Replies (136)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Is there any need for it to be recalled? The effect of the judgement is that prorogation never happened.
My understanding is that the ruling leaves parliament in it's current state of recess in which it will remain until it is recalled.
Quote from the BBC:
"To be clear: the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Session in Edinburgh's judgment, which said that Boris Johnson had "an improper purpose" when he advised The Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks.
That means the Scottish court's judgement that he misled The Queen stands"
Off with his head Your Majesty.
And it's one in the eye for those bigoted Anglo-Saxons that claimed that the decision of the 'Mickey Mouse' Scottish court would be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court. A reminder, as if it were needed, that Scotland has one of the most respected legal systems on the planet.
I listened to the summary judgment being read out and as I understand it the reason they used to deem the prorogation unlawful is that no good reason was given for the extended period. (rather than there being an improper purpose or that Boris Johnson misled the queen).
Democracy is dead.
We are now ruled by out of touch unelected geriatric judges and anyone with enough money to challenge parliament to protect their own self interests regardless of the wishes of the electorate.
24th September 2019, the day democracy died.
I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that your voice is going to be a very lone one here.
That does not mean it's not valid. It merely means that I believe in democracy whereas others don't have a proper understanding of the implications of this perverse and biased judgement which brings our legal system into disrepute.
That does not mean it's not valid. It merely means that I believe in democracy...
You want Guy Fawkes brought back, IIRC.
Can you explain what is democratic about the Prime Minister shutting down parliament, thereby avoiding our democratically elected representatives subjecting his plans to scrutiny?
Whether you are for or against Brexit, what Boris Johnson tried to do was not democratic, and could even be seen as dictatorial. Thankfully the courts have put a halt to this by ensuring the law is upheld.
Whether you are for or against Brexit, what Boris Johnson tried to do was not democratic, and could even be seen as dictatorial.
Nah. I didn't understand what it achieved and (personally) thought it a mistake. But I also thought that the anti-no-deal law (ANDL) was (and is) equally stupid.
However daft both sides have been/are being, at the end of the day democracy is alive and well and is being defended by the institutions of this country.
And we'll leave on 31st Oct with a deal - thanks to neither the prorogation nor the ANDL.
I didn't say it wasn't valid - it's an opinion so validity doesn't come into it. But the whole point of democracy is that it allows the minority voices to be heard, so it's alive and well on Accounting Web at least.
It's interesting that those that wail about democracy being dead are the very same people that would deny the public their right to express their current wishes on Brexit. Yes, a democratic vote was held but that was more than 3 years ago and minds do change and in a democracy that change should be recognised.
All too often we hear Boris and his supporters, as did TM before them, claim that the "people want us to get on with this and deliver Brexit". How do they know that? That may well have been what the people wanted in June 2016 but that was then and this is now -how do they they know what the people want today? If only there were a way to find out ...
If only there were a way to find out ...
What question would you ask?
We're finding out what "leave" meant. What does "remain" mean? Is it whole-hearted remain (joining the eurozone, resuming ever-closer union, signing all the treaties going) or would it be a continuation of the "us and them" approach that, arguably, led to the vote to leave?
There ain't a simple answer here - another referendum certainly does not sound like one. (And might accelerate the split-up of the UK.)
I agree that there is no simple answer, and I've no idea what the question would be. The problem, as you suggest, is that we are only now finding out what "leave" might actually mean - absurd that we are doing so more than 3 years after the vote.
My main complaint is, as indicated above, the patronising statement that "the British public want ..." when, without asking, they can't possibly know what the British public do want. (Although, to be fair, I suspect that a large proportion of the British public doesn't actually know itself what it wants.)
The media (especially the broadcast media) love a spokesperson. It makes reporting so much easier when there's a "community leader" who can speak on behalf of everybody. The trouble with "leave" (as a popular movement, rather than a series of events) is that Farage has become accepted as its "community leader". You're right - 52/48 isn't a huge majority, and anything less than about 96% of the 52% represents a minority. Farage might speak for quite a number of the 52%, but it's a lot less than 96% if it. And he does not represent what "the British public wants".
