Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

This is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageThis is the “spin”. Now for some questions. – politicalbetting.com

According to the Daily Mail, the Cabinet Office has commissioned some “devastating” legal advice from Lord Pannick QC that will stop the Commons’ Standards and Privileges Committee from investigating Boris Johnson over whether he misled the Commons over parties at No. 10. This advice is apparently going to be published later today.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    Indeed.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508
    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,769

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    The Parliamentary Standards committee is made up of MPs from multiple parties...

    And I'm very happy for the lying former PM to remain as an MP it would make Truss's job even more impossible than it currently looks to be....
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,508

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
  • As baseless the Hollinrake claim of "neck and neck" may be, it would be genuinely laugh out loud funny if Truss loses.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    Two more -

    Why was it briefed to two newspapers, known for their particular partisan stance, and not published ?

    Does such briefing in itself represent a contempt of Parliament ?
  • IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,236
    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
    Yes, that's probably best at this point.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    edited September 2
    Did we do this ?

    New poll shows British public rank ⁦@BorisJohnson as worst Prime Minister since WWII up to now.
    https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1565422871698104321
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    They should certainly keep calm and not panic.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    Just under two thirds of *Conservative voters* - never mind nearly everyone else - want the Privileges Committee investigation to go ahead. Take note Conservative MPs
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1562431401382662144
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    Did we do this ?

    New poll shows British public rank ⁦@BorisJohnson as worst Prime Minister since WWII up to now.
    https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/1565422871698104321

    Yes. Reported by the fan club as Boris ranked fourth best PM.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    Unless I am much in error, David Bannerman is a former Tory MEP. The impression given is that he is just some local who has happened to meet with the BBC correspondent.
  • DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Yes, but it's a bit of a waste of time investigating things which are not contempts of parliament (which is a question of law). It's like prosecuting someone for driving at 60 mph in a 70 mph speed limit, even if you succeed so what?

    In practice this is all a nothingburger cooked up out of governmental incompetence in not amending the motion to put "knowingly" in there. Of course the committee is going to ask 2 questions, 1. did he mislead and 2. if so was it deliberate, and if yes/no it is not going to recommend a punishment. Pannick pretending both that there's a loophole and that the committee would take advantage of it, is mere wankerdom.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    On topic. The politics of this has shifted - those who wanted this to damage PM Boris a bit more ahead of him leading Tories into next General Election, now, quite astutely and good politics actually, don’t want to push him out parliament completely, in much the same way Tory’s joined Labour to vote for Corbyn.

    In my opinion, the Tories would have got a far better result in the next General election under Boris than under Truss. And I think the MPs and party realise this today in far greater numbers than they realised this in June. So likewise your opponents can change tactical approach too in two months. This investigation into Boris misleading parliament might well be halted.

    In a more of an off topic way, I have something to add that supports my previous post.

    From the BBC.
    David Bannerman, a 62-year-old from East Anglia said he was supporting Ms Truss because of her policies, accusing Mr Sunak of having "no new ideas".
    “If you are going to dispose of a prime minister, you have to have different policies, not more of the same."

    For me, this touches on what I was posting the other day - it’s Continuity Truss simply because of personality politics and backstabbing - Boris and Rishi instinctively closer on economics than Truss and Kwarzy, talk of Continuity Truss completely misses key realisation - this change is a big step to the right for the Tory party, and a lot of the Tory membership are excited about making that step and achieving it with Truss.

    Yet there are a lot more who realise now they preferred Boris government approach to handling crisis like this one, but also where Truss is “shrill” for example on is Macron a friend, pressing nuclear launch etc, Boris calm and composed charismatic and often clever answers are now missing.

