Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Infini

devnull wrote: »

Daily Mail is here, predictable line



Didn't expect anything else.

Should we expect anything of worth from the Daily Fail? Kinda sad that anyone actually buys this crap anymore it's literally the old school version of Info Wars or Breitbart nowadays.

maebee

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a historic picture. the US president on the Day impeachment proceedings began against him, and The UK prime minister on the day he was found by a unanimous Supreme Court decision to have broken the law and the UK constitution

The darkest days of 21st century western democracy may be finally unraveling

One can only hope that what comes next is better than what came before

Boris's days in the sun are numbered and hopefully us having to look at Trump's sunbed days with goggles on will soon be gone.

Roger_007

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

For Forks Sake

Akrasia wrote: »

This is a historic picture. the US president on the Day impeachment proceedings began against him, and The UK prime minister on the day he was found by a unanimous Supreme Court decision to have broken the law and the UK constitution

The darkest days of 21st century western democracy may be finally unraveling

One can only hope that what comes next is better than what came before

It's on the front of the Telegraph

For Forks Sake

devnull wrote: »

Daily Express is now in

I see they are linking Brexit to Proroguing of Parliament, so must therefore agree that Boris lied when he said that proroguing wasn't about Brexit. Don't hold my breath on them admitting it though.

That sort of crap, and the fact that people fall for and parrot it, usually leads my train of thought back to thinking that they should be let head off with their hard brexit, and let them take their medicine.

Akrasia

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The new buzz phrases seem to be 'the incredibly wealthy people' who brought the cases according to O'Neill 'the establishment' & 'business elite'

And they’ll bash Gina Millar for being wealthy and interfering in democracy with an exhale while with the next breath they’ll be championing Aaron banks because it was ruled that it was probably his own 8 million pounds that almost certainly tilted the balance in the brexit referendum in 2016

ath262

Roger_007 wrote: »

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

the request for porogation was illegal and invalid - in the court's view therefore it never took place

devnull

Akrasia wrote: »

And they’ll bash Gina Millar for being wealthy and interfering in democracy with an exhale while with the next breath they’ll be championing Aaron banks because it was ruled that it was probably his own 8 million pounds that almost certainly tilted the balance in the brexit referendum in 2016

And all of the ERG are complete paupers aren't they.

I mean look at Jacob Rees-Mogg, he's certainly on the verge of poverty I bet.

I bet you that if you add up the wealth of all the Tory Brexiteers together they'd have more wealth than the rest of Parliament by a long, long way.

But apparently they're not the Elite or Wealthy, the left are.

Sigh.

ath262

Roger_007 wrote: »

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

the request for porogation by parliament was illegal and invalid - in the court's view therefore it never took place

Akrasia

Roger_007 wrote: »

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

I think these 11 UK Supreme Court judges know more about the UK constitution than you, or I, or any of the “I disagree with their decision” brigade do

maebee

I know it's Boris's line but the Daily Telegraph is saying that the 11 most senior judges in the UK are all trying to frustrate Brexit.

Roger_007

Akrasia wrote: »

I think these 11 UK Supreme Court judges know more about the UK constitution than you, or I, or any of the “I disagree with their decision” brigade do

I do apologise for expressing an opinion.

devnull

Akrasia wrote: »

I think these 11 UK Supreme Court judges know more about the UK constitution than you, or I, or any of the “I disagree with their decision” brigade do

An excellent point was made earlier on Sky News that many of the judges involved in this case were also involved in Gina Miller's other case about Article 50 and a few of them sided with the government on that case.

If they were so biased against the government why did these judges back the government at the previous case? Surely if they were hell bent on destroying Brexit surely they'd have gave 11-0 then as well?

Ahhh, I forgot, don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

devnull

maebee wrote: »

Is the Daily Telegraph saying that the 11 most senior judges in the UK are all trying to frustrate Brexit?

Essentially by doing so they are saying their poster boy Boris, is a liar.

Because Boris said that prorogation had nothing to do with Brexit.

Shocking state when the media are complicit with a politician willfully misleading the public and being dishonest. The lot of them have no morals at all.

Akrasia

devnull wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

And they’ll bash Gina Millar for being wealthy and interfering in democracy with an exhale while with the next breath they’ll be championing Aaron banks because it was ruled that it was probably his own 8 million pounds that almost certainly tilted the balance in the brexit referendum in 2016

And all of the ERG are complete paupers aren't they.

I mean look at Jacob Rees-Mogg, he's certainly on the verge of poverty I bet.

I bet you that if you add up the wealth of all the Tory Brexiteers together they'd have more wealth than the rest of Parliament by a long, long way.

