precedent is such a powerful force in our unwritten constitution it is interesting to see some of precedents of proroguing in the past (these have been cited as part of the govts argument)

He mentions the prorogation of Parliament in 1914, at the outbreak of the World War One.

"That clearly was not for the purpose of the King's Speech," he says.

He adds: "Parliament was prorogued for 87 days in 1930 during the onset of the Great Depression."

Lord Keen gives another example of 1948, when Parliament was prorogued to force a bill to be passed.

"This last example was clearly for a party political purpose," he says. "It was a naked political reason."


If those examples really assist the Govt (and I'm not convinced they do, even at face value, there are two big objections to them. First, the willingness of the courts to exercise powers of review over the executive literally exploded in the 60s and 70s. These incidents took place when the courts were far less interventionist in the face of executive overreach. Secondly, and perhaps a function of the first point, is that these apparently political prorogations weren't challenged. It is hard to draw a firm conclusion as to whether they were in fact lawful if the question was never put to the court. One can infer that perhaps no one considered them to be unlawful, but see point 1.

Yesterday helped me understand something about prorogation which hadn't been clear to me previously. Once prorogued, Parliament only restarts with a state opening and a Queen's speech. When it is in recess (as it would normally be over the conference season), it can be recalled at a moment's notice. So the point about only losing a few days of Parliamentary time and not five weeks doesn't have quite the force I thought it had.

I thought the Supremes would lean heavily in favour of all this being non-justiciable: a political question beyond the reach of the courts. But the signs yesterday were certainly that they don't see that as any sort of killer point. It may still be where they end up, but it's not obvious that it will be right now.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Deuteronomy @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:00 pm

My guess is that they'll find he acted unlawfully but then not follow it up with actually doing anything.

(I was poorly the day we did QC lessons at school, so I may not be bang on the money or even legally accurate, but I bet I am)

>confident<

Your move Greggers.
User avatar
Deuteronomy
 
Posts: 17938
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:17 pm

I didn't mean that they would necessarily devcide the court Gregg. but I though they were interesting. I do wonder what the law they were forcing through in 1948 was.

The other point that I saw that was interesting was that having taken control of them parliament proceedings, they could have passed a law to prevent the proroguation. But for whatever reason (possibly that they didn't realise?) they didn't.
Or so one of the counsels for govt said.

If it turns out to be illegal I'm not sure what action can be taken in all honesty
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by minimoog @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:25 pm

The rather stark point I saw today was along the lines of if the SC decides prorogation for political reasons is non-justiciable then that gives free rein for any government to shut down parliament for political reasons for any length of time they see fit.

Which is a tad scary.
User avatar
minimoog
 
Posts: 10262
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:03 am

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:44 pm

Presumably though they could not pass any primary legislation then though. Or pass a budget etc

So they wouldn't be able do much

And presumably they, as in this case, would have to give some notice, in which case parliament could pass a law preventing it.

And presumably also, in that case the crown could intervene to recall parliament, at which point the govt would fall.

Arguably the only reason got in this mess in the first place was because the other parties didn't want the govt to fall and voted against it twice.
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by tanglerat @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:49 pm

Word on the street is of a power struggle going on within the DUP - the more realistic of them making noises of softening their cough before they get thrown under the bus by Boris because of the changed numbers in Parliament, the staunch hardliners wanting to toe the line come what may.
User avatar
tanglerat
Ruler of the Queen's Navee
 
Posts: 7843
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:49 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by S1K @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:18 pm

Why is Corbyn still so shit?

If you want to leave the EU you vote Tory, if you want to remain in the EU you vote Lib Dem. What is Labour’s position on Brexit? Have you got five minutes and a whiteboard? It’s just fcuking pathetic.
User avatar
S1K
 
Posts: 7752
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by manfromdelmonte @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:21 pm

S1K wrote:Why is Corbyn still so shit?

If you want to leave the EU you vote Tory, if you want to remain in the EU you vote Lib Dem. What is Labour’s position on Brexit? Have you got five minutes and a whiteboard? It’s just fcuking pathetic.


I blame Corbyn just as much as Bohnson, Mogg, Gove or Cameron for this mess we're in.
User avatar
manfromdelmonte
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:34 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by CJ+ @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:28 pm

S1K wrote:Why is Corbyn still so shit?

If you want to leave the EU you vote Tory, if you want to remain in the EU you vote Lib Dem. What is Labour’s position on Brexit? Have you got five minutes and a whiteboard? It’s just fcuking pathetic.

Oh hush. You now have three clear choices at the ballot box:

1. Conservative. "Give me Brexit or give me a nice ditch to die in"
2. Lib Dem. "Bollocks to Brexit"
3. Labour. "Dunno, whatever, I suppose."

:D
User avatar
CJ+
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:39 pm
Location: Lave Orbital Station
Highscores: 1

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:03 pm

Corbyn wants out. Always has. Some of his plans, eg for nationalisation would fall foul of EU rules iirc.

But he wants tories to take the blame for it
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by foo @ Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:56 pm

I'm politically homeless, have been for years, so it looks like the Lib Dems would be getting any vote from me, if it ever happens.
User avatar
foo
Spamcop
Spamcop
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 2:35 pm
Location: the Internet

Re: Some Brexit

Post by CJ+ @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:59 am

Dirk wrote:Corbyn wants out. Always has. Some of his plans, eg for nationalisation would fall foul of EU rules iirc.

Not this shit again. Everything in the Labour 2017 manifesto could have been delivered under EU rules.

http://renewal.org.uk/blog/eu-law-is-no ... -programme

Neither EU state aid rules, nor other EU rules which are distinct from state aid rules but sometimes considered in the same bracket, provide any obvious barrier to the implementation in the UK of the measures contained in Labour’s 2017 election manifesto.

But he wants tories to take the blame for it

Seems fair, tho.
User avatar
CJ+
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:39 pm
Location: Lave Orbital Station
Highscores: 1

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:48 am

fcuk the manifesto, I said what HE wants
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Clown Ice Skater #4 @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:27 am

This post intentionally left blank.
User avatar
Clown Ice Skater #4
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Melos Station

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:35 am

Clown Ice Skater #4 wrote:More and more I'm thinking that Boris is trying to provoke the EU into binning us off with no deal so he can point the finger of blame at them rather than take it himself.

If he is then I think that would be naive because there are enough fingers pointing at him for driving to a no-deal that he would take the blame (and approval from the other half of the population)
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Deuteronomy @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 9:00 am

Dirk wrote:
Clown Ice Skater #4 wrote:More and more I'm thinking that Boris is trying to provoke the EU into binning us off with no deal so he can point the finger of blame at them rather than take it himself.

If he is then I think that would be naive because there are enough fingers pointing at him for driving to a no-deal that he would take the blame (and approval from the other half of the population)


Yeah, but the gammons would lap it up and that the audience he's playing to.
User avatar
Deuteronomy
 
Posts: 17938
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:57 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Greg66 @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:27 pm

Deuteronomy wrote:My guess is that they'll find he acted unlawfully but then not follow it up with actually doing anything.

(I was poorly the day we did QC lessons at school, so I may not be bang on the money or even legally accurate, but I bet I am)

>confident<

Your move Greggers.


Hope you get well soon Doots.

The court will only do (by way of granting a remedy) what it is asked to do (or perhaps do even less than that). The challengers are asking the Court to make a declaration that the advice leading to the prorogation, and presumably the prorogation itself, was unlawful. A declaration is basically a statement, with the force of law behind it, as to what the true position is.

I'm not sure whether the challengers are then additionally saying that the effect of such a declaration would be to render the prorogation null and void and mean that Parliament had never been prorogued in the first place, or that (merely) it would lead to the conclusion it had been and remains prorogued unlawfully (in other words, what's done is done; we now are where we are).

On Monday the Govt said it would abide by any declaration the court made. But didn't say how. Apparently No 10 has submitted a memo to the court, which remains confidential, as to what it will do if that declaration is made.

Sooo, to a degree you're right Doots, in that if the Court considers prorogation was unlawful, the remedy it will grant will only be the remedy it has been asked to grant, which is to say as much. It won't order Parliament be reconvened, or put Boris in prison, or anything like that. The next step would be to see what the Govt does in response to the declaration.



ETA: the Beeb is now reporting that the No 10 memo says that if the Govt loses, then it would have the effect that Parliament had never been prorogued, and remains in session, but that the PM could simply prorogue again to get it right the second time.

Seems ambitious to me (the second prorogation).
Last edited by Greg66 on Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by CJ+ @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:38 pm

I'll bet a pound to a pinch of shit that the aforementioned memo says "OK, Wiggies. We hear you, and totes respect you. Staying prorogued, though."
User avatar
CJ+
 
Posts: 17433
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:39 pm
Location: Lave Orbital Station
Highscores: 1

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:38 pm

Does it not also depend on why the court decides this prorogue is unlawful if it does?

Prorogueing is not in itself illegal, so if the court decides that this one was illegal because Boris said something misleading to the Queen, then he could presumably just issue different advice and prorogue again. If it was possible to recall from the current prorogue any earlier. Which I'm not sure it is.

Interesting also that Lord Garnier on behalf of Major is arguing against the prorogue with the statement
if prorogation is for a "very short period" or it comes at a time where there's no critical legislation, "there is no material interference".

Since the statute requiring Boris to ask for an extension was pass, I'm not certain that there was any other critical legislation in progress. Since the decision to apply article 40 and leave was passed a long time ago.

<head spins>

How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin?
As many as there is money to pay them to so do.
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Greg66 @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:23 pm

Dirk wrote:Does it not also depend on why the court decides this prorogue is unlawful if it does?

Prorogueing is not in itself illegal, so if the court decides that this one was illegal because Boris said something misleading to the Queen, then he could presumably just issue different advice and prorogue again. If it was possible to recall from the current prorogue any earlier. Which I'm not sure it is.

Interesting also that Lord Garnier on behalf of Major is arguing against the prorogue with the statement
if prorogation is for a "very short period" or it comes at a time where there's no critical legislation, "there is no material interference".

Since the statute requiring Boris to ask for an extension was pass, I'm not certain that there was any other critical legislation in progress. Since the decision to apply article 40 and leave was passed a long time ago.

<head spins>

How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin?
As many as there is money to pay them to so do.


The argument (AIUI, and constitutional law isn't really my thing) is that this proroguing is unlawful because it was done for an improper purpose, that being to frustrate Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans.

"Improper purpose" is a reasonably well know legal concept. It's in company law: directors are granted powers to act on behalf of a company, which they must use for a proper purpose. So if they choose to allot shares to a mate to shift the balance of shareholder power in a company to protect their own interests, that's an improper purpose and the exercise of the power is unlawful. Similarly, ministers are granted powers under secondary legislation, but if a minister exercises a power to block a building development that's too close to his holiday home for his liking, that's an improper purpose.

The question isn't therefore whether the advice to the Queen was misleading (but that's a great tabloid headline), it's whether the purpose of the prorogation was improper. One can judge that by effect (an objective test), or by the motive of the decision maker (a subjective test) or both. I strongly suspect the Supremes will go for the former because it doesn't involve delving into BJ's mindset.

The question of what Parliament might have done in the time it's been prorogued is best left untouched, I think. Not least because Parliament hasn't shown itself capable of doing a great deal recently. The principle at stake is that Parliament is there to hold the Govt to account, and in particular to hold it to account in relation to its Brexit strategy [sic].

I've just been chatting to my mate who was a junior counsel in one of the teams in Miller 1 in the Supreme Court. His view is that when it came down to it the issues in Miller 1 were really pretty straightforward and the majority in SC went exactly where it was expected to go. By contrast, this case unearths some really very difficult questions of the relationship between the Govt, Parliament, the Crown and the judiciary, and what the SC is being asked to do will in effect reduce part of our unwritten, convention-based constitution to written law.


The note from No 10 has now been published. It basically says: "once you've decided what you have to decide and said why, I'll decide what I am going to do, but there's a pretty good chance I will be looking to prorogue again for lawful reasons if there is any way I can". I would imagine that will not go down terribly well behind the SC's closed doors.
User avatar
Greg66
 
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: Some Brexit

Post by Dirk @ Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:27 pm

Interesting, thanks Greg
User avatar
Dirk
 
Posts: 32210
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:03 pm
Highscores: 5

PreviousNext

Return to Political Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

yt
  Enable youtube titles