Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

lvader

phillw wrote: »

I understand he didn't inform cabinet.

It was covered by the BBC at the time and was part of the time line set out by the supreme court.

lvader

gfplux wrote: »

Politicians and those that support them challenging the Judiciary is a long and dark slope into hell.

You mean the challenge to the high court that led to the supreme court?

The Divisional Court delivered a single judgment. The claim fell at the first hurdle, with the Court concluding that the claim was not justiciable.
While recognising that actions of the Executive carried by out by way of the exercise of the prerogative are not inherently non-justiciable, the judgment also recalls the courts’ well-established refusal to review political decisions [§§43-50]. The decision to prorogue Parliament and the advice accordingly given
were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy [§51].

phillw

lvader wrote: »

It was covered by the BBC at the time and was part of the time line set out by the supreme court.

Several ministers have said they weren't consulted, as it was the lying government that said they were then it's kinda difficult to know.

lvader wrote: »

You mean the challenge to the high court that led to the supreme court?

The Divisional Court delivered a single judgment. The claim fell at the first hurdle, with the Court concluding that the claim was not justiciable.
While recognising that actions of the Executive carried by out by way of the exercise of the prerogative are not inherently non-justiciable, the judgment also recalls the courts’ well-established refusal to review political decisions [§§43-50]. The decision to prorogue Parliament and the advice accordingly given
were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy [§51].

Appealing a ruling in court is completely different to rubbishing the court outside. I would haul JRM/Gove/et al in for contempt. Their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

lvader

phillw wrote: »

Several ministers have said they weren't consulted, as it was the lying government that said they were then it's kinda difficult to know.



Appealing a ruling in court is completely different to rubbishing the court outside. I would haul JRM/Gove/et al in for contempt. Their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

They disagree with the judgement, quite different to what the SNP did 8-9 years ago.

Alex Salmond has provoked a furious row with senior legal figures after launching a series of attacks on the authority of the UK supreme court and the competence of its two Scottish judges.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/alex-salmond-scotland-supreme-court

phillw

lvader wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/01/alex-salmond-scotland-supreme-court

Fair enough, seems wrong. Although he isn't using the same kind of language as the current government. Although Geoffrey Cox is being very diplomatic.

Although he is making a really good argument for a second referendum.

Moe_The_Bartender

phillw wrote: »

Unfortunately that is because the ERG have been purposefully sabotaging from the shadows. Which means we have to make sure they don't get the result they want.

It's only extraordinary if you don't know, or don't want to admit to knowing, why the VONC would be bad. I'll explain in case you haven't had it explained already.

If Boris resigns then the deputy prime minister takes over while they select a new leader, apart from it paralysing the government somewhat there is no major change..

If they hold a VONC and we end up with a GE then we have no prime minister to negotiate with the EU, nobody to request an extension, we have no MPs to pass any more laws. It's looking like another hung parliament, so all the conservatives would have to do is refuse a coalition & force another GE. The clock will run out and we wouldn't have a functioning government to put any plans into place to work through the problems of a no deal brexit.

Of course in the meantime people will pretend that it's incredible to ask him to resign but not call a VONC, I think they've given up trying to explain it everytime it's mentioned on TV now.



There are lots of ways out of the mess, one thing that I've noticed during many conversations with both leave and remain voters is that they always see their preferred outcome as the only one that is possible. This is a coping strategy to deal with stress, but it's largely a mistake as you're bound to be wrong and cause yourself more stress. I think even the government are still deluding themselves & that is paralyzing any kind of negotiations with the EU.

One possible outcome is that Boris is going to betray the ERG (he's already alluded to this in an interview) and bring back a deal with (a possibly renamed version of) the backstop. At this point I can expect that a lot of leave voters who have been convinced that the backstop is the worst possible outcome, will then demand a referendum. Along with the remain voters who are demanding a referendum, we might actually get one.

The saboteurs are not the ERG who have 65 supporters at most but the 400+ remainer MPs.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the ELECTED government is already paralysed having been usurped by an UNELECTED cabal of MPs led by the likes of Hilary Benn who take their instructions from Brussels and are supported by the remainer elite now including the unelected judiciary.

You really need to think very carefully if you really want the judiciary having the powers that they have assumed to themselves. It’s the top of an extremely slippery slope. But for the time being, it suits you because they are on your side - at least you think they are.

Sailtheworld

phillw wrote: »

Fair enough, seems wrong. Although he isn't using the same kind of language as the current government. Although Geoffrey Cox is being very diplomatic.

It didn't last long.

Attorney General says government acted in good faith, but angrily attacks "this dead Parliament"

The government didn't act in good faith. Boris lied about the reasons for proroguing so Cox either believes Boris or is perpetuating the lie.

Sailtheworld

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

You really need to think very carefully if you really want the judiciary having the powers that they have assumed to themselves. It’s the top of an extremely slippery slope. But for the time being, it suits you because they are on your side - at least you think they are.

The 'slippery slope' doesn't prevent him, or any future PM, from proroguing parliament.

Boris has been called out for lying by the highest court in the land - I can understand why that stings but, despite these 'assumed powers', he is able to simply shrug it off and continue shouting Bravo in an annoyingly loud voice.

triathlon

After the climb down and utter humiliation of this Government I think we are just at the point now where Brexit will be abandoned and article 50 revoked. This has been one long big joke instigated by the thickest and least aspirational half of the UK who just wanted their revenge on the successful with good lives.

lvader

Sailtheworld wrote: »

The 'slippery slope' doesn't prevent him, or any future PM, from proroguing parliament.

Boris has been called out for lying by the highest court in the land - I can understand why that stings but, despite these 'assumed powers', he is able to simply shrug it off and continue shouting Bravo in an annoyingly loud voice.

Sorry but either you didn't understand the ruling or it is you that is lying. The PM didn't get called out for lying by the supreme court, or did you mean to say that the Scottish judges that did impute the PM are the highest court in the land?