Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
I didn't use the word stop.
Click to expand...
And....? the choice is still that for each MP. If they want to party nothing that parliament did affects that in any way.

If you have tickets for Beyonce and Taylor Swift decides to have a gig on the same night that doesn't impair your ability to see Beyonce. It is not Taylor Swift's fault if you decide you would rather see her and give up your Beyonce Tickets. It is your choice you are free to see who you want.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, I'm not really following. I live a few thousand miles away and no one would describe me as an anglophile.

Why don't the other parties want to suspend for the conference? Are they doing something important? Is it sticking it to the PM? Would having the conference while suspended provide some strategic advantage to conservatives others wish to avoid?


ETA: (Francophile, actually)
Click to expand...

They are the Parliament of a country facing arguably it's greatest crisis since the Second World War. Yes, they are doing something important.
 
Nessie said:
"In centuries past, the Sovereign used the power of prorogation to suit his own purposes, both summoning Parliament so it could authorise taxes, and proroguing it to limit its activities and power."
Click to expand...
The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.

Nessie said:
"On 11thSeptember, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller’s claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect...."
Click to expand...
The words "common law don't appear in that quote.

Nessie said:
"The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a “proceeding in Parliament” which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end."
Click to expand...
The words "common law don't appear in that quote.

Nessie said:
It was the Monarch who had the power to prorogue and as power moved from the Monarch to Parliament, the power moved as well, such that now the Monarch's role is purely ceremonial.

Common law is "the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes."
Click to expand...
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".
 
There was a party political broadcast the Brexit party this evening. Farage complained that May's deal was still giving the EU too much power over the UK and that Johnson is just pushing for something very similar. With time running out I waited with bated breath as to what Farage's plan was.... It turns out he wants a "clean break" so that the UK will get all its power and sovereignty back.

That's it. Farage is selling no deal as if it is a deal. But it is not. There will need to be negotiations to get trade deals, travel, residency, customs etc etc

He is a snake oil salesman.
 
psionl0 said:
The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.
Click to expand...

The quotes explain how proroguing is a law, not a parliamentary procedure (it is justiciable) and how that has developed over time rather than by statute, which is how we get common law.


The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".
Click to expand...

Common law originates with the laws passed by the Monarch. Common law precedes the appearance of Parliament. The introduction of Parliament and its development as the body that passed laws in the country resulted in what we call statutory laws.
 
psionl0 said:
The words "common law" don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The words "common law don't appear in that quote.


The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".
Click to expand...


Is there legislation governing the procedure for prorogation?
 
psionl0 said:
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The exercise of power by the monarch - whether at their own discretion or at the advice of their ministers is the antithesis of "common law".
Click to expand...

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12

It wasn't the 'exercise of power by the monarch' that was found to be unlawful in this case - she just did what she was told - but the government's decision.

"In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law) is the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals."

[SNIP]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mojo said:
Is there legislation governing the procedure for prorogation?
Click to expand...

No. I have already linked to Parliament's own website where it has prorogation under the evolution of Parliament and its short history of how prorogation started "in centuries past" and how it has developed.

Interestingly, the website has prorogation in the section titled "Offices and Ceremonies"

https://www.parliament.uk/about/liv...iament/parliamentwork/offices-and-ceremonies/

That is what was being argued by some Tories, such as Sir Christopher Chope (he of upskirting fame). They did not think proroguing was a law, they thought it was a procedure set by Parliament. But the SC pointed out that proroguing was a power not set by Parliament, it came from the Monarch and as such is justiciable. It is a law created that allows the Monarch to end Parliaments.
 
Nessie said:
There was a party political broadcast the Brexit party this evening. Farage complained that May's deal was still giving the EU too much power over the UK and that Johnson is just pushing for something very similar. With time running out I waited with bated breath as to what Farage's plan was.... It turns out he wants a "clean break" so that the UK will get all its power and sovereignty back.

That's it. Farage is selling no deal as if it is a deal. But it is not. There will need to be negotiations to get trade deals, travel, residency, customs etc etc

He is a snake oil salesman.
Click to expand...

And by sovereignty he means MPs and Judges who will simply nod and go along while Farage and his cronies take a wrecking ball to the economy to help his friends in the City asset strip the UK.
 
Ok let me see... reasons for Brexit.

We save 350m a week.... and lose far more in GDP
We take back control of our borders... but have to leave the land border wide open to comply with the GFA and all thr others the same to comply with WTO rules
We take back sovereignty of our law... and then undermine the judiciary who oversee it and promise to break it when ee dont like what it says.
We take back control from the undemocratic EU ... and our unelected PM suspends our own elected parliament so they wont pass legislation he doesnt agree with
And.... well there was something about vaping and buying carrots from Botswana. And ... well thats about it.
 
And its looking more and more like this thing with Boris wasnt just paying 126k to get his dick wet but rather siphoning off funds to an alt right glee club.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why? they don't have a majority anyway.
Click to expand...

At work I said that I could see it being a problem because if there were some votes during the conference, the government might suffer a humiliating defeat, and that would be um business as usual
 
dudalb said:
Hell, I think it is the greatest constituoinal crisis since The Great Civil War...
Click to expand...

There is a reason why the Scottish Court of Session referred to 17th Century precedent.
 
jimbob said:
There is a reason why the Scottish Court of Session referred to 17th Century precedent.
Click to expand...

Maybe Boris should take damn good look at that honking big statue of Oliver Cromwell outside of the Houses Of Parliament and remember why it is there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom