User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Why would this court ruling dissolve the house of commons? If Parlaiment is smart they will let Johnson dangel and have an election in December or January.

The issue is whether they can somehow get the Tory party to remove him as leader, if not, when the election comes around in December or January.......

The parliament does need to be dissolved and the citizens take another crack at it, the difference between now and 2017 is that there has been another 2 years of watching them do their best to do nothing.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:47 pm

par13del wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Why would this court ruling dissolve the house of commons? If Parlaiment is smart they will let Johnson dangel and have an election in December or January.

The issue is whether they can somehow get the Tory party to remove him as leader, if not, when the election comes around in December or January.......

The parliament does need to be dissolved and the citizens take another crack at it, the difference between now and 2017 is that there has been another 2 years of watching them do their best to do nothing.


The Torries have lost the majority, so I do not subscribe to the point of view that it will only take to remove Johnson as leader of the Conservatives to prevent an election.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20737
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 6:52 pm

Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Can the queen simply dissolve parliament on her own


That is missing drop in the barrel. Oh man, a ceremonial queen to take such a stap to disband Parlaiment on her own? That will open a can of worms. I have no clue if she has the power, she probably have, but using that will dissolve the Kingdomship itself, but hey why not, we are were we are, so we could add that to the list of failures in Brittish politics.


I know the queen has little involvement with parliament. I know she attends the opening after a new government is formed and gives a speech. I thought she also had to accept the dissolution of parliament in some ceremony or something. I am not sure is why I am asking.

Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
or does there need to be a "No Confidence" vote taken first? Is there a chance parliament will be dissolved in light of the court ruling? If so, who is the likely replacement for Prime Minister if Boris Johnson's party loses?


Why would this court ruling dissolve the house of commons? If Parlaiment is smart they will let Johnson dangel and have an election in December or January.


I am just wondering if this court ruling would lead to a "no confidence" vote by the opposition and maybe even some in his party? I am wondering if the opposition parties could come back to parliament and call for the vote based on the court ruling?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:06 pm

Well, the shame of Boris Johnson knows no limit. A typical display of bluster and deflection, nothing new and most certainly not even a suggestion of an apology to Parliament. The man is an absolute disgrace.

Also another mediocre performance by Corbyn. The only thing he did right was to not rise to the baiting by Johnson.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21299
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:17 pm

seb146 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
seb146 wrote:
or does there need to be a "No Confidence" vote taken first? Is there a chance parliament will be dissolved in light of the court ruling? If so, who is the likely replacement for Prime Minister if Boris Johnson's party loses?


Why would this court ruling dissolve the house of commons? If Parlaiment is smart they will let Johnson dangel and have an election in December or January.


I am just wondering if this court ruling would lead to a "no confidence" vote by the opposition and maybe even some in his party? I am wondering if the opposition parties could come back to parliament and call for the vote based on the court ruling?

As far as I'm aware the official leader of the opposition (currently Jeremy Corbin) would have to officially call for a vote of no confidence for it to occur.

If Boris should lose that vote a new PM would have to be voted for in the Commons, with the current problem being that Jeremy Corbyn can't expect a majority at this point even with Boris having lost his.

A new general election is currently held up by that having the effect of leaving Boris alone in control of crashing the UK out of the EU because the existing Parliament would already be dissolved. By rejecting a snap election Parliament still has the ability to influence the Brexit process in this critial phase and keeping Boris from screwing it up.

Both factors in combination currently keep Boris in office even though he has no majority any more, which is a very unusual situation, but so is the impending Brexit.

So because of this we're now watching Boris writhing and squirming on the hook of his own making which is not quite how he had imagined this main goal of his political career...
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:32 pm

seb146 wrote:
I fear this thread is becoming too long, it will be locked and my question will go unanswered but here goes:

Can the queen simply dissolve parliament on her own?

In theory yes, she could.
In practice/reality, no. Nor would it make any sense to do so.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:17 am

Dutchy wrote:
The Torries have lost the majority, so I do not subscribe to the point of view that it will only take to remove Johnson as leader of the Conservatives to prevent an election.

My point was that an election before the end of the current term is going to happen, if Boris remains as leader of the Tory part there is the possibility that he will once again be PM.....having him resign as PM or having him "dangle" will not remove him as party leader, that is strictly a party issue over which the parliament has no control.
Boris may be wounded as PM, he was never that powerful anyway but within the party, he is still strong and their preferred choice, at least up to now.
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:03 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
It within the judgement they have not actully ruled if BJ acted unlawfully as I quoted beforehand: what is actually being ruled on isif they have stymied Parliment from doing its job the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature, but there is nothing to say under different circumstances that parliament cannot be prorogued for that length of time either.


You said: "Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull"

The proroguing of Parliament was ruled unlawful because there was no reasonable justification for it.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf
61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before
us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to
prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October.
We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons
might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.


So certainly not saying proroguing for five weeks was unlawful but proroguing for that long with no reasonable justification was. So Boris's motive for the prorogation was illegal.

They didn't rule that Parliament couldn't be prorogued for five weeks, but that reasonable justification was required. Boris and his cronies couldn't provide that. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in Parliament today. If he has an ounce of integrity, he'll resign along with his henchman Rees-Mogg.




Yes I have read the verdict when I posted prior.

Well actually there was justification for it and provided but the panel deemed that the reason and length of time for reason given was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions, throughout the verdict it details the prorogation dates summarises average time for previous parliamentary prorogued and questions the current prorogued time in either days or weeks, so by virtue the defining feature of the verdict is the length of time of prorogation

As there were no Legislative statute or precedents to guide for length of time of prorogation, the court recognised the circumstances for the court action has never taken place, but the side affect this ruling now has becomes the precedent for future Prime Ministers will be governed by when proroguing parliament



It also provides some glaring inconsistencies in how they reached the verdict;

58. The next question is whether there is a reasonable justification for taking action which had such an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy. Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in making decisions of this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it. It will be apparent from the documents quoted earlier that no reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks. Everything was focussed on the need for a new Queen’s Speech and the reasons for holding that in the week beginning the 14th October rather than the previous week. But why did that need a prorogation of five weeks?


If you look at the evidence provided by Sir John Major it provides the ground work on what happens behind the scene's and what Lady Hale presented within the verdict actually tallies with what Sir John present, in actual fact by siding with Gina Miller he is also passing judgement on his own use of the executive power where he also prorogued parliament for 20 day in the lead up to the 97 GE in the cash for comment report that was supposed to be presented, talk about a hypocrite

59. The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is four to six days. Departments bid for the Bills they would like to have in the next session. Government business managers meet to select the Bills to be included, usually after discussion with the Prime Minister, and Cabinet is asked to endorse the decisions. Drafting the speech itself does not take much time once the substance is clear. Sir John’s evidence is that he has never known a Government to need as much as five weeks to put together its legislative agenda.



And the Justification;

This had been the longest session since records began. Because of this, they were at the very end of the legislative programme of the previous administration. Commons and Lords business managers were asking for new Bills to ensure that Parliament was using its time gainfully. But if new Bills were introduced, the session would have to continue for another four to six months, or the Bills would fall at the end of the session.

&
Choosing when to end the session - ie prorogue - was a balance between “wash up” - completing the Bills which were close to Royal Assent - and “not wasting time that could be used for new measures in a fresh session”. There were very few Bills suitable for “wash-up”, so this pointed to bringing the session to a close in September. Asking for prorogation to commence within the period 9th to 12th September was recommended.

&
The Cabinet meeting minutes,
20. We also have the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held by conference call at 10.05 am on Wednesday 28th August, after the advice had been given. The Prime Minister explained that it was important that they were “brought up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. It was also “important to emphasise that this decision to prorogue Parliament for a Queen’s Speech was not driven by Brexit considerations: it was about pursuing an exciting and dynamic legislative programme to take forward the Government’s agenda”. He also explained that the timetable did not conflict with the statutory responsibilities under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (as it happens, the timetable for Parliamentary sittings laid down in section 3 of that Act requires that Parliament sit on 9th September and, on one interpretation, no later than 14th October). He acknowledged that the new timetable would impact on the sitting days available to pass the Northern Ireland Budget Bill and “potentially put at risk the ability to pass the necessary legislation relating to decision-making powers in a no deal scenario”. In discussion at the Cabinet meeting, among the points made was that “any messaging should emphasise that the plan for a Queen’s Speech was not intended to reduce parliamentary scrutiny or minimise Parliament’s opportunity to make clear its views on Brexit. … Any suggestion that the Government was using this as a tactic to frustrate Parliament should be rebutted.” In conclusion, the Prime Minister said that “there were no plans for an early General Election. This would not be right for the British people: they had faced an awful lot of electoral events in recent years”


As previously talked about at the start of the verdict by Lady Hale & Lord Reed and by the unchallenged submission from Sir John Major it was acknowledged that: " It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a “one off”. and has acknowledge the governments agenda to pursue that either come the 31st October we will leave with or without a deal how long it would the judiciary know it takes the government to set out the required legislative agenda to be brought before parliament and Her Majesty speech, the judiciary has injected itself within the prerogative of the executive.

One can infer that from this verdict that any prorogation is unlawful in any situation as it will always interfere with parliaments ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive no matter how trivial the piece


Everyone knows the Supreme Court is supposed be to apolitical which doesn't mean they are not human which will and will have there own thoughts on Brexit and appears to be giving Parliament the benefit of the doubt on what action it may or may not have taken during party conferences season
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Thu Sep 26, 2019 8:20 am

Klaus wrote:
As far as I'm aware the official leader of the opposition (currently Jeremy Corbin) would have to officially call for a vote of no confidence for it to occur.


While a motion of no confidence in the Government would normally be tabled by the leader of the opposition, in fact any MP in Parliament can table it. It's generally considered to be "the nuclear option" and has only been successful 24 times in nearly 300 years of Parliament.

If the Government loses that motion, that Government or another has to win a motion of confidence within two weeks or a GE is automatically triggered. All of Johnson's outrage and bluster last night was a pathetic (and ill-tempered) attempt to goad Corbyn into such action. As you say, it's far from clear that Corbyn would have the support necessary to form a new Government. MPs are not generally stupid and they'll leave Johnson floundering until he returns from the EU summit with his "new" deal. Then things will get really interesting.

Klaus wrote:
So because of this we're now watching Boris writhing and squirming on the hook of his own making which is not quite how he had imagined this main goal of his political career...


It's pathetic and amusing at the same time.

A101 wrote:
so by virtue the defining feature of the verdict is the length of time of prorogation


The clause "without reasonable justification" cannot be separated from what you've written, because that was precisely the phrase used in para 50.

"50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the
power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the
prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a
legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such
a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such
an exceptional course.
"

A101 wrote:
One can infer that from this verdict that any prorogation is unlawful in any situation as it will always interfere with parliaments ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive no matter how trivial the piece


One can also infer the exact opposite - any prorogation is legal as long as it is reasonably justified. :spin:

A101 wrote:
Everyone knows the Supreme Court is supposed be to apolitical


I don't see how this is a "political decision" when it was unanimous. Not one single dissention.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
LJ
Posts: 4856
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:05 pm

Only a few weeks till Brexit and they still don't know if there are enough medicines...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/27/ministers-still-do-not-know-nhs-cope-no-deal-brexit-report
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:04 pm

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
so by virtue the defining feature of the verdict is the length of time of prorogation


The clause "without reasonable justification" cannot be separated from what you've written, because that was precisely the phrase used in para 50.

"50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the
power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the
prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a
legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such
a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such
an exceptional course.
"


The precedent is now set all prorogation is now a Judicial reviewable event by the Court; So who decides what a legitimate reason is?



scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
One can infer that from this verdict that any prorogation is unlawful in any situation as it will always interfere with parliaments ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive no matter how trivial the piece


One can also infer the exact opposite - any prorogation is legal as long as it is reasonably justified. :spin:


History of prorogation in the Parliament always has a political latent position

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
Everyone knows the Supreme Court is supposed be to apolitical


I don't see how this is a "political decision" when it was unanimous. Not one single dissention.


They actually made it political within the final verdict as there was no legislated statue or precedent directly relating to prorogation in a court of law, but there were a number of conventions and precedents of the executive within parliament going back throughout the years. The Supreme Courts have taken upon themselves of not just taking account of the given reason but also what they believe is the underlying reason/motive.(53)" As we have explained, the Prime Minister had made clear his view that it was advantageous, in his negotiations with the EU, for there to be a credible risk that the United Kingdom might withdraw without an agreement unless acceptable terms were offered."

Is it within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to question the government to advance a better possible negation position as they themselves say (1)" It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. Would the Government been in a better negotiation position had not intervened and could an acceptable deal been reached, I guess we will never know. But the remain position is quite clear suspending parliament is undemocratic, as it prevents us from overturning the referenda result and to that extent they also refuse to give electorate a voice
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:32 pm

A101 wrote:
Is it within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to question the government to advance a better possible negation position as they themselves say (1)" It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. Would the Government been in a better negotiation position had not intervened and could an acceptable deal been reached, I guess we will never know. But the remain position is quite clear suspending parliament is undemocratic, as it prevents us from overturning the referenda result and to that extent they also refuse to give electorate a voice


I thought prorogating had nothing to do with brexit :scratchchin:
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:00 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Is it within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to question the government to advance a better possible negation position as they themselves say (1)" It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. Would the Government been in a better negotiation position had not intervened and could an acceptable deal been reached, I guess we will never know. But the remain position is quite clear suspending parliament is undemocratic, as it prevents us from overturning the referenda result and to that extent they also refuse to give electorate a voice


I thought prorogating had nothing to do with brexit :scratchchin:


It was not part of the actual reason government provided but was put forward by Miller in “The alternative ground of challenge”
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:05 pm

A101 wrote:
The precedent is now set all prorogation is now a Judicial reviewable event by the Court; So who decides what a legitimate reason is?


Only if someone takes the Government to court. If the Government doesn't have reasonable justification, then they'd be stupid to prorogate, especially for a long time.

A101 wrote:
As we have explained, the Prime Minister had made clear his view that it was advantageous, in his negotiations with the EU, for there to be a credible risk that the United Kingdom might withdraw without an agreement unless acceptable terms were offered."


Take the whole para in context, it reads differently then. :yes:

A101 wrote:
Would the Government been in a better negotiation position had not intervened and could an acceptable deal been reached, I guess we will never know. But the remain position is quite clear suspending parliament is undemocratic, as it prevents us from overturning the referenda result and to that extent they also refuse to give electorate a voice


I seem to remember lots of leavers bleating about wanting Parliament to be sovereign? Be careful what you wish for. :rotfl:

Grizzly410 wrote:
I thought prorogating had nothing to do with brexit


Funny that, eh? :lol:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:29 pm

scbriml wrote:

I seem to remember lots of leavers bleating about wanting Parliament to be sovereign? Be careful what you wish for.



There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation and those wanting to overturn a sovereign decision made by parliament from the legally mandates referenda, if parliament didn’t like the known process under A50 it should never have made laws sanctioning the government to invoke withdrawal from the EU.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:17 am

A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I seem to remember lots of leavers bleating about wanting Parliament to be sovereign? Be careful what you wish for.



There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation and those wanting to overturn a sovereign decision made by parliament from the legally mandates referenda, if parliament didn’t like the known process under A50 it should never have made laws sanctioning the government to invoke withdrawal from the EU.


Might have my timelines wrong, but wasn’t the withdrawal process started by a different parliament (pre-2017 election)? Is it unusual for newly-elected Parliaments to change course from previous Parliaments?
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:17 am

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:

I seem to remember lots of leavers bleating about wanting Parliament to be sovereign? Be careful what you wish for.



There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation and those wanting to overturn a sovereign decision made by parliament from the legally mandates referenda, if parliament didn’t like the known process under A50 it should never have made laws sanctioning the government to invoke withdrawal from the EU.


Might have my timelines wrong, but wasn’t the withdrawal process started by a different parliament (pre-2017 election)? Is it unusual for newly-elected Parliaments to change course from previous Parliaments?


Same party different leaders
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:11 am

A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation


Yet Parliament is acting in what it believes is the best interests of the country. In a sovereign manner.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:47 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation


Yet Parliament is acting in what it believes is the best interests of the country. In a sovereign manner.


No they are not parliament decideed to put the question to the electorate because it was a matter of national importance, they knew the consequences if they could not get a deal that satisfies the sovereign parliament which the deal, and which was rejected 3 times by a sovereign parliament. It is in no way the national interest to continue this charade under the guise of being democratic, the process called for an extension to work a new deal the government has complied but there comes a time when it has to finish and the government has made that stand to be the 31st Oct. therefore it is remain who are impeding the process under the law both sovereign and supranational being the EU law.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:21 pm

A101 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:

There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation and those wanting to overturn a sovereign decision made by parliament from the legally mandates referenda, if parliament didn’t like the known process under A50 it should never have made laws sanctioning the government to invoke withdrawal from the EU.


Might have my timelines wrong, but wasn’t the withdrawal process started by a different parliament (pre-2017 election)? Is it unusual for newly-elected Parliaments to change course from previous Parliaments?


Same party different leaders


So what? Still a new Parliament that can presumably diverge from the position of previous Parliaments. If not, what’s the point of regular elections?
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 12:33 pm

A101 wrote:
scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between a sovereign parliament making laws in the interests of the nation


Yet Parliament is acting in what it believes is the best interests of the country. In a sovereign manner.


No they are not parliament decideed to put the question to the electorate because it was a matter of national importance, they knew the consequences if they could not get a deal that satisfies the sovereign parliament which the deal, and which was rejected 3 times by a sovereign parliament. It is in no way the national interest to continue this charade under the guise of being democratic, the process called for an extension to work a new deal the government has complied but there comes a time when it has to finish and the government has made that stand to be the 31st Oct. therefore it is remain who are impeding the process under the law both sovereign and supranational being the EU law.


But the electorate did not stipulate a date by which it must be achieved. I thought that was for Parliament to decide (as part of its responsibility to implement)? If so, hasn’t the electorate delegated to Parliament the responsibility to decide what type of Brexit should take place and when it should take place? It seems that that is what Parliament is doing (albeit to the chagrin of many).

Perhaps Parliament has the Boeing saga on its mind. Better to take the time and get it right than put livelihoods at risk by rushing a complex process just to satisfy some constituents. After all, a Brexit completed on 29 March 2029 would still be Brexit, would it not?
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:25 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:

Might have my timelines wrong, but wasn’t the withdrawal process started by a different parliament (pre-2017 election)? Is it unusual for newly-elected Parliaments to change course from previous Parliaments?


Same party different leaders


So what? Still a new Parliament that can presumably diverge from the position of previous Parliaments. If not, what’s the point of regular elections?


Cameron resigned once the result was known May won the leadership went to an election retained power by the skin of her teeth May resigned Johnson becomes leader of the party that’s the so what. The party generally takes stock of policy after an internal reveiw
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:36 pm

A101 wrote:
No they are not


Yes they are. It was this crooked Government that tried to shut down the democratic process.

Oh I forgot, Brextremists have a very peculiar notion of "democracy".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
LJ
Posts: 4856
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:53 pm

A101 wrote:
They actually made it political within the final verdict as there was no legislated statue or precedent directly relating to prorogation in a court of law, but there were a number of conventions and precedents of the executive within parliament going back throughout the years. The Supreme Courts have taken upon themselves of not just taking account of the given reason but also what they believe is the underlying reason/motive.(53)" As we have explained, the Prime Minister had made clear his view that it was advantageous, in his negotiations with the EU, for there to be a credible risk that the United Kingdom might withdraw without an agreement unless acceptable terms were offered."

Is it within the Supreme Courts jurisdiction to question the government to advance a better possible negation position as they themselves say (1)" It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. Would the Government been in a better negotiation position had not intervened and could an acceptable deal been reached, I guess we will never know. But the remain position is quite clear suspending parliament is undemocratic, as it prevents us from overturning the referenda result and to that extent they also refuse to give electorate a voice


Number 53 is an alternative argument an accuser used to prove that Boris Johnson acted in bad faith when he prorogated Parliament. The Supreme Court doesn't actually interfere with the content of this statement. This is mentioned in 54 where this challenge was would only need to be considered if the advice would have been deemed lawfull. However, the Court concluded in paragraph 61/69 that the advice was unlawfull hence the challenge in 53 never needed to be adressed (and thus the Surpreme Court has no position on challenge described in paragraph 53). Hence why the Surpreme Court stayed out of the political debate and focussed on the legality of the advice in stead of giving an opinion on whether prorogation has a positive or negative impact on UKs position.

It's also strange that some see the Parliament as someting undemocratic. Unless a law says otherwise, one cannot place a referendum higher than Parliament as there is no legal basis to do so. You can argue all you want about this, but no legal basis means no legal basis.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 3:43 pm

Philip Hammond wrote:
“The radicals advising Boris do not want a deal. Like the Marxists on the Labour left, they see the shock on a disruptive no-deal Brexit as a chance to re-order our economy and society. But I detect no appetite among our electorate for such a project.”


Link

So this might be indeed the end game? Is this what people have voted for? The extremes are in power, never good for a country.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:54 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
So what? Still a new Parliament that can presumably diverge from the position of previous Parliaments. If not, what’s the point of regular elections?

I take it by new parliament you mean sans an election, because I think the majority of the current members stood for re-election and were successful.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:03 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So this might be indeed the end game? Is this what people have voted for? The extremes are in power, never good for a country.

I don't think we want to open that can of worms again, did they vote yes, did they vote for Brexit, Brino, Remain, Leave, the only thing we can say for sure is that there was a referendum and the people voted, what they voted for is open to interpretation.

My issue with the former chancellor is that he was against his sitting PM at the time and defied her orders / instructions, so imagine the shock and horror that he is against another PM while not sitting in cabinet?
He was there, he had an influential position in the cabinet, the influence grew when the hard Brexit cabinet ministers left the cabinet, yet along with TM they could not come up with a deal that the parliament could stomach, indeed, it was under TM and the chancellors watch that the parliament and the speaker took a radical approach to the entire process.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:23 pm

par13del wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So this might be indeed the end game? Is this what people have voted for? The extremes are in power, never good for a country.

I don't think we want to open that can of worms again, did they vote yes, did they vote for Brexit, Brino, Remain, Leave, the only thing we can say for sure is that there was a referendum and the people voted, what they voted for is open to interpretation.

My issue with the former chancellor is that he was against his sitting PM at the time and defied her orders / instructions, so imagine the shock and horror that he is against another PM while not sitting in cabinet?
He was there, he had an influential position in the cabinet, the influence grew when the hard Brexit cabinet ministers left the cabinet, yet along with TM they could not come up with a deal that the parliament could stomach, indeed, it was under TM and the chancellors watch that the parliament and the speaker took a radical approach to the entire process.


not talking about what kind of Brexit, talking about what happens afterwards: "re-order our economy and societ"
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:50 pm

Well talking to some fron the UK world looks like that:

Image
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 7:37 pm

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
No they are not


Yes they are. It was this crooked Government that tried to shut down the democratic process.

Oh I forgot, Brextremists have a very peculiar notion of "democracy".


It was a government who knew that the remain camp within Parliament are trying to de-rail Brexit all together, the government were attempting trying to force the hand of the EU to negotiate a better deal or leave on the 31st Oct, as the remain factions within Parliament continues to deny any sort negotiation tactic and comply with the new exit day within the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 which was imposed upon by Parliament
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 8:58 pm

LJ wrote:

Number 53 is an alternative argument an accuser used to prove that Boris Johnson acted in bad faith when he prorogated Parliament.


Yes I know what it is as I showed that it was "The alternative ground of challenge"


LJ wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn't actually interfere with the content of this statement. This is mentioned in 54 where this challenge was would only need to be considered if the advice would have been deemed lawfull. However, the Court concluded in paragraph 61/69 that the advice was unlawfull hence the challenge in 53 never needed to be adressed (and thus the Surpreme Court has no position on challenge described in paragraph 53). Hence why the Surpreme Court stayed out of the political debate and focussed on the legality of the advice in stead of giving an opinion on whether prorogation has a positive or negative impact on UKs position.


The court is inferring that the length of time of either a Parliamentary session or prorogation and also that finishing up of legislative programme is no longer a lawful reason to prorogue parliament and precedents of the past no longer apply




LJ wrote:

It's also strange that some see the Parliament as someting undemocratic. Unless a law says otherwise, one cannot place a referendum higher than Parliament as there is no legal basis to do so. You can argue all you want about this, but no legal basis means no legal basis.



While in a legal sense that is correct, As Lady Hale pointed out the Government had pledged to honour the result and it has since been treated as politically and democratically binding and following Governments and Parliament have acted on that basis.

Parliament when it voted for invoking A50 of the TEU and in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 did not legislate that if a deal could not be concluded we will revoke and remain. When Parliament rejected the WA it rejected the notion of remaining under the yoke of the EU also equitably without prejudice
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:02 pm

Dutchy wrote:
par13del wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So this might be indeed the end game? Is this what people have voted for? The extremes are in power, never good for a country.

I don't think we want to open that can of worms again, did they vote yes, did they vote for Brexit, Brino, Remain, Leave, the only thing we can say for sure is that there was a referendum and the people voted, what they voted for is open to interpretation.

My issue with the former chancellor is that he was against his sitting PM at the time and defied her orders / instructions, so imagine the shock and horror that he is against another PM while not sitting in cabinet?
He was there, he had an influential position in the cabinet, the influence grew when the hard Brexit cabinet ministers left the cabinet, yet along with TM they could not come up with a deal that the parliament could stomach, indeed, it was under TM and the chancellors watch that the parliament and the speaker took a radical approach to the entire process.


not talking about what kind of Brexit, talking about what happens afterwards: "re-order our economy and societ"


That's exactly what Brexit is and what the electorate voted for reorganisation of our political values outside of the EU
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:16 pm

Olddog wrote:
Well talking to some fron the UK world looks like that:

Image


Well actually no that drawing is far from the truth, the UK is not trying to impose anything on the EU nor are we trying to guide you in a different direction than one that you decide for yourself, the UK electorate voted to remove ourselves from that structure to one were other nations no longer have a sway in the future direction of the UK, our position is that the UK and only the UK will decide what direction we move in, it is not for the UK to decide how the remaining members move in what direction.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:30 pm

A101 wrote:
The court is inferring that the length of time of either a Parliamentary session or prorogation and also that finishing up of legislative programme is no longer a lawful reason to prorogue parliament and precedents of the past no longer apply


No, that's just your interpretation. :shakehead:

IMHO, it's clear from the ruling that any prorogation of any length will be legal as long as it's reasonably justified. The key issue that you seem unable to accept is that the justices ruled the Government couldn't justify proroguing for five weeks and thus the prorogation was unlawful.

It's there in black and white in para 50.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Sep 28, 2019 10:55 pm

A101 wrote:
not talking about what kind of Brexit, talking about what happens afterwards: "re-order our economy and societ"


That's exactly what Brexit is and what the electorate voted for reorganisation of our political values outside of the EU[/quote]

No, they didn't and certainly not having a society of American or Singaporean way. This is not in or out of the EU, but goes much farther than that: all kind of protection for workers can be overhauled etc. And nobody voted for that.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
kaitak
Posts: 9707
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:18 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
not talking about what kind of Brexit, talking about what happens afterwards: "re-order our economy and societ"


That's exactly what Brexit is and what the electorate voted for reorganisation of our political values outside of the EU


No, they didn't and certainly not having a society of American or Singaporean way. This is not in or out of the EU, but goes much farther than that: all kind of protection for workers can be overhauled etc. And nobody voted for that.[/quote]

I find it quite surprising that the leader of the British TUC, Len McCluskey, a big gun in Labour circles, is opposed to any new referendum on the EU and wants Brexit to go ahead. Doesn't the union movement realise that coming out of the EU has the potential to be very damaging to workers' rights and lega protections?
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:45 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
The court is inferring that the length of time of either a Parliamentary session or prorogation and also that finishing up of legislative programme is no longer a lawful reason to prorogue parliament and precedents of the past no longer apply


No, that's just your interpretation. :shakehead:

IMHO, it's clear from the ruling that any prorogation of any length will be legal as long as it's reasonably justified. The key issue that you seem unable to accept is that the justices ruled the Government couldn't justify proroguing for five weeks and thus the prorogation was unlawful.

It's there in black and white in para 50.



As I said before: So who decides what a legitimate reason is?

As pointed out we do not know what was actually said to Her Majesty for the reasons for prorogation, but what was presented to the court was the length of time of the current session and to achieve a new legislative agenda, even if you actually look at the Parliamentary website The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Parliament generally sits in sessions of roughly 12 months spring to spring by precedent but with the current session is the second longest on record, and does not say how long it shall be nor is there strict protocols on length of prorogation, I don't see Sir John censuring himself for proroguing for 20 days to cover his own arse
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:09 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
not talking about what kind of Brexit, talking about what happens afterwards: "re-order our economy and societ"


That's exactly what Brexit is and what the electorate voted for reorganisation of our political values outside of the EU

No, they didn't and certainly not having a society of American or Singaporean way. This is not in or out of the EU, but goes much farther than that: all kind of protection for workers can be overhauled etc. And nobody voted for that.


First up fix the way you quote please as it places a misrepresentation towards what people post within the thread.

The majority voted to leave the mechanism of the EU, you are making a presumptions on what future governments may or may not do and then you set aside that if governments of the future act in a certain way then the electorate cannot rise against and show their displeasure at such a course of action.

They did such a thing in Australia called "WorkChoices" the UK is not a dictorship
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1238
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:54 am

A101 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Well talking to some fron the UK world looks like that:

Image


Well actually no that drawing is far from the truth, the UK is not trying to impose anything on the EU nor are we trying to guide you in a different direction than one that you decide for yourself, the UK electorate voted to remove ourselves from that structure to one were other nations no longer have a sway in the future direction of the UK, our position is that the UK and only the UK will decide what direction we move in, it is not for the UK to decide how the remaining members move in what direction.


Well you have obvious reading comprehension problem if you read the drawing this way :)
When UK was in it wanted a lot of opt-outs, now it is out it wants opt-ins
 
LJ
Posts: 4856
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:28 am

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn't actually interfere with the content of this statement. This is mentioned in 54 where this challenge was would only need to be considered if the advice would have been deemed lawfull. However, the Court concluded in paragraph 61/69 that the advice was unlawfull hence the challenge in 53 never needed to be adressed (and thus the Surpreme Court has no position on challenge described in paragraph 53). Hence why the Surpreme Court stayed out of the political debate and focussed on the legality of the advice in stead of giving an opinion on whether prorogation has a positive or negative impact on UKs position.


The court is inferring that the length of time of either a Parliamentary session or prorogation and also that finishing up of legislative programme is no longer a lawful reason to prorogue parliament and precedents of the past no longer apply


Your statement is incorrect as the opposing party [the government] didn't provide any reason for the prorogation in Court (it's irrelevant what it mentions outside the Court). The prorogation cannot be deemed lawful if there is no reaon underlying the prorogation. When the accusers provide evidence on a certain matter and the accused doesn't present anything, then it would be very difficult for the Court to rule in favour of the accused.

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:

It's also strange that some see the Parliament as someting undemocratic. Unless a law says otherwise, one cannot place a referendum higher than Parliament as there is no legal basis to do so. You can argue all you want about this, but no legal basis means no legal basis.



While in a legal sense that is correct, As Lady Hale pointed out the Government had pledged to honour the result and it has since been treated as politically and democratically binding and following Governments and Parliament have acted on that basis.

One should stop any discussion after your first sentence. We have a policy within our company which says that it doesn't matter what's implied or what deal we may think we have with a regulator/government or contract party, the only thing what matters is what's written in a contract(or otherwise formally agreed). In case of regulators and governments it all comes down to what they've agreed to us in writing (either via laws, instructions or mails). Anything else is a moving target and one must expect that it changes overtime. Do I like this? No, but we're living in times that eveyone uses implied deals to their advantage when it suits them (usually politically in case of a regulator or government). Also note that a Surpreme Court usually rules on the basis of the law in countries like the UK. Hnece why the UK is so beloved in contracting law (unlike mainland Europe where Courts tend to be more pragmatic).
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:33 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

That's exactly what Brexit is and what the electorate voted for reorganisation of our political values outside of the EU


No, they didn't and certainly not having a society of American or Singaporean way. This is not in or out of the EU, but goes much farther than that: all kind of protection for workers can be overhauled etc. And nobody voted for that.


First up fix the way you quote please as it places a misrepresentation towards what people post within the thread.


If you rightfully so, point out a mistake, make sure that you do it correctly.

A101 wrote:
The majority voted to leave the mechanism of the EU, you are making a presumptions on what future governments may or may not do and then you set aside that if governments of the future act in a certain way then the electorate cannot rise against and show their displeasure at such a course of action.

They did such a thing in Australia called "WorkChoices" the UK is not a dictorship


I didn't speculate about this, but Philip Hammond, see the linked articles.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:43 am

Olddog wrote:
A101 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
Well talking to some fron the UK world looks like that:

Image


Well actually no that drawing is far from the truth, the UK is not trying to impose anything on the EU nor are we trying to guide you in a different direction than one that you decide for yourself, the UK electorate voted to remove ourselves from that structure to one were other nations no longer have a sway in the future direction of the UK, our position is that the UK and only the UK will decide what direction we move in, it is not for the UK to decide how the remaining members move in what direction.


Well you have obvious reading comprehension problem if you read the drawing this way :)



Well is not written in another language, but its is meant to be satire just not very well done
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:28 am

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
The Supreme Court doesn't actually interfere with the content of this statement. This is mentioned in 54 where this challenge was would only need to be considered if the advice would have been deemed lawfull. However, the Court concluded in paragraph 61/69 that the advice was unlawfull hence the challenge in 53 never needed to be adressed (and thus the Surpreme Court has no position on challenge described in paragraph 53). Hence why the Surpreme Court stayed out of the political debate and focussed on the legality of the advice in stead of giving an opinion on whether prorogation has a positive or negative impact on UKs position.


The court is inferring that the length of time of either a Parliamentary session or prorogation and also that finishing up of legislative programme is no longer a lawful reason to prorogue parliament and precedents of the past no longer apply


Your statement is incorrect as the opposing party [the government] didn't provide any reason for the prorogation in Court (it's irrelevant what it mentions outside the Court). The prorogation cannot be deemed lawful if there is no reaon underlying the prorogation. When the accusers provide evidence on a certain matter and the accused doesn't present anything, then it would be very difficult for the Court to rule in favour of the accused.


Documents were provided to the court which are mentioned within the verdict

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:

It's also strange that some see the Parliament as someting undemocratic. Unless a law says otherwise, one cannot place a referendum higher than Parliament as there is no legal basis to do so. You can argue all you want about this, but no legal basis means no legal basis.



While in a legal sense that is correct, As Lady Hale pointed out the Government had pledged to honour the result and it has since been treated as politically and democratically binding and following Governments and Parliament have acted on that basis.


One should stop any discussion after your first sentence. We have a policy within our company which says that it doesn't matter what's implied or what deal we may think we have with a regulator/government or contract party, the only thing what matters is what's written in a contract(or otherwise formally agreed). In case of regulators and governments it all comes down to what they've agreed to us in writing (either via laws, instructions or mails). Anything else is a moving target and one must expect that it changes overtime. Do I like this? No, but we're living in times that eveyone uses implied deals to their advantage when it suits them (usually politically in case of a regulator or government). Also note that a Surpreme Court usually rules on the basis of the law in countries like the UK. Hnece why the UK is so beloved in contracting law (unlike mainland Europe where Courts tend to be more pragmatic).



What the supreme court made its verdict on are the documents given to the court. And in regards as you point towards "contracts" it was pointed out was is exactly that parliament provided through statute and legislation in accordance within our parliamentary sovereignty.

Parliament have acted on that basis when it invoked A50 knowing what the process is under the conditions of a binding treaty (TEU), Parliament responded by passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which was coincidently passed 498 to 114. there's your contract to the people of the UK they also fulfilled its part when it scrutinized the deal and decided not to ratify as it was against the national interest.

Parliament entered process of A50 into a contract (treaty) when it passed European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, but at the end of the day government has no recourse on the verdict so we just have to live with it.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17487
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:41 am

A101 wrote:
As I said before: So who decides what a legitimate reason is?


"Reasonably justified" is the key.

If the Government wants to Prorogue they'll need their lawyers to provide guidance. All it has to be is "reasonably justified". If there's a legal challenge, then the courts will decide if the Government has acted lawfully, just as they have in this instance and many times before on other issues.

A101 wrote:
As pointed out we do not know what was actually said to Her Majesty for the reasons for prorogation


That doesn't actually matter because the Government's lawyers failed to convince any of the eleven justices that proroguing for five weeks was "reasonably justified".
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:47 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

No, they didn't and certainly not having a society of American or Singaporean way. This is not in or out of the EU, but goes much farther than that: all kind of protection for workers can be overhauled etc. And nobody voted for that.


First up fix the way you quote please as it places a misrepresentation towards what people post within the thread.


If you rightfully so, point out a mistake, make sure that you do it correctly.
.


Its good to see you actually re-org the quote

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
The majority voted to leave the mechanism of the EU, you are making a presumptions on what future governments may or may not do and then you set aside that if governments of the future act in a certain way then the electorate cannot rise against and show their displeasure at such a course of action.

They did such a thing in Australia called "WorkChoices" the UK is not a dictorship


I didn't speculate about this, but Philip Hammond, see the linked articles.


Yes you did the only section you correctly attributed to Mr Hammond was the quote about "re-order our economy and society" the cooment on workplace reform is all on you as the linked article suggested no such thing

And the Link you provided.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit
 
A101
Posts: 1252
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:23 am

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
As I said before: So who decides what a legitimate reason is?


"Reasonably justified" is the key.

If the Government wants to Prorogue they'll need their lawyers to provide guidance. All it has to be is "reasonably justified". If there's a legal challenge, then the courts will decide if the Government has acted lawfully, just as they have in this instance and many times before on other issues.


So we are basically in agreement the judiciary has now injected itself within the executive, any hint of malfeasance will be contested irrespective of the circumstances

scbriml wrote:
A101 wrote:
As pointed out we do not know what was actually said to Her Majesty for the reasons for prorogation


That doesn't actually matter because the Government's lawyers failed to convince any of the eleven justices that proroguing for five weeks was "reasonably justified".


Of course it does as it is say in any action " will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive" should then become a distinction between a "one off" case such as Brexit or say proroguing parliament as one of the bills being "The Phase-out of Plastic Pollution Bill", if it wasn't Brexit would anyone even battered an eyelid if proroguing parliament would impact the plastic pollution bill the outcome is the same " will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive"
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:10 am

A101 wrote:
Yes you did the only section you correctly attributed to Mr Hammond was the quote about "re-order our economy and society" the cooment on workplace reform is all on you as the linked article suggested no such thing


It is part of my interpretation Mr. Hammond said, indeed. And what is your interpretation of "re-order our economy and society"? Given that the backers of Brexit are mostly from the City.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10041
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:15 am

A101 wrote:
Olddog wrote:
A101 wrote:

Well actually no that drawing is far from the truth, the UK is not trying to impose anything on the EU nor are we trying to guide you in a different direction than one that you decide for yourself, the UK electorate voted to remove ourselves from that structure to one were other nations no longer have a sway in the future direction of the UK, our position is that the UK and only the UK will decide what direction we move in, it is not for the UK to decide how the remaining members move in what direction.


Well you have obvious reading comprehension problem if you read the drawing this way :)



Well is not written in another language, but its is meant to be satire just not very well done


Not written in another language, yet you fail to understand the crucial point: perception from the Brexiteers in the UK and the perception from the EU. I think it is painfully accurate.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:15 am

A101 wrote:
The majority voted to leave the mechanism of the EU

When did this happen? Don't say the referendum of 2016, because they didn't.
The 2016 referendum was a poll of the electorate in order to obtain the advice of the electorate.
The resulting advice was the electorate were split on the matter with a very narrow margin preferring to leave.

It wasn't a win/lose vote, it doesn't get interrupted or followed through as per a GE and it sure as hell isn't required to be followed through regardless of the outcome.

Parliament and its MP's all said they would respect the result. They did this because respecting the result just means they have to consider the advice given ALONGSIDE all the other factors including their main priority, the national interests. If an MP considered the advice before voting in the house, then the 'result' has been respected.

You can get stamp your feet and get as gammon faced as you want, but if you keep spouting 'but democracy, leave won!', then it's clear to all you haven't got a grasp of how our democracy works on its most basic of levels.

Parliament clearly beleive no deal is very much against the national interests.
If the NoDeal morons want a no deal, they should actually put forward a argument that will persuade them otherwise. They won't because the consenus (globally) says otherwise.

Parliament haven't yet reached consensus on which is the best option for the UK. Parliament is soverign, the house of commons is our democractic voice. It's their decision to make, let them make it. Stop with the faux non-democratic outrage just because they won't screw over 65million people with your preferred option right now.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9063
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:25 pm

LJ wrote:
One should stop any discussion after your first sentence. We have a policy within our company which says that it doesn't matter what's implied or what deal we may think we have with a regulator/government or contract party, the only thing what matters is what's written in a contract(or otherwise formally agreed)

To make sure I understand your point, you want to apply contract law to what a government does with its citizens? Government / companies contract law is fine, but if you attempt to apply that to the political system, how will that work? I say political system because it starts at the MP's level, they promise during campaigns, parties who form the government does the same, we have precedent established over the length and history of elected legislatures where going back on promise was and is done. All bills / laws etc are not driven by the government, a minority are driven by the parliament itself - see what is taking place now - so we cannot limit to just government MP's.
If I have misread your post my apologies.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bostrom, DALMD80, dfwjim1, Ertro, Grizzly410, N583JB, Reinhardt, speedbird217, THS214, zakuivcustom and 59 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos