Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

DOCARCH

Leroy42 wrote: »

And with no surprise what so ever No 10 has come out swinging at the Scottish courts.

Being critical/attacking the judiciary is really going to help them!

Current UK government appears to be absolutely rogue!!!

Itssoeasy

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Not at all.

All three systems have equivalence. And as Westminster is the national parliament for all three legal jurisdictions there's no weight to your statement.

That steps quite beyond the "West Lothian Question".:P

The case was taken in Belfast, London and Edinburgh; there were never going to be 3 identical judgements anyway.

Well I wasn't aware of that. That puts a different spin on it then.

darem93

What an absolutely absurd statement from No 10. So they're basically saying the Scottish courts aren't as legitimate as the English ones because they didn't rule in their favour? With each passing day they confirm everything the SNP have been saying about Scotland's place in the so called "union of equals".

Also fair play to Joanna and the SNP in general. They have played an absolute blinder throughout this entire fiasco.

prawnsambo

darem93 wrote: »

What an absolutely absurd statement from No 10. So they're basically saying the Scottish courts aren't as legitimate as the English ones because they didn't rule in their favour? With each passing day they confirm everything the SNP have been saying about Scotland's place in the so called "union of equals".

Also fair play to Joanna and the SNP in general. They have played an absolute blinder throughout this entire fiasco.

And in fact the English Court decided that they didn't have [not the word, but close enough I hope] jurisdiction to rule on the matter and kicked it straight to the Supreme Court. So it didn't actually 'lose' there, just got bumped up a level. So that's two out of three going to the Supreme Court, the third (Ni) has still to rule.

David Allen Green was on James O'Brien's show just there and he made the interesting point that if a senior civil servant or Minister had put their name to a memo of some sort, giving out genuine reasons for the prorogation, the case would have failed. But (he posited) they wouldn't do this because such a reason would more than likely have proven to be a lie. And that's where the WhatsApp messages etc. come in, because they are out in the wild and more than likely prove otherwise than any such memo/statement would state. Perjury trap writ large.

trellheim

Meanwhile in comedy corner the DUP are still fixated on a bridge to NI https://twitter.com/LeeReynoldsDUP/status/1171679206910152704

ya have to laugh it really is court jester stuff while Rome burns

Leroy42

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Not at all.

All three systems have equivalence. And as Westminster is the national parliament for all three legal jurisdictions there's no weight to your statement.

That steps quite beyond the "West Lothian Question".:P

The case was taken in Belfast, London and Edinburgh; there were never going to be 3 identical judgements anyway.

You could almost say that the way to avoid such confusion and disagreements within a union is to have a centralised court which jurisdication over each part and interprets the law equally across the different members.

But that is obviously never going to happen!

Leroy42

On the bridge, I fail to see how it deals with anything. How does it stop things from getting into the EU without a border if the regulations diverge?

On an engineering POV (I am not an engineer) I know that there are long bridges but I read that at points the sea is 1km deep, so structures would have to be 1.5 km tall to support it. And the sea is no exactly calm, particularly in winter, so it could very well see the bridge facing closure on a number of days each year. And what would be the cost? Where is the money going to come from? Will the NHS have to wait for the promised money?

And let us not forget that Johnson has a terrible track record in terms of building bridges.

trellheim

it doesnt its a trumpian fantasy to keep the dup happy

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

On the bridge, I fail to see how it deals with anything. How does it stop things from getting into the EU without a border if the regulations diverge?

On an engineering POV (I am not an engineer) I know that there are long bridges but I read that at points the sea is 1km deep, so structures would have to be 1.5 km tall to support it. And the sea is no exactly calm, particularly in winter, so it could very well see the bridge facing closure on a number of days each year. And what would be the cost? Where is the money going to come from? Will the NHS have to wait for the promised money?

jaysus wouldn't want to driving over something 500m above sea level

Enzokk

As I have it, yes Scottish Law and English Law is different when it comes to constitutional questions. It seems like in Scotland they are more open to questioning constitutional matters and is not as bound by past decisions as courts in England.

It will now be up to the Supreme Court to reconcile the two opinions basically between Scotland and England and decide what is the correct course of action. The makeup of the court has 2 Scottish Judges so you can be sure that they will not be short of expertise on Scottish Law. Luckily the judges selection to the court is not influenced by the PM of the day and they are by law not allowed to recommend a different name than the one nominated by the selection committee.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

jaysus wouldn't want to driving over something 500m above sea level

I don't think you would be, but the support structure would need to be anchored into the sea bed and rise above the level of the road. It would, like all bridges, need to be a certain height to avoid waves and, I'm assuming, shipping.

Is it possible, well yeah, of course it is technically possible. But at what cost, how long would it take and most importantly it actually achieves nothing in terms of dealing with the NI border issue.

Bu even if they can deal with all those issues, when is the timeline for it to be operational? They have close to 50 days to get it done.

