But mainly, the press are best regarded as an entertainment medium. Booming baritones make better copy than the establishment of state supplier of generics. Unfortunately. You do realise that Cox is dead-catting here?
Basic problem with the pharmaceuticals announcement. Its not a state research and manufacturing company. Oh No, the private sector would be required to invest its funds to develop the drugs, which are then requisitioned by the state.
Or in reality, not invest. Which means no generics. An utterly utterly stupid policy written by ideologues disconnected from how the world works.
That is extraordinary. An Open Borders policy with the EU, in return for... nothing.
Expand.
Open borders for all. No border immigration checks. Basically.
Indeed. It's an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK, where we will give you all rights and state benefits, immediately, and you get a vote in our GE as well! Hooray! And we've closed all detention centres so we've no intention of ever throwing anyone out.
It's beyond insane. It would be the most liberal migration policy in the world, by miles, and it would mean the transformation (suicide?) of the country, in short order, as immigration increased to 1m a year, and up.
Why stay in Bulgaria or Gabon if you can just get to the UK and enjoy massive benefits. And also you'll be able to vote for more lovely Labour governments, to guarantee that these rights are yours forever, and the silly native Brits won't be able to do anything about it.
And there are bloody fools celebrating this on Twitter. They don't realise it would mean a Fascist government in five years, as those silly native Brits recoiled from this lunacy.
You've forgotten to take your medication again, haven't you?
Perfectly sane and sober. Anyone who isn't horrified by the implications of Labour's proposals - should they ever reach power - isn't sentient.
God knows what you're going to be like after No Deal, if it happens. You could be unmedicated for weeks!
Don’t be harsh. He’s given me the best laugh in ages when he got his Lord Kerrs mixed up.
They need to be careful. No deal cannot be taken off the table indefinitely. It merely needs to be taken off the table PRIOR to an election.
That was what always confused me, they are still taking a gamble with an election because if, and it's a big if at this point, BJ wins the Tories a majority on a no-deal platform there will be nothing that the LibDems and Labour can do about it.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
Indeed. It was in response to a comment from you that:
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
There's another gem in the Labour migration policy.
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion"
Which means everyone in the UK can bring in any granny, cousin, uncle, sibling, wife, third wife, and so and so forth. And they can bring in THEIR grannys, cousins, sibs, husbands, aunties, and so on. Chain migration would explode, and the population of the UK would surge towards 80m.
It's national suicide by manifesto. It's almost impressive.
We see the same here. As the High Court and Lord Doherty held there is long recognised authority that certain matters fall outwith the reach of our Courts. These included matters of "high policy" and, err, prorogation. These dicta were ignored by the Supreme Court who impose the new test in Article, sorry, paragraph 50: "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."
So: * who determines whether Parliament has been "frustrated"? They passed an Act in a day here which could have cancelled the prorogation but didn't. *What is "reasonable justification"? What the hell does that even mean, let alone who decides it? * What constitutional functions? The ability to legislate, ask questions, what? * Ditto "supervision".
It really is pants but it is pants because the courts have no legal criteria to go on. Previous judges therefore backed away but the new Judiciary just make up some criteria by which they can judge how politicians have behaved. Its just wrong but if we are to have this sort of nonsense the idea that Justices can be seen as impartial is for the birds.
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative? Assuming the answer is yes, what limitation would you substitute for the one the court suggested? Or are you arguing that the principle was correct, but the ability of parliament wasn't frustrated? Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
That is extraordinary. An Open Borders policy with the EU, in return for... nothing.
Expand.
Open borders for all. No border immigration checks. Basically.
Indeed. It's an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK, where we will give you all rights and state benefits, immediately, and you get a vote in our GE as well! Hooray! And we've closed all detention centres so we've no intention of ever throwing anyone out.
It's beyond insane. It would be the most liberal migration policy in the world, by miles, and it would mean the transformation (suicide?) of the country, in short order, as immigration increased to 1m a year, and up.
Why stay in Bulgaria or Gabon if you can just get to the UK and enjoy massive benefits. And also you'll be able to vote for more lovely Labour governments, to guarantee that these rights are yours forever, and the silly native Brits won't be able to do anything about it.
And there are bloody fools celebrating this on Twitter. They don't realise it would mean a Fascist government in five years, as those silly native Brits recoiled from this lunacy.
You've forgotten to take your medication again, haven't you?
Perfectly sane and sober. Anyone who isn't horrified by the implications of Labour's proposals - should they ever reach power - isn't sentient.
God knows what you're going to be like after No Deal, if it happens. You could be unmedicated for weeks!
Don’t be harsh. He’s given me the best laugh in ages when he got his Lord Kerrs mixed up.
Best laugh in ages? 😳
Yes, up there with when this guy who cannot correctly use apostrophes tried to criticise my correct use of the Oxford comma 😂.
You cannot disagree that completely unrestrained immigration, with benefits and voting rights to all is a very, very dangerous policy to have. Which is why no country does it.
Immigration itself is fine. And necessary. But it must be managed.
It's the single most insane and dangerous policy ever proposed by a major UK party, at least that I can remember. It makes No Deal Brexit look trivial. It would either lead to civil strife, or Fascism, or both.
Weird OTT rhetoric. New Zealand has allowed resident foreigners to vote in national elections for over 30 years (on the basis of "they pay taxes, we should encourage them to help decide how they're spent") without it leading to civil strife or fascism. For that matter, resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens already vote in all British elections, without anyone thinking it especially odd. Judging by the largely ineffective attempts to get EU citizens to vote in local elections, though, I suspect turnout will be low. Unless you feel really settled somewhere, you tend not to follow politics that closely unless (as now) it seems about to affect your life in a big way.
There's another gem in the Labour migration policy.
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion"
Which means everyone in the UK can bring in any granny, cousin, uncle, sibling, wife, third wife, and so and so forth. And they can bring in THEIR grannys, cousins, sibs, husbands, aunties, and so on. Chain migration would explode, and the population of the UK would surge towards 80m.
It's national suicide by manifesto. It's almost impressive.
Let’s hope the whole of Israel come here first and start making loads of money running everything.
That is extraordinary. An Open Borders policy with the EU, in return for... nothing.
Expand.
Open borders for all. No border immigration checks. Basically.
Indeed. It's an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK, where we will give you all rights and state benefits, immediately, and you get a vote in our GE as well! Hooray! And we've closed all detention centres so we've no intention of ever throwing anyone out.
It's beyond insane. It would be the most liberal migration policy in the world, by miles, and it would mean the transformation (suicide?) of the country, in short order, as immigration increased to 1m a year, and up.
Why stay in Bulgaria or Gabon if you can just get to the UK and enjoy massive benefits. And also you'll be able to vote for more lovely Labour governments, to guarantee that these rights are yours forever, and the silly native Brits won't be able to do anything about it.
And there are bloody fools celebrating this on Twitter. They don't realise it would mean a Fascist government in five years, as those silly native Brits recoiled from this lunacy.
You've forgotten to take your medication again, haven't you?
Perfectly sane and sober. Anyone who isn't horrified by the implications of Labour's proposals - should they ever reach power - isn't sentient.
God knows what you're going to be like after No Deal, if it happens. You could be unmedicated for weeks!
Don’t be harsh. He’s given me the best laugh in ages when he got his Lord Kerrs mixed up.
Best laugh in ages? 😳
Yes, up there with when this guy who cannot correctly use apostrophes tried to criticise my correct use of the Oxford comma 😂.
What do we know about the judges of the Supreme Court?
They seem to be (I’ll allow for some room, unlike they) white, middle/ old aged, rich, privileged, establishment and chosen by their peers. I would guess that they are representative of considerably less than 0.001% of the UK’s population and therefore have a similar correlation to its life experience, with the associated, inevitable partiality, conscious or unconscious. Their selection owes little or nothing to any democratic process, and their competence is not subject to any independent, meaningful ongoing examination. So far as there is any supervision of their competence, it is done by their peers.
The law is not infrequently judged as being an ass and the Supreme Court judges are obliged to serve that master, asinine or not. They are also able to establish their own precedents.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative? Assuming the answer is yes, what limitation would you substitute for the one the court suggested? Or are you arguing that the principle was correct, but the ability of parliament wasn't frustrated? Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Ok, but all you are doing is making an assertion, without any arguments to back it up. And on that basis you are trying to dispose of a closely argued judgment, to which - evidently it can't be repeated too often - all 11 of the judges assented unanimously.
That's very weak, and I don't think you can expect to persuade anyone on that basis.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
Indeed. It was in response to a comment from you that:
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
Did you get a chance shout, “Lock Her Up” directly to the great lady?
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let us suppose you have a majority government - so one that cannot be constrained by a vote of no confidence, or an act to rescind prorogation. Such a government generally has the freedom to legislate as it will, but it can be held to account by a competent opposition that puts down amendments, asks searching questions and gathers relevant evidence from interested parties in select committees.
Under your interpretation of the law such a government would be free to prorogue Parliament for long periods of time to evade this Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right. It would frustrate the role of Parliament to hold the government to account. It would protect the government from a change in opinion were a specific event change the loyalties of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
There's another gem in the Labour migration policy.
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion"
Which means everyone in the UK can bring in any granny, cousin, uncle, sibling, wife, third wife, and so and so forth. And they can bring in THEIR grannys, cousins, sibs, husbands, aunties, and so on. Chain migration would explode, and the population of the UK would surge towards 80m.
It's national suicide by manifesto. It's almost impressive.
Let’s hope the whole of Israel come here first and start making loads of money running everything.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Yeah, was fantastic, seems to be getting a lot of positive feedback on BBC social media.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
To be fair, their policy is more than just that. It also includes paying all migrants full benefits and providing free healthcare as soon as they arrive. So it's fully thought out.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
Indeed. It was in response to a comment from you that:
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
No apology necessary. I touched a nerve but it wasn't intentional and no part of it was directed at you.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
I think that the Supreme Court decision has politicised the SC but its not really about Brexit. The problem, so brilliantly discussed by Lord Sumption in his Reith lectures this year, is that the modern judiciary can never see an issue which they think is not a legal issue. The result is that matters that are not legal issues at all get reclassified and a judicial determination is then undertaken.
This does not give politics or indeed civil society its proper role...
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let us suppose you have a majority government - so one that cannot be constrained by a vote of no confidence, or an act to rescind prorogation. Such a government generally has the freedom to legislate as it will, but it can be held to account by a competent opposition that puts down amendments, asks searching questions and gathers relevant evidence from interested parties in select committees.
Under your interpretation of the law such a government would be free to prorogue Parliament for long periods of time to evade this Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right. It would frustrate the role of Parliament to hold the government to account. It would protect the government from a change in opinion were a specific event change the loyalties of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
You cannot disagree that completely unrestrained immigration, with benefits and voting rights to all is a very, very dangerous policy to have. Which is why no country does it.
Immigration itself is fine. And necessary. But it must be managed.
It's the single most insane and dangerous policy ever proposed by a major UK party, at least that I can remember. It makes No Deal Brexit look trivial. It would either lead to civil strife, or Fascism, or both.
Weird OTT rhetoric. New Zealand has allowed resident foreigners to vote in national elections for over 30 years (on the basis of "they pay taxes, we should encourage them to help decide how they're spent") without it leading to civil strife or fascism. For that matter, resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens already vote in all British elections, without anyone thinking it especially odd. Judging by the largely ineffective attempts to get EU citizens to vote in local elections, though, I suspect turnout will be low. Unless you feel really settled somewhere, you tend not to follow politics that closely unless (as now) it seems about to affect your life in a big way.
I was thinking more of the plan to allow unlimited chain migration, to give all migrants immediate access to all benefits, to cease policing migration in any sensible way, to give Free Movement (and extend it!) to all EU citizens, and perhaps others, to no longer take any direction from a migrant's skillset, income, talents, attitudes, but just let them in, whoever they are and whatever they do, to end any measures against illegal immigration, etc etc etc ETC... basically to throw open our borders, our Treasury, our welfare system, and our NHS, to anyone that wants to come here.
Yes, I was thinking more about that stuff. Though the voting idea is insane, as well.
There's another gem in the Labour migration policy.
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion"
Which means everyone in the UK can bring in any granny, cousin, uncle, sibling, wife, third wife, and so and so forth. And they can bring in THEIR grannys, cousins, sibs, husbands, aunties, and so on. Chain migration would explode, and the population of the UK would surge towards 80m.
It's national suicide by manifesto. It's almost impressive.
Let’s hope the whole of Israel come here first and start making loads of money running everything.
And... Palestinians would support that too. Good idea !
Hot air. Ministers have no power to do anything at all at the moment. They could only do any of these things with a substantial Commons majority - something that the Tories have not achieved for more than 32 years - longer than many of their cheerleaders on this board have been alive. And there is no prospect of them achieving such a majority in the forseeable future.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
We see the same here. As the High Court and Lord Doherty held there is long recognised authority that certain matters fall outwith the reach of our Courts. These included matters of "high policy" and, err, prorogation. These dicta were ignored by the Supreme Court who impose the new test in Article, sorry, paragraph 50: "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."
So: * who determines whether Parliament has been "frustrated"? They passed an Act in a day here which could have cancelled the prorogation but didn't. *What is "reasonable justification"? What the hell does that even mean, let alone who decides it? * What constitutional functions? The ability to legislate, ask questions, what? * Ditto "supervision".
It really is pants but it is pants because the courts have no legal criteria to go on. Previous judges therefore backed away but the new Judiciary just make up some criteria by which they can judge how politicians have behaved. Its just wrong but if we are to have this sort of nonsense the idea that Justices can be seen as impartial is for the birds.
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative? Assuming the answer is yes, what limitation would you substitute for the one the court suggested? Or are you arguing that the principle was correct, but the ability of parliament wasn't frustrated? Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Somehow I feel if Corbyn had shut down Parliament for 4 years, you would not have said that.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Er Farage hasn't stood in a Westminster election since he won Brexit?
That is extraordinary. An Open Borders policy with the EU, in return for... nothing.
What is extraordinary is that Labour are proposing a suite of policies more far left in totality than ever proposed before in this country by a major political party...
...and that the media would rather talk about Cox’s booming baritone or whatever shite is the dead cat du jour.
Corbyn is STILL getting a free pass.
The media have possibly learned their lesson from last time when they massacred forests to highlight the horrid left-wing policies, and people said "actually that sounds rather good".
But mainly, the press are best regarded as an entertainment medium. Booming baritones make better copy than the establishment of state supplier of generics. Unfortunately. You do realise that Cox is dead-catting here?
Ah, Nick, I'd be interested in how you are going to spin Corbyn's latest lunatic wheeze of reneging on decades of international patent treaties and trashing EU intellectual property law. You can't conceivably think this is realistic, let alone desirable, so how on earth do you support this nonsense?
There is no EU patent law. That is what the unitary patent system was supposed to deliver, but it has not yet been implemented. There is actually very little substantive internaiotnal patent law - it's mostly about procedure. That said, the Labour plan is insane and makes no sense on many levels - not least of which is that we already get cheap generic medicines.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
He won't be blamed for trying, he'll be blamed for failing. He's PM, why can't we just leave as he solemnly promised again and again? It must be because he's either a Remainiac Quisling, or utterly incompetent.
Somehow I feel if Corbyn had shut down Parliament for 4 years, you would not have said that.
I suspect there would be a feeling of relief if he did this upon immediately entering parliament as he then wouldn't be able to legislate for any of his mad plans
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
He won't be blamed for trying, he'll be blamed for failing. He's PM, why can't we just leave as he solemnly promised again and again? It must be because he's either a Remainiac Quisling, or utterly incompetent.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
You said before it would be "an open invitation to everyone in the EU, and most people outside it, to come straight to the UK."
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Labour is not going to have any criteria. That's the point. They are abandoning any pretence of having a migration policy. The idea is, pretty much, Open Borders.
Here's another thing. Labour intend to grant voting rights to all EU citizens and other residents. That means EU citizens will be able to vote in any future EU referendum, guaranteeing a vote for Remain.
This is, therefore, an enormous insult to all Labour Leave voters. It says your vote is bound to be reversed, with our new policy. So no Leave voter can risk opting for Labour, next time.
I thought Corbyn was meant to be a Leaver who supported Leaver rights? This jars. I'm not sure this has been remotely thought through. They're making polices out of nursery rhymes.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
He won't be blamed for trying, he'll be blamed for failing. He's PM, why can't we just leave as he solemnly promised again and again? It must be because he's either a Remainiac Quisling, or utterly incompetent.
I don’t see it that way at all. I don’t really even like him much, and have always backed Farage, but can’t get angry with Boris about this.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
May tried to do that as well. As might Raab, Francois, Bridgen et al.
They are threatening a no deal brexit whereas they committed in their manifesto to an orderly brexit.
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative? Assuming the answer is yes, what limitation would you substitute for the one the court suggested? Or are you arguing that the principle was correct, but the ability of parliament wasn't frustrated? Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Somehow I feel if Corbyn had shut down Parliament for 4 years, you would not have said that.
If he had shut down Parliament for 4 years we would probably all be thankful. Think of all the insane laws he would not be able to pass. But he also wouldn't have a budget to work on nor would he comply with other legislation, eg the NI Act. This prorogation, appalling though it was, did not break any statutory provision.
Hot air. Ministers have no power to do anything at all at the moment. They could only do any of these things with a substantial Commons majority - something that the Tories have not achieved for more than 32 years - longer than many of their cheerleaders on this board have been alive. And there is no prospect of them achieving such a majority in the forseeable future.
Hot air. Ministers have no power to do anything at all at the moment. They could only do any of these things with a substantial Commons majority - something that the Tories have not achieved for more than 32 years - longer than many of their cheerleaders on this board have been alive. And there is no prospect of them achieving such a majority in the forseeable future.
These Tory idiots bleeting on about US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges; what difference do they think it would have made?
maybe they think if they had a few placemen it might have gone to say a majority verdict of 10 to 1 that think Boris is a lying lawbreaker instead of unanimous.
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let us suppose you have a majority government - so one that cannot be constrained by a vote of no confidence, or an act to rescind prorogation. Such a government generally has the freedom to legislate as it will, but it can be held to account by a competent opposition that puts down amendments, asks searching questions and gathers relevant evidence from interested parties in select committees.
Under your interpretation of the law such a government would be free to prorogue Parliament for long periods of time to evade this Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right. It would frustrate the role of Parliament to hold the government to account. It would protect the government from a change in opinion were a specific event change the loyalties of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Farage only need some to come with him and in so doing sink Boris and brexit. I think he will oblige and enough will go with him.
Farage is simply thinking one step ahead, to after October 31st when Boris will be a busted flush with all those naïfs who still think Boris is going to deliver his pledge.
Indeed. This is about levelling the killing field. When Boris turns into a Pumpkin at 11pm on Hallowe'en and becomes just another politican Farage's early spade work on a " I told you so " narrative will pay off. Farage has absolutely nothing to gain by helping Johnson as Johnson's positioning and persona are his biggest strategic competitor.
Farage is good strategist, a mediocre tactician, and appalling at execution.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative? Assuming the answer is yes, what limitation would you substitute for the one the court suggested? Or are you arguing that the principle was correct, but the ability of parliament wasn't frustrated? Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Somehow I feel if Corbyn had shut down Parliament for 4 years, you would not have said that.
If he had shut down Parliament for 4 years we would probably all be thankful. Think of all the insane laws he would not be able to pass. But he also wouldn't have a budget to work on nor would he comply with other legislation, eg the NI Act. This prorogation, appalling though it was, did not break any statutory provision.
12 of us disagree David.
They made clear that to inhibit the proper working of parliament was unlawful. Whatever the reason given. Sounds about right to me and a useful protection for the future.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
Indeed. It was in response to a comment from you that:
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
No apology necessary. I touched a nerve but it wasn't intentional and no part of it was directed at you.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
The Ludicrous Cox once enjoyed a brief period as the chosen one in pb.com tories' potential leader speed dating.
These Tory idiots bleeting on about US-style confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judges; what difference do they think it would have made?
When not a single one of the 11 judges dissented.
How made decades do they think it would have taken for even for the most unscrupulous, authoritarian government to change the composition of the court sufficiently to reverse this judgment?
Be interesting to see how Labour's new no-borders immigration policy goes down with Stoke man. Last time, Jezza was paying lip service to tighter immigration rules.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
To be fair, their policy is more than just that. It also includes paying all migrants full benefits and providing free healthcare as soon as they arrive. So it's fully thought out.
It's a real vote winner. All they need to do is make sure to tell anyone who dares to raise the remotest objection that they are thick and racist and blame migrants for their crap lives.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
He won't be blamed for trying, he'll be blamed for failing. He's PM, why can't we just leave as he solemnly promised again and again? It must be because he's either a Remainiac Quisling, or utterly incompetent.
I have some sympathy with this argument. I'm glad, for example, that abortion law was changed in the UK in the 60s by a Parliamentary vote, than because of a changing interpretation of a 200 year old constitution.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let us suppose you have a majority government - so one that cannot be constrained by a vote of no confidence, or an act to rescind prorogation. Such a government generally has the freedom to legislate as it will, but it can be held to account by a competent opposition that puts down amendments, asks searching questions and gathers relevant evidence from interested parties in select committees.
Under your interpretation of the law such a government would be free to prorogue Parliament for long periods of time to evade this Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right. It would frustrate the role of Parliament to hold the government to account. It would protect the government from a change in opinion were a specific event change the loyalties of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
I am not trying to defend what Boris did. I criticised it from the moment it was announced. But I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. The point of having a Supreme Parliament is that it regulates itself according to the membership at the time. The only restriction is the laws already passed and not repealed so, for example, if a majority decided to sit on for 10 years without an election the courts could uphold the laws that Parliament has passed and require an election. The courts are not there to act as nannies for incompetent MPs would couldn't organise themselves out of the proverbial paper bag.
But of course all the issues you're talking about here in a rather half-baked way - the Supreme Court's own role, the roles of statute law and common law, and so on - are discussed systematically in the judgment, with reference to the relevant precedents.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
You will that there is no precedent whatsoever in paragraph 50. It is not compatible with previous decisions. The SC has the right to do that but the right and it being desirable are not the same things.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
Indeed. It was in response to a comment from you that:
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
No apology necessary. I touched a nerve but it wasn't intentional and no part of it was directed at you.
And here's ANOTHER delightful idea from Labour's migration virtuefest
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
It is a ridiculous policy but I am surprised you cannot work out what drives it. They dont care about pragmatism, instead for them at the moment it is all about emotion and righteousness. If you try hard, might you be able to think of another similar set of nonsensical policies driven by emotion and righteousness rather than pragmatism that you happily cheer on?
We see the same here. As the High Court and Lord Doherty held there is long recognised authority that certain matters fall outwith the reach of our Courts. These included matters of "high policy" and, err, prorogation. These dicta were ignored by the Supreme Court who impose the new test in Article, sorry, paragraph 50: "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."
So: * who determines whether Parliament has been "frustrated"? They passed an Act in a day here which could have cancelled the prorogation but didn't. *What is "reasonable justification"? What the hell does that even mean, let alone who decides it? * What constitutional functions? The ability to legislate, ask questions, what? * Ditto "supervision".
It really is pants but it is pants because the courts have no legal criteria to go on. Previous judges therefore backed away but the new Judiciary just make up some criteria by which they can judge how politicians have behaved. Its just wrong but if we are to have this sort of nonsense the idea that Justices can be seen as impartial is for the birds.
I think you need to explain where exactly you disagree with the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court judges, rather than just dismissing it as "pants."
Do you think there should be any legal limitations on the scope of the royal prerogative?Or that even though it was frustrated, there was reasonable justification for that?
That was why I thought the judgment was such a pleasure to read - it explained everything very clearly and concisely - no waffle, no ambiguity, no rhetoric. And therefore very difficult to argue with. Which I suppose is why you haven't argued with it, but just dismissed it.
I have explained what is wrong with it. There were no legal criteria which allowed the court to decide whether it was right or wrong. Of course Boris was being an arse and abusing his powers but that does not make it a matter of law. In determining that it was they were wrong. Not that it matters, the SC is the law and we now have to live with it.
Somehow I feel if Corbyn had shut down Parliament for 4 years, you would not have said that.
Can you see any difference between 5 weeks and 4 years, or are you just Abbotting this?
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
The Ludicrous Cox once enjoyed a brief period as the chosen one in pb.com tories' potential leader speed dating.
He made Barry Sheerman blow a gaskett so that was worth the price of the admission fee on its own.
I wonder how Hitchens - and others in the magna-carta-underpants brigade - would have reacted if, say, Mr Blair had prorogued parliament for over a month. Somehow I can't imagine their principal concern being whether or not the courts had the right to overrule him.
If Boris doesn’t extend the negotiations, those people won’t think he’s let them down, they’ll blame the Oppo.
I doubt it. OK, they'll blame the oppo, Scottish lawyers, Remainiac judges, plotting Eurocrats, MPs, civil servants, bus drivers, Morris dancers and everyone else as well, but they currently have a naive faith that Boris is going to deliver. He's made a promise which is not in his power to keep - why shouldn't they blame him for it? Farage is smartly setting him up.
If I say I’m going to buy my girlfriend some flowers and someone else who fancies her deliberately runs me over on my way to the florist, she’s not going to blame me, even if her ex stands there tutting next to the empty vase.
No, it will be more like missing the special birthday dinner you'd promised her because you'd forgotten that you had to work late that evening.
We have been filibustered and bored into thinking that this endless delay to leaving the EU is somehow worthy rather than the snide move it is. I think Boris will be credited with trying to put a match to the gunpowder rather than blamed for trying.
He won't be blamed for trying, he'll be blamed for failing. He's PM, why can't we just leave as he solemnly promised again and again? It must be because he's either a Remainiac Quisling, or utterly incompetent.
I don’t see it that way at all. I don’t really even like him much, and have always backed Farage, but can’t get angry with Boris about this.
We are living in "what if" land. Who can tell where we're going when no one knows what the questions will be, separately or sequentially? I'm sure politicians are gaming this for all they're worth because they have to, it's in their genes. Oh I get it.
He shouldn't go for a tactcal resignation. He should instead go for a VONC and instruct his MPs to vote against. Defy the MPs to either vote they have confidence in him - and how much of a laugh would that be? Or else defy the House to find somebody to head up the Remainer Coup.
Not sure what a mocked up VONC would achieve, the opposition would presumably abstain. Symbolically that looks naff but not a great deal worse than their refusal to have VONC now, and they'd have the same excuse/rationale up their sleeve. Winning a VONC wouldn't alleviate any of the actual problems Johnson is facing.
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
The Ludicrous Cox once enjoyed a brief period as the chosen one in pb.com tories' potential leader speed dating.
Their legendary modesty forbids them from mentioning they backed the field and laid the winner
Only the very dim think No Deal is a legitimate “course of action”.
Might you consider engaging in debate here without insulting people whose comments you disagree with?
The truth hurts sometimes.
To state you have to be very dim indeed to believe no-deal is a legitimate course of action is a very polite English understatement. Thick as pigshit would still be understating it.
I am asking myself why the fuck should I continue posting here when the likes of you inhabit this site. There are people of opposing views that you can have a reasoned debate with. Then there is the likes of you and your gratuitous insults. Christ knows this site is not the place it once was.
I remind you your honour you recently suggested "I piss off" in relation to a post I made about Boris Johnson. Perhaps you have anger management ptroblems?
He’s also manages to the miss all the abusive posts his fellow Leaver Richard Tyndall throws about.
Remarkable.
To be fair, the great Mike Smithson himself called me a "boring fart" and a "saddo" who should "get a life", just this morning. So the tenor is set by the management?
I think everyone should adopt my demeanour of unfailing good manners and infinite politesse.
I once called George Osborne a "creep" and got told off by OGH.
I thought that was pretty mild compared to most of the insults that fly around on here.
I think one should be able to mock or insult views that people hold without necessarily insulting them personally. Exceptions apply, such as HYUFD, who, having told us that those of us that don't agree with Brexit are "traitors", should expect to be mocked and ridiculed everytime he posts one of his infantile Boris Johnson fanboy posts
Just watched Geoffrey Cox speech from earlier. Can see why it's getting so much praise. Rousing stuff and best parliament has heard in a long time I reckon. That'll be all over the news and social media.
Is that the one in which he said this Parliament was dead. It was only elected 2 years ago.
Such is the nature of no party winning a majority.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.
Comments
Or in reality, not invest. Which means no generics. An utterly utterly stupid policy written by ideologues disconnected from how the world works.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2019/09/24/kfcs-new-fried-chicken-and-doughnut-sandwich-is-terrifying-and-delicious/
Truly we are facing the end of civilisation.
"It's an odd fact that posters who support Leave invariably also support Trump. Johnson is also a bit of a mystery but I suppose he did lead their campaign. These are posters who I suspect wouldn't have touched either of them with a barge poll four years ago. Some of them PB's finest."
Yours was a crass straw man comment that I regard as a provocative misrepresentation of views of others here in order to basically belittle them. As someone who attended a Hilary Clinton rally when on holiday in Vegas a month before Trump was elected I took slight exception to that.
So, yes, I was angry when rather than argue the toss I just told you to "piss off". I apologise for losing my temper and withdraw that comment. And I wonder whether you'll conduct yourself differently in future, or just continue to pile in with the likes of GardenWalker and NigelforRemain.
"Ensure unconditional right to family reunion"
Which means everyone in the UK can bring in any granny, cousin, uncle, sibling, wife, third wife, and so and so forth. And they can bring in THEIR grannys, cousins, sibs, husbands, aunties, and so on. Chain migration would explode, and the population of the UK would surge towards 80m.
It's national suicide by manifesto. It's almost impressive.
Weird OTT rhetoric. New Zealand has allowed resident foreigners to vote in national elections for over 30 years (on the basis of "they pay taxes, we should encourage them to help decide how they're spent") without it leading to civil strife or fascism. For that matter, resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens already vote in all British elections, without anyone thinking it especially odd. Judging by the largely ineffective attempts to get EU citizens to vote in local elections, though, I suspect turnout will be low. Unless you feel really settled somewhere, you tend not to follow politics that closely unless (as now) it seems about to affect your life in a big way.
They seem to be (I’ll allow for some room, unlike they) white, middle/ old aged, rich, privileged, establishment and chosen by their peers. I would guess that they are representative of considerably less than 0.001% of the UK’s population and therefore have a similar correlation to its life experience, with the associated, inevitable partiality, conscious or unconscious. Their selection owes little or nothing to any democratic process, and their competence is not subject to any independent, meaningful ongoing examination. So far as there is any supervision of their competence, it is done by their peers.
The law is not infrequently judged as being an ass and the Supreme Court judges are obliged to serve that master, asinine or not. They are also able to establish their own precedents.
I’ll get me coat.
That's very weak, and I don't think you can expect to persuade anyone on that basis.
"Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets"
So that means Labour's immigration policy is.... what? What exactly? Their policy seems to be to not have a policy ,just invite as many people as possible, whatever their skills, or values, or attitudes, and basically let them all in. If you can get here we will take you in, and give you all benefits, and you also get a vote.
I can't work out if Labour think this is vote-winning, or they reckon they can sneak it past the voters amongst all the other crazy ideas, or they don't care about winning and just want to say pleasing things to each other.
It is grandiloquently irresponsible.
In the present example I cannot agree.
Let us suppose you have a majority government - so one that cannot be constrained by a vote of no confidence, or an act to rescind prorogation. Such a government generally has the freedom to legislate as it will, but it can be held to account by a competent opposition that puts down amendments, asks searching questions and gathers relevant evidence from interested parties in select committees.
Under your interpretation of the law such a government would be free to prorogue Parliament for long periods of time to evade this Parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be right. It would frustrate the role of Parliament to hold the government to account. It would protect the government from a change in opinion were a specific event change the loyalties of MPs.
A new session of Parliament can be brought about by a short prorogation of less than a week. A prorogation of five weeks is an attempt to evade Parliamentary scrutiny.
It might have been preferable for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation by replacing the PM, but the Courts must be able to protect Parliament when a majority of MPs are not willing to take that action.
Hence, he “won” Brexit but still can’t get elected to Parliament at the umpteenth time of trying.
Nabavi’s analysis is correct. Farage is fattening his pig for market.
Lady Hale or Brett Kavanaugh.
Hmm. That’s a toughie.
I was thinking more of the plan to allow unlimited chain migration, to give all migrants immediate access to all benefits, to cease policing migration in any sensible way, to give Free Movement (and extend it!) to all EU citizens, and perhaps others, to no longer take any direction from a migrant's skillset, income, talents, attitudes, but just let them in, whoever they are and whatever they do, to end any measures against illegal immigration, etc etc etc ETC... basically to throw open our borders, our Treasury, our welfare system, and our NHS, to anyone that wants to come here.
Yes, I was thinking more about that stuff. Though the voting idea is insane, as well.
Now you're complaining about the criteria?
Maybe it would be better if people read about it for themselves rather than relying on your hysterical propaganda.
Here's another thing. Labour intend to grant voting rights to all EU citizens and other residents. That means EU citizens will be able to vote in any future EU referendum, guaranteeing a vote for Remain.
This is, therefore, an enormous insult to all Labour Leave voters. It says your vote is bound to be reversed, with our new policy. So no Leave voter can risk opting for Labour, next time.
I thought Corbyn was meant to be a Leaver who supported Leaver rights? This jars. I'm not sure this has been remotely thought through. They're making polices out of nursery rhymes.
They are threatening a no deal brexit whereas they committed in their manifesto to an orderly brexit.
Same with HoL reform and devolution.
That judgment was assented to by all 11 judges unanimously. We're not talking about arguments that were viewed doubtfully by even a single judge.
You can't just say they were wrong without addressing what the judgment actually said. Or if you do, you can't expect to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
The ‘Farage failed to get elected 7 times’ meme is so disingenuous, without context, that it frames whoever tries to use it as either wilfully ignorant or a complete imbecile
They made clear that to inhibit the proper working of parliament was unlawful. Whatever the reason given. Sounds about right to me and a useful protection for the future.
How made decades do they think it would have taken for even for the most unscrupulous, authoritarian government to change the composition of the court sufficiently to reverse this judgment?
Genius!!!
Tactical desperation seems a more appropriate description.
That'll learn em.,
You need to try harder than that.
I remember him and the rest of the Cabinet being sidelined by May.
What a great advert these past months have been for PR. Not.