StephenH
David Ginola
What we witnessed last night from ERG and their mouthpiece was pure evil!
The Conservative party have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. A sad day for our Parliament!
-
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)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
What we witnessed last night from ERG and their mouthpiece was pure evil!
The Conservative party have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. A sad day for our Parliament!
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
In a bold rallying cry in the Commons he blasted cowardly Corbyn for avoiding the people - and insisted Parliament would continue to try and block Brexit for as long as they could.
The public don't want another referendum and just want Britain to get on with leaving, he raged, shouting over braying MPs screaming at him to resign.
"We will not betray the people who sent us here!" he stormed.
"We will continue to challenge the opposition parties to uphold democracy.
"This parliament will keep delaying, will keep sabotaging negotiations because they don't want a deal."
"The electorate are being held captive by this zombie parliament and this zombie opposition," he added.
"And he wants the entire country to be held captive in the EU after October 31 at a cost of more than £1billion a month.
"We say no, I say no! Let's get Brexit done and let’s take this country forward."
Boris went on to break with tradition by calling on smaller parties to call a vote of no confidence in him - which could spark the election he desperately wants.
Traditionally only the Leader of the Opposition can do that, but Boris threw down the gauntlet to the SNP and Lib Dems too.
"If the party opposite does not have confidence in the Government, they will have a chance to prove it," he blasted.
"I think the people of this country have had enough.
"Out of sheer political selfishness and political cowardice members opposite are unwilling to move aside and let the people have their say.
"This Parliament must either stand aside... or bring a vote of confidence and finally face a day of reckoning with the voters.
"Will they have the courage to act or will they refuse to take responsibility yet again and do nothing but delay?
"Why would they not? What are they scared of?"
The public don't want another referendum and just want Britain to get on with leaving, he raged, shouting over braying MPs screaming at him to resign.
"We will not betray the people who sent us here!" he stormed.
"We will continue to challenge the opposition parties to uphold democracy.
"This parliament will keep delaying, will keep sabotaging negotiations because they don't want a deal."
"The electorate are being held captive by this zombie parliament and this zombie opposition," he added.
"And he wants the entire country to be held captive in the EU after October 31 at a cost of more than £1billion a month.
"We say no, I say no! Let's get Brexit done and let’s take this country forward."
Boris went on to break with tradition by calling on smaller parties to call a vote of no confidence in him - which could spark the election he desperately wants.
Traditionally only the Leader of the Opposition can do that, but Boris threw down the gauntlet to the SNP and Lib Dems too.
"If the party opposite does not have confidence in the Government, they will have a chance to prove it," he blasted.
"I think the people of this country have had enough.
"Out of sheer political selfishness and political cowardice members opposite are unwilling to move aside and let the people have their say.
"This Parliament must either stand aside... or bring a vote of confidence and finally face a day of reckoning with the voters.
"Will they have the courage to act or will they refuse to take responsibility yet again and do nothing but delay?
"Why would they not? What are they scared of?"
From the Telegraph today:
It's incredibly concerning that a branch of the powers that be can now allocate itself more power.
From the rule of law, to the rule of lawyers
25 SEPTEMBER 2019 • 9:30PM
244
Until 10 years ago, almost to the day, the most senior judges in the land sat in the House of Lords. Along with the government they formed an integral part of parliament, while maintaining their independence. No other country in the world had both its judiciary and its executive embedded within the legislature. The head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor, even sat in the Cabinet.
All that changed when Tony Blair’s Labour government decided, for no obvious reason, to dismantle what had been a perfectly workable, if somewhat haphazard, constitutional settlement.
But if the reason was not obvious, the consequences have subsequently become apparent. It manifestly shifted the balance of powers within the British system, establishing a European style constitutional court which sits uneasily within a common law jurisdiction without a written constitutional code.
How far the centre of gravity has moved was apparent on Monday with the ruling of the Supreme Court to strike down an Order in Council, signed by the Queen, requiring the prorogation of parliament. Such an action would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago.
As Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General said in the Commons today, the court has made new law in this field, effectively arrogating power to itself while clipping the wings of the executive. Lord Sumption, until recently a Supreme Court judge, called the ruling “revolutionary”.
It was never clear what Mr Blair thought he was up to when in 2003 he decided to change this age-old dispensation other than to bend the knee to the fetish of “modernisation”.
The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, was not told of what amounted to an act of constitutional vandalism which included abolishing his 1400-year-old office. It had to be re-instituted, though not as head of the judiciary, when it was realised that dozens of statutes were linked to it.
As Prof Anthony King wrote in The British Constitution (2007): “It was all exceedingly complicated, very hard to explain to foreigners and altogether quaint. But it seemed to work well enough...History was on the side of the existing arrangements”.
But around the turn of the century, King observed a subtle linguistic change in political and legal discourse. Instead of talking about the “government” people increasingly spoke of the “executive” and counterposed this with the concept of “the judiciary”. People began to refer not to a “balance of powers” but a “separation of powers” along US lines.
Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court CREDIT: VICTORIA JONES/PA
The case for a full separation, splitting off the judges from parliament, was reinforced by a European Court of Human Rights ruling McGonnell v UK (2000) which cast doubt on the legal validity of any judicial involvement in the passage of legislation.
Lord Irvine resisted the pressure to change and was sacked. The government abolished the Law Lords and set up a Supreme Court physically removed from Parliament. A suitable base was found across the road from the Palace of Westminster in the Middlesex Guildhall.
The Law Lords were not consulted and were initially sceptical of the change. But when the new body finally began work on Oct 1, 2009 - kitted out in sumptuous ceremonial gowns of gold and black, with the words Supreme Court on the back - it supercharged the judicial activism that was already a recent feature of the country’s political scene.
It is clear that most MPs simply fail to understand how dramatic this change has been because they look at these things so much from a partisan perspective. Labour was thrilled to see the Supreme Court give Boris Johnson a bloody nose but its strictures will apply to them as well should they ever get into power.
Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller speaks outside the Supreme Court in London following the judgment on Tuesday CREDIT: FRANK AUGSTEIN/AP
This innovation, together with the Human Rights Act and the supranational reach of the European Court of Justice, has tipped power away from the Crown and towards the courts and parliament. People may think that is a good thing but it is a change that has happened without any proper debate.
Over the past 40 years, especially since the UK joined the EEC, judges had seen the waning influence of parliament and took it upon themselves to reinvigorate it. For centuries, the UK courts have advanced the cause of liberty; but the growing use of the judicial review and the rise of so-called judicial activism has blurred the boundaries that once separated the three interlocking pillars of our constitution – Parliament, the judiciary and the executive.
Is this transformation into a fully fledged constitutional court, such as that in Germany, what we want? MPs are unlikely to want to unravel the current arrangements while they are seen to work in their favour. But questions of whether judges should be subject to greater scrutiny as happens in America will inevitably be raised.
Labour politicians currently crowing about this week’s ruling may find they are less sanguine when the judges strike down their plans to seize empty homes or close down private schools. We are a country that is, properly, defined by the Rule of Law. But the rule of lawyers is another matter entirely, not least when there is no written constitution against which to assess their decisions
It's incredibly concerning that a branch of the powers that be can now allocate itself more power.
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
The case was only tangentially related to brexit so sticking and childish label on the front to infer a brexit bias doesn't make any sense. However, the leaver SC were right in this instance.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Im still not understanding how, to be honest.
The illegal act was to stop parliament doing what it wants, if I read it right. Seems odd to me, isnt the government supposed to manage the schedule? Is any future prorogation illegal because in effect it stops parliament? They shout "Hey! I wanted to pass laws!" and the government is powerless?
While I understand the nature of parliament is to hold the government to account, rather than just let them push through any law they like, I find the current balance really off. Parliament is actively running against the government, actively holding its position rather than challenging, and now using courts to support that.
I just dont get it. I dont see how it is illegal to prorogue. I dont understand how they can judge the intention of it when their evidence is speculative at best.
If the challenge was against the 5 weeks, Id understand more, thats a rather unusual measure.
But the prorogation itself? Because Parliament (the longest session of parliament ever, I believe) wants to carry on with its agenda?
Parliaments agenda = lawful, the governments = illegal?
I fully accept there are going to be elements to this Im just unaware or not understanding of, but as it stands it just doesnt make sense to me.
And with regard to Brexit, its a key part of it. Put it this way - would things have travelled all the way to the SC, and got the result it did, without that Brexit deadline? If this were just a regular session it would have been laughed out of court...
StephenH
David Ginola
Simply!
It's what your intention is for that action.
If you use your car to drive to work and get around, fine!
If you drive at someone to harm them, not fine!
That's it!
Don't do harm!
Dominic Cummings most probably, 'weaponised' a simple and normally passive procedure.
It's what your intention is for that action.
If you use your car to drive to work and get around, fine!
If you drive at someone to harm them, not fine!
That's it!
Don't do harm!
Dominic Cummings most probably, 'weaponised' a simple and normally passive procedure.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
I know what you mean mate. The fairest way to resolve brexit is not through an election though imo. For example, I do not want a Corbyn government. I don't want a Boris government. The elections are not fought on single issues if you vote either way you get all the non brexit implications of giving either a majority. The best I can personally hope for is a hung parliament which would have us back to where we are now on brexit.
For me, I think if you want to resolve the brexit question, the most representative way is through a new referendum where the choices are brexit with a deal, no deal or remain. It a strategy with lots of Risk but it is probably the fairest way of resolving the question.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
That's not quite right. It is actually the opposite. The SC said that Boris was trying to stop parliament doing what the constitution requires it to do. The government only exists because of the confidence given to it by Parliament.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
And yet even in your example, how do you know someone drove their car with the intent to harm? You dont...
I think an election is exactly what is needed. It will be in effect a referendum anyway, and whoever comes into power off of the back of it (decent majority permitting) does so with a mandate to crack on with business.
Parliament as of today is an absolute joke. It needs something to break the status quo, thats an election and has been for a very long time.
Left to its own devices Parliament will simply carry on doing what it has done the last 3 years, basically fudge all. Kick the can down the road and hope Brexit goes away...
Doing what, exactly?
StephenH
David Ginola
I think the case that it's just an ordenary instance of "a session to an end" is disingenuous as they've done it while 17 bills have still yet to be passed - some of these relate to Brexit preperations aren't even transferrable between parliamentary sessions so how is this a normal scheduled end?
There is also a context of the leadership contest in which Dominic Raab had to eat brick for 15 minutes while everyone else on the panel told him pro-roguing would be a non-democratic move - https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...09/tory-leadership-candidates-condemn-dominic
Since the pro-roguing Ben Wallace was filmed saying it was a politically movtivated move -
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Thanks
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
Proroguing parliament was not ruled unlawful, proroguing parliament for no good reason was. The judgement was on the affect rather than the action. The governments case was that proroguing parliament for political reasons should be allowed. They didn't even argue their motive was valid and effectively ceded that point. The SC saw this as giving the executive a back door to shut down parliament for arbitrary reasons and lengths, a power that could be misused rather easily.
Brexit is the wider context but effectively nothing in this decision has directly changed the current brexit landscape. Indirectly something may now change that parliament is back, but there was no ruling on brexit in this case. The courts were only involved because the government choose to exclude parliamentary interference. I would think the same judgement would have been reached even if the Oct 31st deadline wasn't driving this forward, but maybe not unanimously.
Anyway, it's over and cannot be appealed so that's the final thought cycle I'll spend on it.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Stopping a no deal brexit.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Ukraine thought that after 1991, but empires don't go down quietly.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
And why should that even be valid?
I disagree that they were right. All they have done is enable parliament to make moves against the will of the electorate. Actually two things - that and allocate themselves more power that they didn't previously have without any check or balance.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
I'm not a million miles away from agreeing with you on this, but I still have a fundamental objection to 'remain' getting onto the ballot paper for any future referendum. Remain lost. End of. By all means ask the people in what manner they wish to leave, that's fine. But I just cannot accept a 'leave vs. remain' re-run after all the shenanigans from the losing side since 2016.
I realise that this is just restating a million acres of old ground, but it's how I feel.
Last edited:
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
It does neither of those things IMO, but to be honest I'm past caring enough to argue the point.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
I've already done that.
You presented some fairly short-term data that was conveniently and, in my view, misleadingly cropped to support your argument. I then referred to extended data over a longer term and doing so suggested that it was actually 2015 that was the more unusual level for the pound over the past decade, rather than it's post-referendum level. I then put forward a possible reason for the outlying data.
Simple, no?
Last edited: