Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1174277105410088960

1. This is all very unpredictable, but if you are following Supreme Court case the expectation in govt might be shifting a bit

2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but...

3. Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else

4. Obviously has implications for what Johnson may be able to do next - remember in our interview this week he didn’t rule out trying prorogation again
Click to expand...
 
Bunch of totally off topic posts about Trump's intelligence or lack of it, whether he is dyslexic or not moved to its own thread. If you know what you are posting is off topic DON'T POST IT!
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Again, that doesn’t either address what you meant by better or fit your definition of better as “for them to decide themselves”.

What did you mean by “better“?
Click to expand...

From Webster

4: more advantageous or effective
a better solution
5: improved in accuracy or performance
building a better engine
 
"Will we starve after Brexit ?" - rumbles on:

Top retailers are holding what some describe as "clear-the-air" talks with government after a recent row over the impact of no-deal Brexit on the supply of fresh food in particular.

The meeting is the result of a demand from some chief executives to meet the prime minister.

Earlier this month, Michael Gove, his minister in charge of no-deal preparations, told the BBC: "Everyone will have the food they need" and "no, there will be no shortages of fresh food."

That last point was condemned immediately by the industry group, the British Retail Consortium, as "categorically untrue".
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-your-money-49744832
 
Trying to follow the supreme Court this week.

One of the arguments seems to be that it stymies parliament. But how can the court determine that parliament is being stymied if parliament doesn't say it is being stymied? How do you know the will of parliament outside of the results of votes?
 
BobTheCoward said:
One of the arguments seems to be that it stymies parliament.
Click to expand...

No, that's not precisely the argument. Nobody is denying that prorogation prevents parliament from carrying out activities. The argument is that the motivation for doing it was to prevent parliament from acting at a crucial time, and that this was an attempt to over-ride the supremacy of parliament. It's about intent, not effect.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
No, that's not precisely the argument. Nobody is denying that prorogation prevents parliament from carrying out activities. The argument is that the motivation for doing it was to prevent parliament from acting at a crucial time, and that this was an attempt to over-ride the supremacy of parliament. It's about intent, not effect.

Dave
Click to expand...

How do you know parliament doesn't want to be prorogued at this time or is indifferent?
 
BobTheCoward said:
How do you know parliament doesn't want to be prorogued at this time or is indifferent?
Click to expand...

The outrage from the vast majority of MPs and members of the House of Lords when the idea was first floated may have been some clue.

The way that the government went about prorogation - insisting that it wasn't going to happen whilst at the same time advancing plans - was a clear indicator that they knew that Parliament did not want to be prorogued.

edited to add....

Sorry for contributing to the bobbing of the thread :o
 
The Don said:
The outrage from the vast majority of MPs and members of the House of Lords when the idea was first floated may have been some clue.

The way that the government went about prorogation - insisting that it wasn't going to happen whilst at the same time advancing plans - was a clear indicator that they knew that Parliament did not want to be prorogued.

edited to add....

Sorry for contributing to the bobbing of the thread :o
Click to expand...

What is the case history on courts being allowed to impute the intent of parliament from things other than votes?

I don't know why this is considered bobbing. These seem like straightforward questions of law.

ETA: further, where is the proof that it is the vast majority of MPs?
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
What is the case history on courts being allowed to impute the intent of parliament from things other than votes?

I don't know why this is considered bobbing. These seem like straightforward questions of law.
Click to expand...

I did not realise that this was your question - you should have been more specific.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom