Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

For anyone looking for a link, here is the Supreme Court hearing on youtube - Guardian page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDH4TGDMvFw

It's very odd to watch.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

The English courts did - well they ruled that the workings of Parliament were not for the courts to interfere with.

I know, and I am saying that the arguments being made in the appeal clearly show that was wrong.

Because if the English court ruling is correct, Johnson can simply prorogue Parliament until the year 2100 and no-one and nothing can stop him.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I know, and I am saying that the arguments being made in the appeal clearly show that was wrong.

Because if the English court ruling is correct, Johnson can simply prorogue Parliament until the year 2100 and no-one and nothing can stop him.

Would such a thing be a hazard of not writing anything down in a real constitution?

Are there any protections in Ireland against such carry on?

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

If Johnson was the orator that he claims to be, he would have been able to take the protest with dignity and rise above it.

One of the journos made the point that if Johnson had taken the lectern and actually been shouted down so that he could not speak, and the local authorities were unable to control it, he would then have been perfectly justified in making his apologies and leaving.

But not even trying was a mistake.

Bannasidhe

54and56 wrote: »

Yes, he's late 40's with 20 years experience in the company. Not Board level but just below. Senior exec with a lot of responsibility. He was here a few months ago so had pints with him and he was crystal clear, there was zero doubt or hesitation. It was a binary decision, WA = keep things as they are, No Deal = exit the UK (from a production perspective) as quickly as possible.



They are a very well established German company so will do things by the book. They won't have taken the decision lightly but they know (or are very confident) a No Deal Brexit would be such a disaster that shutting down is the correct commercial decision to make.

My brother owns a factory in Milan which exports a lot of product to the UK. When Brexit won he decided enough was enough and it was time to retire and put the factory up for sale. It took a while for him to agree a buyer as he wanted to make sure the workers jobs are secure and to ensure this has sold 60% of the company but it's done and dusted and will be completed before Boris' No Deal Crash Out deadline.


Now, the thing is the product his factory produces is specialist and he is the only manufacturer outside of China. The product he makes is used to ensure water/gas pipes have airtight seals - used by everyone from Cocoa Cola to plumbers. Every single one of us has it in our homes. It's cheap to buy a roll now, but if tariffs are applied...

Brother says at 60 years of age he just can't be listening to companies based in the UK moaning about the increased price and demanding he cut his costs when the fact is he hasn't increased the cost and they brought this on themselves. He refuses to cut into his already tight margins because the UK has decided to leave the single market. The price is the price.

These are the invisible little things. A small but very important product, manufactured in the EU with adherence to strict rules as to it's safety and suitability for the job it needs to do, previously cheap to buy, made by a manufacturer who is very hands on and speaks English fluently will become more expensive in the UK.
Leaving the alternative of the cheapish Chinese version (which is a rip-off made without one particular vital coating as they cannot get it) which does not meet EU safety standards.

Akrasia

54and56 wrote: »

German friend of mine who is a senior guy with a car parts manufacturer told me they have two facilities in the UK employing close to 2,000 people. Their Brexit planning is complete and very straightforward.

Option 1 - If there's a Withdrawal Agreement they carry on with their UK factories.

Option 2 - If there's a No Deal Brexit his immediate job is to shut down both factories straight away. No if's or but's. Hanging around seeing how things may or may not play out in a No Deal Brexit is too risky for them financially. They know what it'll cost them to shut both factories down straight away and move production elsewhere in the group so that is what they have resolved to do.

The decision is made, it's only a question of whether events will trigger Option 1 or Option 2.

Option 2 will be swiftly followed by a lawsuit where that car manufacturer sues the UK government for the costs they have imposed on them through such a fundamental change to the trading terms that made their investments worthless

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

Would such a thing be a hazard of not writing anything down in a real constitution?

Well, no, because the Court is about to rule that out since it is mad.

One of the merits of an unwritten Constitution is that the Courts are freer to do sensible things rather than trying to squint at a document written long ago and make it mean what common sense tells them it should mean.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the Court is about to rule that out since it is mad.

One of the merits of an unwritten Constitution is that the Courts are freer to do sensible things rather than trying to squint at a document written long ago and make it mean what common sense tells them it should mean.

So no written statutes or anything in parliamentary procedure?

Just up to the judges of the day to decide whether something feels right and proper to them?

How many days will the Supreme Court thing take?

ambro25

Akrasia wrote: »

If Johnson was the orator that he claims to be, he would have been able to take the protest with dignity and rise above it.

If Johnson had taken the podium, the 50 to 75 protesters would have piped down. One of them phoned LBC this morning to set that record straight.

One can believe or disbelieve that stated intent, but those were mostly British immigrants with public or private service sector jobs (translators, accountants, that sort of thing - members of BrILL, and I've met a few of them over the past few months). Not French gilet jaunes or Brit EDL marchers.

The salient facts of the day were that Johnson had nothing new or more to tell Juncker and Bettel, he's as popular with @BritsinEU (and the @BritsLux contingent) as a fart in a spacesuit, and EU leaders have had enough (Bettel may have looked -indeed been- impassioned, but I can tell you that nothing in that speech was improv'd, and wasn't premeditated: he's 10 times the political operator Johnson could ever hope to be).

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Corbyn isn't going to win an overall majority, and the LibDems are not going to leave No Deal hanging over everyones heads for a year while Corbyn negotiates a new Lexit deal that the LibDems are going to campaign against anyhow.

So after the election, the price of the LibDems going onto a coalition will be a prompt referendum with May's Deal vs. Remain. (The SNP will extract a timeline for a new Indyref for their support).

The chances of a hung parliament following the snap general election are stupidly high and we have the Liberal democrats already ruling out going into power with Corbyn as leader

If Labour and the lib dems go toe to toe, then this only helps the Tories who will be perfectly happy to do a deal with Farage if it serves their interests

I think the only way the UK can be salvaged is if the opposition parties join together to push through a 2nd referendum before any GE gets called. This is the only sensible option but even if they do this, there is every chance that the Tories could win a GE and simply cancel a 2nd referendum as their 1st order of business

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

How many days will the Supreme Court thing take?

They are scheduled to hear arguments today and tomorrow, not sure how long it will take for them to rule after that.

murphaph

Nemesis wrote: »

Wonder if there was mischief with the documents.

Doubt it. More than likely the pdf page numbers include the contents pages. It often happens that the pdf page does not match the page number printed in the document.

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

Don't know why but I feel like the only likely outcome is one that falls on the side of government..

The consequence of the Supreme court finding on the side of the government, is that any future Prime Minister can shut down Parliament for as long as they want for any reason and the courts will not be able to do anything about it.

The only way the SC will find in favour of the Government, is if they rule that the act of Proroguing Parliament is out of the jurisdiction of the courts.

I cannot see such a ruling being passed by a majority these 11 educated and reasonably apolitical judges

murphaph

Akrasia wrote: »

The consequence of the Supreme court finding on the side of the government, is that any future Prime Minister can shut down Parliament for as long as they want for any reason and the courts will not be able to do anything about it.

The only way the SC will find in favour of the Government, is if they rule that the act of Proroguing Parliament is out of the jurisdiction of the courts.

I cannot see such a ruling being passed by a majority these 11 educated and reasonably apolitical judges

The same judges that found against the govt and for Mrs. Miller in her last appearance before them.

lawred2

Akrasia wrote: »

The consequence of the Supreme court finding on the side of the government, is that any future Prime Minister can shut down Parliament for as long as they want for any reason and the courts will not be able to do anything about it.

The only way the SC will find in favour of the Government, is if they rule that the act of Proroguing Parliament is out of the jurisdiction of the courts.

I cannot see such a ruling being passed by a majority these 11 educated and reasonably apolitical judges

But surely the same reasoning applied in the English courts?

I'm not arguing for anything here just curious why the English High Court ruling would be considered so obviously unreasonable as to be so likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

So no written statutes or anything in parliamentary procedure?

Just up to the judges of the day to decide whether something feels right and proper to them?

The whole point is that there is a load of Parliamentary procedure, and Johnson is proroguing Parliament in defiance of it.

A point being made in the appeal is that no PM has abused this power of prorogation in the modern day, and so the Courts have never been asked to consider whether it can be reviewed by the Court.

In Ireland, these procedures are written in the Constitution and in law, there is no Prerogative power of the Crown for the Taoiseach to abuse.

BUT, against that, if some bad drafting makes it into our Constitution such as the mad 1986 Abortion Amendment, the Courts have to follow that written text even though it does the opposite of what the people who wrote it intended.

That sort of thing does not arise in the UK.

BonnieSituation

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no, because the Court is about to rule that out since it is mad.

One of the merits of an unwritten Constitution is that the Courts are freer to do sensible things rather than trying to squint at a document written long ago and make it mean what common sense tells them it should mean.

That's obviously why so much of the world operates without a codified constitution...

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole point is that there is a load of Parliamentary procedure, and Johnson is proroguing Parliament in defiance of it.

A point being made in the appeal is that no PM has abused this power of prorogation in the modern day, and so the Courts have never been asked to consider whether it can be reviewed by the Court.

In Ireland, these procedures are written in the Constitution and in law, there is no Prerogative power of the Crown for the Taoiseach to abuse.

BUT, against that, if some bad drafting makes it into our Constitution such as the mad 1986 Abortion Amendment, the Courts have to follow that written text even though it does the opposite of what the people who wrote it intended.

That sort of thing does not arise in the UK.

A good example but a fairly extreme example all the same...

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many days will the Supreme Court thing take?

3

Cork Boy 53

Enzokk wrote: »

They are scheduled to hear arguments today and tomorrow, not sure how long it will take for them to rule after that.

I believe that the hearings will take 3 full days from today to Thursday with no indication at present of when the judgement will be announced.

Zubeneschamali

lawred2 wrote: »

A good example but a fairly extreme example all the same...

A real example which tied up our legal and legislative system for 35 years.

lawred2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's obviously why so much of the world operates without a codified constitution...

urm I think that's sarcasm but as I'm straying into waters deeper than I'm comfortable with - I'm not so sure.

I though uncodified constitutions were in the minority.

Zubeneschamali

Cork Boy 53 wrote: »

I believe that the hearings will take 3 full days from today to Thursday with no indication at present of when the judgement will be announced.

A decision could come out on Friday if the judges think it is a slam dunk, with their reasoning published next week. If the judges need more time to confer, nothing this week.

lawred2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A real example which tied up our legal and legislative system for 35 years.

Either way - when the topic at hand is prorogation - I doubt an Irish government could go to the people with a constitutional amendment that meant that any future government could suspend parliament at will for as long as they deemed advantageous..

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

But surely the same reasoning applied in the English courts?

I'm not arguing for anything here just curious why the English High Court ruling would be considered so obviously unreasonable as to be so likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The English case was heard in the High Court, the appeal is being heard in the Supreme court

It is not uncommon for lower courts to rule in favour of the status quo when there is any doubt about precedent, while the Supreme court (relatively new and all that it is) is in the business of creating legal precedent where there wasn't one before.

WomanSkirtFan8

lawred2 wrote: »

Either way - when the topic at hand is prorogation - I doubt an Irish government could go to the people with a constitutional amendment that meant that any future government could suspend parliament at will for as long as they deemed advantageous..

There can't be any changes to the our constitution here in Ireland without a referendum put the people first

lawred2

Akrasia wrote: »

The English case was heard in the High Court, the appeal is being heard in the Supreme court

what did I say?

Akrasia wrote: »

It is not uncommon for lower courts to rule in favour of the status quo when there is any doubt about precedent, while the Supreme court (relatively new and all that it is) is in the business of creating legal precedent where there wasn't one before.

ok that's interesting... understand now why the two courts could end up with judgments seemingly at odds with each other.. one rules on existing precedent while the other might seek to establish it..

so - what's the difference then between the Scottish courts and the English courts? Are they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

lawred2

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

There can't be any changes to the our constitution here in Ireland without a referendum put the people first

That's exactly what I said

Inquitus

lawred2 wrote: »

re they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

Different legal basis.