Supreme Court unanimously rules Boris Johnson broke the law.

Goonie · Sep 26, 2019

Francis Drake said:
All party leaders are on record, before the referendum, of stating categorically, that a leave vote would mean being out of the single market, out of free movement of people etc.
They are on record of stating they would fulfil the result of the vote.
The claim that it was just advisory is grossly dishonest spin.

No the claim that it was advisory is absolute, irrefutable fact.

Francis Drake · Sep 26, 2019

MyOwnSockPuppet said:
I'd query the after in that. It was Cameron who started the whole toaster-in-the-bath-level stupid process.

The referendum always was advisory, not binding.
The margin was roughly a tenth of the number of voters who didn't bother to vote.
The vote wasn't for any of the increasingly trainwreck-looking likely outcomes, but "Brexit means Brexit".

The government now has a "majority" of what? Minus 20?

As mandates go it's pretty tepid.

Why don't we have a general election then?

ThievingMagpie · Sep 27, 2019

Francis Drake said:
Why don't we have a general election then?

Because it's a huge waste of time whilst the clock to economic and social calamity is ticking down - remove the risk of no deal and then we can have all the general elections we want.

Nithavela · Sep 27, 2019

ThievingMagpie said:
Because it's a huge waste of time whilst the clock to economic and social calamity is ticking down - remove the risk of no deal and then we can have all the general elections we want.

I would also argue that while brexit is a very important issue for the UK, there are other issues, and having a whole premature election and making it about just one issue is foolish.

Francis Drake · Sep 27, 2019

ThievingMagpie said:
Because it's a huge waste of time whilst the clock to economic and social calamity is ticking down - remove the risk of no deal and then we can have all the general elections we want.

Huge waste of time?
They've already had 3 years!

Goonie · Sep 27, 2019

Francis Drake said:
Huge waste of time?
They've already had 3 years!

And already had one general election. How did that go again?

ToBeLoved · Sep 27, 2019

Goonie said:
And already had one general election. How did that go again?

When the house gets dusty, best to clear away the dust and open the windows to remove the dust.

Pull out the vacuum cleaner and give it a good once over. Dust mites affect breathing. Pesky little critters

ThievingMagpie · Sep 27, 2019

Francis Drake said:
Huge waste of time?
They've already had 3 years!

I know right, 3 years to try and find some version of Brexit which is marketable, which delivers any sort of quality of life improvement on what we had before. It all looked so promising before the referendum, all this talk of dividends and savings, now it's become a farsical race between those that want to deliver something kind of damaging, and those that want to deliver something exceptionally damaging.

Basil the Great · Sep 27, 2019

As if it were possible, things in the UK are almost as bad now as the political mess in the U.S.

ananda · Sep 28, 2019

Goonie said:
Brexit: Bercow says parliament will sit tomorrow after judges rule prorogation unlawful – live news

Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament unlawful, supreme court rules

The queen will be expecting his resignation letter.

After David Cameron the Tories are out competing each other for most incompetent.

Given that the UK is a monarchy, and the government (including the Supreme Court) derives all of its delegated authority from the Crown, and that it was the Crown that assented to prorogation, it is the Supreme Court's ruling that is perhaps unlawful.

Goonie · Sep 28, 2019

ananda said:
Given that the UK is a monarchy, and the government (including the Supreme Court) derives all of its delegated authority from the Crown, and that it was the Crown that assented to prorogation, it is the Supreme Court's ruling that is perhaps unlawful.

No. It is the prime minister s advice that was ruled unlawful.

Nithavela · Sep 28, 2019

Goonie said:
No. It is the prime minister s advice that was ruled unlawful.

Some days I wonder if it wouldn't be the ideal solution fo the Queen just decided that enough is enough and assumed control of the UK.

ananda · Sep 28, 2019

Goonie said:
No. It is the prime minister s advice that was ruled unlawful.

It's interesting to me that the Supreme Court recognized that they didn't know what all of the advice was:

"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"

yet it still somehow ruled that the Prime Minister's advice was unlawful.

Secondly, even if the Prime Minister's advice was unlawful, how does that nullify the Crown's order?

ToBeLoved · Sep 28, 2019

Nithavela said:
Some days I wonder if it wouldn't be the ideal solution fo the Queen just decided that enough is enough and assumed control of the UK.

Do you mean the Queen who has purposely stayed out of politics for her reign should dive right in and practice on the country and see if she gets it right and can help?

During a most pivotal moment in UK history?

I wish I thought of that.

Nithavela · Sep 28, 2019

ToBeLoved said:
Do you mean the Queen who has purposely stayed out of politics for her reign should dive right in and practice on the country and see if she gets it right and can help?

During a most pivotal moment in UK history?

I wish I thought of that.

You have to admit, it would be interesting.

I'm also pretty sure that she knows a lot about politics and just chooses to stay out because in the grand scheme of things, its not her place (and the royals staying out of politics has afforded them a very nice lifestyle for the last century or so).

Goonie · Sep 28, 2019

Nithavela said:
Some days I wonder if it wouldn't be the ideal solution fo the Queen just decided that enough is enough and assumed control of the UK.

The breaking point will be

ananda said:
It's interesting to me that the Supreme Court recognized that they didn't know what all of the advice was:

"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"

yet it still somehow ruled that the Prime Minister's advice was unlawful.

Secondly, even if the Prime Minister's advice was unlawful, how does that nullify the Crown's order?

We'll it is unlawfull then it is by definition not law, so never happened.

ananda · Sep 28, 2019

Goonie said:
We'll it is unlawfull then it is by definition not law, so never happened.

True, but it is my understanding that the Crown can prorogue whenever it wants to, with or without advice, and whether that advice is unlawful or lawful.

Goonie · Sep 28, 2019

ananda said:
True, but it is my understanding that the Crown can prorogue whenever it wants to, with or without advice, and whether that advice is unlawful or lawful.

Clearly not.

Supreme Court unanimously rules Boris Johnson broke the law.

Not so Mystic Mog.

Returning adventurer.

Active Member

our world is happy and mundane

Returning adventurer.

Not so Mystic Mog.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Not so Mystic Mog.

our world is happy and mundane

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

our world is happy and mundane

Not so Mystic Mog.

Early Buddhist

Not so Mystic Mog.

Similar threads