Paul Waine wrote:Agree, but Andrew is only bothered about looking after the UK. It can then "set and example" for the rest, or something.
But the EU is all about the history.
Paul Waine wrote:Agree, but Andrew is only bothered about looking after the UK. It can then "set and example" for the rest, or something.
Why is Johnson a liar?Paul Waine wrote:Why? Just, why, Lancs?
No, Lancs, that wasn't my question. But never mind, if you don't want to answer you don't want to answer. It looks like that's the realities.Lancasterclaret wrote:Why is Johnson a liar?
Seriously?
You've lost me matePaul Waine wrote:No, Lancs, that wasn't my question. But never mind, if you don't want to answer you don't want to answer. It looks like that's the realities.
Take care.
He's certainly been smacking himself up.Devils_Advocate wrote:Did your parents smack you Psotto?
Paul - the basis of pretty much all terror legislation is to avoid the substantive crime taking place, rather than dealing with the consequences.Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, yes, I've asked you a serious question.
You posted:
"At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?
Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?
Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?"
Was I wrong to assume that you know what the Benn Act says when you wrote the above? My recollection is that BA refers to "if the Gov't hasn't got a deal...."
We all welcome living in a country where the "rule of law" governs. But, I can't recall the law being empowered to act before a law is (EDIT) alleged to have been broken, can you? So, does BA say something had to be done by Gov't by 4-Oct - and that hasn't been done?
EDIT: replaced "has" by is alleged to have" - I'm pretty sure the rule of law in UK still works on "innocent until proved guilty."
Wrong. The Supreme Court may have clarified the law, but they did not make new law in any true sense. The judgement of the court was based on, and followed inexorably from, existing precedents.summitclaret wrote:Wrong. There was no law of the land before the SC decision. They made new law and he immediately complied with it. Getting involved before a law is broken is a very dangerous principle. I really hope that the Government can get the Surrender Act overturned. Not so we can leave without a deal, but so we can get the best deal possible now.
Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)CrosspoolClarets wrote:Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed.
So did BJ break the law as people keep saying?claretspice wrote:Wrong. The Supreme Court may have clarified the law, but they did not make new law in any true sense. The judgement of the court was based on, and followed inexorably from, existing precedents.
As with any area of our law that is not codified in statute, until a court has provided a definitive judgement on a particular question, there's always - technically - a gap. That's what case law is. This judgement just joined the dots between the law as laid down by existing cases.
And before you question the fact that the lower court came to a different judgement - that's easy. It's convention on a point of such significance, where there's no direct existing judgement, to leave it to the higher court to make the significant decision.
My family moved to Canada.Paul Waine wrote:Just chasing an ideal, an ideal that didn't exist and, if you understand it, you know it can never exist and "deliver economically." The grass most definitely wasn't greener (or redder)!
Yes, there were a lot of "apologists" for the USSR in Britain. It didn't make any of them right - and it doesn't make any of the ideas based on "socialism" right today.
As I said, earlier, I'm intrigued that you say you only experienced primary education in the UK. Where did you move to?
The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.CrosspoolClarets wrote:I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court applying the law, as long as it was truly an issue for them to rule on (it reassures me it was unanimous). But I do have a problem with the leader of the Supreme Court attending the conference of the state girl’s school association today (my daughter goes to one) making fun of Boris and praising “girly swots”. A major lapse of judgement, so these judges do make them.
Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed. I expect a move to be made in the coming weeks. I’m a bit uncomfortable about it though, I’d like us to leave properly not via slight of hand that would leave Remainers crying foul for years, but, we’ve been forced into this corner so needs must.
It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.summitclaret wrote:So did BJ break the law as people keep saying?
We differ here. I want the Surrender Act to be got around legally, but only to extract a deal from the EU. Upholding the referendum is more important to ne than actually leaving. By that I mean that the un democratic manifesto deniers can't be allowed to win. In particular Grieve, Soubry and Wolleston.CrosspoolClarets wrote:I don’t have a problem with the Supreme Court applying the law, as long as it was truly an issue for them to rule on (it reassures me it was unanimous). But I do have a problem with the leader of the Supreme Court attending the conference of the state girl’s school association today (my daughter goes to one) making fun of Boris and praising “girly swots”. A major lapse of judgement, so these judges do make them.
Away from prorogation, there are plenty of barristers around who believe that the Benn Act can be bypassed. I expect a move to be made in the coming weeks. I’m a bit uncomfortable about it though, I’d like us to leave properly not via slight of hand that would leave Remainers crying foul for years, but, we’ve been forced into this corner so needs must.
