Brexit...

[MikeO]

19 minutes ago, Matt said:

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

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Interesting that the very first sentence in it is, "It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on
what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union."

Strange thing for a bunch of remainers to open with.

[Romey 1878]

Can’t see what the problem is with the decision tbh, it’s absolutely correct imo. There was a moustached man who made himself above the law and we all know how that went. 

[Bailey]

Just watched the Commons on BBC Parliament and some twat from the Lib Dems used his question to the PM to ask him to take a public lie detector test. This is the type of BS they campaigned and wasted so much money on to get back into Parliament to ask. They are a disgrace. BS questions, faux outrage, they don't even bother listening to each other. Fuck the lot of them.

[MikeO]

2 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Just watched the Commons on BBC Parliament and some twat from the Lib Dems used his question to the PM to ask him to take a public lie detector test.

Answers would be interesting though, Jeremy Kyle could be the arbiter. That said he'd possibly be a better PM than the incumbent.

[pete0]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=662922750870160&id=100014573236581&fs=0&focus_composer=0

 

[pete0]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-jo-cox-brexit-mps-vote-election-supreme-court-parliament-a9120671.html?fbclid=IwAR0nNi9pS8V3stMio0KalaKFQXgm6JWQwE9jdVjZRuVRt86EFenZuYG25lo

Despicable cretin. 

[Matt]

If we’re going to be honest, they spend all their time bickering like spoilt kids in gangs facing off across the school yard anyway. Even in “calmer” time, the laughing, booing, undermining and sniping is utterly embarrassing (and on top of that there’s a law saying you can’t make fun of them whilst using footage of inside the building) 

[Bailey]

11 hours ago, pete0 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-jo-cox-brexit-mps-vote-election-supreme-court-parliament-a9120671.html?fbclid=IwAR0nNi9pS8V3stMio0KalaKFQXgm6JWQwE9jdVjZRuVRt86EFenZuYG25lo

Despicable cretin. 

I have relative sympathy with him on this point. Time after time, opposition MPs were getting to their feet and using Jo Cox's name to point score against the PM. Playing their holier than thou card asking the PM to moderate his language, despite the actions and words of the front bench they sit behind and the discrimatory comments remain MPs have said about leave voters and by this time he had run out of bluster came out with that stupid comment. 

Those MPs making the initial comment were looking for their TV moment and waiting for Johnsons mask to slip and congratulations to them it worked but it is absolutely disgraceful that they would go about it that way. 

I feel sorry for the family of Jo Cox, who constantly keep getting dragged into things like this because half with MPs want to score a point.

[johnh]

On 25/09/2019 at 13:29, 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.

The Attorney General has stated that no prorogation in the last 50 to 100 years (and there have been several) would have survived the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Moved the goalposts?  

[johnh]

23 hours ago, MikeO said:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

Interesting that the very first sentence in it is, "It is important to emphasise that the issue in these appeals is not when and on
what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union."

Strange thing for a bunch of remainers to open with.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.  

After the first day of the Supreme Court hearing, I watched the video of the proceedings.  Gina Miller's legal team made an absolute mess of presenting their evidence to the Court.  The big fat binders they presented to the eleven members were different to all the others in terms of section numbers, page numbers etc., When the lead lawyer started his presentation no one could find the information he was referring to.  It was a total embarrassment.   Instead of adjourning proceedings and telling them to go away and sort themselves out, the President, Lady Hale, smiled and gave them all the (considerable) time to sort things out.  That same evening, I posted on another website that the Government would lose.

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, johnh said:

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

Well you would say that wouldn't you

As an aside were you aware that two of eleven "remainer" judges sided with the government in the 2017 in the article 50 case, arguing that the government could trigger it without parliamentary consent? That would (if you won't accept that they are impartial) suggest that they were Brexiteers who've had a change of heart in the last couple of years.

