Brexit...

[MikeO]

45 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, it is certainly a matter that is on the legal record. The question of motive will, I suspect, remain between Johnson and his conscience.

One thing is certain. We now enter unchartered territory and I wouldn't rule out anything now. I just hope it stays peaceful as there will be a lot of feelings of anger and injustice.

My understanding is that there is nothing to stop Johnson from suspending Parliament again, but that would just be referred directly to the Supreme Court so I can't practically see that happening.

What just happened transcends Brexit and asks a lot of very difficult questions about our democracy, constitution and justice system and how they interact with each other. This is going to take some sorting out now.

His motive is the easiest question of all to answer, to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of his Brexit strategy, that much is crystal clear.

He can't do it "again" because it never happened in the first place, according to the ruling, "The prorogation was null and void, therefore Parliament has not been suspended..."

[MikeO]

30 minutes ago, RPG said:

What just happened transcends Brexit and asks a lot of very difficult questions about our democracy, constitution and justice system and how they interact with each other. This is going to take some sorting out now.

Indeed, it's huge! eg

"This is a hideous moment for the Palace.

The Queen had very little discretion over whether to prorogue Parliament; she acts in this case on the advice of her prime minister.

Whilst some argue that Boris Johnson lacked the legitimacy of other prime ministers, and that this might have swayed the Queen’s decision, that would have meant stepping into (even more of) a constitutional minefield.

But to have an Order in Council – the exercise of Royal Prerogative, the mechanism by which the prorogation takes place – ruled unlawful and void, is breathtaking.

Worse for the Palace, and for the Queen, is the spotlight this throws onto all the dark corners of the British constitution.

For decades, for centuries, it’s been governed by convention and precedent, and an unspoken agreement not to push things too far. Boris Johnson blew that apart.

And now the demands for a written constitution are coming. And with them the inevitable question – just what role should there be for a hereditary monarch?"

How long did it take Johnson and Cummings and their gang to achieve this disaster? Exactly two months.

[johnh]

So, a member of the public, with absolutely no authority or mandate but with deep pockets, hires a bunch of lawyers to overturn a decision of the government of the day.  Remainer guys on here - I know it suits your agenda but do you not realise the implications of this?   

Mike, 'a fantastic day for democracy'?    I honestly don't believe you posted that.   Remind me which of the lawyers you voted for.

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, johnh said:

So, a member of the public, with absolutely no authority or mandate but with deep pockets, hires a bunch of lawyers to overturn a decision of the government of the day.  Remainer guys on here - I know it suits your agenda but do you not realise the implications of this?   

Mike, 'a fantastic day for democracy'?    I honestly don't believe you posted that.   Remind me which of the lawyers you voted for.

The Prime Minister broke the law, lied to the queen and has been held to account for it, the means by which it came to court are immaterial. Are you suggesting the PM should be allowed to be above the law in pursuit of his purpose, whatever that might be (putting Brexit aside for a moment)?

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy. An attempt by Johnson to bypass Parliament was ruled unlawful, a fantastic day for anyone who believes in our democratic system of government and the rule of law.

[MikeO]

3 minutes ago, RPG said:

But you presume to onow Johnson's motive and criticise it. Are you suggesting that Gina Miller had no motive other than ensuring the letter of the law was stringently upheld or abused and that she would have done exactly the same if the position had been reversed? I don't think so.

We are now in a situation in UK where 'justice' can be bought by those with the deepest pockets and that is a very dangerous place to go.

Justice hasn't been bought, Gina Miller didn't make the decision, eleven independently appointed supreme court judges did.

You're being totally disingenuous if you're suggesting Johnson's motives weren't obvious to all, as clearly as Miller's were; difference is she was honest about it.

The rest of your post is a personal opinion piece containing views which Mr Cranmer is totally entitled to hold; we all know today is monumental and may well change our executive offices and judiciary and sovereign roles in the future but there's only one person you can hold responsible for that and he's still in America with his puppet master Trump as far as I'm aware.

[StevO]

11 hours ago, RPG said:

I am sure that 17.4 million people do not view their votes as ill considered. Maybe Remainers are slowly joining Piers Morgan in insisting that democracy should be respected and are reconsidering their vote but the Leave vote was definitely not ill considered.

I obviously respect your right to your opinion but my opinion is that the Leave vote was very carefully considered and it could just as easily, and more justifiably, be said that it was the Remain vote that was ill considered.

17.4 million considered votes, I’ve banged this drum long enough but I don’t see how anyone can say that after it’s been fully 100% proven that the tactics employed by leave.eu on social media we’re so far out of order and blatant lies directed at swing voters. 

[MikeO]

8 minutes ago, RPG said:

Regarding justice being bought (or abused for political reasons), I think (pardon the pun) that the jury will be out on that for some time yet.

The repercussions from today's judgement have constitution changing effects if not challenged - wouldn't there be a delicious irony if Johnson appealed to the court that is superior to the Supreme Court - the ECJ!

That would indeed be hilarious.

[Palfy]

11 hours ago, RPG said:

I am sure that 17.4 million people do not view their votes as ill considered. Maybe Remainers are slowly joining Piers Morgan in insisting that democracy should be respected and are reconsidering their vote but the Leave vote was definitely not ill considered.

I obviously respect your right to your opinion but my opinion is that the Leave vote was very carefully considered and it could just as easily, and more justifiably, be said that it was the Remain vote that was ill considered.

Democracy are you serious the Supreme Court have ruled that this government are far from democratic, and you want to give them the final say yes that is most definitely ill considered it cannot possibly be anything else. 

Like I've always advocated a new referendum is what’s required we cannot trust MPs, and if you don’t believe me I refer you to the Supreme Court. 

[MikeO]

14 minutes ago, RPG said:

We have to change Parliament so that there is a working majority. I am confident that a General Election will achieve that and so, I suggest, are most Remainers as that is the real reason they don't want an election.

All the remain parties and the Labour party, who are advocating a second referendum, are very clear that they do want a GE; they're just not willing to go into one while Johnson has the opportunity to manipulate the date after promising one on 20th Oct and then once the house is legally prorogued changing it to 2nd November thereby getting the hard Brexit he craves. Once the "no hard Brexit" deal is enshrined in law by the commons a GE will happen.

It's politics 101 Rusty and makes perfect sense, they don't trust the snakes in No 10 to stick to their words; who in their right mind would?

[Palfy]

I’m a remainer and I can assure you that my reasoning of having another referendum before a General election is not because I fear there would be a majority party with a leave agenda, to be honest quite the reverse we will have a hung parliament completely split with another coalition that will be handcuffed from making decisions. 

For me the most sensible and conclusive course would be a 2nd referendum, followed by General election to elect the party with the manifesto that best serves the country, and would carry out the decision of the people based on a more clear version of leave or remain. 

 

[MikeO]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, if they want an election but are only concerned about the timing rather than the outcome, that is easily fixed. A legal agreement that Brexit is delayed until one day after a General Election. If a Brexit majority government (single party or coalition) is elected then we get Brexit immediately. If not then we would be at the mercy of the Lib Dems I think.

Why the "if"? It's a fact

The rest of the post is a bit daft and anything but an "easy fix". How can you possibly have a legal commitment to trigger Brexit the day after, potentially, a party or parties campaigning against it win a mandate to stop it? You yourself have on many occasions suggested a GE would in effect be a second referendum but your logic here suggests that the result of it should (potentially) be ignored.

[Palfy]

16 minutes ago, MikeO said:

All the remain parties and the Labour party, who are advocating a second referendum, are very clear that they do want a GE; they're just not willing to go into one while Johnson has the opportunity to manipulate the date after promising one on 20th Oct and then once the house is legally prorogued changing it to 2nd November thereby getting the hard Brexit he craves. Once the "no hard Brexit" deal is enshrined in law by the commons a GE will happen.

It's politics 101 Rusty and makes perfect sense, they don't trust the snakes in No 10 to stick to their words; who in their right mind would?

Not me, it’s anarchy in the Uk. 

[MikeO]

Anyway, for now I'll be moving on to the far more important issue of Everton playing tonight so I'm done in here until tomorrow when no doubt the debate will continue; very gratified to see that in such extraordinary circumstances we've still managed to remain respectful with no mud slinging. I suspect we're the only corner of the 'net where this is the case.

COYB!

[Palfy]

22 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, if they want an election but are only concerned about the timing rather than the outcome, that is easily fixed. A legal agreement that Brexit is delayed until one day after a General Election. If a Brexit majority government (single party or coalition) is elected then we get Brexit immediately. If not then we would be at the mercy of the Lib Dems I think.

But can I imply from your answer that, in principle, you agree that a General Election rather than a second referendum is the solution provided that the timing of the GE does not deliver a WTO Brexit by default?

I live in part of the Tory heartland so my vote won’t count against James Gray my local MP a Tory stalwart, so a referendum would give me a vote that would count. 