(I know that wasn't your point, but it's allied to it. And I agree your allied point.)
On
The problem, as you suggest, is that we are only now finding out what "leave" might actually mean - absurd that we are doing so more than 3 years after the vote.
I note you sidestepped my question of what "remain" means. The 2016 referendum was a choice between undefined terms. But IMHO "leave" is (and was) less ill-defined than "remain".
As to democracy (I've made these points before so sorry for the replay) we don't have a referendum every time we sign a trade treaty and we won't (and shouldn't) have one when we sign such a treaty in a few years with the EU. That treaty will be the real deal - the one being discussed now is just for an interim phase. And we didn't have a referendum when we joined the EU... which happened after Maastricht. In short, referenda are aberrations from representative democracy.
But this is John H's field. I have views. He has knowledge.
I sidestepped your question of what "remain" means, or should mean, because I don't know. Right up until the date of the vote I was undecided, because neither side had offered anything like a constructive forecast of what Leave or Remain would entail. At the time - in my mind at least - there were plenty of good reasons to leave, but plenty of good reasons to remain.
Call me a coward, or whatever, but I chose to Remain on the basis that it was the devil I knew, but quite willing to have another go if and when more convincing arguments could be put forward.
Or the day the courts stopped a lying buffoon from ignoring the law our country.
And when did the electorate vote for a 5 week shutdown of parliament?
Or... we are ruled by law and being elected to a position of public responsibility does not stop you being subject to the law.
I would add that, if the EU had the final say on UK constitutional matters, then that would be a serious concern. AFAIK it's just human rights and justice (application of EU law) - so an appeal isn't possible, and I was just aiming for the irony.
Glad I hit target.
The EU does not have a say on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights is nothing to do with the EU.
I assume the Pro-Boris press will be spinning this as "traitors to democracy" for all the judges, and putting their faces on the paper with headlines such as "Traitors ruin Will of the People"
As opposed to "our man is actually a buffoon and acted illegally - its official"
Just tell me when it's all over.
One way or the other. It doesn't matter to me any more.
Hope I'm reading too much into your responses, but between that last sentence, and your comment in the "Stop the world I want to get off" thread:
"I dare say that I'll be getting off the world all too soon ....."
Everything OK Lion?
Hope I'm reading too much into your responses, but between that last sentence, and your comment in the "Stop the world I want to get off" thread:"I dare say that I'll be getting off the world all too soon ....."
Everything OK Lion?
Thanks for your thoughts, Wolfie - I'm just getting old. No one lasts forever.
The Labour Party want to give us a vote between remaining in the EU, and, leaving in name only and still obeying EU rules, paying into the EU budget and so on, but not having a say in those rules. The so called "deal option".
What happened to our democratic right to vote to leave with no deal, walk away, and run our own country again?
The court spoke about democracy, so what happened to the binding promise by BOTH main parties to abide by the 2016 referendum, as confirmed again in their subsequent manifesto's.
The British people are being screwed by "the establishment" and democracy is being eroded and usurped by unelected judges, self serving MP's, and marxists masquerading as the Labour Party.
Who are this mysterious "establishment" you refer to?
I've heard both sides of the argument talk about "the establishment" and how it's working against "the people".
Which side is "the establishment" actually on? Are there 2 "establishments"? A good "establishment" and a bad "establishment"? Who are the members? Is there a form to fill out to apply?
Or, is it all just horse manure and a line trotted out by lunatics when something doesn't go their way?
The "Establishment" consists of minority groups who use their power to corrupt and pervert democracy to protect their own self interests regardless of the wishes of the electorate. These groups are unelected and include politicians, civil servants, judges, academics, clergy, financiers, industrialists, governors e.g. Bank of England, BBC etc. Secretive organisations such as freemasons also form a part of this group.
Their common purpose, although generally working independently, is the manipulation of society to defend their wealth and influence regardless of the effect that may have on the rest of society.
Today we saw a prime example of this with 11 judges reaching an astounding unanimous decision on a matter which no expert thought they had any right ruling on.
No expert, really!!!
How did they themselves become judges except by, maybe ,being experts.