But apparently they're not the Elite or Wealthy, the left are.

Sigh.

When I was in Primary school, we were playing football and the keeper caught the ball outside of the box. One kid was adamant that this must mean that it’s a penalty.

No matter how contradictory two statements are, some people will believe strongly in both at the same time.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

When I was in Primary school, we were playing football and the keeper caught the ball outside of the box. One kid was adamant that this must mean that it’s a penalty.

No matter how contradictory two statements are, some people will believe strongly in both at the same time.

That's cognitive dissonance.

Akrasia

Roger_007 wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

I think these 11 UK Supreme Court judges know more about the UK constitution than you, or I, or any of the “I disagree with their decision” brigade do

I do apologise for expressing an opinion.

Apology accepted

Btw, you’re fully entitled to hold an opinion, but humility demands that one should defer to the considered opinion of experts, at least until you have a good reason to believe that they are corrupt or deceived

Itssoeasy

Roger_007 wrote: »

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

Well as she is a constitutional monarch she acts on the advice of the PM of the day which in this case is Boris Johnson. The Supreme Court found that the reasons for the PM wanted to prorogue Parliament(which btw is a lawful thing and happens before every state opening of parliament) were no valid and therefore the prorogation itself didn’t happen(even though we’ve all seen the video of it happening) and why would the sitting monarch have to revoke something that by law never happened ? That’s why the speaker today used the phrase “resumption of parliament” and not “recalling of parliament” as as far as the authorities of the Palace of Westminster there was never a prorogation.

That is my opinion and may be wrong. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure like many others in this thread, I’ve become way more familiar of the inner working the UK parliament then I ever thought possible.

prawnsambo

Roger_007 wrote: »

I do apologise for expressing an opinion.

Would it not have been a good idea to read the judgment first? Opinions are great and all, but if you eschew the opportunity to inform them, they aren't worth a whole lot.

Itssoeasy

Akrasia wrote: »

Apology accepted

Btw, you’re fully entitled to hold an opinion, but humility demands that one should defer to the considered opinion of experts, at least until you have a good reason to believe that they are corrupt or deceived

I think we’ve all been listening to John bercow the past few years. I’m not saying you couldn’t have come up with that response yourself, but it does sound very bercowish.

prawnsambo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well as she is a constitutional monarch she acts on the advice of the PM of the day which in this case is Boris Johnson. The Supreme Court found that the reasons for the PM wanted to prorogue Parliament(which btw is a lawful thing and happens before every state opening of parliament) were no valid and therefore the prorogation itself didn’t happen(even though we’ve all seen the video of it happening) and why would the sitting monarch have to revoke something that by law never happened ? That’s why the speaker today used the phrase “resumption of parliament” and not “recalling of parliament” as as far as the authorities of the Palace of Westminster there was never a prorogation.

That is my opinion and may be wrong. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure like many others in this thread, I’ve become way more familiar of the inner working the UK parliament then I ever thought possible.

You're broadly correct. The decision hinged on the duration of the prorogation vis a vis the stated reason for requesting it. They didn't match. So the court decided that the reason given was bogus and the real reason was to frustrate parliament at a crucial juncture of UK politics.

Strazdas

maebee wrote: »

I know it's Boris's line but the Daily Telegraph is saying that the 11 most senior judges in the UK are all trying to frustrate Brexit.

A large section of the UK media and the British public are right wing authoritarians and would be happy to live in a Putin style semi democratic state

sdanseo

Roger_007 wrote: »

It wasn't Johnson who prorogued Parliament, it was the Monarch, (OK, she was acting on the advice of the PM). Whether she had any choice in the matter, or not, it is constitutionally a function of the Monarch to prorogue Parliament. In order to cancel the prorogation, does the Monarch not have to revoke her previous decision?
Constitutionally, what the court has done is overturn a decision of the Monarch, apparently without the consent of the Monarch.

The UK does not have a fixed, written constitution like normal functional democracies (just like it doesn't have a fit for purpose system of voting, nor a public willing to embrace one).

Its "constitution" is as a result made up of many hundreds of years of precedent. The main findings today were that the now nullified prorogation was irregular when compared to precedent to the point of frustrating the function of parliament. By that same precedent, the Monarch has for many centuries followed the advice of the parliament and never broken with this tradition. The court was as a result essentially only overruling Boris' advice to the Queen, which was then duly followed by her. It follows that her rubber stamping is automatically voided and she shouldn't have to rubber stamp the matter again.

If QEII had gone against precedent by disagreeing with this or wielding those little white gloves in any other way, that would be a constitutional crisis that would make Boris look like a small child throwing a tantrum in comparison. There are several tens of Monarchies left in the world but only one (Saudi Arabia) is absolute, with the Monarch actually making policy decisions. And they aren't viewed as all that wise.

Water John

Not really the length it had to do with the reason why. The only document available, from De Souza, indicated it was being done to get Parliament out of the way.
Remember Dominic Grieve asking for the civil servant notes on this. It was the case that no civil servant would sign the request reasons as valid. That smoking gun was ultimately what swung the vote 11-0.

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

A large section of the UK media and the British public are right wing authoritarians and would be happy to live in a Putin style semi democratic state

So long as it's their party with the authority. If it's the other crowd, they'd scream blue bloody murder.

Akrasia

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Akrasia wrote: »

Apology accepted

Btw, you’re fully entitled to hold an opinion, but humility demands that one should defer to the considered opinion of experts, at least until you have a good reason to believe that they are corrupt or deceived

I think we’ve all been listening to John bercow the past few years. I’m not saying you couldn’t have come up with that response yourself, but it does sound very bercowish.

God damnit it’s happening. I’m turning into John Bercow

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

Not really the length it had to do with the reason why. The only document available, from De Souza, indicated it was being done to get Parliament out of the way.
Remember Dominic Grieve asking for the civil servant notes on this. It was the case that no civil servant would sign the request reasons as valid. That smoking gun was ultimately what swung the vote 11-0.

De Souza's document was pushing the Queen's speech narrative. Quite strongly. And then throwing in the normal conference recess as a smokescreen to obscure the inordinate length. The B word was left out completely. There was some suspicion that De Souza's document was written post facto when the court actions loomed. But the judgment was quite clear that the QS excuse didn't stack up as they specifically said that such a reason would only require 4-6 days max.

Imreoir2

sdanseo wrote: »

The UK does not have a fixed, written constitution like normal functional democracies (just like it doesn't have a fit for purpose system of voting, nor a public willing to embrace one).

Its "constitution" is as a result made up of many hundreds of years of precedent. The main findings today were that the now nullified prorogation was irregular when compared to precedent to the point of frustrating the function of parliament. By that same precedent, the Monarch has for many centuries followed the advice of the parliament and never broken with this tradition. The court was as a result essentially only overruling Boris' advice to the Queen, which was then duly followed by her. It follows that her rubber stamping is automatically voided and she shouldn't have to rubber stamp the matter again.

If QEII had gone against precedent by disagreeing with this or wielding those little white gloves in any other way, that would be a constitutional crisis that would make Boris look like a small child throwing a tantrum in comparison. There are several tens of Monarchies left in the world but only one (Saudi Arabia) is absolute, with the Monarch actually making policy decisions. And they aren't viewed as all that wise.

It was refered to in an earlier debate in parliament that when it comes to prerogative powers, the role of the monarch is mearly to be a pen in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Within the existing constitution of the UK, the monarch does not have any discression, any deviation from their constitutional role would most likely come at the cost of abdication.

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well as she is a constitutional monarch she acts on the advice of the PM of the day which in this case is Boris Johnson. The Supreme Court found that the reasons for the PM wanted to prorogue Parliament(which btw is a lawful thing and happens before every state opening of parliament) were no valid and therefore the prorogation itself didn’t happen(even though we’ve all seen the video of it happening) and why would the sitting monarch have to revoke something that by law never happened ? That’s why the speaker today used the phrase “resumption of parliament” and not “recalling of parliament” as as far as the authorities of the Palace of Westminster there was never a prorogation.

That is my opinion and may be wrong. I’m not a lawyer but I’m sure like many others in this thread, I’ve become way more familiar of the inner working the UK parliament then I ever thought possible.

You're broadly correct. The decision hinged on the duration of the prorogation vis a vis the stated reason for requesting it. They didn't match. So the court decided that the reason given was bogus and the real reason was to frustrate parliament at a crucial juncture of UK politics.

Yes, also the fact that nobody was prepared to give an affidavit to state that the government’s statements are the whole and full truth. I reckon if someone had the brass neck to swear an oath to support the government then at least some of the SC judges would have been swayed

If my 6 year old tells me an obvious lie and I tell her that lying makes her tongue turn black, and I ask her to stick out her tongue as evidence she’s not lying, and she refuses to stick out her tongue... both of us know she has been caught lying. If she sticks out her tongue believing it’s not black, then I’ll believe her

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

So long as it's their party with the authority. If it's the other crowd, they'd scream blue bloody murder.

Of course : I should have stressed the state has to be hard right and with a Johnson / Farage type figure in charge