Prorogation - Judgment Day:10.30am Tuesday 24/9/19
- Thread starter George Hannah
- Start date
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
He knows and its why he wants his freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddooomm.
They cant have it, there i said it!
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
It’s very easy to counter the ERGs case, because it’s complete bollocks
kaz7
Well-Known Member
So boris has spoken to the queen,hope she made the twat grovel
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
I hope she said " no worries Bojo - I am sending Phil to pick you up from the airport - I am afraid the seatbelt on Diana's....sorry the passenger seat in that car doesn't work. But don't worry..........."
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
This has been a very active thread, which has suitably chronicled the events of the day, but I'm somewhat troubled as to why very few posters appear willing to unequivocally characterise our Prime Minister as a ****.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
****.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Yes it's easy to counter any case with that analysis - absolutely invincible.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Of course, if proroguing never happened, Bojo could always prorogue Parliament. I mean, it wouldn't be like he was doing it again. So Parliament returns - it has already done all it can in terms of binding the hands of the executive on no deal, and we have no idea whether or how that could work if he toughs it out. It won't let him dissolve Parliament even though it thinks him unfit for office because it doesn't want an election because this could result in the clock running out, plus they might lose their excellent fake jobs. It won't call a motion of no confidence in him for ditto reasons plus it can't agree to a government of national unity because no one wants anyone else to get their hands on the steering wheel. And the official opposition is suggesting an election in which people vote for it on the basis that it will enter into negotiations not knowing what it wants until it finds out what it gets. We're making the Ukrainian scandal in the US relatively straightforward.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
Then again, it could ask BoJo about that blond American he was shagging?
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Would that be another prerogative power ripe for trespass? Anyway here's a sensible comment
Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism
Lord Sumption
Where does law begin and politics end? Any government’s relationship with parliament is bound to be political. Ever since the 18th century, ministers have made use of the power to prorogue or (until 2010) dissolve parliament for political advantage.
There was a consensus that they should not abuse the power, but what amounted to abuse was itself a political question, not a legal one. What is revolutionary about the Supreme Court’s decision is that it makes the courts the ultimate arbiters of what political reasons are good enough.
Yet the Supreme Court’s judgment should be welcomed even by those who believe, as I do, that politics is not the proper business of courts of law. The objection to judicial intervention in politics is that it undermines the democratic legitimacy of public decision-making. The court’s judgment, however, is not concerned with the political issues surrounding Brexit. It is concerned with the process by which those issues are to be resolved. Its effect is to reinstate parliament at the heart of that process.
The question for the rest of us is whether we still believe in the parliamentary model that the Supreme Court has vindicated. Underlying the debate about the merits of leaving the European Union, there is an even more fundamental conflict between two opposing claims to democratic legitimacy, one based on the referendum and the other on the parliamentary process. Most of our difficulties over the past three years have arisen from the misguided attempt to insert a referendum into a fundamentally parliamentary system.
I have lost count of the number of times that prominent Brexiters have declared that by authorising the referendum Parliament delegated its sovereignty to the majority. The argument is completely untenable. Leaving the EU and creating other arrangements to replace it requires new laws. It requires complex political judgments about our future relations with the EU.
Parliament is the supreme source of law. It is also the only body to which ministers can be continually accountable for their political judgments about Brexit or anything else. It is central to our whole political system. A referendum can serve none of parliament’s functions. It is not a source of law. It is not a mechanism for holding ministers to account. It is a snapshot of public opinion, and as such an important political fact for parliamentarians to take into account. But that is all it is.
The parliamentary process is fundamental in another, even more important sense. It is a mechanism for accommodating opposing opinions and interests in our society. To gain power, political parties have to appeal to a wider base than tribal faithfuls and single-issue fanatics.
A legislature whose membership reflects the balance of political parties is therefore a natural forum for compromise. In a Brexit context this might mean membership of the customs union or the European Economic Area or something similar under a different name. These half-way houses are in many ways impure and unsatisfactory. Few people would make them their first choice. But it is probable that a larger proportion of the electorate could live with them than with any other solution.
Appeals to the referendum as an alternative source of legitimacy are really calls to reject compromise. Proroguing parliament was a method of circumventing the political process, and avoiding the pressure to compromise that is inherent in it. It is absurd to criticise the House of Commons for being just as divided as those whom it represents; and dangerous to obstruct its attempts, however laborious and accident-prone, to accommodate our divisions and avoid the aggressive extremes at either end of the Brexit spectrum.
The British constitution famously consists of many things that are not law but political conventions. Some of them are rules of practice. Others are attitudes of mind, part of a shared political culture that is based on respect for the centrality of the House of Commons. Political conventions are a better, more flexible and more democratic alternative to law. But if we are to avoid a wholly legal constitution, we must honour them.
The present government has taken an axe to convention. It has sought to use the awesome prerogative powers of the Crown, but without the accountability to parliament that alone makes the existence of those powers tolerable. It has been determined to disregard our only collective political forum. This is something entirely new in British politics.
The natural result of constitutional vandalism on this scale is that conventions have hardened into law. That is the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is infinitely regrettable that it should have come to this, but better than leaving a void governed by neither convention nor law, in which the government can do whatever it likes.
The moral is that under our constitution 52 per cent cannot expect to carry off 100 per cent of the spoils. They have to engage with the rest. That is what parliament is for.
Lord Sumption retired as a justice of the Supreme Court in December last year
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
I think the public accounts committee would want to know whether good value was being achieved for the use of public money
Rascal
El Presidente
I am sorry mate, it wasn't. It was about where power lies and how that power can be exercised.
Thank fuck we have an independent judiciary who recognised the danger of Johnsons wanton disregard of Parliament.
Some things are far more important than Brexit and today was one of them.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Love this part. No deal is the antithesis of this approach.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,887
He wrote a very good history of the 100 years war, Lord Sumption.
In his spare time.
In his spare time.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
I am happy to so do. Boris Johnson is, unequivocally, a complete ****.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
The pivotal issue is that Parliament handed over their supervision of the executive to the courts by failing to allow a GE.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Oh dear - 2 talking heads on Sky news paper review defending Johnson when the first headline ( the FT ) calls for him to go - Brendan O'Neill of Spiked ( an avowed supporter of free speech and the law ) claiming that the courts now run the country because they are in the pocket of the wealthy elite who are all remainers. Has he canvassed them all? Aren't Johnson, JRM and others wealthy and elite?
When asked won't he face calls from opposition leaders to resign the answer is "he doesn't have to do what the opposition say" ....................likewise the opposition don't have to grant him a GE. Let him stew and look more and more absurd.
When asked won't he face calls from opposition leaders to resign the answer is "he doesn't have to do what the opposition say" ....................likewise the opposition don't have to grant him a GE. Let him stew and look more and more absurd.
They failed to fall for Boris’s trap of forcing through a no deal during an election campaign, by not allowing parliament to act.
The minute that deadline of Oct 31st is over, it’ll be full steam ahead to get those rotten fascist cunts out of Downing St.