    Let’s not say Truss is “just continuity” again because this is a big change in tone and economic approach. Anyone disagree with this?
    It is strange.
    Johnson wasn't brought down because his policies were unpopular. It was the character, culture and tone of him in particular, and the administration in general.
    Continuity on that, whilst reversing policy seems a bold choice. But there we are.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,096
    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    Just under two thirds of *Conservative voters* - never mind nearly everyone else - want the Privileges Committee investigation to go ahead. Take note Conservative MPs
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1562431401382662144

    Perhaps surprisingly I am not fussed. Everyone knows that Boris lied and he has already lost nearly all his direct influence and power (retains indirect power of course). I really doubt his few defenders believe he was being honest, I think it is more along the lines of all politicians lie, and his sliver of plausible deniability kept him within the rules of the game. Whatever.
  • RichardrRichardr Posts: 34
    The Telegraph's report included:

    "Cabinet Office sources on Thursday night sought to distance themselves from the advice, which they said was commissioned by the newly created Office of the Prime Minister which sits within their department but reports to Downing Street. They added that the advice will be published by Number Ten rather than the Cabinet Office."

    So one imagines as such it is similar to defence lawyers public utterances.

    Even the Daily Telegraph includes in its story:

    "it is unusual for the Government to commission legal advice into the workings of the House of Commons and raises questions about the supremacy of parliament."
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
    Yes, that's probably best at this point.
    Writing the opinion in the knowledge it is going to be used by the Mail to browbeat the committee is almost certainly a contempt in its own right.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
    Yes, that's probably best at this point.
    Writing the opinion in the knowledge it is going to be used by the Mail to browbeat the committee is almost certainly a contempt in its own right.
    Did he know that? Commissioning/releasing, perhaps, but not necessarily writing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    Nigelb said:

    Just under two thirds of *Conservative voters* - never mind nearly everyone else - want the Privileges Committee investigation to go ahead. Take note Conservative MPs
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1562431401382662144

    Perhaps surprisingly I am not fussed. Everyone knows that Boris lied and he has already lost nearly all his direct influence and power (retains indirect power of course). I really doubt his few defenders believe he was being honest, I think it is more along the lines of all politicians lie, and his sliver of plausible deniability kept him within the rules of the game. Whatever.
    We're regularly assured by some here that Boris will be back as leader of the party, possibly PM, in due course.
    Nailing the Mail etc's lies that the committee investigation is a "kangaroo court", not entirely unimportant. Much as I too would like to consign him to past memories, not often dredged up.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,177
    DavidL said:

    I write legal opinions 2 or 3 times a week. By the law of statistics some are probably correct, even if they are not necessarily correct for the right reasons. Lord Pannick, for all his eminence, is not a court. His opinion is simply that. @BartholomewRoberts is right to say that the Supremacy of Parliament and its ability to regulate its own affairs means that it is for the Committee to decide whether the rules were breached or not, not Lord Pannick nor even the courts.

    As to the merits of his argument it seems to me that most previous PMs and ministers did not find this requirement to be truthful to the House to be unduly onerous. Some, such as Blair on the dodgy dossier and his 45 minute claim, have got away with it. The argument that it impedes effective governance does not sound a strong one to me.

    I think Boris will depart the stage by resigning as an MP very shortly. I think that the committee will take the more pragmatic view that pursuing him after that looks vindictive when he has paid a very heavy penalty already. I think that this will go away but not because of this advice.

    I agree with all of that except the last paragraph. I don't think he will resign as an MP until after Christmas, as a consequence of being appointed to the House of Lords!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
    Yes, that's probably best at this point.
    Writing the opinion in the knowledge it is going to be used by the Mail to browbeat the committee is almost certainly a contempt in its own right.
    Did he know that? Commissioning/releasing, perhaps, but not necessarily writing.
    He will be fucking livid if he didn't I imagine. I would be.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,844

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,096
    edited September 2

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    My take is that the HS saying "national security risk" is now in practice deemed to carry the day unless there's something obviously and indisputably wrong going on which the Judges can point to.

    It's a bit like "Umpires Call" in the cricket. You can challenge but you'll only get a reversal for clear and obvious error. Or in this case VERY clear and obvious error.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Particularly tricky for the rich in that you can walk into a citizenship pretty much anywhere if you have a couple of million.
  • kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Just under two thirds of *Conservative voters* - never mind nearly everyone else - want the Privileges Committee investigation to go ahead. Take note Conservative MPs
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1562431401382662144

    Perhaps surprisingly I am not fussed. Everyone knows that Boris lied and he has already lost nearly all his direct influence and power (retains indirect power of course). I really doubt his few defenders believe he was being honest, I think it is more along the lines of all politicians lie, and his sliver of plausible deniability kept him within the rules of the game. Whatever.
    We're regularly assured by some here that Boris will be back as leader of the party, possibly PM, in due course.
    Nailing the Mail etc's lies that the committee investigation is a "kangaroo court", not entirely unimportant. Much as I too would like to consign him to past memories, not often dredged up.
    Yeah, I realise that, and it should be a consideration and he probably does deserve at least a suspension. But unlike removing him as PM, removing him as an MP is not in my top 100 things that need fixing in the UK so not particularly fussed if he gets off somehow.
  • DavidL said:

    I write legal opinions 2 or 3 times a week. By the law of statistics some are probably correct, even if they are not necessarily correct for the right reasons. Lord Pannick, for all his eminence, is not a court. His opinion is simply that. @BartholomewRoberts is right to say that the Supremacy of Parliament and its ability to regulate its own affairs means that it is for the Committee to decide whether the rules were breached or not, not Lord Pannick nor even the courts.

    As to the merits of his argument it seems to me that most previous PMs and ministers did not find this requirement to be truthful to the House to be unduly onerous. Some, such as Blair on the dodgy dossier and his 45 minute claim, have got away with it. The argument that it impedes effective governance does not sound a strong one to me.

    I think Boris will depart the stage by resigning as an MP very shortly. I think that the committee will take the more pragmatic view that pursuing him after that looks vindictive when he has paid a very heavy penalty already. I think that this will go away but not because of this advice.

    Realistically, it's in Boris's interests to leave Parliament soon. It's certainly in the interests of his successor. In that case, all this becomes amusingly irrelevant.

    On the other hand, someone went to the trouble and cost of getting this opinion and passing it to friendly newspapers. Those aren't the actions of someone about to go quietly. And "realistic" and "concerned for the interests of others" aren't the most obvious ways to describe the current Prime Minister.

    BoJo is almost certainly now a political zombie. But zombies who don't go away can be very dangerous.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    While we're kicking around ideas of constitutional law...
    Supreme Court justices cannot control, and are not responsible for the behaviour of their spouses.
    But they ought to recuse themselves in cases where spouses are directly involved.

    Ginni Thomas lobbied Wisconsin and Arizona lawmakers to overturn election
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ginni-thomas-lobbied-wisconsin-and-arizona-lawmakers-to-overturn-election/ar-AA11mXiT
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The Select committee should tell Pannick where he can stick his (very expensive) opinion.

    Or summon him to explain exactly what it is supposed to mean.
    Yes, that's probably best at this point.
    Writing the opinion in the knowledge it is going to be used by the Mail to browbeat the committee is almost certainly a contempt in its own right.
    Did he know that? Commissioning/releasing, perhaps, but not necessarily writing.
    He will be fucking livid if he didn't I imagine. I would be.
    It's certainly normal not to release legal opinion commissioned by government, is it not? So Mr P could well have been surprised.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,236
    edited September 2

    DavidL said:

    I write legal opinions 2 or 3 times a week. By the law of statistics some are probably correct, even if they are not necessarily correct for the right reasons. Lord Pannick, for all his eminence, is not a court. His opinion is simply that. @BartholomewRoberts is right to say that the Supremacy of Parliament and its ability to regulate its own affairs means that it is for the Committee to decide whether the rules were breached or not, not Lord Pannick nor even the courts.

    As to the merits of his argument it seems to me that most previous PMs and ministers did not find this requirement to be truthful to the House to be unduly onerous. Some, such as Blair on the dodgy dossier and his 45 minute claim, have got away with it. The argument that it impedes effective governance does not sound a strong one to me.

    I think Boris will depart the stage by resigning as an MP very shortly. I think that the committee will take the more pragmatic view that pursuing him after that looks vindictive when he has paid a very heavy penalty already. I think that this will go away but not because of this advice.

    Realistically, it's in Boris's interests to leave Parliament soon. It's certainly in the interests of his successor. In that case, all this becomes amusingly irrelevant.

    On the other hand, someone went to the trouble and cost of getting this opinion and passing it to friendly newspapers. Those aren't the actions of someone about to go quietly. And "realistic" and "concerned for the interests of others" aren't the most obvious ways to describe the current Prime Minister.

    BoJo is almost certainly now a political zombie. But zombies who don't go away can be very dangerous.
    Only if you possess brains so most of Parliament is immune.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    My take is that the HS saying "national security risk" is now in practice deemed to carry the day unless there's something obviously and indisputably wrong going on which the Judges can point to.

    It's a bit like "Umpires Call" in the cricket. You can challenge but you'll only get a reversal for clear and obvious error. Or in this case VERY clear and obvious error.
    The equivalent in this case would be the visiting team calling for DRS, and the host broadcaster waiting a bit and then saying it is mysteriously unavailable this time, bad luck.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,610
    edited September 2
    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
  • kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,412
    Cookie said:

    Just on the phone to esure, on hold. 20 minutes so far. A few bars of piano music; "please continue to hold"; a few bars of piano music of a completely different song.
    It's the not knowing that kills you.
    Public transport spotted this years ago. Decades. All you want is to know how much longer you have to wait. A 15 minute wait knowing the train will arrive in 15 minutes is much more bearable than a ten minute wait which you don't know when it will end.
    All I want is a ringtone, interspersed with "you are now [x] in the queue".

    Even then it is not that helpful, as the lengths of calls vary and you don't know how many lines there are.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642
    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Bingo.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen...
    That is the most absurd statement on PB ever by anyone and it is a strong field.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,765
    edited September 2
    Cookie said:

    Just on the phone to esure, on hold. 20 minutes so far. A few bars of piano music; "please continue to hold"; a few bars of piano music of a completely different song.
    It's the not knowing that kills you.
    Public transport spotted this years ago. Decades. All you want is to know how much longer you have to wait. A 15 minute wait knowing the train will arrive in 15 minutes is much more bearable than a ten minute wait which you don't know when it will end.
    All I want is a ringtone, interspersed with "you are now [x] in the queue".

    ...
    Amazing Grace
    Careless Whisper
    One more night
    Bridge over troubled water
    Sound of silence
    What a wonderful world
    Whiter shade of pale
    Moon River
    Nobody does it better
    Girl from Ipanema
    Moondance
    Your song
    and one I don't recognise. Round and round and round again. 35 minutes now...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Well in this case it clearly is. I think in general if ministers are telling the House things, they are assumed to be important things.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,765
    eristdoof said:

    Cookie said:

    Just on the phone to esure, on hold. 20 minutes so far. A few bars of piano music; "please continue to hold"; a few bars of piano music of a completely different song.
    It's the not knowing that kills you.
    Public transport spotted this years ago. Decades. All you want is to know how much longer you have to wait. A 15 minute wait knowing the train will arrive in 15 minutes is much more bearable than a ten minute wait which you don't know when it will end.
    All I want is a ringtone, interspersed with "you are now [x] in the queue".

    Even then it is not that helpful, as the lengths of calls vary and you don't know how many lines there are.
    Yes, but it would be good to get some sense of moving up the queue.
  • Betfair next prime minister
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    20 Rishi Sunak 5%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.04 Liz Truss 96%
    21 Rishi Sunak 5%
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913
    edited September 2
    TOPPING said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen...
    That is the most absurd statement on PB ever by anyone and it is a strong field.
    Bit colonialist, too, innit? Because of course BR wouldn't tolerate it the other way round.

    "It is not for the EU to inform the English courts and UKSC on who is or is not eligible to be a UK subject ..."
  • Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Just under two thirds of *Conservative voters* - never mind nearly everyone else - want the Privileges Committee investigation to go ahead. Take note Conservative MPs
    https://twitter.com/GavinBarwell/status/1562431401382662144

    Perhaps surprisingly I am not fussed. Everyone knows that Boris lied and he has already lost nearly all his direct influence and power (retains indirect power of course). I really doubt his few defenders believe he was being honest, I think it is more along the lines of all politicians lie, and his sliver of plausible deniability kept him within the rules of the game. Whatever.
    We're regularly assured by some here that Boris will be back as leader of the party, possibly PM, in due course.
    Nailing the Mail etc's lies that the committee investigation is a "kangaroo court", not entirely unimportant. Much as I too would like to consign him to past memories, not often dredged up.
    Yeah, I realise that, and it should be a consideration and he probably does deserve at least a suspension. But unlike removing him as PM, removing him as an MP is not in my top 100 things that need fixing in the UK so not particularly fussed if he gets off somehow.
    Mine either.

    But giving him another good going over in front of the committee is not without purpose. Last time around, the quietly devastating questioning from Bernard Jenkin diminished him considerably, I thought.
    It's not a case of kicking a guy when he's down, so much as making sure the villain doesn't get his third-reel resurrection.

    He played fast and loose with Parliament for three years. Turn about is fair play.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    My take is that the HS saying "national security risk" is now in practice deemed to carry the day unless there's something obviously and indisputably wrong going on which the Judges can point to.

    It's a bit like "Umpires Call" in the cricket. You can challenge but you'll only get a reversal for clear and obvious error. Or in this case VERY clear and obvious error.
    The equivalent in this case would be the visiting team calling for DRS, and the host broadcaster waiting a bit and then saying it is mysteriously unavailable this time, bad luck.
    That does occasionally happen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000
    TOPPING said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen...
    That is the most absurd statement on PB ever by anyone and it is a strong field.
    No, we've all argued ourselves in knots from time to time.
    This is just one of those.
  • kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
    Not adjacent keys either

    that Parker Station is bloody cracking. Also I like its strap line "the best pinot noir you can afford to drink daily."
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    By that logic a court could find you eligible to be Venezuelan or Zambian.
  • Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen...
    That is the most absurd statement on PB ever by anyone and it is a strong field.
    Bit colonialist, too, innit? Because of course BR wouldn't tolerate it the other way round.

    "It is not for the EU to inform the English courts and UKSC on who is or is not eligible to be a UK subject ..."
    Of course I would tolerate it. Why wouldn't I?

    If the UK government says someone's not eligible to be a British citizen, but a German court finds that they are, then its not for the UK government to override the German court or vice-versa. German courts are entitled to find any decision they think is appropriate within the law and evidence before them, even if it contradicts the British government.

    British courts are answerable to Britain and our law. Bangladeshi courts are answerable to Bangladesh and their law.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,194
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/02/animal-rebellion-activists-vow-disrupt-uk-milk-supplies?amp;amp;amp

    Militant Vegans, an offshoot of Extinction rebellion, are ramping up a plan of action against companies who have refused to meet their demand to offer totally plant based milk only by 2025.

    Tomorrow they picket supermarket milk aisles in several major cities.

    :open_mouth:
  • NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming
  • https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1565639045568516098

    What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?
  • dixiedean said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    By that logic a court could find you eligible to be Venezuelan or Zambian.
    If that is the evidence before the court they could, yes. Why shouldn't they, if that's the evidence before the court?

    If that is not the evidence before the court, but they find it anyway, then that's a bigger problem.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Pulpstar said:

    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    My take is that the HS saying "national security risk" is now in practice deemed to carry the day unless there's something obviously and indisputably wrong going on which the Judges can point to.

    It's a bit like "Umpires Call" in the cricket. You can challenge but you'll only get a reversal for clear and obvious error. Or in this case VERY clear and obvious error.
    The equivalent in this case would be the visiting team calling for DRS, and the host broadcaster waiting a bit and then saying it is mysteriously unavailable this time, bad luck.
    That does occasionally happen.
    Yes and more often than not cheating imo. Same as the court appeal ruling.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
    It's a subtle typo.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 8,610
    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Well in this case it clearly is. I think in general if ministers are telling the House things, they are assumed to be important things.
    In general yes but not in entirety. It also depends on whether an official statement is being made or whether a question is being answered on the hoof. I doubt there's a single instance if PMQs across the ages where at least one lie wasn't told. Most are tiny and inconsequential - the normal lubrication of discourse if you like. All I am saying is that not all lies are equal. (To be clear, I wanted Johnson gone too.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,659
    The Morris Dancer Party policy on Militant Vegans is to fire them from a giant cannon into the heart of the sun.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    https://twitter.com/peoplepolling/status/1565639045568516098

    What word or phrase first comes to mind when you think about Keir Starmer?

    @bigjohnowls nemesis.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Well in this case it clearly is. I think in general if ministers are telling the House things, they are assumed to be important things.
    In general yes but not in entirety. It also depends on whether an official statement is being made or whether a question is being answered on the hoof. I doubt there's a single instance if PMQs across the ages where at least one lie wasn't told. Most are tiny and inconsequential - the normal lubrication of discourse if you like. All I am saying is that not all lies are equal. (To be clear, I wanted Johnson gone too.)
    What if the PM got straight out of bed and went to PMQs without having a single meeting with anyone?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    dixiedean said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    By that logic a court could find you eligible to be Venezuelan or Zambian.
    If that is the evidence before the court they could, yes. Why shouldn't they, if that's the evidence before the court?

    If that is not the evidence before the court, but they find it anyway, then that's a bigger problem.
    So what is to stop a government passing a law to say anyone convicted of a crime is eligible to be Mongolian?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    The Morris Dancer Party policy on Militant Vegans is to fire them from a giant cannon into the heart of the sun.

    You should hear their plans for militant morris dancers...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642
    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    11% for Others is super-high.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,452
    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    it is conclusive evidence.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,194

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    Hey Horse. Hope you are well.

    Did you see the large Tory to labour swings in the two by elections last night.

    They really back up the large labour leads.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,297

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    GB News again.
    I would treat People Polling with great caution.
    That's their second poll.
    Both monstrous outliers.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    I'd assumed that Johnson would sidestep the Parliamentary enquiry by quitting the Commons, but this apparent sign of desperation to frustrate its working suggests either a determination to remain in Parliament, or an unusual level of concern at avoiding official censure.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
    Not adjacent keys either

    that Parker Station is bloody cracking. Also I like its strap line "the best pinot noir you can afford to drink daily."
    Oh good, I’m glad you like it. I’d have to restrict myself to just a glass to be able to afford to drink it daily at the moment though!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,709

    Pulpstar said:

    IANAL but surely Parliamentary sovereignty and privilege means Parliament has the right to investigate whatever it please?

    Absolubtely

    We disagree on plenty, but on the supremacy of Parliament and specifically the Commons over an individual Cross bench Peer who happens to be a QC you're spot on.
    Absolutely only has one b

    I wouldn’t normally point this out but I noticed you did it twice today, then from a Vanilla search of absolubtely that this is the 361st time you’ve made this spelling mistake

    I can’t believe that I haven’t noticed it before
    Hah, you're right.

    I can't spell neccesary half the time either, @Slackbladder struggles with believe.
    Achieve, Apparently trip up plenty of pbers and @KJH couldn't find the calendar on August 22nd.

    I pronounce in my head with the second erroneous "b" in there though, which is the source of the error.
  • Please link these by elections
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, really disposed of the senile stuff - a proper campaigning speech.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
  • TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.

    According to you, if a re-elected President Trump in 2025 decrees that everyone who has ever been a member of the Democrat Party is not a US citizen then the courts must agree they're not a US citizen since the US government says that, even if the law and evidence says otherwise.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    The Inquiry is into whether Johnson lied to parliament - using the boring old definition of "lying" as saying things he knew to be untrue. You can do this by looking at the known facts and applying basic logical reasoning to them. Does the evidence he lied then clear whatever bar - balance of probability, I guess, rather than beyond reasonable doubt - is used for this sort of thing? I just do not see the problem. I can do it if they're struggling.

    Doesn't it also matter what he lied about? The no-lying-to-parliament convention relates to things of great importance; it is a vitally important convention. If Starmer asked Johnson what colour underpants he is wearing and Johnson replied "blue" when in fact they were red then he would be lying to parliament but this lie wouldn't be against the spirit of the convention because it lacks importance. So what is Johnson alleged to have lied about and is it of import or not?
    Well in this case it clearly is. I think in general if ministers are telling the House things, they are assumed to be important things.
    In general yes but not in entirety. It also depends on whether an official statement is being made or whether a question is being answered on the hoof. I doubt there's a single instance if PMQs across the ages where at least one lie wasn't told. Most are tiny and inconsequential - the normal lubrication of discourse if you like. All I am saying is that not all lies are equal. (To be clear, I wanted Johnson gone too.)
    What if the PM got straight out of bed and went to PMQs without having a single meeting with anyone?
    Are we 100 percent sure that Boris never did that?

    Or indeed, that he always wore pants? Hideous fire hazard, if nothing else.
  • TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    It doesn't. Bangladeshi law does.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,194
    dixiedean said:

    NEW: Westminster Voting Intention poll (30 Aug):

    🔴 LAB: 42% (+2 from 22 Aug)
    🔵 CON: 25% (-1)
    🟠 LDM: 10% (-1)
    🟢 GRN: 7% (+1)
    🟡 SNP: 5% (-1)

    20 point lead incoming

    GB News again.
    I would treat People Polling with great caution.
    That's their second poll.
    Both monstrous outliers.
    A 17 point lead is a monstrous outlier but labour clearly are enjoying a large lead and the two local by elections last night showed large swings in previously Tory held seats to labour who gained both comfortably.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    it is conclusive evidence.
    Precisely. So the courts must disregard the claims of the UK government and go with the conclusive evidence, as provided by the Companies House clerk.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    It doesn't. Bangladeshi law does.
    As you are so quick to point out, who makes Bangladeshi law? Assuming it is the same as over here, then it is the effing Bangladeshi government.

    JHC.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,000

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    I liked it; @Leon thought it "ill advised"

    When hecklers yelled obscenities during President Biden’s “Soul of America” speech at Independence Hall this September 1, he said, to the crowd’s applause, “They’re entitled to be outrageous. This is a democracy.” And so it seeks to be. It’s our task to keep it that way.
    https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1565638731327053825
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    According to Bart the UK court could, if it so chooses, determine that no US citizen is a US citizen and that they are all German citizens.

    Only if that is the evidence that the law and evidence before the court shows.
    "the court"

    LOL. Aside from the fact that evidence is notoriously unobjective, what about the North Korean court telling you you are North Korean. You are giving any country's courts the right to determine the citizenship of anyone else.

    Amazing. You are in a hole here. But please do continue posting.

    I said yesterday this is an untypical logical misstep from you.
    Yes if you're in North Korea then a North Korean court has the right to make decisions according to the law and evidence before it. That it doesn't work that way in NK is part of the problem.

    Having a free judicial system that makes decisions based upon law and evidence, not the statements of governments (even if those statements go against the law) is not a logical misstep.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,854
    edited September 2
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kamski said:

    DavidL said:

    FPT (and relevant because it mentions Lord Pannick)

    RochdalePioneers said:
    » show previous quotes
    Based on the baseless lie from the Home Office that she was eligible for citizenship elsewhere.

    Had the court been presented with the truth how would it have ruled?

    I said:

    That was the truth. As the child of a Bangladeshi citizen she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. The appeal, in which Begum was represented by Lord Pannick QC, proceeded on that basis. Suggesting that he might have missed something like that is, with respect, a bit absurd.

    The Supreme Court decision is something of a masterpiece by Lord Reed. It explains that the right to appeal the decision of the HS was not a review on the merits; that the Court of Appeal had been wrong to feel that it was entitled to come to a different view on national security or the public good and that the legislation, as amended with astonishing complexity, had restricted an appeal to human rights grounds only. That meant the appeal was more like a judicial review: was the decision of the HS so unreasonable that no HS, having regard to the relevant facts at his disposal, could have reached it with regard to those facts? The answer, almost inevitably, was no.

    The case restated the separation of powers and, implicitly, rolled back much of the more interventionist decisions of the Hale Court by defining the role of the court much more narrowly. It is the source of much of the mumbling about the Supreme Court's conservatism which has been touched on here from time to time.

    The debate isn't on how the case was run. It is in the UK government stating that Begum was eligible to become a Bangladeshi citizen when the Bangladeshi government says she is not. The UK government case was incorrect.

    The UK cannot dictate citizenship policies and laws to other nations whether it is politically opportunist for the home secretary or not. Begum is NOT been eligible for citizenship in Bangladesh or anywhere else. Would the UK government have won its case going to court saying "we're removing her citizenship to make her stateless"?
    "eligible" for citizenship somewhere else (but not actually being a citizen) can't be a good enough reason for taking away citizenship. almost every single British citizen is eligible for citizenship in other other countries
    Being a citizen elsewhere isn't a good enough reason for taking away citizenship either.

    Being a citizen (or eligible to be one) is a 'necessary but not sufficient' condition.

    Rochdale's argument that the UK government's case is incorrect was dismissed by the SIAC. It is not for the Bangladeshi government to inform our courts who is or is not eligible to be a Bangladeshi citizen any more than it is for the British government to say so over who is or is not eligible to be a British one.

    The courts job is to determine the law and evidence, not simply take people's (even governments) word for it.
    Hang on, lets break this apart. The Bangladeshi government decides who is Bangladeshi. They say she isn't eligible. Whilst its true that they have no right to instruct our courts, what the courts processed - that she is eligible to be Bangladeshi - was not correct. The arbiter on who is Bangladeshi is Bangladesh. Our courts can't just say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *isn't* eligible.

    The UK is a signatory of the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Whilst we can make someone stateless, we're then liable to be hauled up before the UN. Is that what we want? I know Brexit has become Britain Uber Alles we obey no foreign laws, but come on...
    No, the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi, any more than the UK government determines who is British. The law determines it. The courts are there to arbitrate over the law and evidence, not to take anyone's word for it.

    Our courts absolutely can say "x is eligible to be Bangladeshi therefore we're not making her stateless" when she *is* eligible. Even if the Bangladeshi government says she isn't.
    Not the case, Barty. There's all sorts of conclusive evidence provisions in UK law, the first one that google throws up is: the certificate of incorporation of a company is conclusive evidence of its incorporation. Therefore it is for the Companies House clerk to tell the UK courts about that, and they have no choice but to take the clerk's word for it.
    Indeed, because that is evidence.

    If Companies House tells the courts that a company is incorporated, and the UK government said in a press release that the company isn't, then what does the court do?
    You're having a shocker here. And (apols) I like your line so much I'm going to repeat it again. Because it is a classic. Don't bet on it being the last time I post it, either.

    "the Bangladeshi government doesn't decide who is Bangladeshi"

    Love it.
    It doesn't. Bangladeshi law does.
    As you are so quick to point out, who makes Bangladeshi law? Assuming it is the same as over here, then it is the effing Bangladeshi government.

    JHC.
    The Bangladeshi government can change the law, but if they haven't done so then the law is the law.

    If Priti Patel says something contradictory to the law in the UK, then the law remains the law not whatever Priti Patel says. If Patel gets Parliament to change the law, then the law is changed, but not until then.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,452

    OT Did we do this Biden speech?

    It's extremely feisty, highly not senile, and also notable for the total embrace of the Dark Brandon aesthetic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSmRoVo5AA&t=1061s

    Yes, really disposed of the senile stuff - a proper campaigning speech.
    Big contrast with Obama in the way he's teed everything up for the mid-terms. Obama got elected with these incredibly impressive speeches then his campaign for the mid-terms was something lame like "If you want the car to go forwards you put it in D, if you want it to go backwards you put it in R".
This discussion has been closed.