Brexit

[towny44]

I have never been a fan of Dickens, but the quotation by his Mr Bumble has always struck me as being most apt.
The law sometimes really is an ass.

[barney]

I think that in this case the law was 100%correct
Johnson had no need to do what he did.

I also think that the judges would have made the same decision irrespective of brexit.

It was a matter of law not of brexit.

[towny44]

I think that in this case the law was 100%correct
Johnson had no need to do what he did.

I also think that the judges would have made the same decision irrespective of brexit.

It was a matter of law not of brexit.

On a very narrow legal basis you are probably correct, but I would like to see a more rounded law that takes in all the factors leading to the dispute in question, in which case the original high court decision seems to me the more valid. When 2 parties are at loggerheads over something it seems more sense for the law to defer making a judgement at all, whilst Boris was clearly using the shutdown of parliament to stymie discussion, its also a plain fact that parliament has been using its inbuilt remain bias in an equally dishonest way to prevent the govt. from following through on the referendum result. All the supreme court has done is judged Boris, and not his reasons for taking the action, by refusing to consider Brexit the supreme court has delivered a biased verdict, in my very humble opinion.

[barney]

We'll agree to disagree John.

I think that you are conflating two separate issues here.

The supreme court was only asked to adjudicate on whether it was correct and legal to shut down parliament, not about brexit.

Johnson had absolutely no need to do it at all.
The suspension of Parliament during conference has always happened. I think he has been badly advised.

[david63]

the shutdown of parliament to stymie discussion

Unless I have missed something what is there to discuss anyway apart from "the same old same"?

[oldbluefox]

Time to let the people decide and end this pantomime of a parliament. We need a General Election.

[colin parry]

Looks like No 10 has thrown the Attorny General under the bus! A convenient leak?

[Mervyn and Trish]

Maybe Bojo could appeal in the European Court

Meanwhile what will parliament now do? They've already rejected Theresa's deal, no deal and in the indicative votes every other sort of deal.

They've also rejected a general election.

[Stephen]

The 'people' should put forward a no confidence vote in the Tory party and have them removed.

[barney]

Maybe Bojo could appeal in the European Court

Meanwhile what will parliament now do? They've already rejected Theresa's deal, no deal and in the indicative votes every other sort of deal.

They've also rejected a general election.

Not quite Merv.
Parliament voted by majority for the Brady ammendment.
That is, the UK EU proposal without the Irish border backstop.
That appears to be what Johnson is hoping for, or very similar.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Sorry Barney. Missed that one. So I wonder what they'll do if he gets anywhere near it.

[Gill W]

I think that in this case the law was 100%correct
Johnson had no need to do what he did.

I also think that the judges would have made the same decision irrespective of brexit.

It was a matter of law not of brexit.

On a very narrow legal basis you are probably correct, but I would like to see a more rounded law that takes in all the factors leading to the dispute in question, in which case the original high court decision seems to me the more valid. When 2 parties are at loggerheads over something it seems more sense for the law to defer making a judgement at all, whilst Boris was clearly using the shutdown of parliament to stymie discussion, its also a plain fact that parliament has been using its inbuilt remain bias in an equally dishonest way to prevent the govt. from following through on the referendum result. All the supreme court has done is judged Boris, and not his reasons for taking the action, by refusing to consider Brexit the supreme court has delivered a biased verdict, in my very humble opinion.

These days, I don’t often agree with Barney on this thread, but I do here.

The decision was a point of law and not about Brexit. If the action taken by Johnson and his government was found to be lawful, it would have set a dangerous precedent. In future, any rogue executive could have attempted to force any action through by proroguing Parliament- we’d have been well on the way to a dictatorship.

Johnson clearly stated that his reason for the prorogation were to ‘get a Queen’s speech’ and nothing to do with Brexit. You seem to imply that his reasons for taking the prorogation action were Brexit related. Which is a tacit acknowledgment that he lied about his reasons- therefore the Supreme Court reached the correct decision.

We now have a situation where the highest court in the land has found that Johnson has acted unlawfully. In any normal time, this would be a matter for immediate resignation, yet he’s acting as if nothing has happened. If he had a shred of decency left in him he would have resigned - but we know he has no decency at all. Ah well, if this doesn’t bring him down, there’s bound to be another scandal along in a couple of days.

PS Rees Mogg should also resign as he was the one who actually went to Balmoral to lie to the Queen

[barney]

Personally Gill, I'd like to see him resign today on the condition of a general election.
If the opposition parties refuse this, then he must conclude that parliament do have confidence in him to continue.

Only a new parliament can resolve this impasse.

We know the Conservative stance.
We know the Libdems stance.
We know the Brexit party stance.
We know the Labour stance.

So, what's holding it up?

It's now just pure politics and many MPs desperately clinging to their jobs and salaries.

[barney]

Sorry Barney. Missed that one. So I wonder what they'll do if he gets anywhere nesar it.

They will vote against it Merv, no matter what it is.
So many MPs don't wish to leave the EU under any circumstances and that is why we need a new parliament.

[towny44]

I still believe that it would have been more prudent for the supreme court to declare that in this particular case they were not prepared to make any judgement. The problem is purely one for Parliament and the Govt to resolve, the judgement they have made is not going to provide a solution to this problem, therefore they would have earned the judiciary far more brownie points by not siding with either party, unfortunately all they have done is charred their gavels.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Personally Gill, I'd like to see him resign today on the condition of a general election.
If the opposition parties refuse this, then he must conclude that parliament do have confidence in him to continue.

Only a new parliament can resolve this impasse.

We know the Conservative stance.
We know the Libdems stance.
We know the Brexit party stance.
We know the Labour stance.

So, what's holding it up?

It's now just pure politics and many MPs desperately clinging to their jobs and salaries.

There was a curious inconsistency in Jezzer's speech to his party faithful yesterday - well probably a dozen but one that stood out.

He ranted that this "unelected Prime Minister" must resign. Well apart from apparently forgetting Gordon Brown, who is to replace this "unelected Prime Minister"?

Since he is opposed to a general election, that can only be another "unelected Prime Minister". So does he want the Tories to go through another leadership contest to decide who that should be? Or is he offering himself as the next "unelected Prime Minister"?

Oh the hypocrisy.

[barney]

Well spotted

[Gill W]

Personally Gill, I'd like to see him resign today on the condition of a general election.
If the opposition parties refuse this, then he must conclude that parliament do have confidence in him to continue.

Only a new parliament can resolve this impasse.

We know the Conservative stance.
We know the Libdems stance.
We know the Brexit party stance.
We know the Labour stance.

So, what's holding it up?

It's now just pure politics and many MPs desperately clinging to their jobs and salaries.

He's acted unlawfully - he should just resign, no ifs or buts or conditions.

What ever happens next would have to be sorted out after he's resigned.

[Gill W]

I still believe that it would have been more prudent for the supreme court to declare that in this particular case they were not prepared to make any judgement. The problem is purely one for Parliament and the Govt to resolve, the judgement they have made is not going to provide a solution to this problem, therefore they would have earned the judiciary far more brownie points by not siding with either party, unfortunately all they have done is charred their gavels.

They haven't sided with anybody.

They''ve made a judgment. They've done what the courts are meant to do.

They are not meant to find a solution. The executive took power away from Parliament. The judiciary ruled this was done unlawfully, so they have effectively handed the power to find the solution back to parliament.

Whether parliament will ever find a solution is anyone's guess, but like it or not, this is what happens in a functioning democracy.

[david63]

He ranted that this "unelected Prime Minister" must resign.

I noticed that as well but I would have thought that with all his years of being in Parliament he would have been aware that in the UK we do not elect a PM but, normally, the leader of the party that can command a majority takes the reins.

It is perfectly feasible that at a GE the leader of any party is not returned therefore there is no guarantee that the leader at the time will become PM.

There was an interesting "discussion" on last night with Andrew Neil interviewing Chuka Umunna (he who cannot make his mind up as to which party he belongs to) who was basically saying that JC does not have enough support to become a "caretaker" PM

[barney]

More like a non functioning democracy at the moment Gill. (welcome back by the way)

It can only function again with a general election to change the numbers either way.

Today, parliament has been resumed, but nothing of substance has actually changed.

We'll get much more blah, blah, blah but the time really has come to put up or shut up.

This indecision is killing the country.

We all know exactly what parliament doesn't want.
Today is the day to tell us what they do want.

[Stephen]

And so it starts all over again with I expect no one willing to budge or compromise to get us out of this Brexit mess. A general election will be on the cards, but who gets to be in the hot seat. The conservatives don't know WHAT they want, labour would be a disaster, which just leaves the others.

The Monster Raving Loony Party looks favourite at the moment

[barney]

Raving Loonies ?
Now, there's a thought.

What makes you think that they are not already in power ?

[Stephen]

Micheal Gove under pressure. The chap behind the presenter is finding it amusing.

Parliament: MPs and peers return after court rules suspension unlawful https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49820038

[Stephen]

Raving Loonies ?
Now, there's a thought.

What makes you think that they are not already in power ?

You're right there barney. Mad as bag of frogs the lot of them.