Prime Minister Johnson Watch

Well, there it is at last...

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

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#421  Postby I'm With Stupid » Sep 24, 2019 10:25 am

I'm just wondering how he's going to somehow weasel his way out of this one.
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9556
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#422  Postby Alan B » Sep 24, 2019 10:31 am

He was born in New York. Perhaps he should stay there.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9998
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#424  Postby newolder » Sep 24, 2019 10:37 am

When is Boris Johnson's sentence passed and what will be the penalty for this treacherous act?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7303
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#425  Postby GrahamH » Sep 24, 2019 10:37 am

The right decision, but of course the right wing press are stirring unrest.

The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#426  Postby I'm With Stupid » Sep 24, 2019 10:45 am

newolder wrote:When is Boris Johnson's sentence passed and what will be the penalty for this treacherous act?

Image
Image
User avatar
I'm With Stupid
 
Posts: 9556
Age: 36
Male

Country: Malaysia
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#427  Postby mrjonno » Sep 24, 2019 10:48 am

Sadly I doubt the ruling will lose Johnson a single vote. As Trump said he could shoot someone on the streets and his supporters would still be behind him.

Half the country really doesnt care if Johnson is a criminal, if he lies, in fact whether he does anything as long as they get their Brexit.

I personally couldn't help what the brexiter half of the country thinks or feels as long as Brexit is stopped.

That's not a democracy its a cold civil war
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 21006
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#428  Postby newolder » Sep 24, 2019 10:49 am

GrahamH wrote:The right decision, but of course the right wing press are stirring unrest.

The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo


I don't know about unrest but it certainly confuses me. Usurp is to take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force. The only illegal act here is by Boris. :scratch:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7303
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#429  Postby newolder » Sep 24, 2019 10:50 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
newolder wrote:When is Boris Johnson's sentence passed and what will be the penalty for this treacherous act?

Image


I'd consider that over the top but 25 years solitary confinement would suffice.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7303
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#430  Postby ronmcd » Sep 24, 2019 10:52 am

newolder wrote:
GrahamH wrote:The right decision, but of course the right wing press are stirring unrest.

The Supreme Court have sided with usurping Remainers over the people

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... BEsxdl9Dlo


I don't know about unrest but it certainly confuses me. Usurp is to take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force. The only illegal act here is by Boris. :scratch:

And all the court has done is effectively told him to get back to work.
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12991

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#431  Postby Thommo » Sep 24, 2019 10:52 am

ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.


Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

ETA: Turns out the thing I read was actually the full summary.
Last edited by Thommo on Sep 24, 2019 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26981

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#432  Postby Alan B » Sep 24, 2019 10:55 am

It's a serious offence to lie to and mislead Her Majesty.

A treasonable offence, perhaps?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9998
Age: 84
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#433  Postby mrjonno » Sep 24, 2019 11:16 am

Alan B wrote:It's a serious offence to lie to and mislead Her Majesty.

A treasonable offence, perhaps?


I doubt it, lying in politics has never been a crime.
It can a crime in business where you have contract law, but there is no real contract between parliament and the Queen or the people
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 21006
Age: 48
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#434  Postby zoon » Sep 24, 2019 11:30 am

Thommo wrote:
ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.


Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

I'm hazy, but isn't this how the system has always worked? Parliament makes laws, and if the laws are unclear in the particular cases which come up before the courts then judges rule on how they are to be interpreted, filling in gaps if necessary? Parliament can always make new laws which replace the old ones; the judges' decisions only hold for as long as Parliament allows them to, the judges aren't overruling Parliament but only filling in where enacted laws aren't clear in specific cases?
Last edited by zoon on Sep 24, 2019 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3214

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#435  Postby Thommo » Sep 24, 2019 11:38 am

Alan B wrote:It's a serious offence to lie to and mislead Her Majesty.

A treasonable offence, perhaps?


The court didn't rule on whether the queen had been lied to. They explicitly said this in several places, including saying that they did not know what had been said to the queen. E.g.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf
We know that in approving the prorogation, Her Majesty was acting on the advice of the Prime Minister. We do not know what conversation passed between them when he gave her that advice. We do not know what conversation, if any, passed between the assembled Privy Counsellors before or after the meeting. We do not know what the Queen was told and cannot draw any conclusions about it.


I'm not actually sure it is illegal to lie to the queen anyway, but it didn't arise as an issue here.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26981

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#436  Postby Thommo » Sep 24, 2019 11:40 am

zoon wrote:
Thommo wrote:
ronmcd wrote:I think it's more that the Judges felt Parliament was prevented from making decisions, and so they have been returned to their previous status of not being prorogued.


Well, clearly they felt that, as obviously on any occasion that parliament cannot sit it cannot make decisions. I would be surprised if anyone would not spot that.

However, the courts rule on matters of law, and the judgment at least (I have not yet had time to read the full summary) is quite clear that this alone is not unlawful. Their reasoning is that there must be a legal limit on the exercise of prerogative powers for else the system would be undemocratic; that it is the courts' place to decide where such a limit lies and then to determine if a particular exercise lies within those limits.

Having read the judgment statement there is certainly merit in the line of reasoning they used to decide where the legal limit lies (essentially they agree that short prorogations are fine, except in "exceptional" circumstances, an appellation they apply, not unreasonably, to present circumstances, in which they say a suitable justification must be given to make the exercise lawful). Nonetheless it does appear to me that if the court can give themselves authority to create such principles, they will do so again, rather than relying on parliament to fill in the gaps that arise from where parliament has failed to legislate on constitutional matters and finds such gaps lacking.

It does appear that is charting the path society and our systems will take in the future.

I'm hazy, but isn't this how the system has always worked? Parliament makes laws, and judges rule on how the laws are to be interpreted in the particular cases which come up before the courts, filling in gaps if necessary?


That isn't what happened here. Parliament did not make a law, it was a matter of prerogative, convention and constitutional theory and this is precisely the problem. Hence the pursuant suggestion of the need for a full written constitution.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26981

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#437  Postby GrahamH » Sep 24, 2019 11:52 am

Thommo wrote:
That isn't what happened here. Parliament did not make a law, it was a matter of prerogative, convention and constitutional theory and this is precisely the problem. Hence the pursuant suggestion of the need for a full written constitution.


And it was the Prime Minister that broke convention in proroguing for far longer than is usual or necessary without providing a justification. The court has ruled on that constitutional issue. They have not made up a new legal time limit.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#438  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 2:06 pm

mrjonno wrote:Sadly I doubt the ruling will lose Johnson a single vote.


What vote?
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: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#439  Postby GrahamH » Sep 24, 2019 2:20 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
mrjonno wrote:Sadly I doubt the ruling will lose Johnson a single vote.


What vote?


BJ has lost every vote so far in parliament, but this won't affect that. He still seems absurdly popular amongst a large part of the electorate and there's a good chance this will only help him there since it plays nicely into his narrative of the people vs parliament and the establishment.

This may be a battle won but it may loose the war.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Prime Minister Johnson Watch

#440  Postby Spearthrower » Sep 24, 2019 2:56 pm

GrahamH wrote:
BJ has lost every vote so far in parliament, but this won't affect that. He still seems absurdly popular amongst a large part of the electorate...


An electorate that hasn't actually voted for him or against him on anything yet. Polls may suggest a Conservative win, but it's still with a small margin.


GrahamH wrote:...and there's a good chance this will only help him there since it plays nicely into his narrative of the people vs parliament and the establishment.


And if we've learned nothing watching the chaos in the US over the last 2 years in terms of battling exactly this bullshit, then we deserve what we get.

There's no doubt a lot of fucking ignoramuses in the UK, but I'd like to believe that enough can see how disastrous this spin is.


GrahamH wrote:This may be a battle won but it may loose the war.


No, this was a war won. There's no mistaking that at all. This is not a minor skirmish but a major, historic defeat. There may be more wars, but right at this moment, BoJo's been sent scampering off with his tail between his legs. He's still got to convince his own party that he's credible, and given he's sacked a bunch of them, that's not even in the bag. It's entirely possible we could have a new PM before there's a general election.
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: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest