Jump to content
blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

I said to colleagues yesterday morning that Boris will come out of his meetings in Luxembourg and say he's optimistic of a deal and that the talks were positive.

The EU will then come out and say nothing has changed and the UK offered nothing new.

Was I right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Genie said:

I said to colleagues yesterday morning that Boris will come out of his meetings in Luxembourg and say he's optimistic of a deal and that the talks were positive.

The EU will then come out and say nothing has changed and the UK offered nothing new.

Was I right?

Nope, you missed out the Boris will run away like a small girl from a gathering of 200 protesters outside because they were making some noise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Nope, you missed out the Boris will run away like a small girl from a gathering of 200 protesters outside because they were making some noise

Yep so it turns out the incredible hulks weakness is a few hundred people shouting horrible things at him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Yep so it turns out the incredible hulks weakness is a few hundred people shouting horrible things at him. 

Actually most of them appeared to be singing Ode to Joy - scarred of a large busking choir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a great photo of yesterday's baying mob, even the figure of 200 seems to be over egging the pudding

hUqXGCgg5a2oPu2dOI0c4YJvcRbANxx8q-xCNKlf

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

Yep so it turns out the incredible hulks weakness is a few hundred people shouting horrible things at him. 

The Incredible Baulk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

13:21

'This couldn't be any bigger'

f6279018-1145-424f-90c5-6b807d6b3b2f.png

The World at One

BBC Radio 4

"Arguably this is the most dramatic constitutional law case since the bill of rights in 1689 established our current system of parliamentary sovereignty," says the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman.

"Let's just remind ourselves - a prime minister of the United Kingdom stands accused of misleading the monarch and then undermining the sovereign body in our constitution, Parliament.

"This has all arrived through appeals now at the highest court in the land against an incredibly tight timeline at a time of national crisis.

"This really couldn't be any bigger."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-49722759

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

The Incredible Baulk.

Increditable Baulk perhaps? (yes, I made it up, Increditable is not a word but it sounds like it should be!)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bizarre argument being made by Lord Keen on behalf of the government.

He seems to be saying that there was an opportunity for Parliament to have prevented the prorogation (or the 5 week prorogation) but because it passed the Benn/Burt Act in 2 days and did nothing about prorogation in statute then Parliament seemed to condone this prorogation?

The proclamation had already been made by the stage at which they would have had this opportunity, though, and the Benn Act only got through because the Tory Lords ended their filibuster attempt so they can't seriously make the argument that because that law went through in two days any and all laws would have gone through in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really difficult to follow the details of this tbh.

Looks like that they're now questioning why the length of proroguation is 5 weeks and the answer is "why not?"... Seriously?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Really difficult to follow the details of this tbh.

Looks like that they're now questioning why the length of proroguation is 5 weeks and the answer is "why not?"... Seriously?!

Lawyers have to follow instructions; even if those instructions are written on the back of a package of cigarettes... 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Really difficult to follow the details of this tbh.

Looks like that they're now questioning why the length of proroguation is 5 weeks and the answer is "why not?"... Seriously?!

We're in difficult constitutional territory, and unfortunately 'why not?' is a perfectly arguable point. Effectively this case will decide whether the government can decide to suspend parliament if it wishes to avoid difficult problems parliament might want to raise, something that hasn't really needed to be tested before. We unfortunately have a government that is prepared to flout the kind of 'gentlemans rules' that parliament has built itself around, so the question is being raised. And if the question is why 5 weeks, the constitution doesn't seem to offer a reason not... But it might do after this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We're in difficult constitutional territory, and unfortunately 'why not?' is a perfectly arguable point. Effectively this case will decide whether the government can decide to suspend parliament if it wishes to avoid difficult problems parliament might want to raise, something that hasn't really needed to be tested before. We unfortunately have a government that is prepared to flout the kind of 'gentlemans rules' that parliament has built itself around, so the question is being raised. And if the question is why 5 weeks, the constitution doesn't seem to offer a reason not... But it might do after this case.

That's right. There is a widespread misapprehension that Britain doesn't have a constitution. But it does - it's just that it's not a single document, but an accumulation of test cases - like this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

That's right. There is a widespread misapprehension that Britain doesn't have a constitution. But it does - it's just that it's not a single document, but an accumulation of test cases - like this one. 

It hasn't got a "written" consitution, hence this case is so difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

It hasn't got a "written" consitution, hence this case is so difficult.

Written constitutions bring their own issues, as the US will attest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Written constitutions bring their own issues, as the US will attest.

They do, but the lack of a written constitution has allowed for this mess to happen. If we had one, we would know exactly when and for how long the parliament could go into a sit down. 

Now we have a discussion of some people being not happy about it, and others simply saying "why not?"

*Not that it wouldn't have complicated other issues - it could have just brought some clarity in this case.

Edited by Mic09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

but the lack of a written constitution has allowed for this mess to happen

No it hasn't, nothing about this mess is anything to do with a constitution. Progation hasn't caused any of this and that is about the only constitutional issue at play here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

No it hasn't, nothing about this mess is anything to do with a constitution. Progation hasn't caused any of this and that is about the only constitutional issue at play here.

I'm guessing that by "this mess" he means the specific vignette of today's court case and what it is trying to rule upon, rather than multi-episode box-set mess of the last three years of national humiliation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, bickster said:

No it hasn't, nothing about this mess is anything to do with a constitution. Progation hasn't caused any of this and that is about the only constitutional issue at play here.

I don't mean brexit - I mean the case being so ambiguous and having to be taken to the Supreme Court. We are in wild territory and no single expert on UK constitution knows exactly what might happen.

Hence, I suggested a written document might outline some rules in such a circumstance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â