Please withdraw the nonsense you have written above.
Ah, it was a different Lord Baron who has done his bit to carry on the good work of the other Lord Baron who tried to make it impossible to leave the EU.
By my reckoning they both should have been called Wayne.
To prevent confusion, there should just be one generic Lord Baron Kerr of Three-Syllables.
I, for one, am fully willing to believe that Boris Johnson's primary motivation regarding his blonde lady friend was simply for her to show him how to handle his dongle.
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Corbyn made PM purely for long enough to sign Labour's death warrant by submitting the extension request.
GE follows.
All to Cummings timetable.
Compare to Johnson's pledges in his campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party.
Deliver Brexit by 31/10 - Article 50 extended - FAILED. Unite the Conservative Party (and the country) - Two former Chancellors with the whip withdrawn and 21 MPs in total kicked out - FAILED. Defeat Jeremy Corbyn and keep him out of Number 10 - Resign to make way for Corbyn to enter Number 10 - FAILED.
A complete DUD, making Johnson a serial loser as well as a serial liar.
Would Conservative MPs have backed Johnson if that had been the plan presented to them in June? I think not.
None of your post relates to where we are now.
And we all know that if Corbyn ends up being the one requesting the A50 extension prior to the GE Labour will be annihilated at the ballot box.
Politicians should be judged, in part, on how well they deliver what they promise to deliver. I rather think that the electorate will take a judgement on how well Johnson has been able to deliver on his promises and find him wanting.
This gives me little joy, given that they are most likely to turn to Farage.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Quite. Everybody is acting like the Supreme Court, with its beautiful europrose, has discovered some immutable legal truth. Yet an entirely different court, almost as eminent, sided with the government. So clearly there is an argument to be had.
And so we proceed to the next skirmish, in the great Brexit Culture War of 2016-3092
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Even the Supreme Court might have agreed with Cox, if Boris's dog had not eaten his homework. Paragraph 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. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.
Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.
Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.
They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.
The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself?
A fair question. Had Johnson been honest about the reason for the prorogation, he might well still have lost the case (though that is not absolutely clear), but at least there might be some grounds for feeling aggrieved at the decision.
The attempts by Leavers to politicise the Supreme Court are not only wrong, they are boring.
Byronic has become very tedious all of a sudden.
Sadly (and I genuinely mean that) the SC has already politicised itself in the eyes of millions of voters.
They are now fair game and I don't see how we won't end up with a nomination system for the SC in the future.
The government said that the prorogue has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. If that is the case, why would millions of voters now feel the Supreme Court has politicised itself? What evidence is there that there was a huge groundswell of support to close Parliament down for five weeks, to stop all scrutiny of government activity and to halt the passage of 14 pieces of proposed legislation?
We’d need a written constitution to have politically appointed judges, with strong safeguards against amendments by simple majority. Without one the line-up of judges would change with every government.
Indeed the public do not support prorogation when polled, and thought the reasons given were spurious, even the Tory voters.
I don't get the impression of anger with the judges, and neither does there seem to be enthusiasm for another GE.
There is though, I feel, some degree of desire for those MPs in place to stop acting like human vermin whose only desire is to generate hate and division.
One of those days where you wonder if any/how many political careers may be over at the end of it. Of all of the issues besetting them not sure I would want to go into bat for the PM over Ugandan negotiations/pole dancing/private IT lessons
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Quite. Everybody is acting like the Supreme Court, with its beautiful europrose, has discovered some immutable legal truth. Yet an entirely different court, almost as eminent, sided with the government. So clearly there is an argument to be had.
And so we proceed to the next skirmish, in the great Brexit Culture War of 2016-3092
I, for one, am fully willing to believe that Boris Johnson's primary motivation regarding his blonde lady friend was simply for her to show him how to handle his dongle.
Just been into TV room to talk to my wife and there was a lady on 'This Morning' who, she said, watches couples having sex in order to advise them on doing it better. No, one has to pay HER!
On topic. I don’t like the FTPA. My reasoning is simple. Either the party(s) who won the last election and formed government shapes the date of the early election, or the losing parties in the last election shapes the date of the early election.
It is black and white as this one or other, in which case
1. what is fairest to own that little bit of power to shape it? 2. If it’s in the hands of the opposition, the losers last time, they can prolong the chaos of a government that is in office but not in power, and that chaos cannot be good for the country, economy, households or anything other than perhaps their parties self interest.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
Who decided they were world class ? Is there a judge olympics ?
Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both world class judges by any measure.
You can almost guarantee they'll be on opposite sides of any ruling that strays into the political realm too.
As mentioned - all seems a bit self congratulatory - like the NHS being the “best in the world”.
Except that it's true of our judiciary. No-one outside the UK thinks that the NHS is anything great, but it's generally accepted that our judiciary and system of law generally is top-class (which is why so many commercial contracts are written under English law and specify English courts for any dispute).
We work with clients from all over the world and I can confirm that that’s the case in my experience. English Law is seen as the gold standard, rightly or wrongly.
Like anything else worth valuing about this country, Leavers have it in their sights, though.
What sort of motion should the opposition try to pass? I am thinking of something like:
"The prime Minister, Boris Johnson is hereby censured in the strongest possible terms for involving the Queen in controversial political acts and for actually breaking the law; furthermore this house believes he has lost any authority he may have had to negotiate a brexit deal, so to minimise the time wasted before a general election, the prime minister should resign or send the Benn Act letter requesting a brexit extension."
Probably a bit extreme and break a few conventions, but I can't help feeling Boris through his actions has brought the consequences on himself. Looks a bit too much like a remain agenda, but I can dream can't I?
I, for one, am fully willing to believe that Boris Johnson's primary motivation regarding his blonde lady friend was simply for her to show him how to handle his dongle.
Just been into TV room to talk to my wife and there was a lady on 'This Morning' who, she said, watches couples having sex in order to advise them on doing it better. No, one has to pay HER!
Is it cheaper to pay her for half an hour, than to get an hotel room?
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
What sort of motion should the opposition try to pass? I am thinking of something like:
"The prime Minister, Boris Johnson is hereby censured in the strongest possible terms for involving the Queen in controversial political acts and for actually breaking the law; furthermore this house believes he has lost any authority he may have had to negotiate a brexit deal, so to minimise the time wasted before a general election, the prime minister should resign or send the Benn Act letter requesting a brexit extension."
Probably a bit extreme and break a few conventions, but I can't help feeling Boris through his actions has brought the consequences on himself. Looks a bit too much like a remain agenda, but I can dream can't I?
If that's typical of the usual motion you pass may I recommend Senokot Max Strength.
Turns out a Labour Mayor stopped any more purchases.
On the Wrightbus front was talking to some locals about that at the weekend. The company was part of a christian fellowship where informally no contracts were given to those of a roman persuasion (or jobs) - it was functioning as a closed economy for those of a certain christian persuasion. Sadly it turned out the Jesus did not (in this case at least) save.
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Quite. Everybody is acting like the Supreme Court, with its beautiful europrose...
In what way was it 'europrose' ? Or are you just arbitrarily venting again ?
If I had resigned every time I lost a case I would probably never had had a law practice! Cox.
Fair enough. Applies to any professional. What we don't know is what advice he actually gave, since the only evidence provided to the Supreme Court was that provided by Lady Hale.
The 1922 is the useless shower who banged the desks in support of Theresa May after she'd mislaid her majority in GE2017 and then gave her a vote of confidence.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
Yes, a friend of mine said exactly that when his visited Brisbane a few years ago. It's either sitting in the garden in the sweltering heat drinking crap beer or travelling miles to some charmless bar to drink crap beer. He didn't like it. I thought that might have been just a Brisbane thing but from what you say it's more endemic.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Given half the cabinet said such a course of action would be unreasonable, or plain wrong, during the recent leadership election - so they thought it shit, too. They weren't even allowed to see Cox's advice ahead of prorogation - so 'reasonable' is hardly convincing.
Fairer to say that he thought he might get away with it, given the reluctance of the courts to intervene on the exercise of the prerogative. His entire argument was that the court had no right to look at the decision to prorogue.
That was arguable, but a deeply cynical view of the law. Having lost on the law, it's entirely appropriate to throw brickbats in his general direction.
On topic. I don’t like the FTPA. My reasoning is simple. Either the party(s) who won the last election and formed government shapes the date of the early election, or the losing parties in the last election shapes the date of the early election.
It is black and white as this one or other, in which case
1. what is fairest to own that little bit of power to shape it? 2. If it’s in the hands of the opposition, the losers last time, they can prolong the chaos of a government that is in office but not in power, and that chaos cannot be good for the country, economy, households or anything other than perhaps their parties self interest.
I think a compromise on 2 is for minority governments to be able to obtain an election if they have clearly lost control of the legislative programme and nobody else could (or wants to try to) form a functioning administration either. One way of doing that would be to reinstate the right to make important policy/legislative votes serve as votes of no confidence.
Prolonged periods of zombie government are unlikely to be healthy for the country even in less contentious times. Not just because it increases the chances of poor government or logically incoherent legislation (some which suits the government's policies and some designed to frustrate them) but because it encourages the legislature to dabble directly in the work of the executive - something rather dangerous in terms of checks and balances, since traditionally the main check on the government's executive actions was their accountability to parliament. Who would (which members of) parliament be accountable to if there are, effectively, ministries of the back benches?
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Quite. Everybody is acting like the Supreme Court, with its beautiful europrose, has discovered some immutable legal truth. Yet an entirely different court, almost as eminent, sided with the government. So clearly there is an argument to be had.
And so we proceed to the next skirmish, in the great Brexit Culture War of 2016-3092
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the a. He hated both
Cultural dr is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
I would suggest that's a bit of a holdover from the old Australian licensing laws, where pubs were typically closed at 1800.
Yes, that's part of the explanation. Also, the sheer lack of people, and the size of the country - meaning everyone is scattered - makes it hard for local bars to thrive (outside of central Sydney etc)
Ideally, Australia would have a population of about 150 million. Then it would be be perfect.
On topic. I don’t like the FTPA. My reasoning is simple. Either the party(s) who won the last election and formed government shapes the date of the early election, or the losing parties in the last election shapes the date of the early election.
It is black and white as this one or other, in which case
1. what is fairest to own that little bit of power to shape it? 2. If it’s in the hands of the opposition, the losers last time, they can prolong the chaos of a government that is in office but not in power, and that chaos cannot be good for the country, economy, households or anything other than perhaps their parties self interest.
I think a compromise on 2 is for minority governments to be able to obtain an election if they have clearly lost control of the legislative programme and nobody else could (or wants to try to) form a functioning administration either. One way of doing that would be to reinstate the right to make important policy/legislative votes serve as votes of no confidence.
Prolonged periods of zombie government are unlikely to be healthy for the country even in less contentious times. Not just because it increases the chances of poor government or logically incoherent legislation (some which suits the government's policies and some designed to frustrate them) but because it encourages the legislature to dabble directly in the work of the executive - something rather dangerous in terms of checks and balances, since traditionally the main check on the government's executive actions was their accountability to parliament. Who would (which members of) parliament be accountable to if there are, effectively, ministries of the back benches?
Philip had a reasonable suggestion for amending it. That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.
Mr. Walker, the last mob outside a house that springs to mind is the one outside Mogg's home...
Deserved. He’s the nearest thing we have to a public enemy. He seems to be courting it too with his broadsides against the judiciary and his lies to the Queen.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the advantage of being handy if you need to pop back for some reason. OTOH Australia has the advantage of sunshine but one of my friends who emigrated there and then came back said the place is a cultural desert outside of Sydney. I have no idea if that is true but he said that if you like pubs and sport you will love the place. He hated both
Cultural desert outside Sydney is a bit harsh. All of the "Capital Cities" (State and Territory capitals) have decent culture and Canberra particularly punches above it's weight when you consider the low population and that the airport is not international. But there are essentially two cultures in Australia, urban and rural. I would never live in rural australia despite having the most amazing wildlife.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
Indeed Aussie pubs are spartan, drinking dens often with the furniture fixed to the floor for safety when fights break out. Not generally good places to linger.
That is an interesting point. Clearly, even the government's own AG believed that a longer still extension would be an abuse of the prerogative power. Which would reinforce the argument that this particular prerogative is justiciable.
What comprehensively lost the government the case was refusing to provide any reason at all for the unusual length of the prorogation.
(I don't believe Cox should resign either - but I do think he ought to be deeply embarrassed.)
Shipman is a dick. The idea was shit at the the time, was generally thought to be shit, was denounced as “executive fiat” by the Speaker, and caused news headlines around the world about the suspension of democracy.
That Cox thought it legal and that we should therefore cut Boris some slack is risible.
But Shipman has become demented by his Leavey-ness.
The High Court agreed with Cox! So he wasn't being unreasonable.
Given half the cabinet said such a course of action would be unreasonable, or plain wrong, during the recent leadership election - so they thought it shit, too. They weren't even allowed to see Cox's advice ahead of prorogation - so 'reasonable' is hardly convincing.
Fairer to say that he thought he might get away with it, given the reluctance of the courts to intervene on the exercise of the prerogative. His entire argument was that the court had no right to look at the decision to prorogue.
That was arguable, but a deeply cynical view of the law. Having lost on the law, it's entirely appropriate to throw brickbats in his general direction.
The cabinet didn't discuss this prorogation during the leadership campaign.
The proposed hypothetical prorogation that Dominic Raab advocated which was rejected during the campaign was a prorogation from start of September until start of November so that Parliament was unable to legislate to prevent Brexit.
The actual prorogation Boris attempted was completely different. The Benn bill would have been impossible under Raab's proposal had it been legal and gone ahead.
Cox himself said today that he couldn't have endorsed a prorogation spanning over the deadline like that.
Read it last nite. Proud of myself. It is however eminently readable, clear and concise.
The reasoning makes you wonder how the UK High Court reached a different decision. Did it consider different facts and issues? I know it doesn't matter in the end, especially as the SC supported the Scottish decision (which I believe was from a higher Court than the UK High Court), but I'd liked to know how it appeared to err so greatly.
Benchful of Leavers?! (Yeah, I know that's silly but in view of some of the tosh written about the Supreme Court judges, and the Scottish Court, couldn't resist.)
I'm not quibbling with the judgment. But I think the Supreme Court could have reached the same conclusion as the English [not UK] High Court and written just as eminently sensible and logical conclusion.
It is one of those issues where because the facts are largely obscure you can piece together a few logical points on either side, then build up to a conclusion that is quite clear and concise and logical. However if you'd chosen a few other points, a bit of a different emphasis elsewhere, then you could have come to just as clear, just as concise, just as logical a conclusion but the other way.
In a way its a bit like the famous push polling joke in Yes, Minister. What came forth before, all entirely logical, is what shapes the conclusion at the end. By the time you reach the conclusion there is only one logical conclusion - but had you put forth different points [which they could have] they could reach a different conclusion at the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
The High Court and the Supreme Court both did their job. Neither should be criticised.
Nor does this make us like America. If a majority in the Commons ever don't like a Supreme Court decision they can change the law. Problem solved.
Any judge should be able to write a clear and logical judgement, regardless of the outcome.
Misses the point that the Tories would be the opposition, not Corbyn
If there was a National Unity (stop giggling) government then logically the government would be any MPs supporting it and the opposition would be any MPs not supporting it.
I suspect that the gritted teeth acquiescence of Jezbollah would have his front bench officially abstaining but giving the rest of the party leave to vote freely. Same with the ex-Tory rebels. So Corbyn and Johnson both on the opposition benches.
Mr. Walker, the last mob outside a house that springs to mind is the one outside Mogg's home...
Deserved. He’s the nearest thing we have to a public enemy. He seems to be courting it too with his broadsides against the judiciary and his lies to the Queen.
You're the mirror image of the more unhinged Brexiters.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, do your emigration plans centre on EU countries?
Despite being fluent in several languages including French and German I'm only looking at English speaking countries, as I'd be taking my parents with me as well and they speak English, Urdu, and Punjabi
So Ireland is one possibility, I like Canada, have friends and family there, and Australia too, another a friend keeps on offering me a job with NAB.
Ireland has the a. He hated both
Cultural dr is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
I thought Aussie beer was supposed to be good? But then, all beer tastes dredful as far as I am concerned. I still have not got over a good friend in CAMRA's pub crawl where he promised me spectacular beers. What I got was undrinkable....
