Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting post, McHrozni, but I'd bet this latest scandal is more to do with his inability to keep it in his trousers. I think it was Max Hastings (his boss for several years) who described Johnson as having the morals of an alley cat. There can't be many world leaders whose wiki entry gives their number of children as "5 or 6".
 
Pixel42 said:
Interesting post, McHrozni, but I'd bet this latest scandal is more to do with his inability to keep it in his trousers. I think it was Max Hastings (his boss for several years) who described Johnson as having the morals of an alley cat. There can't be many world leaders whose wiki entry gives their number of children as "5 or 6".
Click to expand...

No, I'm rather sure he didn't illegaly prorogue Parliament in order to produce or hide yet more children :)

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Well, the Supreme Court mainly debated about how to deal with an illegal prorogation. It didn't debate much whether the government had a case or not, it clearly misled the queen. They must treat carefully, because this will be a precendens by which the country will run from here on. They're basically writing down a moment in constitutional history. It is a solemn occasion, what they do today (or later this week) may be taught to children in the civic class a century from now, as one of the constitutional foundations on which British democracy (or otherwise) stands.

The only proper way to go is to declare BJ guilty of lying to the queen and order his immediate arrest and trial for misconduct in public office (his guilt is predetermined, but he needs a trial anway), or something of that nature.

The Misconduct in public office offence is committed when:

- a public officer acting as such;
- wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself;
- to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder;
- without reasonable excuse or justification.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/misconduct-public-office

I argue misleading the queen on prorogation of Parliament scores at least four out of four. Possibly more, since it scores at least double on some of those lines. All that is left is to determine the length of the sentence, the maximum is life in prison, which seems appropriate. Follow the procedure in place for the eventuality of a PM that dies on office.

There is a procedure that gives a new PM in case the old one snuffs it, right?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I imagine it will be much less controversial than this. The absolute most I'd expect is for an order for MPs to be recalled, and I wouldn't exactly bet a huge amount of money on that.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I imagine it will be much less controversial than this. The absolute most I'd expect is for an order for MPs to be recalled, and I wouldn't exactly bet a huge amount of money on that.
Click to expand...

I'm saying what should be done. BJ already suggested if that's what happens, he'll just prorogue Parliament on more sound legal grounds. If that stands the court basically said it's no big deal to illegaly prorouge Parliament. If the prorogantion is deemed unlawful it can just be done again, with a better reason. This would mean, essentially, the PM is allowed to prorogue Parliament at will, especially if (s)he wants to stop the institution from passing laws the PM doesn't want passed. That may amount to a veto power or sorts.

This is a problem. It's not something that can be solved by just recalling the MPs and leaving it at that. UK is ruled by precendens, there is no precendens for this situation. The judges must do it right.

McHrozni
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The difference being that the UK government is prepared to stand up to Johnson.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Con MPs have voted in significant numbers against their own government and many are outspoken in public. I can't see much of a parallel here with the GOP, who seem devoted to defending their power no matter how much hypocrisy is involved.
 
Arcade22 said:
I think Corbyn has never really changed his mind about how leaving the EU would be a good thing. He only wants to turn the UK into a socialist utopia, where coal mines and steel mills are kept running no matter what, and there's no unemployment because all industry is subsidised by the state.
Click to expand...

God damn communists.
 
If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters. His promiscuity and self serving dishonesty have been public knowledge for decades. The message for future politicians is that any behaviour however abhorent can be balanced by being slightly self depreciating, in a suitably patronising way, on HigNfY. It even worked for Rees-Mogg and when I look at him I almost believe David Icke.
 
GlennB said:
Agreed. Con MPs have voted in significant numbers against their own government and many are outspoken in public. I can't see much of a parallel here with the GOP, who seem devoted to defending their power no matter how much hypocrisy is involved.
Click to expand...

I think this is (in part) because British constituencies are far smaller than their American counterparts. UK has ~650 MPs for 66 million people, USA has 435 Congressmen for 320 million people.
The second factor is that USA only has two viable parties, but UK has several - three nation-wide (Tory, Labor, LibDem) and several more local ones (DUP, SNP, Cymru, SinnFenn).

It's not that Tories are fundamentally better people than Republicans, no. The nature of the British democracy is such that the country is inherently more resillient to such abuses of power.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
I'm saying what should be done. BJ already suggested if that's what happens, he'll just prorogue Parliament on more sound legal grounds. If that stands the court basically said it's no big deal to illegaly prorouge Parliament. If the prorogantion is deemed unlawful it can just be done again, with a better reason. This would mean, essentially, the PM is allowed to prorogue Parliament at will, especially if (s)he wants to stop the institution from passing laws the PM doesn't want passed. That may amount to a veto power or sorts.

This is a problem. It's not something that can be solved by just recalling the MPs and leaving it at that. UK is ruled by precendens, there is no precendens for this situation. The judges must do it right.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

It's a tightrope, though, because the courts are explicitly not allowed to be political. The only people who can actually change the rules on prorogation is parliament.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's a tightrope, though, because the courts are explicitly not allowed to be political. The only people who can actually change the rules on prorogation is parliament.
Click to expand...

The reason why we're having this debate at all is because BJ advised the queen to prorogue Parliament and several MPs thought he lied to her for the reason. Assuming the court agrees with MPs and judges the prorogation to have been illegal, they absolutely must declare severe consequences for the PM - or else the PM can use prorogation irrespective of legality.

The easy way out is judge PM did not lie to the queen, thus avoding the question altogether. However since most debate was alledgedly not whether or not the claim is factual but how to deal with it that doesn't seem to be all that likely.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
P.J. Denyer said:
If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters.
Click to expand...

As has already been said in this thread, the first rumblings of the big scandal came out after the Jennifer Arcuri story was front page news, so it's not what's already in the public domain. There are rumours that it's connected, but is concerned with information that isn't yet public, and which is much worse.

Whether it deserves all the hype is a question we won't know the answer to until we find out what it is, but it's definitely not just that he gave his girlfriend money from the public purse.
 
McHrozni said:
The reason why we're having this debate at all is because BJ advised the queen to prorogue Parliament and several MPs thought he lied to her for the reason. Assuming the court agrees with MPs and judges the prorogation to have been illegal, they absolutely must declare severe consequences for the PM.
Click to expand...

We'll see. The court will be aware of how historic this ruling is going to be, and will be as careful as they possibly can be.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
If the new scandal is Boris spending public money to ferry his spare girlfriend around and giving her access she shouldn't have I doubt it will even phase his supporters. His promiscuity and self serving dishonesty have been public knowledge for decades. The message for future politicians is that any behaviour however abhorent can be balanced by being slightly self depreciating, in a suitably patronising way, on HigNfY. It even worked for Rees-Mogg and when I look at him I almost believe David Icke.
Click to expand...
Or simply being shameless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom