The UK is currently like Theoden in Lord of the Rings when Saruman and Grima hold sway before Gandalf turns up with Aragorn. 

 
That aren't written down anywhere .....

If you are referring to the UK constitution, they are written down but not in a single document.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

16 minutes ago, Forethat said:

In terms of recess, the HOC conference recess was in the HOC calendar long before the request for a prorogation. That's not dishonest. It's a fact.

It's normal practice for parliament to manate the recess which, in recent years, has been 3 weeks. By proroguing parliament he tok away parliament's ability to mandate the recess. By doing this he suspended parliament for 5 weeks. Unprecedented and outside parliamentary protocol, particularly as the Supreme Court adjudicated that he did this to styme parliament and not to enable the normal recess for conference season.

Just enlighten some people ... the UK doesn't have a constitution, just some historical legally binding documents like the Acts of the Union etc.

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If you are referring to the UK constitution, they are written down but not in a single document.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yeah we kind of make it up as we go along. Which is a problem really.

It was perfectly clear. Leave means leave, unconditionally if necessary.

No-deal is an option and a default. That does not make it a requirement.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

But there again and again and again, how could they when it wasn't even on the ballot paper, there was leave or remain.

But not no-deal Leave that wasn't on the ballot paper.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

If you are referring to the UK constitution, they are written down but not in a single document.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Some of it is written down, but not the parts pertaining to political conventions:

 

Quote

Another characteristic of the unwritten constitution is the special significance of political customs known as ‘conventions’, which oil the wheels of the relationship between the ancient institutions of state. These are unwritten rules of constitutional practice, vital to our politics, the workings of government, but not committed into law or any written form at all. The very existence of the office of Prime Minister, our head of government, is purely conventional. So is the rule upon which he or she is appointed, being whoever commands the confidence of the House of Commons (the majority party leader, or head of a coalition of parties).

 

 

I would like to know what the Queen thinks about all this.
 
11-0 reeks of political correctness, the chief characteristic of which is herding-instinct hysteria. They thought it was what they ought to do, because they felt morally obliged to do something that would be perceived by sensitive people as correct. A different bunch of people would have decided differently, and that consideration is all that is needed to impugn this outrageous and retrograde precedent.

Good to know that there are Brexiteers who are privy to the UK deliberation process.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

9 minutes ago, Forethat said:

Please tell me where in this post I am being dishonest:

 

I'm not sure what method you have used to achieve it, but the post that is showing there is certainly not the post I responded to.  The gist is the same, but the wording is not. This I have reported to the mods.

7 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

I put the summary in my post stevenl ????

 

 

But you obviously don't understand that 'whether or not that was his intention' means they did not conclude that that was his intention.

what happens in the UK when a legal court finds someone guilty of having committed

an illegal act? 

 
 

Whether in writing or precedent that does not make the Supreme Courts deliberations any less valid and until the judgement is published we must wait the reasons given. One thing is for sure that from first principles they decided Boris was lying his head off. Nothing to with the constitution or precedent other than thou must not lie. Hard Brexiteer spin that the decision was political a load of old tosh.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

26 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

The leave campaign said we would stay in the single market.

The PM David Cameron disagrees with you.

 

"However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Just now, stevenl said:

But you obviously don't understand that 'whether or not that was his intention' means they did not conclude that that was his intention.

 

They could not conclude either way for certain - "he may or may not have". They leave it to the reader's judgement. Perhaps I am a cynic, but you must admit that John Major stood to substantially gain politically for his unusually long 3 week prorogation. Fullfact did not offer any alternate explanation other than the one that paints Major in a bad light.

 

If you believe that the long prorogation was a coincidence, I applaud your trusting nature.

3 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

They could not conclude either way for certain - "he may or may not have". They leave it to the reader's judgement. Perhaps I am a cynic, but you must admit that John Major stood to substantially gain politically for his unusually long 3 week prorogation. Fullfact did not offer any alternate explanation other than the one that paints Major in a bad light.

 

If you believe that the long prorogation was a coincidence, I applaud your trusting nature.

No, I'm just saying that your conclusion 'factcheck admits major was up to no good' is not correct.

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

what happens in the UK when a legal court finds someone guilty of having committed

an illegal act? 

Ah but a political lie is not the same as a normal lie.

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

The PM David Cameron disagrees with you.

 

"However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Cameron was part of the remain campaign. You all dismissed what he said as being part of project fear.

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

what happens in the UK when a legal court finds someone guilty of having committed

an illegal act? 

There is talk of Johnson being impeached but that law hasn't been used for several centurys.

4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This is terrible news. I suppose the verdict here essentially takes us back to 1997 when the then PM John Major prorogued parliament for 3 weeks to stop an inquiry into his govts corruption. So by the fruit of the poisoned tree principles anything that took place after this illegal act effectively didn't happen. All jails will be emptied(except for the few lifers convicted before 1997), all buildings made after 1997 will be tore down as planning has been deemed null and void. At least we can smoke inside pubs again, as from 20 minutes ago.

 The ramifications of this will be earth shattering. All to undo the democratic will and referendum result voted by 17.4 million people. Let the madness begin!

Quite possibly the biggest load of BS in a long time

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

According to a senior Tory MP, she's going to be even more unamused tommorow when Johnson turns up at her house asking for a second proroguation. Apparently Dominic Cummings flew back from New York early to make up some more <deleted> to feed the Queen with.

 

 

Latest from Reuter News...   Dukey has been summoned to the palace ,  by her majesty , resignations expected..

   Where are those dam keys . 

   Landrover,   Indian krap. 

 

 

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by elliss

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Cameron was part of the remain campaign. You all dismissed what he said as being part of project fear.

If you read my reply again it does actually say "Leave campaign"

 

But you have obviously got a link to prove otherwise?

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

If you read my reply again it does actually say "Leave campaign"

 

But you have obviously got a link to prove otherwise?

Whats your point caller? Were you even at the game?

You claim people voted leave because of what Cameron said and not what Johnson, Gove and Farage said?

Seriously?

2 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Whether in writing or precedent that does not make the Supreme Courts deliberations any less valid and until the judgement is published we must wait the reasons given. One thing is for sure that from first principles they decided Boris was lying his head off. Nothing to with the constitution or precedent other than thou must not lie. Hard Brexiteer spin that the decision was political a load of old tosh.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

You keep quoting me, but leaving the text blank? I'm sure it's unintentional, but it's a bit annoying.

 

My personal opinion is that the PM was acting in bad faith, but that is irrelevant in legal terms.

 

The point that I've been trying to make is that the Supreme Court has made itself vulnerable with this ruling. The legal grounding of their ruling will appear shaky to many observers. When the PM, Parliament and the Supreme Court are all stretching the limits of their powers like this, it damages people's faith in the system.

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

Whats your point caller? Were you even at the game?

You claim people voted leave because of what Cameron said and not what Johnson, Gove and Farage said?

Seriously?

link?

13 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

There is talk of Johnson being impeached but that law hasn't been used for several centurys.

The advantage of flexabilliyty ….(wink wink ….5555 ) but a good initiative 

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by david555

3 minutes ago, HansumFarang said:

 

You keep quoting me, but leaving the text blank? I'm sure it's unintentional, but it's a bit annoying.

 

My personal opinion is that the PM was acting in bad faith, but that is irrelevant in legal terms.

 

The point that I've been trying to make is that the Supreme Court has made itself vulnerable with this ruling. The legal grounding of their ruling will appear shaky to many observers. When the PM, Parliament and the Supreme Court are all stretching the limits of their powers like this, it damages people's faith in the system.

You missed the news.  Apparently the PM acted unlawfully rather than simply in bad faith.  The law is not about optics it's about the law equally for all.  Well, it's supposed to be.  Lucky that Parliament and the SC are keeping the government's 'stretching' of the limits of powers within legal bounds I would say.

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

Madness. It's not for the judiciary to tell parliament what to do. The judiciary has now politicised itself when it must be kept out of politics. Who made or influenced this decision? One little old lady? What if that judge was politically biased? Whether or not this particular woman is biased is besides the point - the point is that a court's decision, swayed by who-knows-what personal motives, is being allowed to dictate British politics and British culture for decades to come. Did the judges take into consideration the fact that the purpose of the proroguement is to defend the lawful enactment of the British public's lawful referendum decision, which would otherwise be severely jeopardised?

This is just insane.

Both Brexiteers and remainers seem to forget facts, a referendum is NOT lawful, it is advisory and as we are a Parliamentary Democracy  no Government is legally bound to abide by a referendums decision, sorry if you don't like that (either side) but that is the way it is.

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, I'm just saying that your conclusion 'factcheck admits major was up to no good' is not correct.

 

Yes, I should have said "Factcheck all but admits Major was up to no good". Obviously they can't actually say it, but that is what most people would conclude for themselves after reading the article. In my opinion.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Slip said:

You missed the news.  Apparently the PM acted unlawfully rather than simply in bad faith.  The law is not about optics it's about the law equally for all.  Well, it's supposed to be.  Lucky that Parliament and the SC are keeping the government's 'stretching' of the limits of powers within legal bounds I would say.

 

I think I have posted enough reasons on this thread already that explain why I think the Supreme Court's decision is vulnerable to challenge. "The Supreme Court said so" isn't a valid rebuttal.

 

It is the voting public who should have the say on who gets to wield what powers. I would welcome further referendums or a General Election. Perhaps it is time to make our senior judges subject to a public vote as well. 

 

Edit: Apparently Bluespunk thinks my post is funny. Was it the idea of giving voters a say in the running of the country that amused you, Bluespunk?

Edited September 24, 20196 yr by HansumFarang
Brexit