The weird and unexpected thing about Oz is that they don't have a great pub culture. Outside of a few urban hipster-spots, there isn't that tradition of a "few beers after work with friends/colleagues". Instead people go home to their houses in the sprawling burbs, and booze in the backyard.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
I would suggest that's a bit of a holdover from the old Australian licensing laws, where pubs were typically closed at 1800.
Yes, that's part of the explanation. Also, the sheer lack of people, and the size of the country - meaning everyone is scattered - makes it hard for local bars to thrive (outside of central Sydney etc)
Ideally, Australia would have a population of about 150 million. Then it would be be perfect.
I think its more than just that. There is a culture of having a drink with your friends outside around a BBQ.
In the UK its wet and miserable much of the year and people drink in pubs, then when the weather is nice have BBQs or drink in pubs with beer gardens. The Aussie culture of having a barbecue with your mates makes sense for them.
Yes, lawyers only became rich after we joined the EU.
As Cyclefree and myself have pointed out the legal profession actually needs a No Deal Brexit to increase earnings further.
So, Indeed Aussie pubs are spartan, drinking dens often with the furniture fixed to the floor for safety when fights break out. Not generally good places to linger.
The inner suburbs of most large Aussie cities have plenty of good pubs and bars but they do tend to be different to what you’d expect in the uk - it’s a foreign country after all.
Adelaide in particular has some great traditional type pubs all over the city.
The suburbs are a different matter, pubs such as they exist are generally awful.
It’s a different culture , people socialise in different ways.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
Not at all. In our constitutional settlement a non-binding referendum has Primacy over any subsequent elections. Any fool knows that. Its profoundly undemocratic to suggest that a government not be held to the policies of its predecessors...
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Misses the point that the Tories would be the opposition, not Corbyn
If there was a National Unity (stop giggling) government then logically the government would be any MPs supporting it and the opposition would be any MPs not supporting it.
I suspect that the gritted teeth acquiescence of Jezbollah would have his front bench officially abstaining but giving the rest of the party leave to vote freely. Same with the ex-Tory rebels. So Corbyn and Johnson both on the opposition benches.
Hopefully the GNU then leaves them there to stew.
That'd be good. Especially if JC had one more follower than BJ, and would consequently be called before him.
Cox now baiting the opposition to post a VONC to bring down his government. He KNOWS they do not have the confidence of the house and demands it be put out of its misery.
So that answers the "Does Johnson have the confidence of the house" question of the other day. According to the AG the answer is No
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
Exactly. The people made their decision. The problem is parliament refusing to make theirs.
Round here, Argos always seems busy and the Argos section of Sainsbury's is a ghost town. Sainsbury's might be shooting itself in the foot if Argos customers do not transfer en masse.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Johnson could resign the Gov't on his Queens Speech failing though. That he may strictly not need to will be a debated constitutional point but of little import to the overall narrative. It provides a bloody good excuse to collapse his own Gov't.
Cox does not see the hypocrisy of saying the people should have a chance to vote again.
What is the hypocrisy exactly? Parliament is deadlocked. There's an impasse. It's a mess. A general election is needed. Something quite different from wanting a referendum re-held because you don't like the result of the first one.
You clearly don’t like the result of the last GE. Deal with it, like you’ve been telling us to.
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
Its got absolutely the square root of nothing to do with 31/10.
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.
Comments
This gives me little joy, given that they are most likely to turn to Farage.
Pubs are important, but unless you find a microbrewery, the beer is atrocious. After 18 months of trying, I gave up on beer and drank cider in pubs.
And so we proceed to the next skirmish, in the great Brexit Culture War of 2016-3092
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.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf
Had Johnson been honest about the reason for the prorogation, he might well still have lost the case (though that is not absolutely clear), but at least there might be some grounds for feeling aggrieved at the decision.
No, one has to pay HER!
It is black and white as this one or other, in which case
1. what is fairest to own that little bit of power to shape it?
2. If it’s in the hands of the opposition, the losers last time, they can prolong the chaos of a government that is in office but not in power, and that chaos cannot be good for the country, economy, households or anything other than perhaps their parties self interest.
"The prime Minister, Boris Johnson is hereby censured in the strongest possible terms for involving the Queen in controversial political acts and for actually breaking the law; furthermore this house believes he has lost any authority he may have had to negotiate a brexit deal, so to minimise the time wasted before a general election, the prime minister should resign or send the Benn Act letter requesting a brexit extension."
Probably a bit extreme and break a few conventions, but I can't help feeling Boris through his actions has brought the consequences on himself. Looks a bit too much like a remain agenda, but I can dream can't I?
Annihilation awaits.
Revenge is dish best eaten cold. This one is being served up very well chilled indeed.
Brits often find this very isolating, get depressed, and fly home. Boomerang people.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36299682
Or are you just arbitrarily venting again ?
Another vanity project from Boris 'I make buses' Johnson.
What leavers do respect though is the democratic will of over 17 million voters.
Same in NZ, and probably US too outside of certain Atlantic Seaboard cities.
Pubs in NZ, with the exception of certain rural pubs, do suck.
Thanks for reminding us we had a referendum though. It’s easy to forget!
They weren't even allowed to see Cox's advice ahead of prorogation - so 'reasonable' is hardly convincing.
Fairer to say that he thought he might get away with it, given the reluctance of the courts to intervene on the exercise of the prerogative.
His entire argument was that the court had no right to look at the decision to prorogue.
That was arguable, but a deeply cynical view of the law. Having lost on the law, it's entirely appropriate to throw brickbats in his general direction.
Prolonged periods of zombie government are unlikely to be healthy for the country even in less contentious times. Not just because it increases the chances of poor government or logically incoherent legislation (some which suits the government's policies and some designed to frustrate them) but because it encourages the legislature to dabble directly in the work of the executive - something rather dangerous in terms of checks and balances, since traditionally the main check on the government's executive actions was their accountability to parliament. Who would (which members of) parliament be accountable to if there are, effectively, ministries of the back benches?
Cheerio!
Ideally, Australia would have a population of about 150 million. Then it would be be perfect.
That was surely the logic behind the 14 day window, but the opposition refusing to trigger the window is what is causing this constitutional horlicks. The government should be able to trigger the 14 day window too - then the opposition would [quite reasonably] have 14 days to demonstrate it has its own majority, or we go to the polls.
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1176814032642367488
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1176814529214373888
Clearly, even the government's own AG believed that a longer still extension would be an abuse of the prerogative power.
Which would reinforce the argument that this particular prerogative is justiciable.
What comprehensively lost the government the case was refusing to provide any reason at all for the unusual length of the prorogation.
(I don't believe Cox should resign either - but I do think he ought to be deeply embarrassed.)
The proposed hypothetical prorogation that Dominic Raab advocated which was rejected during the campaign was a prorogation from start of September until start of November so that Parliament was unable to legislate to prevent Brexit.
The actual prorogation Boris attempted was completely different. The Benn bill would have been impossible under Raab's proposal had it been legal and gone ahead.
Cox himself said today that he couldn't have endorsed a prorogation spanning over the deadline like that.
And if you consider him an 'enemy' then you have little to stand on when others consider politicians with whom you agree to be 'enemies'.
I suspect that the gritted teeth acquiescence of Jezbollah would have his front bench officially abstaining but giving the rest of the party leave to vote freely. Same with the ex-Tory rebels. So Corbyn and Johnson both on the opposition benches.
Hopefully the GNU then leaves them there to stew.
In the UK its wet and miserable much of the year and people drink in pubs, then when the weather is nice have BBQs or drink in pubs with beer gardens. The Aussie culture of having a barbecue with your mates makes sense for them.
Blimey. Resign the government then mate.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/25/sainsburys-close-70-argos-stores-reorganisation
When was the last time that the Attourney General of Her Majesty's Government called the parliament it leads a disgrace?
Jesus...
Not sure why they didn't try that first before prorogation?
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1176816002941837313
I thought the only way that the government falls under the FTPA is a specific vote of no-confidence. So we could have the very odd situation of the Queen's Speech being voted down but the zombie government left undead.
All of this nonsense follows from Boris's brain-dead October 31st pledge.
So that answers the "Does Johnson have the confidence of the house" question of the other day. According to the AG the answer is No
If Parliament had voted for an election it would have been held weeks before 31/10 and a new PM could have requested an extension if they'd wanted one.