Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I think it's more that Thatcher and Blair have beaten down almost anyone with the imagination and hope to think beyond neo-liberalism
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
I think it's more that Thatcher and Blair have beaten down almost anyone with the imagination and hope to think beyond neo-liberalism
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
And now everyone blames Cameron, while the Lib Dems & Greens play the good guys.
Last edited:
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
StephenH
David Ginola
My conspiracy theory thinks Boris's old classmates' fathers will be on the bench today. He will be fine.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Maybe. I think they'll rule this as too political to get involved but it is not 100% clear cut.
StephenH
David Ginola
I think the 'good old boys from the club' will help Boris and the Moggite Tory establishment cabal.
The decision in Scotland was that there was no evidence that he prorogued for any solid reason.
He can simply send JRM an email stating that he thinks he needs to prorogue in order to do everything he needs to do before the Queen's Speech, then prorogue again.
Unlikely - our judiciary is hugely left wing and very Remain biased.
StephenH
David Ginola
Your just saying that to cheer me up!
I knew one some years back he was a good customer, a nice bloke did all the Bloody Sunday review. Mark Saville, he was not at all as you describe.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Green's take is that the Scottish decision hinged on the fact that no-one was willing to sign a witness statement saying the reason for proroguing. He surmised that this is because there is a paper trail stating a different reason (i.e the real reason) and whoever signed it would then be in legal jeopardy. This is probably why Grieve wanted No 10 to hand over private communications on no-deal Brexit. Receipts.
No evidence of a good reason, yes.
The inference being that Johnson can simply provide a good reason and prorogue again.
StephenH
David Ginola
Never has and never will about any given subject.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
No 10 has already given its reason, but will supply no witness to corroborate it. JRM nor anyone else will not put their name to it.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Luka Modric
Given his Trump like teflon nature, I wouldnt bet on it...
Im not sure why there needs to be witnesses or anything like it, to be honest. He made a statement, "I want to prorogue because..." and did it.
Simple as that, surely?
If there are accusations of a more sinister intention, then surely the burden of proof lays with those accusers, and not for the PM to prove otherwise before then?
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
A fair point about Boris.
The Scottish court asked the reason for proroguing which in the normal course of events would have been a dotting the i's exercise. That the government declined to provide this reason in writing (and witnessed) meant that the judges inspected the merits of the case and decided that the stated reasons were dubious. And let's be honest here, they were, and that is one of the arguments being made in the supreme court today. However the battle to be won or lost is not the motive, but where the line is between law and politics.
So the SC declares prorogation to be unlawful. Johnson then does it again in a lawful manner.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Luka Modric
My point is - why would they need to provide a written reason, when the PM stated everything up front in a speech?
Statements already made, a matter of public record. And so its up to the opposition in the case to prove otherwise, surely?
And yes, we all know its Boris pulling a dodgy move - but good luck proving that... And yes, I do actually think he/the Govt shouldnt need to provide a statement, to my eye its been done.
That line between Law and Politics is indeed the interesting part, and for those reasons Im hoping the supreme court fudge this off as none of their business. I think a dangerous precedent is set when legal cases can be brought like this to achieve a political aim.