And I would take a LibDem government over a Tory government everyday of the week. 

[Palfy]

7 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Anyway, for now I'll be moving on to the far more important issue of Everton playing tonight so I'm done in here until tomorrow when no doubt the debate will continue; very gratified to see that in such extraordinary circumstances we've still managed to remain respectful with no mud slinging. I suspect we're the only corner of the 'net where this is the case.

COYB!

[StevO]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

A lot of personal opinion and assumptions in that post Steve and you fail to convince me. That there was misinformation from both sides is not in dispute. But, just as in a General Election, I trust the British people to sort the wheat from the chaff and make a sensible decision. They did that and the decision should be respected and enacted.

Erm, no misinformation or assumptions Rusty. There was a government inquiry. 

Just because you and I weren’t targeted doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. 

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-report-published-17-19/

Maybe don’t even read the government inquiry, just google Cambridge Analytica Brexit. You’ll find all the information there, even from execs of the company admitting what they did and admitting it was wrong. 

[Palfy]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

And that is absolutely your right. But we must deal with the issue on a national basis not in Palfy's constituency basis.

Come on Rusty give me a break mate some times it’s an intolerable situation being the only Labour voter in the village

[Bailey]

 

7 hours ago, MikeO said:

Indeed, it's huge! eg

"This is a hideous moment for the Palace.

The Queen had very little discretion over whether to prorogue Parliament; she acts in this case on the advice of her prime minister.

Whilst some argue that Boris Johnson lacked the legitimacy of other prime ministers, and that this might have swayed the Queen’s decision, that would have meant stepping into (even more of) a constitutional minefield.

But to have an Order in Council – the exercise of Royal Prerogative, the mechanism by which the prorogation takes place – ruled unlawful and void, is breathtaking.

Worse for the Palace, and for the Queen, is the spotlight this throws onto all the dark corners of the British constitution.

For decades, for centuries, it’s been governed by convention and precedent, and an unspoken agreement not to push things too far. Boris Johnson blew that apart.

And now the demands for a written constitution are coming. And with them the inevitable question – just what role should there be for a hereditary monarch?"

How long did it take Johnson and Cummings and their gang to achieve this disaster? Exactly two months.

Personally I think that is going way over the top. It doesnt bring the Crown into question, it is purely a question over the advice that was given by this Government. I wouldn't call it a disaster either. Realistically what is it going to change?

4 hours ago, MikeO said:

The Prime Minister broke the law, lied to the queen and has been held to account for it, the means by which it came to court are immaterial. Are you suggesting the PM should be allowed to be above the law in pursuit of his purpose, whatever that might be (putting Brexit aside for a moment)?

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy. An attempt by Johnson to bypass Parliament was ruled unlawful, a fantastic day for anyone who believes in our democratic system of government and the rule of law.

I haven't read the full transcript but has he been found to lie to the Queen or to not fully explain the reason for requiring the proroguing of Parliament? As soon as I heard that he hadn't disclosed am affidavit it surely became completely impossible for the Court to rule upon the reason why Parliament was prorogued. I think we can all know the reason why a signed statement wasn't disclosed on behalf of the Government but I am unsure how they can expect to win a case without one. They must have had all their eggs in the "its not a matter for the Courts" basket.

If I was Johnson, I would do it all again albeit with a "real" reason. I doubt that the threshold for what is considered to be legitimate is going to be that high.

I can't wait to see what these Politicians do with all that extra time they have now in Westminster. I'm sure it will be sweet fa.

[rubecula]

the big problem we have here is the mistake about the voting that most folks have,  to whit  the way that people confuse party politics with brexit.  they are two  different things  vote how you want  of course  but  make sure you do not confuse politics and policies.    

 

 

 

 

 

[pete0]

5 hours ago, Palfy said:

Come on Rusty give me a break mate some times it’s an intolerable situation being the only Labour voter in the village

Most of us aren't Labour, we're anything but Conservative. 

With rusty and Chach I stopped posting in this thread as I honestly thought it was a brexit/Johnson bot. Chach threw me though as I've now got no idea what fence he sits on. But no surprise rpg is rusty. His posts are the closest I've been to asking admin to ban as they were so Conservative surprised they never, but no surprise after they said they knew who it was. If he wasn't a regulator a can't imagine him getting away with such. 

[Matt]

6 hours ago, pete0 said:

Most of us aren't Labour, we're anything but Conservative. 

With rusty and Chach I stopped posting in this thread as I honestly thought it was a brexit/Johnson bot. Chach threw me though as I've now got no idea what fence he sits on. But no surprise rpg is rusty. His posts are the closest I've been to asking admin to ban as they were so Conservative surprised they never, but no surprise after they said they knew who it was. If he wasn't a regulator a can't imagine him getting away with such. 

Can’t ban him because of his political beliefs, regardless of how much we disagree with them. I thought you were a liberal?!

[pete0]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Can’t ban him because of his political beliefs, regardless of how much we disagree with them. I thought you were a liberal?!

I mean because I didn't think it was an actual poster. I thought he was a tory/brexit spam bot.

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, pete0 said:

I mean because I didn't think it was an actual poster. I thought he was a tory/brexit spam bot.

Aaaah, gotchya now 

[Matt]

9 minutes ago, RPG said:

 

100% True Blue in my football and political convictions, and definitely a real person.

Healthy, polite debate is a good thing. We may have different points of view which are unlikely to ever be fully bridged but at least the dialogue helps us to understand each other's position better.

I think it’s because you came back and 99% of the posts were in this thread with a very definite opinion. No harm in my opinion but I can understand what Pete meant. 

[johnh]

19 hours ago, MikeO said:

The Prime Minister broke the law, lied to the queen and has been held to account for it, the means by which it came to court are immaterial. Are you suggesting the PM should be allowed to be above the law in pursuit of his purpose, whatever that might be (putting Brexit aside for a moment)?

The UK is a Parliamentary Democracy. An attempt by Johnson to bypass Parliament was ruled unlawful, a fantastic day for anyone who believes in our democratic system of government and the rule of law.

In a democracy, the only body to hold a government to account is the electorate. An unelected judiciary is only one position short of an army in terms of unsuitability.  As for your idea of democracy Mike, the country is now run by an unelected judiciary (of eleven remainers), an unopposed  Speaker, an unelected EU Commission and a load of MP's who ignore the manifesto's they were elected on.

[holystove]

1 hour ago, johnh said:

In a democracy, the only body to hold a government to account is the electorate. An unelected judiciary is only one position short of an army in terms of unsuitability.  As for your idea of democracy Mike, the country is now run by an unelected judiciary (of eleven remainers), an unopposed  Speaker, an unelected EU Commission and a load of MP's who ignore the manifesto's they were elected on.

This is wholly incorrect John.  Parliament has the constitutional duty to hold government to account.  What the UK Supreme Court did was to hand power stolen by the executive back to parliament.  They took no stance on Brexit; they only, unanimously, asserted the rule of law and separation of powers.   To frame this in terms of unelected remainers is irresponsible and very damaging to the liberal values that made the UK so great.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, johnh said:

In a democracy, the only body to hold a government to account is the electorate. An unelected judiciary is only one position short of an army in terms of unsuitability.  As for your idea of democracy Mike, the country is now run by an unelected judiciary (of eleven remainers), an unopposed  Speaker, an unelected EU Commission and a load of MP's who ignore the manifesto's they were elected on.

So, when do you think the electorate would be given the chance to hold the government accountable for what has been deemed as a law breaking action? 

[Bailey]

56 minutes ago, holystove said:

This is wholly incorrect John.  Parliament has the constitutional duty to hold government to account.  What the UK Supreme Court did was to hand power stolen by the executive back to parliament.  They took no stance on Brexit; they only, unanimously, asserted the rule of law and separation of powers.   To frame this in terms of unelected remainers is irresponsible and very damaging to the liberal values that made the UK so great.

Absolutely, I cringe everytime I hear the cries of a remainer stitch up. 

Anyone who thinks so should read the judgment for themselves. It is probably one of the clearest and most straightforward judgments I have read in a while.

[MikeO]

2 hours ago, johnh said:

In a democracy, the only body to hold a government to account is the electorate. An unelected judiciary is only one position short of an army in terms of unsuitability.  As for your idea of democracy Mike, the country is now run by an unelected judiciary (of eleven remainers), an unopposed  Speaker, an unelected EU Commission and a load of MP's who ignore the manifesto's they were elected on.

Leaving aside your absurd stretch that the members of the supreme court are biased; as the phantom prorogation had nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit according to Boris what would it matter where they stood on it? Your point suggests that you knew he was lying all along.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Bailey said:

Absolutely, I cringe everytime I hear the cries of a remainer stitch up. 

Anyone who thinks so should read the judgment for themselves. It is probably one of the clearest and most straightforward judgments I have read in a while.

Got a link to the actual report? Google is only giving me news reports and I’m bored whilst I’m travelling with work again