| This court case tomorrow 18:48 - Sep 16 with 3419 views | bluelagos |
Can someone explain why it matters?
Given Parliament got their law through ref asking for extention...does that not make the perogation a bit meaningless? |  |
| |  |
| This court case tomorrow on 19:05 - Sep 16 with 3131 views | Guthrum |
It's a sideshow, but another potential embarrassment for the government. Not a lot of significance beyond that, especially as the party conferences are going ahead. |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 07:33 - Sep 17 with 2976 views | WeWereZombies |
Well yesterday Johnson was saying that the European Union was 'fed up' with Brexit, i.e. they won't give him what he wants and they are prepared to let the United Kingdom go in whatever state it is in.
This morning Johnson is saying 'see what the judges say', i.e. it will give him an opportunity to resign and blame everything on someone else:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 07:43 - Sep 17 with 2956 views | wkj |
| This court case tomorrow on 07:33 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
Well yesterday Johnson was saying that the European Union was 'fed up' with Brexit, i.e. they won't give him what he wants and they are prepared to let the United Kingdom go in whatever state it is in.
This morning Johnson is saying 'see what the judges say', i.e. it will give him an opportunity to resign and blame everything on someone else:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087 |
Although resignation might wind down the clock and be the nuclear strategy to get a no-deal outcome by the 31st, where would that leave the Tory fold? Also, now the government lacks a majority, shouldn't there be the expectation they have to be required to form a government to stay in power? |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 07:43 - Sep 17 with 2955 views | TractorWood |
It's important to the trail but is a bit meaningless. It seems Boris plans to ignore the new law anyway. |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:01 - Sep 17 with 2928 views | WeWereZombies |
| This court case tomorrow on 07:43 - Sep 17 by TractorWood |
It's important to the trail but is a bit meaningless. It seems Boris plans to ignore the new law anyway. |
I think that link I posted earlier shows that he is coming under pressure to behave.
That sounds a bit 'Austin Powers, doesn't it?
I wonder if that is how Johnson sees himself. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:26 - Sep 17 with 2906 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| This court case tomorrow on 19:05 - Sep 16 by Guthrum |
It's a sideshow, but another potential embarrassment for the government. Not a lot of significance beyond that, especially as the party conferences are going ahead. |
With respect I think that there is more significance than you are allowing. If the Supreme Court follows the English rather than the Scottish judgment then they must take care with their wording to avoid establishing a precedent where a future PM can shut down parliament to suit some spurious need. |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:37 - Sep 17 with 2878 views | flimflam |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:01 - Sep 17 by WeWereZombies |
I think that link I posted earlier shows that he is coming under pressure to behave.
That sounds a bit 'Austin Powers, doesn't it?
I wonder if that is how Johnson sees himself. |
There is something to all of this to come out of the woodwork.
My made up far fetched guess
Supreme Court votes in favour of BJ.
BJ then throws a curveball revoking Article 50 himself.
Forces an election.
Wins majority.
Re triggers Article 50.
Leaves the EU the following day with no deal. |  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:41 - Sep 17 with 2865 views | Moriarty |
| This court case tomorrow on 19:05 - Sep 16 by Guthrum |
It's a sideshow, but another potential embarrassment for the government. Not a lot of significance beyond that, especially as the party conferences are going ahead. |
Is it not an important decision concerning the issue of separation of powers and the extent to which the courts can oversee parliamentary procedures?
If the decision is upheld, and Boris maintains his stated determination to ignore it, it begs a significant question as to how the decision can be enforced as it is not an issue for EU or international law.
The PM ignoring a decision of the highest court in the land would make his position untenable (if it isn’t already). |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This court case tomorrow on 08:47 - Sep 17 with 2848 views | gordon |
I think if the government wins the case, there is then an option to put a 'deal' to a vote, thus negating the Benn amendment, but then prorogue parliament again immediately to prevent the 'deal' being given Royal assent etc. Thus we get a no deal outcome and no-one breaks the law.
But if they lose the case, then this approach is presumably out of bounds, because it would include another illegal political prorogation - and if they're found to have acted illegally to deliver no deal, even if it works, they would be liable for a whole lot of damages!
No idea how likely this actually is, but it would be one option, and a pretty devious one which would make Dom Cummins feel pretty pleased with himself. |  | | |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:50 - Sep 17 with 2837 views | Guthrum |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:37 - Sep 17 by flimflam |
There is something to all of this to come out of the woodwork.
My made up far fetched guess
Supreme Court votes in favour of BJ.
BJ then throws a curveball revoking Article 50 himself.
Forces an election.
Wins majority.
Re triggers Article 50.
Leaves the EU the following day with no deal. |
Nice idea, but wouldn't work.
If he declares he plans to re-trigger after revoking, his withdrawal of the letter wouldn't be accepted (has to be in good faith).
He hasn't the votes in the Commons to force an election.
Doubt he'd win an election after revoking A50 without revealing that he planned to re-trigger (which wouldn't work, see above). It would be seen as a massive betrayal.
He might not win an election anyway, despite what the polls say.
My guess is that Johnson will simply refuse to obey the law asking for an extension and hope the resulting court cases, prosecutions and appeals drag on beyond Oct 31st. We could have the ironic spectacle of the government going to the very European courts they supposedly want to escape from the jurisdiction of, in order to spin out the process. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:51 - Sep 17 with 2832 views | Pinewoodblue |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:26 - Sep 17 by Tangledupin_Blue |
With respect I think that there is more significance than you are allowing. If the Supreme Court follows the English rather than the Scottish judgment then they must take care with their wording to avoid establishing a precedent where a future PM can shut down parliament to suit some spurious need. |
The only outcome I can forsee is the Supreme Court ruling that parliament was prorogued for a valid reason, ending one of the longest parliamentary ßessions in history.
Any arguement about wether Johnson had an ulterior motive has no relevance. |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:57 - Sep 17 with 2807 views | flimflam |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:50 - Sep 17 by Guthrum |
Nice idea, but wouldn't work.
If he declares he plans to re-trigger after revoking, his withdrawal of the letter wouldn't be accepted (has to be in good faith).
He hasn't the votes in the Commons to force an election.
Doubt he'd win an election after revoking A50 without revealing that he planned to re-trigger (which wouldn't work, see above). It would be seen as a massive betrayal.
He might not win an election anyway, despite what the polls say.
My guess is that Johnson will simply refuse to obey the law asking for an extension and hope the resulting court cases, prosecutions and appeals drag on beyond Oct 31st. We could have the ironic spectacle of the government going to the very European courts they supposedly want to escape from the jurisdiction of, in order to spin out the process. |
BJ saying he will not ask for an extension, will leave on 31st with or without a deal and that he will not break the law makes me think there is a flaw in the Benn-Burt bill that they are looking to exploit. | |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 09:03 - Sep 17 with 2793 views | Guthrum |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:47 - Sep 17 by gordon |
I think if the government wins the case, there is then an option to put a 'deal' to a vote, thus negating the Benn amendment, but then prorogue parliament again immediately to prevent the 'deal' being given Royal assent etc. Thus we get a no deal outcome and no-one breaks the law.
But if they lose the case, then this approach is presumably out of bounds, because it would include another illegal political prorogation - and if they're found to have acted illegally to deliver no deal, even if it works, they would be liable for a whole lot of damages!
No idea how likely this actually is, but it would be one option, and a pretty devious one which would make Dom Cummins feel pretty pleased with himself. |
The prorogation has to have a legitimate reason. In this case, ostensibly, the presentation of a Queen's Speech due to the unusual length of the previous sitting of the House. The government can't just ask the Queen to do it for no reason.
Putting a deal to the vote but preventing it passing into law doesn't satisfy the new Act, anyway. He would still have to ask for an extension. The Benn amendment just gives a notional reason for asking for one. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 09:24 - Sep 17 with 2761 views | Guthrum |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:57 - Sep 17 by flimflam |
BJ saying he will not ask for an extension, will leave on 31st with or without a deal and that he will not break the law makes me think there is a flaw in the Benn-Burt bill that they are looking to exploit. |
More likely he is just practicing this "game theory" brinkmanship guff which seems so popular, in an attempt to bounce the EU into giving him what he wants.
Or he hopes to force a No Deal resolution through the Commons, somehow.
In reality, I think Johnson would be happy enough to get almost any Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament so he can claim to have achieved Brexit. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 09:30 - Sep 17 with 2749 views | Guthrum |
| This court case tomorrow on 08:26 - Sep 17 by Tangledupin_Blue |
With respect I think that there is more significance than you are allowing. If the Supreme Court follows the English rather than the Scottish judgment then they must take care with their wording to avoid establishing a precedent where a future PM can shut down parliament to suit some spurious need. |
The government would still have to provide a valid reason for proroguing Parliament (which there was in this case, the unusual length of sitting and the need for a fresh legislative programme), it can't just be done on a whim. There aren't sufficient reasons to do it very often. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 10:26 - Sep 17 with 2715 views | Tangledupin_Blue |
| This court case tomorrow on 09:30 - Sep 17 by Guthrum |
The government would still have to provide a valid reason for proroguing Parliament (which there was in this case, the unusual length of sitting and the need for a fresh legislative programme), it can't just be done on a whim. There aren't sufficient reasons to do it very often. |
I understand the reasons as given for prorogation but can't see justification for the length of it. There is no reason that I can see why parliamentary business should not have continued til Friday. But by proroging early they have reduced the level of scrutiny that they may have been placed under. It is these extra days that the SC must focus on and that Johnson must justify. | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 10:55 - Sep 17 with 2681 views | ElephantintheRoom |
Because the PM is not supposed to lie to the queen to satisfy a small minority of extremists in his own party. Basically its treason.
IF/when the case is won Johnson has to resign and a government of national unity will be formed to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. Hence no need for the early election that Tory bluster was seeking in an act of desperation last week. |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 11:41 - Sep 17 with 2630 views | flimflam |
| This court case tomorrow on 10:55 - Sep 17 by ElephantintheRoom |
Because the PM is not supposed to lie to the queen to satisfy a small minority of extremists in his own party. Basically its treason.
IF/when the case is won Johnson has to resign and a government of national unity will be formed to run the country in the best interests of its citizens. Hence no need for the early election that Tory bluster was seeking in an act of desperation last week. |
Watching it live now and is a complete and utter waste of time.
Case will be found in the Queen / BJ favour as was previously in an English court of law.
Treason hahaha. It is his democratic right as PM to prorogue a parliament that is the longest sitting parliament since 1945. A new PM and cabinet requires it so they can start a new session and set out their legislative agenda after a Queens speech.
If he has timed it to suit an agenda then that is difficult to prove one way or the other.
If the remain camp had the option to prorogue parliament to stop Brexit then you can bet your house on it they would of tried. | |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 13:35 - Sep 17 with 2533 views | Guthrum |
| This court case tomorrow on 10:26 - Sep 17 by Tangledupin_Blue |
I understand the reasons as given for prorogation but can't see justification for the length of it. There is no reason that I can see why parliamentary business should not have continued til Friday. But by proroging early they have reduced the level of scrutiny that they may have been placed under. It is these extra days that the SC must focus on and that Johnson must justify. |
The PM is not bothering to try. | |
| |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 13:43 - Sep 17 with 2530 views | Guthrum |
the government and its supporters are coming up with is that they are a bunch of amateurs trying in a few weeks to find ways around things generations of the cleverest people in British history have spent hundreds of years working through - frequently with the specific purpose of preventing the Executive just doing what it wants.
Most of the obvious loopholes were closed long ago. | |
| |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 13:45 - Sep 17 with 2519 views | giant_stow |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 13:43 - Sep 17 by Guthrum |
the government and its supporters are coming up with is that they are a bunch of amateurs trying in a few weeks to find ways around things generations of the cleverest people in British history have spent hundreds of years working through - frequently with the specific purpose of preventing the Executive just doing what it wants.
Most of the obvious loopholes were closed long ago. |
I take it that either everyone's seen this or it's bollox: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-boris-johnson-leav |  |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 13:50 - Sep 17 with 2498 views | Decoy_Octopus |
| This court case tomorrow on 11:41 - Sep 17 by flimflam |
Watching it live now and is a complete and utter waste of time.
Case will be found in the Queen / BJ favour as was previously in an English court of law.
Treason hahaha. It is his democratic right as PM to prorogue a parliament that is the longest sitting parliament since 1945. A new PM and cabinet requires it so they can start a new session and set out their legislative agenda after a Queens speech.
If he has timed it to suit an agenda then that is difficult to prove one way or the other.
If the remain camp had the option to prorogue parliament to stop Brexit then you can bet your house on it they would of tried. |
It's not pointless at all. If the court finds Boris could do it, so could any PM in tge future. That's what's at stake here. Would you have the same opinion if Jeremy Corbyn was PM had prorogued parliament for the same stated reason.
It's setting precedence like that which worries me. |  | | |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 14:30 - Sep 17 with 2451 views | Guthrum |
MPs pass a bill forcing the Government to implement the deal approved by Parliament, using SO24. Same as they did for the extension one. Even with the ERG, the government don't have the numbers to vote it down.
Can't see Johnson is that desperate for No Deal that he'd turn down a Withdrawal Agreement (e.g. May plus backstop-covering figleaf) which would get through the Commons and allow us to leave on Oct 31st, thus fulfilling his promise. | |
| |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 14:37 - Sep 17 with 2437 views | giant_stow |
| The problem with all these cunning plans on 14:30 - Sep 17 by Guthrum |
MPs pass a bill forcing the Government to implement the deal approved by Parliament, using SO24. Same as they did for the extension one. Even with the ERG, the government don't have the numbers to vote it down.
Can't see Johnson is that desperate for No Deal that he'd turn down a Withdrawal Agreement (e.g. May plus backstop-covering figleaf) which would get through the Commons and allow us to leave on Oct 31st, thus fulfilling his promise. |
Hope you're right (haven't got a clue personally!) | |
| |
| This court case tomorrow on 14:57 - Sep 17 with 2422 views | Swansea_Blue |
Ignore Brexit. This is far more important: it's testing whether the Government have the power to not answer to Parliament. If legally they can't be held to account by the people who represent us, we kiss our parliamentary sovereignty and democracy goodbye. And no the irony that it's brexiteers who have done this after their constant bleating about sovereignty isn't lost on me. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
