• 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)

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
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 bought like this to achieve a political aim.
Click to expand...
I assume as this was a court case they required it in writing, though I'm not sure really. I guess there is protocol around this.

As I mentioned the motive is one of the arguments today, though not the substantive one.

As for the dodgy move thing, yep we all know the real reason, but Boris/Cummings may have scored an own goal by having a paper trail related to the real reason. This is supposedly what Grieve was after and why no one will put their name against a witness statement. It would have been better to keep this discussion off the books, so to speak.

Where the legal line is not as clear cut even for constitutional experts. The opinion seems to be that they will likely rule it as a political matter in the end.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
So the SC declares prorogation to be unlawful. Johnson then does it again in a lawful manner.
Click to expand...
He might. That's a political call on his part that actually confirms that he lied to the Queen as to the original reasons. He probably doesn't give a brick about that though.
 
Rorschach said:
He might. That's a political call on his part that actually confirms that he lied to the Queen as to the original reasons. He probably doesn't give a brick about that though.
Click to expand...
I don't think it does at all. It just shows that he didn't have enough evidence to prove he didn't to a court.

That would be entirely in line with most of the decisions most of us make day to day.
 
Scottish judgement 'invents new control over PM'
Dominic Casciani

Home Affairs Correspondent

In written arguments, Lord Keen, acting for the government, says that the Scottish Supreme Court was wrong because its ruling against the suspension of Parliament amounted to the invention of "a new principle of control over the PM".

Lord Keen adds that applying such a principle "would involve the courts entering the political arena".

The PM’s opponents, Lord Keen adds, have not identified an act of Parliament that Boris Johnson has supposedly broken by closing Parliament for five weeks.

What's more, Lord Keen argues the whole court case is academic because Parliament has already been allowed to sit and debate Brexit.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't think it does at all. It just shows that he didn't have enough evidence to prove he didn't to a court.

That would be entirely in line with most of the decisions most of us make day to day.
Click to expand...
The motive for the first prorogation is clear as day. That he has no evidence to prove his stated motive, a lie on the face of it, is the reason why the Scottish court ruled as it did. Doing it twice only serves to highlight the real reason for proroguing in the first place - to stymie parliament.
 
And thats where I have a problem. It should not be up to him to prove his motive, it should be up to those raising the case to prove he was lying.

Seems to me they make an accusation, and suddenly the burden of proof is transferred to the accused, which just sounds wrong to me.
 
The Mirror:
A Liberal Democrat government would introduce a Minister for Happiness and a "well-being budget" using feelings to help make government spending decisions.

The plan, which expands on a policy first introduced by the Coalition government, would see policy decisions judged on how they would impact people's emotions - not just how they would affect the economy.

The party also vowed not to respect even the result of a second Brexit referendum if Leave won again.

Making her first conference speech as leader of the Liberal Democrats , Jo Swinson criticised the obsession with economic indicators like Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the reality of people's lives.

GDP is a indicator economists use to measure the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year.

But Ms Swinson, 39, said that for too long Britain has been "conditioned to believe that as long as GDP keeps growing, everything is fine".

Unveiling plans to gauge the impact of policies on people's moods, she said: “A Liberal Democrat Government will put the wellbeing of people and our planet at the heart of what we do – and this autumn we will set out our own wellbeing budget.

“Others around the world are doing this already.”

Vowing to “fundamentally rethink the purpose of our economy so that it works for people and out planet”, she said the budget will “spell out our priorities for public spending on the things that matter most, both right now and for future generations”.

A similar scheme is already being used in New Zealand, after being introduced by the government of Labour PM Jacinda Ardern.

Ms Swinson, 39, made no reference to a second Brexit referendum in her address – and sources confirmed the party would still fight to be in the EU even if a Leave campaign won another vote.

An insider admitted: “We will never believe our best place is out of the EU.”

The Lib Dems were forced to deny claims they are anti-democratic after overwhelmingly backing a plan to scrap Brexit without a second referendum.


The BBC:

Ms Swinson, who succeeded Sir Vince Cable as Lib Dem leader in July, is expected to add: "The first task is clear. We must stop Brexit. There is no Brexit that will be good for our country.

"Brexit will put lives at risk. Brexit will hurt our economy."


Am I the only one seeing the contradiction?
 
EEqlhDnW4AA8Awf.jpg:large
 
so how does it all play out .Boris has no majority to get anything through?.We can't leave with no deal legally and he refuses to delay brexit.Can the EU kick us out with no deal and or delay it against his will?
 
jabbathehut said:
so how does it all play out .Boris has no majority to get anything through?.We can't leave with no deal legally and he refuses to delay brexit.Can the EU kick us out with no deal and or delay it against his will?
Click to expand...
As the law stands, we leave on Oct 31st.

Some MPs have passed a motion to force the PM to ask for an extension and to give parliament the final say on any extension date. There's a fairly good chance that this is legally unsound. It was also very specific in a number of places and has therefore left a number of loopholes that can probably be manoeuvred through.

It's equally likely that a court would decide that whether or not the PM obeys parliament is non-justiciable - especially on a subject that affects prerogative. It's likely that a court would rule that there is already a remedy in place for this - a vote of no confidence.

If the opposition really wants to avoid a no deal situation then the answer is to hold an election and gain a majority. They know full well that it's impossible with Corbyn in charge though
 
scaramanga said:
As the law stands, we leave on Oct 31st.

Some MPs have passed a motion to force the PM to ask for an extension and to give parliament the final say on any extension date. There's a fairly good chance that this is legally unsound. It was also very specific in a number of places and has therefore left a number of loopholes that can probably be manoeuvred through.

It's equally likely that a court would decide that whether or not the PM obeys parliament is non-justiciable - especially on a subject that affects prerogative. It's likely that a court would rule that there is already a remedy in place for this - a vote of no confidence.

If the opposition really wants to avoid a no deal situation then the answer is to hold an election and gain a majority. They know full well that it's impossible with Corbyn in charge though
Click to expand...

Why would it not be justiciable? It's not preogative as they've passed a law so unless he's found a loophole he'd be committing a crime.
 
P.D. said:
Why would it not be justiciable? It's not preogative as they've passed a law so unless he's found a loophole he'd be committing a crime.
Click to expand...
There already is a remedy for a PM that ignores parliament and it isn't imprisonment. The remedy is a vote of no confidence and has been for centuries.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
And thats where I have a problem. It should not be up to him to prove his motive, it should be up to those raising the case to prove he was lying.

Seems to me they make an accusation, and suddenly the burden of proof is transferred to the accused, which just sounds wrong to me.
Click to expand...


You do spout some nonsense on here. The burden of proof principal only applies in criminal trials. How this has any relevance to a PM subverting parliament is beyond me... but you go on. Most entertaining reading commentary from somebody as far beyond their depth as you are. Lol.
 
Last edited:
Gilzeantoscore said:
You do spout some nonsense on her. The burden of proof principal only applies in criminal trials. How this has any relevance to a PM subverting parliament is beyond me... but you go on. Most entertaining reading commentary from somebody as far beyond their depth as you are. Lol.
Click to expand...

Coming from you that can only be taken as a compliment.

Wonderfully oblivious, arent you?
 
Rorschach said:
The motive for the first prorogation is clear as day. That he has no evidence to prove his stated motive, a lie on the face of it, is the reason why the Scottish court ruled as it did. Doing it twice only serves to highlight the real reason for proroguing in the first place - to stymie parliament.
Click to expand...
The Scottish court asked for evidence of reason and the government didn't provide any. That could be because they didn't want to, it could be because they had other motives or it could be because they only chatted about it and the first item on paper is Boris' "Yes" in the margins.

Sending an email to the cabinet stating the need for time out of parliament and then going back to the queen is just tying off loose ends.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Coming from you that can only be taken as a compliment.

Wonderfully oblivious, arent you?
Click to expand...

Oblivious to what? Clearly not to your ignorant posturings in this thread. State something that's accurate and it will not be ridiculed.
Seriously, don't raise your head above the parapet, if you don't know what you are talking about and need to cry when someone calls you out on it..
 
scaramanga said:
The Scottish court asked for evidence of reason and the government didn't provide any. That could be because they didn't want to, it could be because they had other motives or it could be because they only chatted about it and the first item on paper is Boris' "Yes" in the margins.

Sending an email to the cabinet stating the need for time out of parliament and then going back to the queen is just tying off loose ends.
Click to expand...
The Scottish court asked for someone to put their name to the stated reason in a witness statement. No one would, not even a civil servant, and so the inference drawn from this is to avoid legal jeopardy if it comes out that there is a paper trail describing another reason. Yes there could be an innocent reason why nobody want to stick their name to this, but the legal consensus on twitter is that there is no obvious reason not to do this, so there is probably not.

Anyway the prorogue thing is a side show, nothing more, unless they rule against No.10 which is unlikely.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Oblivious to what? Clearly not to your ignorant posturings in this thread. State something that's accurate and it will not be ridiculed.
Seriously, don't raise your head above the parapet, if you don't know what you are talking about and need to cry when someone calls you out on it..
Click to expand...

Oblivious to all this nonsense.

Im yet to put you on ignore because Im still trying to work out if you know you are trolling or not, its quite fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back