Brexit

The talks and negotiations.

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Brexit

#9221  Postby mrjonno » Sep 12, 2019 1:33 pm

The Executive is really just part of parliament (there is no real separation of powers in the UK). Where does Parliament derive its power from? Basically god/it just does. Parliament can overrule everything judges or the 'people'.

Without a formal constitution you are dealing with traditions and well traditions aren't worth shit in a country where everyone hates everyone else (it's also why the US system doesn't work either anymore as that assumes that everyone is on the same page and will work together)
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 20984
Age: 47
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9222  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 1:49 pm

mrjonno wrote:The Executive is really just part of parliament...


No, the executive is the government. It receives its legitimacy from parliament. Parliament is elected by the people. The UK is a parliamentary democracy. Ergo, it is the courts remit to 'defend democracy' when it comes to ensuring Parliament can exercise its democratically elected oversight of the government.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25030
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9223  Postby ronmcd » Sep 12, 2019 1:59 pm

mattthomas wrote:
ronmcd wrote:The Scottish courts had decided prorogation was legal. The English courts did likewise. The Scottish appeal went to the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session ("founded in 1532, fully 175 years before the Union of the Parliaments brought Scotland and England together in 1707") and they have concluded the advice (as opposed to prorogation) was unlawful.

The English court appeal is to be heard at the Supreme Court, as is the UK Govt appeal. All bundled together, I guess?

The high court never decided that it was legal, they said it wasn't for the court to comment on how government used that power. The Scottish court decided that the court should have a view on it and based on the evidence the advise given to the queen was misleading. So this is gonna go one of three ways

1 - The supreme court will agree with the high court that they have no place to comment
2 - They agree with the Scottish court that they do have a place and that they agree with their findings
3 - They agree with the Scottish court that they do have a place and that they disagree with their findings

Theoretically they could opt for option 4 - They agree under Scots Law that they do have a place and agree with their findings and agree under English Law with the High Court that they have no place to comment. Unlikely, I admit, but possible.

Something else that will be confusing. The UK Supreme Court when hearing Scots Law cases will usually be the Judges from Scotland with Scots Law expertise, likewise hearing English Law cases they will be from English Law. What happens this time I'm not sure.

Tomorrow will be interesting though, the full judgement will be released by the Court of Session, all we've had so far is the summary.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12359

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9224  Postby mrjonno » Sep 12, 2019 2:28 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
mrjonno wrote:The Executive is really just part of parliament...


No, the executive is the government. It receives its legitimacy from parliament. Parliament is elected by the people. The UK is a parliamentary democracy. Ergo, it is the courts remit to 'defend democracy' when it comes to ensuring Parliament can exercise its democratically elected oversight of the government.


There is absolutely nothing (bar possible the ECHR) stopping parliament passing a law scrapping all elections tomorrow (well apart from it not sitting)

Parliament currently allows its selection by the people , but the highest authority is parliament itself not the courts, not the people.

Judges can ensure parliament and/or the executive obey its own laws but I doubt if there is a law anywhere saying 'we are a democracy'.

Everything ticked along fine when most politicians were vaguely not insane and stuck to tradition but its unravelling now
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 20984
Age: 47
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9225  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 12, 2019 11:45 pm

mrjonno wrote:
There is absolutely nothing (bar possible the ECHR) stopping parliament passing a law scrapping all elections tomorrow (well apart from it not sitting)


I don't believe you. Rather, I believe that you are simply writing words that appeal to you, but have no actual factual basis. Whence cometh you by these notions? I expect asking you for a source for any of these ideas is basically pointless, right?

But of course, reality just doesn't work this way. Merely writing sentences doesn't indicate that the resulting meaning of said sentence is true. A credible source on the other hand...

There are dozens of laws that stop Parliament scrapping elections. Theoretically, Parliament could go through reversing and amending all those laws in order to install themselves permanently, but that would require a majority of MPs to all concur with it, which is just not a reality.


mrjonno wrote:Parliament currently allows its selection by the people , but the highest authority is parliament itself not the courts, not the people.


Again, this is wrong. The highest authority with respect to policy and governance is the government, that is, the executive body. However, again, there is oversight of the executive by Parliament, and both play a role in legislation. Well, in the abstract, it's actually the Monarch, but other laws basically make the Monarch's role a rubber-stamp legitimization of the government according to Parliamentary Democracy; remember - it's Her Majesty's Government, not Her Majesty's Parliament. You might want to review some history for that - try 'the English Civil War' and 'The Glorious Revolution of 1688'.

Also, the judiciary can rule against the government, but cannot make laws themselves. It's the outcome of hundreds of years of laws and represents a series of checks and balances to ensure that none of the branches can overstep their remit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system


mrjonno wrote:Judges can ensure parliament and/or the executive obey its own laws but I doubt if there is a law anywhere saying 'we are a democracy'.


You 'doubt' it? How about going and doing a spot of research on it rather than emoting at it? :scratch:

For example, you should at least know that the notion there's 'one law' to say X or Y about so fundamental an element of governing legitimacy is obviously nonsensical in a nation with a legal history going back a thousand years. You should know that many laws interact with each other to form the unwritten constitution of the UK. These include the Bill of Rights 1689, the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, to name just a few of the key ones - could a government or Parliament overturn all of them? In wild speculation land, of course; that's what government & Parliament's remit is, but they're not going to, and they'd never get the numbers to do so. At most they make small amendments because you can't tinker much with the framework or it causes massive knock-on effects.


mrjonno wrote:Everything ticked along fine when most politicians were vaguely not insane and stuck to tradition but its unravelling now


I don't really think it is. I think we've just got a Trump who's ignorant and prepared to engage in stupid tactics to get what they want. But the response by Parliament is pretty damn clear; his own cabinet member has quit, and his brother has publicly distanced himself from the PM. His reign will be short-lived; I don't think there's ever been any PM less suitable or less competent; he simply does not know how British politics works.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 25030
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9226  Postby ronmcd » Sep 13, 2019 7:58 pm

Cameron has a book coming out.

Cameron accuses Johnson and Gove of behaving appallingly over Brexit
In the interview, part of a publicity drive to launch the book, Cameron says the campaign left him feeling like he was caught “in a quagmire”. In his book he calls his former friend Gove “mendacious” and says he and Johnson, now prime minister, behaved “appallingly”.


This is the idiots at the beginning of 28 Days Later letting those infected monkeys out, watching the UK turn into zombie central, and then claiming the monkeys were "mendacious" and behaved "appallingly".
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12359

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post


Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9228  Postby Matt_B » Sep 13, 2019 8:40 pm

Yeah, it's totally their fault that he had no plan for what to do in the event of leave winning.

Well, obviously he did have the plan to retire and write a book about it. Fuck the rest of the country though.
User avatar
Matt_B
 
Posts: 4540
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9229  Postby minininja » Sep 13, 2019 9:45 pm

And to think, we could have had chaos with Ed Miliband.
[Disclaimer - if this is comes across like I think I know what I'm talking about, I want to make it clear that I don't. I'm just trying to get my thoughts down]
User avatar
minininja
 
Posts: 1452

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9230  Postby felltoearth » Sep 14, 2019 1:25 pm

The book should be like one of those greeting cards that play happy birthday when you open it only you hear this.

"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11790
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9231  Postby Fallible » Sep 15, 2019 10:56 am

mrjonno wrote:The Executive is really just part of parliament (there is no real separation of powers in the UK). Where does Parliament derive its power from? Basically god/it just does. Parliament can overrule everything judges or the 'people'.

Without a formal constitution you are dealing with traditions and well traditions aren't worth shit in a country where everyone hates everyone else (it's also why the US system doesn't work either anymore as that assumes that everyone is on the same page and will work together)


You keep trotting out this line that everyone in the UK hates everyone else. It’s not true.
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49348
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9232  Postby zerne » Sep 16, 2019 12:16 pm

ronmcd wrote:
mattthomas wrote:
ronmcd wrote:The Scottish courts had decided prorogation was legal. The English courts did likewise. The Scottish appeal went to the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session ("founded in 1532, fully 175 years before the Union of the Parliaments brought Scotland and England together in 1707") and they have concluded the advice (as opposed to prorogation) was unlawful.

The English court appeal is to be heard at the Supreme Court, as is the UK Govt appeal. All bundled together, I guess?

The high court never decided that it was legal, they said it wasn't for the court to comment on how government used that power. The Scottish court decided that the court should have a view on it and based on the evidence the advise given to the queen was misleading. So this is gonna go one of three ways

1 - The supreme court will agree with the high court that they have no place to comment
2 - They agree with the Scottish court that they do have a place and that they agree with their findings
3 - They agree with the Scottish court that they do have a place and that they disagree with their findings

Theoretically they could opt for option 4 - They agree under Scots Law that they do have a place and agree with their findings and agree under English Law with the High Court that they have no place to comment. Unlikely, I admit, but possible.

Something else that will be confusing. The UK Supreme Court when hearing Scots Law cases will usually be the Judges from Scotland with Scots Law expertise, likewise hearing English Law cases they will be from English Law. What happens this time I'm not sure.

Tomorrow will be interesting though, the full judgement will be released by the Court of Session, all we've had so far is the summary.


This explainer has a variant of your option 4 that is; finds it unlawful under Scottish Law, but not England & Wales, therefore it is rendered unlawful for the UK as a whole.

http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/court-challenges-prorogation

The UK Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for both English law, and Scottish law. Both the English and the Scottish cases are now going to be heard together by the Supreme Court.

Because of the constitutional principles at stake, the UK Supreme Court will probably try to render English public law and Scottish public law consistent, so that the prorogation was lawful in both, or unlawful in both.

However, the Supreme Court could in theory agree with both the English High Court and the Scottish Court of Session, and rule that the prorogation was lawful under English law but not under Scottish law. In that case, the prorogation would be unlawful in the UK overall.
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 46
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9233  Postby GrahamH » Sep 16, 2019 12:26 pm

I see some are suggesting a second prorogation after a vote for a WA is a possible route to no deal avoiding the Benn Bill.
Can we believe BJ that he strongly wants a deal?

His moves so far have put Parliament under extreme pressure to accept a deal if put to them. The Brexiteers are under pressure to avoid another delay. Remainers and all rational MPs are under pressure to avoid no deal. Either the hold their nerve, oppose the deal and hope BJ does get an extension, which is not a sure thing for a couple of reasons, or the take the only deal that seems anywhere close - May's WA maybe with small tweaks.

It puts the proroguing in a different context. Not just to thwart MP's opposing no deal but also creating a new session of parliament in which the old WA could be presented again.

If BJ (or Cummings) is actually shooting for no deal we are screwed.

More from Phil:

Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19921

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9234  Postby zerne » Sep 16, 2019 2:10 pm

GrahamH wrote:I see some are suggesting a second prorogation after a vote for a WA is a possible route to no deal avoiding the Benn Bill.
Can we believe BJ that he strongly wants a deal?

His moves so far have put Parliament under extreme pressure to accept a deal if put to them. The Brexiteers are under pressure to avoid another delay. Remainers and all rational MPs are under pressure to avoid no deal. Either the hold their nerve, oppose the deal and hope BJ does get an extension, which is not a sure thing for a couple of reasons, or the take the only deal that seems anywhere close - May's WA maybe with small tweaks.

It puts the proroguing in a different context. Not just to thwart MP's opposing no deal but also creating a new session of parliament in which the old WA could be presented again.


That does seem likely, the intended No Deal being used more to coerce MPs into actually signing a version of May's Withdrawal Agreement. It doesn't quite line up with alienating 20+ MPs and losing every damn vote however.

GrahamH wrote:If BJ (or Cummings) is actually shooting for no deal we are screwed.


Depending on what happens tomorrow, Parliament may well get some more time to scrutinise Boris' government. :thumbup:
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 46
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9235  Postby GrahamH » Sep 16, 2019 2:40 pm

Also, if his proroguing is ruled illegal he won't be able to do it a second time for even more obviously unconstitutional reasons.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19921

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#9236  Postby GrahamH » Sep 16, 2019 2:44 pm

zerne wrote:
That does seem likely, the intended No Deal being used more to coerce MPs into actually signing a version of May's Withdrawal Agreement. It doesn't quite line up with alienating 20+ MPs and losing every damn vote however.



It is possible that having tried to coerce support and not getting it they had little choice but to follow through with the threats.

It does look like a miscalculation.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19921

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9237  Postby zerne » Sep 16, 2019 3:10 pm

Holy hell. Boris Johnson skips a press conference and the other attendee Luxembourg PM, Xavier Bettel, unloads. Getting cheered on by the crowd. It's all going swimmingly. :D
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 46
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9238  Postby tuco » Sep 16, 2019 3:12 pm

Orderly was the word iirc ;)
tuco
 
Posts: 15250

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9239  Postby zerne » Sep 16, 2019 3:24 pm

To sum up the PMs day. Boris went to the EU meeting in Luembourg. The EU asked for his concrete proposals. He gave them none. Then he skipped the press conference.
Attachments
incredible.PNG
incredible.PNG (15.41 KiB) Viewed 69 times
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 870
Age: 46
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#9240  Postby GrahamH » Sep 16, 2019 3:25 pm

He said that he had pulled out of the joint press conference with Bettel because of the noise. Asked what happened, he said:

I don’t think it would’ve been fair to the prime minister of Luxembourg.
I think there was clearly going to be a lot of noise.
And I think our points might’ve been drowned out.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... atest-news


So says the man who admires Churchill's indomitable spirit and likens himself to The Hulk while calling others "chicken". It's clear as day who the chicken is Boris.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19921

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests