This is not going to end well. In normal times I’d be first to say a PM in this position should resign. However because of the Remain/Leave battle I’m now the first to say he needs to stay. I also now find myself hoping for a full throated Leave win when the election comes, and a democratic revolution that destroys everything the average Remain voter holds dear.
That it has come to this, and we couldn’t find a traditional British compromise is sad. But change is going to have to come. We might stay in the EU for now, but my god those who make that happen are going to reap what they have sown.
There speaks the opinion of the Leave fanatic. "Smash everything the average Remain voter holds dear". Fascism is alive and well in the UK. Very sad to see it.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Disagree, Casino. Dictionary definition.
quash: reject or void, especially by legal procedure
I know, but they’d have been better advised to use something very neutral like voided or overturned.
Quashed sounds too much like squashed, and that you’re enjoying it.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
Just about everything from the Supreme Court judgement is fine, except its surprising use of the word “quashed”.
Quashed is almost colloquial and suggests a level of emotion behind its judgement against the Government’s actions.
Quashed is a perfectly usual legal term in both civil and criminal proceedings.
The one bit of the ruling that I felt was a bit iffy was in para 57, which said
"A fundamental change was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October 2019. Whether or not this is a good thing is not for this or any other court to judge"
While on the face of it that's a neutral comment, there's still a bit of an implication that "but if we were to judge, we'd say it was bloody stupid". It would have been better to have left the point out, not least because it adds nothing and no-one raised it as an issue.
Yep. It’s pretty clear where the sympathies lie.
That said, the judgement still stands on its own merits.
This is not going to end well. In normal times I’d be first to say a PM in this position should resign. However because of the Remain/Leave battle I’m now the first to say he needs to stay. I also now find myself hoping for a full throated Leave win when the election comes, and a democratic revolution that destroys everything the average Remain voter holds dear.
This isn't about Leave or Remain. It's about the rule of law and the primacy of parliament. Gods, if you can't get behind that AND back Leave, that says something about you. Other leavers have no trouble combining the two.
Why would the Tories want to deliver the extension request?
They don't have to. This isn't about leave, remain, extend, deal, no deal. All of that is besides the point. This is about the PM illegally shutting down parliament. Every person would be wise to unhitch their wagon from the person who did this. Even Farage has partially done that: he's got the sense to see where this is headed, although he put it on Cummings, so he /slightly/ chickened out.
The challenge facing Corbyn is triggering a VOC vote without setting in chain an early GE.
Easy enough: Parliament passing a "humble address" asking Her Maj to summon a new PM (Clarke/Harman/Benn/whoever) would stop an election being triggered.
It was possible before that Johnson might have advised Liz to ignore Parliament, and just let the two-week clock run down to an election - but, now, there's much more chance that she will call bullshit on Johnson's "advice".
The Queen must be so upset for multiple reasons. Steaming I imagine. Will she summon Johnson to Balmoral to explain himself or tender his resignation?
She and her advisers must have known it was dodgy but chanced their arm. They are as bad as the Tories, one big cartel.
Sky News saying Attorney-General told Boris that what he was doing WAS lawful. Could be some difficult questions for him from both sides.
I am sure that the Attorney General acted in good faith and felt that his interpretation was perfectly reasonable.
If so, it just shows what a horlicks our system of governance has become now that the Supreme Court has seen fit to intervene in the political arena without having a written constitution there to limit the scope of their judgements. Without a rule book to act as guidance and to limit their reach, constitutional law turns into a matter of subjective interpretation and the predictability of rulings turns on a toss of a coin.
The Conservatives don't have to change policy. I'd like them to, but this case was not about policy. It was about the rule of law. A different leader who isn't tainted by the unlawful actions could pursue exactly the same policy. Actually, thinking about it, probably Dominic Raab is ruled out because he also wanted to prorogue parliament. As for "riding it out"... this is never going to go away. Boris Johnson will always be the PM who illegally suspended parliament. The Conservative Party can wash their hands of that action, or they can own it. If they choose to own it, so be it. It will always be used against them. If your calculation really is that this won't make any difference, then clearly owning it makes sense. But that is antithetical to the style and ideology of those moderates I was talking about from the start. That's not the way they see the world. And any election they stand in would be extremely uncomfortable because they would be forced to field questions about Boris's conduct. And either they have to disown their own leader, or they have to disown their own ideology about the importance of standards in public life and rule of law.
I would suggest you wait until the next set of polling before you project your interpretation of the effects of the ruling.
You might find the public see the establishment again blocking attempts to respect the referendum result...in fact i'd be very surprised if they didn't.
There is a risk of mistaking tactical wins for strategic victories.
They don't have to. This isn't about leave, remain, extend, deal, no deal. All of that is besides the point. This is about the PM illegally shutting down parliament. Every person would be wise to unhitch their wagon from the person who did this. Even Farage has partially done that: he's got the sense to see where this is headed, although he put it on Cummings, so he /slightly/ chickened out.
Advice was given that it was legal.
Post prorogation polling showed the decision to be popular as I recall.
The establishment have intervened again to try and stop Brexit will be the perception.
Join the dots yourself to work out what impact this will have on polling.
They don't have to. This isn't about leave, remain, extend, deal, no deal. All of that is besides the point. This is about the PM illegally shutting down parliament. Every person would be wise to unhitch their wagon from the person who did this. Even Farage has partially done that: he's got the sense to see where this is headed, although he put it on Cummings, so he /slightly/ chickened out.
Advice was given that it was legal.
Post prorogation polling showed the decision to be popular as I recall.
The establishment have intervened again to try and stop Brexit will be the perception.
Join the dots yourself to work out what impact this will have on polling.
Advice was wrong. Polling back then doesn't matter, today's judgment changes the equation, and that might change the public's view of the matter.
As for this "establishment" tin foil bollocks... grow up. It's not about Brexit, it's about illegally shutting down parliament. The case was narrowly defined and the judgment was very clear.
Advice was wrong. Polling back then doesn't matter, today's judgment changes the equation, and that might change the public's view of the matter.
As for this "establishment" tin foil bollocks... grow up. It's not about Brexit, it's about illegally shutting down parliament. The case was narrowly defined and the judgment was very clear.
You may want to calm yourself a little.
The advice was indeed wrong.
I think the decision today will harden views not change them.
The perception of the 'establishment' trying to block Brexit may seem outrageous to you but if you wait for the polling you may find yourself unpleasantly surprised...in fact, i'm pretty sure you will.
I see the government is mouthing words of respect while sources do the opposite. So typical. Any guesses for daily mail headline? It's going to be ugly and the government will gleefully support it while pretending they dont
The Mail is not the Mail on Sunday. Remember the current Mail editor was a remainer and his paper backed remain when he was MOS editor during the referendum. If you look at the reporting on Brexit since the switch you will probably find most, if not all, of the really incendiary Brexit headlines have come from the MOS.
They don't have to. This isn't about leave, remain, extend, deal, no deal. All of that is besides the point. This is about the PM illegally shutting down parliament. Every person would be wise to unhitch their wagon from the person who did this. Even Farage has partially done that: he's got the sense to see where this is headed, although he put it on Cummings, so he /slightly/ chickened out.
Advice was given that it was legal.
Post prorogation polling showed the decision to be popular as I recall.
The establishment have intervened again to try and stop Brexit will be the perception.
Join the dots yourself to work out what impact this will have on polling.
I don't know if you've ever seen "In The Loop", the film version of "The Thick Of It". In that film one of the characters complains that the builders were late. Another character excoriates him, saying of course they were late - they're builders! (followed by much swearing)
The point is that lawyers are very well paid and frequently wrong (and never fired for it). Relying on them being right is like relying on builders to be prompt: it's an accident waiting to happen.
"No evidence Leave. EU and Arron Banks broke law, says crime agency NCA to take no further action over £8m funding claims against Brexit campaign group"
In which case Banks has officially become a "fit and proper" person with whom to deal in forming a CON/BXP electoral pact...
Hmm I wonder why they chose to put that one out 45mins before the SC ruling.....
But according to Carole weird stuff going on - the NCA didn't actually look into the details of whether that £8m was honestly earned and donated or came from another source.... Surely this news deserves its own thread on PB?
Comments
Quashed sounds too much like squashed, and that you’re enjoying it.
That said, the judgement still stands on its own merits.
You might find the public see the establishment again blocking attempts to respect the referendum result...in fact i'd be very surprised if they didn't.
There is a risk of mistaking tactical wins for strategic victories.
Post prorogation polling showed the decision to be popular as I recall.
The establishment have intervened again to try and stop Brexit will be the perception.
Join the dots yourself to work out what impact this will have on polling.
I’m not a big fan normally but respect to him , I don’t doubt his sincerity that he wants to help people especially those trying to make ends meet .
As for this "establishment" tin foil bollocks... grow up. It's not about Brexit, it's about illegally shutting down parliament. The case was narrowly defined and the judgment was very clear.
The advice was indeed wrong.
I think the decision today will harden views not change them.
The perception of the 'establishment' trying to block Brexit may seem outrageous to you but if you wait for the polling you may find yourself unpleasantly surprised...in fact, i'm pretty sure you will.
And son, save your insults for someone else.
The point is that lawyers are very well paid and frequently wrong (and never fired for it). Relying on them being right is like relying on builders to be prompt: it's an accident waiting to happen.
But according to Carole weird stuff going on - the NCA didn't actually look into the details of whether that £8m was honestly earned and donated or came from another source.... Surely this news deserves its own thread on PB?
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1176414374925393921