I mean a clear law. I submit that he did not break a law. However, he did test matters to the limit because he knew that opposition were trying undermine his strategy to uphold the public's decision and finally sort out something that needed bringing to a head.claretspice wrote:It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.
The fact the government failed to put forwards any case other than the matter wasn't justicable (all common sense suggested it was), suggested that the government knew it, too.
We have no respect for other countries whose leaders try and act beyond their powers.
There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)claretspice wrote:Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
They will when the time is right.Spijed wrote:Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)
He is fully justified to find a loophole because the Act was agreed by manifesto breakers.claretspice wrote:The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.
And cornered? Come on.
Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
I wouldn't say that the loss of perspective is limited to one corner of this particular debate.Damo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
Well we'll agree to disagree there. Even if any of the main parties had stood on a manifesto that had a disorderly no-deal as a policy - they didn't - then I'd still be coming back to the point that the correct way to deal with MPs who break their promises, is to vote them out at the next election. It's not to break the law that they pass.summitclaret wrote:He is fully justified to find a loophole because the Act was agreed by manifesto breakers.
I am convinced that there will be a challenge and unless it is genius it will probably fail. However that is not what BJ wants. He is going for a GE where he can rightly say that the establishment is frustrating Brexit.Spijed wrote:Daniel Kawczynski
@DKShrewsbury
Following personal meeting with Barristers today I have shared written legal advice on loopholes in ‘Surrender Act’ with colleagues. Barristers believe we have case to take to Courts and encouraging me to pursue. Reflecting over weekend.
@StandUp4Brexit
@asabenn
#Brexit
I'm a bit puzzled by the above tweet. If he says that loopholes have been found why is he being encouraged to pursue them and not the government? Also, why has it taken a private meeting with a MP to discover such loopholes and not any meetings with government staff?
Don't disagree with the latter and it is coming soon. But I say again, BJ is trying to get a deal. He probably won't because of the Surrender Act, as predicted.claretspice wrote:Well we'll agree to disagree there. Even if any of the main parties had stood on a manifesto that had a disorderly no-deal as a policy - they didn't - then I'd still be coming back to the point that the correct way to deal with MPs who break their promises, is to vote them out at the next election. It's not to break the law that they pass.
Only one coup going on here DamoDamo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
Unfortunately there are too many people who hold the view that the referendum result of 2016, which was first of all advisory, and second of all narrowly won by one side, gives the government a blank cheque to basically do whatever they like in order to try and deliver their particular interpretation of that result.claretspice wrote:Fact is we live in a parliamentary democracy. The elected representatives of the people, in parliament, are sovereign over anything else. If you don't like how they're dealing with the referendum then I entirely respect that - although I don't necessarily agree - but it's a huge leap from that to saying we should effectively suspend parliamentary democracy so that the crown can override parliament's will, or deliberately subvert the law of the land, even in order to deliver on the referendum.
What law has been broken and if you don't know please stop saying it?JohnMcGreal wrote:Unfortunately there are too many people who hold the view that the referendum result of 2016, which was first of all advisory, and second of all narrowly won by one side, gives the government a blank cheque to basically do whatever they like in order to try and deliver their particular interpretation of that result.
It's insanity. People have well and truly lost their minds over this issue, to the point where they're actually comfortable with Parliament (our democracy) being shut down, and laws being ignored to try and deliver something which is essentially undeliverable.
Edit - and the really weird thing is, the people who are comfortable about all of this tend to be the same people who were hell bent on leaving the EU in order to restore UK parliamentary sovereignty (which we always had) and the supremacy of UK law (which was already supreme in the vast majority of cases).
Spiral wrote:Re. the Hungary veto story, there are reports of a rather large delegation of Hungarian diplomats leaving Downing Street last night, though I've no serious source I could quote on that so take it for the baseless conjecture it is. It would allow Johnson to comply with the Benn act without losing face. However, I'm almost certain their veto would be ignored. If the 26 other EU countries decide to grant us an extension, we're getting it, in spite of Hungary. I'm pro-remain but even I'm not blind to the realpolitik of the EU. That all said, it seems rather desperate for Johnson to rely on a backwater nation who are only really in the union to avoid falling into Russia's sphere of influence. This isn't going quite as well as folk might have imagined in 2016.
Thanks, Andrew. I expect you will have got a different perspective through secondary education and beyond in Canada. And a coal mining grandfather and member of CPGB - coal mining was a tough industry and would have been in the front of any "fight for change." It's good that there are very few down the pits (in the UK) these days. There were occasions when the troops were called out, but I don't feel that that was the standard response "against people wanting positive change." We can agree a mixed economy is the best arrangement.AndrewJB wrote:My family moved to Canada.
With hindsight we could say people back then were being duped - although it's more difficult to see the flaws in something that hasn't been tried, but to understand the attraction you'd have to consider the conditions most people lived in during the '20s https://www.open.edu/openlearn/health-s ... ection-1.2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . People like your grandfather (and mine - who joined the CPGB as a teenage miner in 1927) led hard lives. All over the industrialised world the state used armed force against people wanting positive change. It's terrible that it took a world war to bring that change.
I think you're being quite extreme in saying "it doesn't make any of the ideas based on socialism right today". We have a mixed economy, so a lot of what makes our lives good comes from socialism, or similar ideas that predate it. Just like it's wrong to blame capitalism for all the evils in the world.
That's a bit rich from someone who doesn't want to obey the result of the referendum.Lancasterclaret wrote:Only one coup going on here Damo
The one that was stopped by the supreme court
Whether Brexiteer like it or not, we are a parliamentary democracy.
To get Brexit through that is a challenge no doubt, but it has to be done right.
Pretending that the ends justify the means isn't doing anyone any favours.
Now if Mr Dan "I know **** all about the Marshall Plan" kryswinksi is correct, then its done right and that is fine.
But to pretend that just because you don't like the law it can be ignored is 100% wrong.
I'm getting the distinct impression from the board that Brexiteers don't want to obey laws that they don't like.
That won't solve or sort anything
He tried to stretch matters and failed then complied. Is it such a big deal given that the HOC has undermined the referendum result?claretspice wrote:It depends what you mean by "broke the law". His government didn't act illegally. It did act unlawfully.
The fact the government failed to put forwards any case other than the matter wasn't justicable (all common sense suggested it was), suggested that the government knew it, too.
We have no respect for other countries whose leaders try and act beyond their powers.
Video on Twitter of people leaving the cabinet office "including" Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó and Ambassador Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky at the same time Johnson was in the building holding an emergency Cabinet meetingSpiral wrote:Re. the Hungary veto story, there are reports of a rather large delegation of Hungarian diplomats leaving Downing Street last night, though I've no serious source I could quote on that so take it for the baseless conjecture it is. It would allow Johnson to comply with the Benn act without losing face. However, I'm almost certain their veto would be ignored. If the 26 other EU countries decide to grant us an extension, we're getting it, in spite of Hungary. I'm pro-remain but even I'm not blind to the realpolitik of the EU. That all said, it seems rather desperate for Johnson to rely on a backwater nation who are only really in the union to avoid falling into Russia's sphere of influence. This isn't going quite as well as folk might have imagined in 2016.
Judging both yours and LC's posts on the subject there is definitely someone wishing to support the outcome of the referendum and the democratic will of the people and it most certainly is not youColburn_Claret wrote:That's a bit rich from someone who doesn't want to obey the result of the referendum.
Just heard tonight that Tory MP Daniel Kawzynski is tweeting that he has met with barristers and is pondering a move over the weekend. I also heard similar earlier in the week. EDIT - yes, I see now you mentioned this above.Spijed wrote:Does seem a little odd that any haven't come to light or are in the public domain (Apart from scaremongering like Civil Contingencies act etc.)
a) the government wasn’t elected, it was given a majority by the DUPDamo wrote:There has been serious discussion this week, regarding a coup on the elected government of this country, advocating replacing them with a "Government of unity" headed by a person nobody trusts to run his own party, let alone the country. (Supposed rational posters from here appear in favour of it on Will Hutyons twitter feed)
Boris progouging parliament for 5 days, or threatening to refuse to ask for an extension cannot hold a torch to how mental a "government of unity" seems to normal people.
Hi spice, are you sure about the examples you quote? There are laws about "planning" terrorist acts - these allow the police/security authorities to act and people breaking these laws should be charged and brought to court. Similarly, there are laws about public order and these allow the police to control football fans and the same with organised public protests/demonstrations - and, I'm guessing, police actions (warrants) require the approval of a court official. On tax, I think cases are brought to court when HMRC says "£X tax is due" and on the other hand the tax payer is arguing that "no, I don't owe that tax."claretspice wrote:Paul - the basis of pretty much all terror legislation is to avoid the substantive crime taking place, rather than dealing with the consequences.
Likewise, if we want a more trivial example relevant to this forum, there's a quite a number of rules used to prevent potential football hooliganism, including preventing people from travelling to games. I can think of plenty of other examples.
There are also heaps of examples of points of reference being taken to the courts on things like tax which are designed to give a proactive steer as to how a law should be interpreted before offences would otherwise be committed.
So nothing in the courts being engaged early is necessarily new.
And whichever way you look at it, the Prime Minister saying that he won't abide by a law passed by parliament, or that he's going to try and evade its meaning unless compelled to do so by the courts - that's morally bankrupt. What sort of a message does it send to anyone who might be looking for other technical loopholes in laws - perhaps tax laws, say?
It explains why they have gone to the Scottish courts with this in the two links Ive provided. Have a read if you're genuinely interestedPaul Waine wrote:Hi spice, are you sure about the examples you quote? There are laws about "planning" terrorist acts - these allow the police/security authorities to act and people breaking these laws should be charged and brought to court. Similarly, there are laws about public order and these allow the police to control football fans and the same with organised public protests/demonstrations - and, I'm guessing, police actions (warrants) require the approval of a court official. On tax, I think cases are brought to court when HMRC says "£X tax is due" and on the other hand the tax payer is arguing that "no, I don't owe that tax."
I put it in the realm of "high politics" that we have one group of politicians rushing thru a law that says you must do this (extend) and not this (leave with no deal) and on the other hand another group of politicians, led by BJ, saying "we don't like your law, we think you are wrong and it will stop us getting a deal..." and also "we will always obey the law...… but, your new, rushed, law isn't very clear..... so, we will see how that works out...."
Fascinating that the action has been taken to a Scottish Court. I know that Scottish law differs from the law of England & Wales - but, I've no experience and I don't know how it differs. Maybe the Scottish Court can "bind" the actions of BJ and provide a single interpretation of what BJ must do in order to comply with the Benn Act. I guess that's the hope of Dale Vince (the owner of Ecotricity, a one-time hippy, and now also the proud owner of Forest Green Vegans!) and the others involved.
We will see how it turns out.
Erm, I think your knowledge of the second world war may not be complete.Lowbankclaret wrote:Just to say, America won the Second World War, they had more troops in theatre than anyone else.
Like any winner they got to say what happened next.
That was Bretton Woods .
If you have no knowledge of it, your understanding is not complete.
Surely you can see that it makes her look biased?claretspice wrote:The idea that someone can't call the Prime Minister out for a silly, purile and just a little bit sexist comment, just because they're a judge seems just a bit precious to me.
And cornered? Come on.
Anyone trying to justify Boris attempting to find a loophole in a law in order to subvert its very clear meaning and intent, has lost all sense of perspective.
Thanks, DA, I can sleep easy tonight now I have learnt that the Inner House of the Court of Session – Scotland’s Highest Court – is the only court that has nobile officium jurisdiction.Devils_Advocate wrote:It explains why they have gone to the Scottish courts with this in the two links Ive provided. Have a read if you're genuinely interested
If you provided factual evidence to substantiate that impression/opinion it would assist without information obtained from any pro or anti media outlet, basically I’m asking as boris Johnson lied to you on a face to face basis? if the answer to that question is no it’s absolutely impossible to formulate 100% with any degree of certainty that BJ is indeed a liar.Lancasterclaret wrote:Why is Johnson a liar?
Seriously?
The entirety of your post is written through the prism of a so-called remainder establishment plot. This is a bogeyman which does not exist. I can't see anything in Hale's lighthearted encouragement to female students that study is a good thing which can be seen as 'remain biased'. Likewise the judgement last week went to careful pains to be clear the question was a narrow one and nothing to do with the merits or otherwise if the EU. To conflate a judge doing her job with 'a plot' is divisive and deeply dangerous in my opinion.CrosspoolClarets wrote:Surely you can see that it makes her look biased?
In the current climate, even if she isn’t biased, that seems thick as mince. It comes across as everyone in her circle is a Remainer so she can get away with making those jokes, which then reinforces the people vs establishment viewpoint. It’s desperately sad given that she obviously isn’t thick but very clever.
Actually, I have a great respect for Brenda Hale. She has made a lot of rulings that have affected me personally, she is from a girl’s school in Yorkshire, as is my daughter, as a whole her career has set a great example.
Your other point has also suffered from a bit of Remainiacness. As I have put in my above post, I have no desire for Boris to circumvent the Remainers (not the law, if he does it he will do it legally). I do feel he has been left with little option though, the tactics against him are so underhand. I would prefer an election first to test the mood of the public. I suspect it would be overwhelming.