1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Brexit Discussion - The new thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Feek, Sep 5, 2019.

  1. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 20, 2007

    Posts: 29,798

    Location: Surrey

    Yes, the PM really is a child.
     
  2. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 20, 2007

    Posts: 29,798

    Location: Surrey

    Absolutely not. That would be grossly unfair.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,952

    That's hardly the only way to solve it.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,952

    He isn't the one screeching and bringing up Joe Cox etc.. over how he's chosen to frame his reference to an act.
     
  5. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,232

    Because it has now been found to be unlawful? He should be more contrite and more supportive of the law. Yes, he acted on legal advice that, at the time, the prorogation would be lawful. But that advice has since found to be wrong. Saying that the highest court of the land "got it wrong" isn't what he should be doing. He might very well disagree with the situation but I think the 11 supreme court judges have a better grasp of the law than him.
     
  6. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,990

    No it wasn't. It was for the High Court to decide, and then they decided it was for the Supreme Court to decide, who made a final ruling. That's how these things are supposed to work.

    No government is above the law. That's been a precedent for about 400 years now.

    It seems Brexiteers are now showing they don't understand the judicial system of this country, the same as they don't understand the parliamentary system, or the system of government, or our laws, or the ways international trade and treaties work, or pretty much anything else it seems.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2019
  7. Martini1991

    Caporegime

    Joined: Sep 18, 2009

    Posts: 28,023

    Location: Dormanstown.

    That's our parliament.

    It's totally unfit for purpose. A general election wouldn't change that either. We'd just have some different MP's doing the same inane thing.
     
  8. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,952

    Hmm that last question, he didn't repeat his claim that he's not extend, he's just stated that he'd respect the rule of law and he called it the "humiliation act".

    Has the Supreme Court case changed whatever he might have had planned then?
     
  9. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,952

    Key word being "now", yes it has now been found unlawful as the AG pointed out they don't have a crystal ball. He's got every right to disagree as has the AG, they both respect and accept the result... beyond that... meh.
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 9,665

    Lady Hale decided, like the Scottish High Court that the Govt prorogued for an unlawful purpose, that is to prevent Parliament sitting. Parliament being Sovereign. The Govt had also not followed procedure.

    There was no precedent set.

    You may agree with a lower court however that is only your opinion, the legal position holds.
     
  11. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 3,184

    Law interpretation is for the courts and the creation of law for parliament’s democratically elected MP’s. The Supreme Court 11-0 ruled on the law and then handed straight back over to parliament. That is how the rule of law works. Johnson specifically chose to take the illegal action he did for personal political gain and like every successive vote he has had so far it backfired. His EU negotiations are going exactly the same way. Yet still people support him and make excuses for him while he continually blusters and runs away.
     
  12. Skillmister

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 3, 2009

    Posts: 19,384

    Location: Wales

    Brexiteers want Brexit done so we have control over our own laws yet when our own laws are ruled by our own courts they don't agree with the process. How curious!

    I wonder what their opinion would be if the European courts ruled it lawful, would they prefer to follow their ruling or the Supreme Court?
     
  13. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,232

    As much as I dislike to defend Johnson, he didn't take an illegal action. He took an action that was later deemed unlawful. So he didn't break any laws and didn't do anything illegal.
     
  14. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,952

    They didn't agree with the decision not the process but the accept it and respect the court. Do they have to agree with every decision made by that court? Why?
     
  15. Skillmister

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 3, 2009

    Posts: 19,384

    Location: Wales

    Erm, see above where @Caracus2k moaned it took 3 courts to come to this decision. That sounds to me like disagreeing with the process.
     
  16. Nitefly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Sep 24, 2005

    Posts: 31,767

    If I was to be really fussy, and I am, then I’d suggest a precedent has been set where proroguing can be quashed if a bona fide assertion that such proroguing is unconstitutional cannot be rebutted in a satisfactory manner.
     
  17. NiCkNaMe

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 17, 2005

    Posts: 3,044

    I think it was mentioned on here but the format needs physically changing, i.e. circular, sterile, controlled via speaker/mic. Something that changes the balance and encourages reasoned debate rather than this constant school yard behaviour!
     
  18. chroniclard

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 23, 2014

    Posts: 14,387

    Location: Hertfordshire

    Supreme court unanimously smacked it down, people still trying to peddle alt facts. :D
     
  19. Steampunk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 1, 2013

    Posts: 6,990

    He knew it was illegal, that's why the government failed to provide any evidence regarding the "legal" reasons for proroguing. Better for Boris to roll the dice and lose the case, than to lose the case and be found committing perjury.
     
  20. DarkHorizon472

    Mobster

    Joined: May 16, 2007

    Posts: 3,184

    I understand the point you are trying to make but his action was deemed illegal 11-0 in the Supreme Court, which is why it is illegal. Ignorance or wilfully disregard for the law make no difference to this. If someone robs a bank it is not considered lawful until a court convicts them, but they are not convicted without due process. In this case the big clue to their motivations is no government minister would provide a signed , witness testimony and they at no point explained in legal detail the reason for proroguing parliament.