Neither is the case of course, they are apoloitical when sat on those benches, unlike many around the World, the US being the most obvious example, and the rule of law is their only concern. Long may it continue that way.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, johnh said:

The Attorney General has stated that no prorogation in the last 50 to 100 years (and there have been several) would have survived the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Moved the goalposts?  

prorogation is supposed to be an annual event, but I understand reasons why that’s not been respected in recent years. Apparently the last time it last differed from the normal course was with Major. Who lost. To Blair  

But, anyway. Come on, John. Answer me a simple binary question; do you think Boris set the date for his gain or to follow the rules? Tertiary option could be “for the people”, but we all know how irrelevant that as a sound bite. 

[Palfy]

13 hours ago, MikeO said:

Well you would say that wouldn't you

As an aside were you aware that two of eleven "remainer" judges sided with the government in the 2017 in the article 50 case, arguing that the government could trigger it without parliamentary consent? That would (if you won't accept that they are impartial) suggest that they were Brexiteers who've had a change of heart in the last couple of years.

Neither is the case of course, they are apoloitical when sat on those benches, unlike many around the World, the US being the most obvious example, and the rule of law is their only concern. Long may it continue that way.

Here here

[Palfy]

15 hours ago, johnh said:

The Attorney General has stated that no prorogation in the last 50 to 100 years (and there have been several) would have survived the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Moved the goalposts?  

John he would say that he’s defending his position and Boris still says he was in his right to do what he did and still says it was legal, every time anyone from the Tory front bench open there mouths it’s a lie. 

[Palfy]

22 hours ago, RPG said:

I really so no purpose to recalling Parliament if that is how the MPs intend spending the 'extra' time. Let's be honest, the Remain dominated Parliament has spent the last 3 years trying (successfully) to achieve zero progress on Brexit. I can't see them springing into life anytime soon.

We need a General Election to unblock Parliament.

And after the 31st October we will get one, and we will be in the same position but with a Labour LibDem coalition instead of a Tory DUP. 

The Brexit party are going to split the Tory vote by appealing more to their far right voters. 

On the Brexit front a General Election is not going to change a thing where as a second referendum proved to be the only real solution to get over the impasse. 

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

And after the 31st October we will get one, and we will be in the same position but with a Labour LibDem coalition instead of a Tory DUP. 

The Brexit party are going to split the Tory vote by appealing more to their far right voters. 

On the Brexit front a General Election is not going to change a thing where as a second referendum proved to be the only real solution to get over the impasse. 

Haven't the LibDems already said they will not join a Labour coalition?

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, Romey 1878 said:

Haven't the LibDems already said they will not join a Labour coalition?

And Labour have said they wouldn’t join a LibDem coalition, but when it comes to the crunch and the chance of power we’ve seen how politicians change their minds for their own gain. 

Even today the SNP has said they would back Corbyn if it got rid of the Tories, and if that helped the Scotts to get independence then great news, I cannot think of anything better than the Tories losing power, and greater chance that we may remain and Scotland get independence. 

[holystove]

Conservative party is looking for an intern to support its MEPs in the European Parliament. Starting November 1st, for 6 months. 

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=72853

Yeah, definitely leaving on October 31st

Good to know length of extension is already decided.  'Definitely leaving on April 30th 2020', it is.

[Palfy]

19 minutes ago, holystove said:

Conservative party is looking for an intern to support its MEPs in the European Parliament. Starting November 1st, for 6 months. 

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=72853

Yeah, definitely leaving on October 31st

Good to know length of extension is already decided.  'Definitely leaving on April 30th 2010', it is.

Unbelievable!!!

[Bailey]

10 hours ago, Palfy said:

John he would say that he’s defending his position and Boris still says he was in his right to do what he did and still says it was legal, every time anyone from the Tory front bench open there mouths it’s a lie. 

Its his opinion that it was legal. I think you will find there are a lot of occasions where people think that the Judges were wrong, in fact I took part in a paid webinar earlier this year for a lawyer group in which it a large point of the lecture was about how wrong the Supreme Court was on an interpretation of EU law and how that law has since gone to the ECJ and been overturned. It happens and a lot of lawyers agreed with the Government and even now they have concerns about what this Judgment will mean for the future, especially on what will constitute a reasonable justification for proroguing Parliament for longer than normal.

The important thing is that they respect the rule of law and obey it, which at the moment they are. I am under no illusions that this might not be the case in the future, I certainly wouldn't trust them to continue to do so!

[MikeO]

24 minutes ago, Bailey said:

I think you will find there are a lot of occasions where people think that the Judges were wrong

But the reason "people" (as judges are) get elevated to the status of the Supreme court is down to their encyclopaedic knowledge of law isn't it? "People" may disagree with them at times (what the hell is a webinar anyway?) but ultimately some "people" are put there because they have knowledge and insight that most of us don't.

Joe Public, with all his/her prejudices (on both sides of any argument) aren't able to decipher legal positions like they can. This decision was unequivocal and unanimous in the strongest possible terms despite two of them going against their "support" for the government two years ago; the decision wasn't right or wrong, it was the final verdict and stands whatever anyone feels about it. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

Unbelievable!!!

Really?

[MikeO]

Stopped in a motorway services today and there was young lass stood behind a table with a , "prepare for Brexit" banner above it encouraging freight drivers to approach her for advice on what to do on 1st Nov, though nobody on the planet knows what will happen then so the advice could only be, "look out for some advice....er...sometime". Felt like going and giving the poor kid a hug.

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

Really?

Probably not. 

[StevO]

20 hours ago, MikeO said:

But the reason "people" (as judges are) get elevated to the status of the Supreme court is down to their encyclopaedic knowledge of law isn't it? "People" may disagree with them at times (what the hell is a webinar anyway?) but ultimately some "people" are put there because they have knowledge and insight that most of us don't.

Joe Public, with all his/her prejudices (on both sides of any argument) aren't able to decipher legal positions like they can. This decision was unequivocal and unanimous in the strongest possible terms despite two of them going against their "support" for the government two years ago; the decision wasn't right or wrong, it was the final verdict and stands whatever anyone feels about it. 

A judge won’t be expected to know everything about the law, but they will be expected to interpret the law. Whether that comes from reading, taking advice or using more people to help them come to a decision. 
My sister is was a barrister (now converted back to a solicitor) and she used to be an advisor to the judges in the high court. He role was to sit with judges and discuss the law on any specific case, to help them understand and interpret to the best of their ability. As we have thousands and thousands of laws they get all the help they need on a case by case basis. Used to get some interesting stories around the dinner table. 

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, StevO said:

My sister is was a barrister (now converted back to a solicitor)

That explains who got the family brains

[Bailey]

20 hours ago, MikeO said:

But the reason "people" (as judges are) get elevated to the status of the Supreme court is down to their encyclopaedic knowledge of law isn't it? "People" may disagree with them at times (what the hell is a webinar anyway?) but ultimately some "people" are put there because they have knowledge and insight that most of us don't.

Joe Public, with all his/her prejudices (on both sides of any argument) aren't able to decipher legal positions like they can. This decision was unequivocal and unanimous in the strongest possible terms despite two of them going against their "support" for the government two years ago; the decision wasn't right or wrong, it was the final verdict and stands whatever anyone feels about it. 

StevO has already covered what the Judges do and do not know. 

I don't disagree that the Judgment was unanimous and stands but it doesn't mean the position HAS to be agreed with albeit it does mean that the Judgment HAS to be followed otherwise the law will be broken. The Govt realise this and that's why they are following the decision. 

Going back to the example I gave before regarding the incorrect decision at the Supreme Court one of the reasons given by one of the Judges was because the representatives failed to raise a particular argument regarding a previous case which would have been key to the final decision. I have read that some legal professionals believe there to be a similar possibility in the prorogation case regarding a piece of Northern Irish legislation (I don't know enough about it to be anymore insightful) that had not been raised in Court and the Judges had not considered as part of their decision. 

Unfortunately our law is very contradictory at times and similar cases do not always result in similar decisions by different Judges. More often than not it's a minefield and it's always a risk taking a case to trial for that reason.

[Palfy]

17 hours ago, Bailey said:

StevO has already covered what the Judges do and do not know. 

I don't disagree that the Judgment was unanimous and stands but it doesn't mean the position HAS to be agreed with albeit it does mean that the Judgment HAS to be followed otherwise the law will be broken. The Govt realise this and that's why they are following the decision. 

Going back to the example I gave before regarding the incorrect decision at the Supreme Court one of the reasons given by one of the Judges was because the representatives failed to raise a particular argument regarding a previous case which would have been key to the final decision. I have read that some legal professionals believe there to be a similar possibility in the prorogation case regarding a piece of Northern Irish legislation (I don't know enough about it to be anymore insightful) that had not been raised in Court and the Judges had not considered as part of their decision. 

Unfortunately our law is very contradictory at times and similar cases do not always result in similar decisions by different Judges. More often than not it's a minefield and it's always a risk taking a case to trial for that reason.

We didn’t need the Supreme Court to tell us what was done was done for scrupulous reasons and not for the reasons the government stated, let’s be bluntly honest only an idiot would see it any other way, now whether you agree or disagree with what was done is a different argument, but the argument of whether he did it for gain and to stop parliament having a voice is easy to see for those with their eyes wide open, but not for those who will defend their party no matter what they do or say. 

And this is such an open and shut case any past history doesn’t warrant mentioning, due to this being done so clearly illegally it’s indefensible. 

[Bailey]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

We didn’t need the Supreme Court to tell us what was done was done for scrupulous reasons and not for the reasons the government stated, let’s be bluntly honest only an idiot would see it any other way, now whether you agree or disagree with what was done is a different argument, but the argument of whether he did it for gain and to stop parliament having a voice is easy to see for those with their eyes wide open, but not for those who will defend their party no matter what they do or say. 

And this is such an open and shut case any past history doesn’t warrant mentioning, due to this being done so clearly illegally it’s indefensible. 

The Supreme Court didn't say that it was done for "scrupulous reasons". They said that they weren't given any clear justification for the prorogation and that was because the Government didn't provide any clear evidence to support the need to prorogue Parliament. I agree that every man and their dog knew why.

I wonder what would have happened if the Government had done a statement saying they wanted to prorogue Parliament because Parliament was using age old mechanisms to stifle the democratic mandate handed to them by the people and that Parliament had voted on several measures on how to stop Brexit but never on how to deliver it and that Parliament sitting for less time would not affect anything. By not supplying a witness statement the Supreme Courts had it easy really. If there was a clear reason outlining why I suspect that the Supreme Court may have made a different decision.

As for it being so clearly illegally, that clearly also wasn't the case. The Judgment is novel Judgment, there has been no previous law ruling it out or in and therefore it wasn't illegal until the SC made the decision they did. Let's not forget that the High Court didn't want to get involved so they didn't see it as being "clearly illegal".

[Palfy]

14 minutes ago, Bailey said:

wonder what would have happened if the Government had done a statement saying they wanted to prorogue Parliament because Parliament was using age old mechanisms to stifle the democratic mandate handed to them by the people and that Parliament had voted on several measures on how to stop Brexit but never on how to deliver it and that Parliament sitting for less time would not affect anything. By not supplying a witness statement the Supreme Courts had it easy really. If there was a clear reason outlining why I suspect that the Supreme Court may have made a different decision

If Johnstone had made that statement would you have believed him, after all Rees-Mogg and himself voted against every opportunity to leave May put before them so they were as guilty as anyone for stifling parliament, but decided to lie to stop people stifling them, to lie to the country is not democracy it is treason so he should step down after being found guilty. 

They had it easy because it was blatantly obvious why it was done, the government or should I say Johnstone didn’t supply anything because that would have meant they would have lied further to justify the first lie, even they new they had been caught and couldn’t defend it.