Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.

And with a single bound, the UK would be free! :)
 
ceptimus said:
The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened ...
Click to expand...

A court might "pretend" something or other? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain.
 
Greggs are stockpiling pork to ensure continuing supplies of sausage rolls post-Brexit:

High Street bakery chain Greggs is stockpiling pork so that production of its sausage rolls is guaranteed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

"We are preparing for the potential impact of the UK's departure from the European Union by building stocks of key ingredients," the firm said.

Around 20% of a Greggs sausage roll is made from pork.

It has previously said a no-deal Brexit may mean it has to find alternatives for fresh tomatoes and lettuce.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49890034
 
ceptimus said:
The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.
Click to expand...
Another subject on which you are utterly wrong; the penalties for misconduct in public office range up to life imprisonment.
:rolleyes:
 
catsmate said:
Another subject on which you are utterly wrong; the penalties for misconduct in public office range up to life imprisonment.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are jumping ahead. The hypothetical step being taken is a group like parliament seeking relief like with prorogration. I don't think that court can punish or charge a person with a crime.
 
GlennB said:
A court might "pretend" something or other? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain.
Click to expand...
That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened." Here's what the Supreme Court said using more fancy legal language.


Supreme Court said:
This court has already concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.
Click to expand...
 
ceptimus said:
That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened."
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't; it was that it never happened. Parliament was not prorogued, any more than it would have been if a random person had come in off the street shouting "I hereby prorogue parliament." The action of MPs, therefore, in acting as if parliament had been prorogued, was in error, and they had no need to remain absent from the house.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes. That will probably have to change now that this precedent has been set.



Dave
Click to expand...
I think they adequately demonstrated discontent/rejection of the idea with Benn.

Parliament essentially declared they intended to continue exercise of powers in the same period propagation would have suspended them. Ruling the other way would have ETA:resulted in left unresolved a constitutional crisis already taking place.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
No, it wasn't; it was that it never happened. Parliament was not prorogued, any more than it would have been if a random person had come in off the street shouting "I hereby prorogue parliament." The action of MPs, therefore, in acting as if parliament had been prorogued, was in error, and they had no need to remain absent from the house.

Dave
Click to expand...
Yes, but all the MPs missed a week or so of "work", and the lawyers all got paid, so something happened even if the court tries to maintain otherwise. I think "pretend that it never happened" is a more accurate description of their ruling.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
How does that work? How do you know when parliament does or doesn't consent?
Click to expand...

For the most part it comes down to the crown following the advice of the PM. What this ruling says is that if the PM is lying the courts can step in and reverse the prorogation. If there is still doubt at this point Parliament can immediately hold a vote on whether to prorogue or not.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-against-boris-johnson-shrugged-off-by-allies



So, according to Young, not only are the stories true, but it was such common behaviour that it was noteworthy if it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.


I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.
 
lomiller said:
For the most part it comes down to the crown following the advice of the PM. What this ruling says is that if the PM is lying the courts can step in and reverse the prorogation. If there is still doubt at this point Parliament can immediately hold a vote on whether to prorogue or not.
Click to expand...

A) did we ever establish he lied to the queen? I understand he lied to other people?

B) and if he didn't lie it would have gone through?
 
ceptimus said:
That's effectively what their ruling about the proroguing said - "Pretend that it never happened." Here's what the Supreme Court said using more fancy legal language.
Click to expand...
Sigh, no it's not. The judgement meant that the prorogation did not happen.
 
ceptimus said:
Yes, but all the MPs missed a week or so of "work", and the lawyers all got paid, so something happened even if the court tries to maintain otherwise. I think "pretend that it never happened" is a more accurate description of their ruling.
Click to expand...
You think not.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Toby "Daddy Got me into Oxford but I don't think poor people have a right to go to University however talented they are" Young.

I have a general rule that whenever I'm not sure which way to jump on a controversial subject, say "should established adults in the media make personal attacks on a teenager" I look at what Toby "son of Baron" Young says on the issue and do the opposite. It's never let me down so far.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
ceptimus said:
The punishment could be the same as the one handed down for the proroguing - i.e. nothing. The ruling might be to pretend that the refusal to ask for an extension never happened - but unless the EU also agree to unwind the fact that we've left then that ruling would be pointless.

And with a single bound, the UK would be free! :)
Click to expand...

You think a no deal Brexit would be good for the UK??????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom