Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There is no logic or reason any more (what little there was, beyond "blindly believing everything Nigel Farage said" or "wanting to keep the darkies out"), it's just a "side" that people have picked and now feel committed to.
Click to expand...

I suspect that, cognitive dissonance being what it is, the less justification for Brexit there is, the more its supporters will harden their committment to it. By this stage, at least, when all the original arguments have been revealed to be specious.

Dave
 
Garrison said:
And to think a few weeks ago we had people telling us this was all a positively Machiavellian plan that would deliver a No Deal Brexit and an election victory that would put Johson in Number 10 for the next 5 years. Now he'll be lucky to last 5 days.
Click to expand...

That was Johnson's cunning plan yes. But he didn't exactly give it more thought and effort than he gives anything else.
 
catsmate said:
Then Cox should also resign, in addition to BoJo. Of course that would require integrity, something that Geoffrey Cox has abundantly demonstrated he lacks.
Click to expand...

And Cummings, and Rees-Mogg. But they won't.

In fact, they may try to turn this to their advantage - force a vote of no confidence, thereby trigger a general election, and campaign on the fact that the Supreme Court decision is another instance of the rich, Remain establishment trying to thwart the Will Of The People, which is what Boris "everyman" Johnson is trying to carry out.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And Cummings, and Rees-Mogg. But they won't.

In fact, they may try to turn this to their advantage - force a vote of no confidence, thereby trigger a general election, and campaign on the fact that the Supreme Court decision is another instance of the rich, Remain establishment trying to thwart the Will Of The People, which is what Boris "everyman" Johnson is trying to carry out.
Click to expand...

This is something that still amazes me. How can the opposition not tear the 'everyman' image apart? You can hardly get more rich establishment than BJ and Rees Mogg.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
This is something that still amazes me. How can the opposition not tear the 'everyman' image apart? You can hardly get more rich establishment than BJ and Rees Mogg.
Click to expand...

We Brits love a toff, especially one who pretends to stoop to our level every now and then.:mad:
 
Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?

Under Australia's constitution, the Governor General has sole discretion over parliamentary sitting times. Whether he takes the advice of the Prime Minister or not is just a matter of convention.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
There was a diabetic guy on the news the other day who was asked whether he still supported Brexit, even though it meant that he might die due to lack of insulin. He said yes, because it was what people had voted for.

There is no logic or reason any more (what little there was, beyond "blindly believing everything Nigel Farage said" or "wanting to keep the darkies out"), it's just a "side" that people have picked and now feel committed to.
Click to expand...


I’ve just seen Boris saying that it is “the will of the people” for the U.K. to leave the EU on 31at October. When did we vote on that?
 
Mojo said:
I’ve just seen Boris saying that it is “the will of the people” for the U.K. to leave the EU on 31at October. When did we vote on that?
Click to expand...

When the referendum result came in.

The question was so indistinct that we voted for whatever kind of Brexit on whatever date our political masters deign to give us.
 
psionl0 said:
Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?

Under Australia's constitution, the Governor General has sole discretion over parliamentary sitting times. Whether he takes the advice of the Prime Minister or not is just a matter of convention.
Click to expand...

The decision wasn't about when Parliament gets suspended, it was about for what reasons and for how long.
The SC didn't curtail the power of the PM, it affirmed the power of the House.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The decision wasn't about when Parliament gets suspended, it was about for what reasons and for how long.
The SC didn't curtail the power of the PM, it affirmed the power of the House.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer the question. Is there some act that specifies what reasons are valid? Is there an act that permits the SC to overrule the Queen?
 
psionl0 said:
Reading the reasons for the Supreme Court ruling, it seems that they are all political.
Click to expand...

They're about politics, but that doesn't mean they're political. The key reason was that Johnson used the prorogation to frustrate the constitutional right of parliament to rule, without there being a good reason to do so.

Does anybody know if there were any LEGAL grounds to the Supreme Court decision. Is there an act of British parliament that places limits on when the Queen can suspend or prorogue parliament or that places limits on what advice the Prime Minister can give to the Queen?
Click to expand...

No. This has been an unprecedented situation, and any ruling was always going to add to the constitution. Parliament has always operated on a sort of "gentleman's agreement", where it's assumed that everybody involved is going to be fair and will put the interests of the country and democracy above personal interests. That this is not true is unprecedented and, as it's unprecedented.

To boil it down to its most basic level, the decision was always basically going to be one of two things - that there must be a good reason to rob parliament of its ability to govern, or that the Prime Minister can thwart any legislation he or she wants to or avoid scrutiny on any issue whatsoever simply by proroguing parliament. The Supreme Court ruled, quite rightly in my opinion, that the former is correct according to the spirit of the constitution.
 
Oh, also: Section 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament"

Johnson impeached the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament from out of Parliament. And without good reason.

Whether or not there's a law that establishes what is or is not a good reason is irrelevant, because the government didn't provide a reason to the court. Their defence literally didn't include any reason why the prorogation was so unusually long, or at such a time of crisis.
 
Or to put it another way, which law, specifically, has Boris been found guilty of breaking?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Oh, also: Section 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament"

Johnson impeached the freedom of speech and debates and proceedings in Parliament from out of Parliament. And without good reason.

Whether or not there's a law that establishes what is or is not a good reason is irrelevant, because the government didn't provide a reason to the court. Their defence literally didn't include any reason why the prorogation was so unusually long, or at such a time of crisis.
Click to expand...

But the brexit vote was clearly to restore all sovereignty to the true leader of all England Boris Johnson, the Sovereign of All England. It was to get rid of the constitutional part of the monarchy and go back to the divine right of kings under the new king. None of this parliament BS.

It was subtle but clear in the pamphlet I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom