[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

It's worth just emphasising your implication that the English and N Irish courts didn't clear Boris of lying to the Queen about the reasons for proroguing - they merely said that it was nothing to do with them. Given the welter of evidence about Number 10's real reasons for suspending Parliament one of two things must be true. Either Boris and Rees-Mogg continue the 'leave the truth at home' when they speak to the Queen or, alternatively, the Queen is a party to the plot to silence parliament.

the number of reasons may not be a concern of the Supreme Court, if they conclude there was one valid reason within the law.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The Supreme Court could possibly do both. They could conclude obiter dicta that the Scottish reasoning was correct (ie: Johnson was doing it for the wrong reasons and telling porkies about it), but that it is a political matter to resolve not a legal matter.

The Scottish court came to the view that the government was lying about the reasons for prorogation, and that that was a legal matter.

I assume that if the Supreme Court came to the view that it was NOT a legal matter then it would regard as irrelevant the issue of whether or not the government was lying; the government's behaviour in this matter would not form any part of its published conclusion.

In these circumstances the government would have got away with it. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court's conclusion is as you describe in your post then the government, whilst relieved that it had escaped legal censure, would find itself at the end of a judgement by the highest court in the land that it apparently lied to the Queen. That would be politically awkward to put it mildly.

I'd appreciate your view - I think you know more about this than I do.

 

[Dick Head]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You might want to preach that to Plooks.

What makes you think I haven't said something to Plooks?

Your post sounds like a child saying, but what about him, Miss, have you told him?

A near-exclusive gathering of the middle-upper classes Waitrose set shows where their true loyalties lie shock but not many EU flags out in Hyde Park amongst the Great British Patriotic public, plenty of these though ...

I have both and like both flags. I salute the Union flag (about to be ripped apart by Brexit) and like the unity of the EU flag.

 

[theonlymikey]

I just don't understand how a political process can be beyond judicial review.

Unless there's specifically already a law that determines political decisions cannot be judicially reviewed then surely the courts cannot rule it cannot be judicially reviewed.

Political cases go to to court all the time they're just not public knowledge like these Brexit cases are.

Anyways, as a layman without any legal training, I'd be of the impression ruling an executive can shut down parliament without ability for scrutiny sets a dangerous precedent.

Which ruling was it that advised extremely long periods of prorogation would be illegal? I can't keep up.

And if true their opinion in that ruling was correct , then if 5 weeks is deemed lawful, then how long isn't lawful?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 2719]

As clear as mud. Still stalking Watford you sad man?

I have decided to ignore the insulters as they are clearly in a difficult place and Watford does do a lot of Stalking.

Perhaps he is lonely.

 

[beorhthelm]

I just don't understand how a political process can be beyond judicial review.

because you are starting from a position of bias. the courts try not to, they look at the law not what people/politicans opinions are. example, its quite popular to say bring back hanging, but we have removed that in law so a judges can not give that sentance in any case no matter how much public outcry. political cases do not go to court, cases raise objections based on whether the law was followed, if a minister acted within their powers. in the case of prorogation the PM has power to close parliament for the purpose of preparing for another parliamentry session. the question for a court is has he acted within this power, not why he has acted. it shouldnt have been done this way, it does set an unfortunate precedent, and parliament should ensure this power is better exercised with new law.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I just don't understand how a political process can be beyond judicial review.

Unless there's specifically already a law that determines political decisions cannot be judicially reviewed then surely the courts cannot rule it cannot be judicially reviewed.

Political cases go to to court all the time they're just not public knowledge like these Brexit cases are.

Anyways, as a layman without any legal training, I'd be of the impression ruling an executive can shut down parliament without ability for scrutiny sets a dangerous precedent.

Which ruling was it that advised extremely long periods of prorogation would be illegal? I can't keep up.

And if true their opinion in that ruling was correct , then if 5 weeks is deemed lawful, then how long isn't lawful?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I'm not too bright (I know: I should be a Brexit supporter but I'm not) so I'm not going to enter into any of the finer points of law. Instead I'm taking a 'statistical probability' approach to whether Johnson lied to HRM (and everyone else).

I start from this assumption which is thoroughly researched: for every 100 times Johnson says anything, he lies on average 87.45 times.
Thus there is an 87.45% chance that he lied on this occasion.
That's good enough for me: guilty - lock him up.

On a more serious point, Cameron's (remember him?) character assassination of Johnson (withering) and Gove (blistering) makes for fab reading for some of us. Thanks, Dave.

 

[Bodian]

The Scottish court came to the view that the government was lying about the reasons for prorogation, and that that was a legal matter.

I assume that if the Supreme Court came to the view that it was NOT a legal matter then it would regard as irrelevant the issue of whether or not the government was lying; the government's behaviour in this matter would not form any part of its published conclusion.

In these circumstances the government would have got away with it. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court's conclusion is as you describe in your post then the government, whilst relieved that it had escaped legal censure, would find itself at the end of a judgement by the highest court in the land that it apparently lied to the Queen. That would be politically awkward to put it mildly.

I'd appreciate your view - I think you know more about this than I do.

Not sure I know more - does anyone really know anything about Brexit?! However, I do deal with a lot of case law in my job. Where a judge has actually given a full decision, it forms a precedent, and generally has to be followed by the lower courts. However, they quite often pass other comments, obiter dicta ('in passing' or 'by the way'), which whilst not binding do give a strong indication of what they were thinking on that particular aspect - and are then often quoted in subsequent cases on the same issue, even though it wasn't part of the actual decision. If that makes sense?

Also, they sometimes rule on the first point of the appeal (and grant it), which means that all subsequent points of appeal are now irrelevant. But judges will often then pass comment on them - even though they do not have to.

The Scottish decision was interesting, because all the judges had to say was 'Govt. lied, legal matter'. But they went further in the way they described it as egregious. They didn't need to say this, it wasn't relevant - but they did, and it strengthens and helps explain their decision.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's worth just emphasising your implication that the English and N Irish courts didn't clear Boris of lying to the Queen about the reasons for proroguing - they merely said that it was nothing to do with them. Given the welter of evidence about Number 10's real reasons for suspending Parliament one of two things must be true. Either Boris and Rees-Mogg continue the 'leave the truth at home' when they speak to the Queen or, alternatively, the Queen is a party to the plot to silence parliament.

It has to be one of the two. I know which I think the more likely. I suspect that you agree with me that it's the former. The difference between us is that you don't think it matters very much.

I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court will disagree with the Scottish court. If it doesn't it's judges will come under sustained personal attack from the Sun, Mail, Express and other beacons of the Brexit cult.

They told her they'd get her her Empire back. Who could resist that?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not too bright (I know: I should be a Brexit supporter but I'm not) so I'm not going to enter into any of the finer points of law. Instead I'm taking a 'statistical probability' approach to whether Johnson lied to HRM (and everyone else).

I start from this assumption which is thoroughly researched: for every 100 times Johnson says anything, he lies on average 87.45 times.
Thus there is an 87.45% chance that he lied on this occasion.
That's good enough for me: guilty - lock him up.

On a more serious point, Cameron's (remember him?) character assassination of Johnson (withering) and Gove (blistering) makes for fab reading for some of us. Thanks, Dave.

I have described Dave as our second worst ever PM after Chamberlain (and his little piece of paper). Perhaps Dave simply has the fault of trusting people (including Boris the Liar, who he has known since university, back-stabbing dick - and despite the plummy tones he doesn't even speak English properly). Anyway, Boris is already a shitter pm than Dave. Only gammon trust him. Sadly there seems to be a **** of a lot of gammon on our streets.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

1. It never said that. Just the ones that defend the Nazi views on here. Clearly there are sensible mods as the offending posts have been editied.
2. You only call me an idiot as you are a scared little snowflake who can't face the future and cope with change. You want your little eu free safe space where you can **** off at how amazing you think the uk is while shitting on the poor.

Reading that I can't work out whether you are leaver or a brexitter. Seriously. WTAF?

 

[theonlymikey]

because you are starting from a position of bias. the courts try not to, they look at the law not what people/politicans opinions are. example, its quite popular to say bring back hanging, but we have removed that in law so a judges can not give that sentance in any case no matter how much public outcry. political cases do not go to court, cases raise objections based on whether the law was followed, if a minister acted within their powers. in the case of prorogation the PM has power to close parliament for the purpose of preparing for another parliamentry session. the question for a court is has he acted within this power, not why he has acted. it shouldnt have been done this way, it does set an unfortunate precedent, and parliament should ensure this power is better exercised with new law.

That's exactly where my argument has come from. No matter what the political opinion of judges, they can only rule on law. Therefore, it's necessary to understand why judges feel a political process such as prorogation is beyond judicial review. They can only legally rule it's beyond judicial review it should be based on law.

The decision itself can absolutley be "the prorogation not unlawful" as it's a matter of interpretation. However, refusing to take evidence and instead saying they won't judge it is a completely different matter.

As I said Judges have ruled a permanent prorogation or one that lasts too long is unlawful. So my question is, who decides what is too long?



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

I have decided to ignore the insulters as they are clearly in a difficult place and Watford does do a lot of Stalking.

Perhaps he is lonely.

Well I'm, sure we can rely on you to ignore 'the insulters' as you've proven yourself to be a man of your word numerous times

Okay I will refer you to this post when the blood is spilt, shouldn't be too many days away.

If you goad me, Watford, I will be in your face every minute of every day.
Your choice.

In the meantime perhaps we should all take a week off of this thread, I am.

I said I would leave this thread alone this week but I just wanted to post this and you need to look back and think, are you becoming hysterical like konnie over project fear.

Are you two profs in disguise ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

1. It never said that. Just the ones that defend the Nazi views on here. Clearly there are sensible mods as the offending posts have been editied.
2. You only call me an idiot as you are a scared little snowflake who can't face the future and cope with change. You want your little eu free safe space where you can **** off at how amazing you think the uk is while shitting on the poor.

:safeway: We are an angry little bunny aren't we. Your ban clearly didn't teach you anything. As for me not being able to "cope with change" …. err …. I hate to point it out that I voted for change ….. it is you my little Plooks that's moaning his arse off about said change.

 

[WATFORD zero]

:safeway: We are an angry little bunny aren't we. Your ban clearly didn't teach you anything. As for me not being able to "cope with change" …. err …. I hate to point it out that I voted for change ….. it is you my little Plooks that's moaning his arse off about said change.

And what did this little bunny think he was voting for, when he voted for 'change' then ?

 

[Fungus]

And what did this little bunny think he was voting for, when he voted for 'change' then ?

Crux of the whole matter. People are unhappy, and just want "change" - something different from whatever reality at the time. They only know what they don't like, but have no concept of what could improve their life. Same reason Trump got in.

 

[lawros left foot]

Not sure I know more - does anyone really know anything about Brexit?! However, I do deal with a lot of case law in my job. Where a judge has actually given a full decision, it forms a precedent, and generally has to be followed by the lower courts. However, they quite often pass other comments, obiter dicta ('in passing' or 'by the way'), which whilst not binding do give a strong indication of what they were thinking on that particular aspect - and are then often quoted in subsequent cases on the same issue, even though it wasn't part of the actual decision. If that makes sense?

Also, they sometimes rule on the first point of the appeal (and grant it), which means that all subsequent points of appeal are now irrelevant. But judges will often then pass comment on them - even though they do not have to.

The Scottish decision was interesting, because all the judges had to say was 'Govt. lied, legal matter'. But they went further in the way they described it as egregious. They didn't need to say this, it wasn't relevant - but they did, and it strengthens and helps explain their decision.

Good to have an expert on here, although I’m not sure leavers like experts.

Did I imagine hearing/ reading that the Scottish court had seen more evidence than the English court, but that the Supreme Court would see everything?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well I'm, sure we can rely on you to ignore 'the insulters' as you've proven yourself to be a man of your word numerous times









Are you two profs in disguise ?

I can only ready your bits. Somehow that make's the post even better.

 

[birthofanorange]

Crux of the whole matter. People are unhappy, and just want "change" - something different from whatever reality at the time. They only know what they don't like, but have no concept of what could improve their life. Same reason Trump got in.

I 'get' that, I really do, but what I struggle with is the fact that many folk on here (including me) were not aware of this anti-EU feeling before this damn referendum. I genuinely could count on one hand, the number of times in the last decade, that anyone I know has mentioned any kind of gripe about being in the EU. Seriously.
It's like some mutant gene has been triggered, and previously sensible people have become almost rabid/obsessed.