And lets face it nobody voted for a bridge when they voted to leave the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

As I have it, yes Scottish Law and English Law is different when it comes to constitutional questions. It seems like in Scotland they are more open to questioning constitutional matters and is not as bound by past decisions as courts in England.

It will now be up to the Supreme Court to reconcile the two opinions basically between Scotland and England and decide what is the correct course of action. The makeup of the court has 2 Scottish Judges so you can be sure that they will not be short of expertise on Scottish Law. Luckily the judges selection to the court is not influenced by the PM of the day and they are by law not allowed to recommend a different name than the one nominated by the selection committee.

The optics of the Scottish court's decision being dismissed in London will suit the SNP just fine.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think you would be, but the support structure would need to be anchored into the sea bed and rise above the level of the road. It would, like all bridges, need to be a certain height to avoid waves and, I'm assuming, shipping.

Is it possible, well yeah, of course it is technically possible. But at what cost, how long would it take and most importantly it actually achieves nothing in terms of dealing with the NI border issue.

Bu even if they can deal with all those issues, when is the timeline for it to be operational? They have close to 50 days to get it done.

And lets face it nobody voted for a bridge when they voted to leave the EU.

ah now we should let them at it and then when they're done - Scotland can vote for independence and NI can reunify. And we end up with a bridge connecting two countries of the EU.

Enzokk

prawnsambo wrote: »

And in fact the English Court decided that they didn't have [not the word, but close enough I hope] jurisdiction to rule on the matter and kicked it straight to the Supreme Court. So it didn't actually 'lose' there, just got bumped up a level. So that's two out of three going to the Supreme Court, the third (Ni) has still to rule.

David Allen Green was on James O'Brien's show just there and he made the interesting point that if a senior civil servant or Minister had put their name to a memo of some sort, giving out genuine reasons for the prorogation, the case would have failed. But (he posited) they wouldn't do this because such a reason would more than likely have proven to be a lie. And that's where the WhatsApp messages etc. come in, because they are out in the wild and more than likely prove otherwise than any such memo/statement would state. Perjury trap writ large.

Yes, David Allen Green has been very prominent on the missing witness statement and what it means. He likens it to the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog not barking and raising suspicion. I think it is clear that Grieve has seen the documents that confirm that people in government were talking about proroguing parliament for other reasons long before they said they thought about it and thus no-one was willing to put their name to a statement disputing the truth.

Green is also very dismissive of Cummings, especially that he is some sort of genius. He said as much in the interview, they are so incompetent that they cannot even break the convention of the constitution without looking like mugs.

10000maniacs

Who would have thought a massively multifarious, labyrinthine and unprecedented reform marshaled by Nigel Farage, David Davis and Boris Johnson was going to be a disaster?

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

You could almost say that the way to avoid such confusion and disagreements within a union is to have a centralised court which jurisdication over each part and interprets the law equally across the different members.

But that is obviously never going to happen!

That's why they created the UK Supreme Court in 2009.

Previously the highest court was the Law Lords.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, David Allen Green has been very prominent on the missing witness statement and what it means. He likens it to the Sherlock Holmes story about the dog not barking and raising suspicion. I think it is clear that Grieve has seen the documents that confirm that people in government were talking about proroguing parliament for other reasons long before they said they thought about it and thus no-one was willing to put their name to a statement disputing the truth.

Green is also very dismissive of Cummings, especially that he is some sort of genius. He said as much in the interview, they are so incompetent that they cannot even break the convention of the constitution without looking like mugs.

It occurred to me while listening to Green, that the Queen herself could withdraw the prorogation. I doubt that would happen before the Supreme Court gives their verdict, but I'm sure she was not unaware of the situation when she issued it. Obviously she can't refuse the request of the PM on the basis that she thinks he's lying, that would be a true constitutional crisis.

Of course we're already there now and the Queen is quite probably spitting mad.

funkey_monkey

Leroy42 wrote: »

And with no surprise what so ever No 10 has come out swinging at the Scottish courts.

UK, run by, for an solely in the interests of England it would appear.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1171726506772631553

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1171731208591597568

Water John

So no civil servant signed off on the reason for prorogation of Parliament because they would have been signing a lie. Grieve knows this.
Their is thus serious evidence that the PM misled the Queen. I did ask about that at the time.
If the evidence is provided to Parliament today, that should be available to the Courts.

DOCARCH

Supreme court will hear all appeals, the Scotland one, the NI one and the England one, as one case, early next week.

Notwithstanding the supreme court appeal hearing, the Queen could open re-open parliament by royal decree.

Brexit....the gift that keeps giving! If it was not so serious, it would be .

Infini

DOCARCH wrote: »

Supreme court will hear all appeals, the Scotland one, the NI one and the England one, as one case, early next week.

Notwithstanding the supreme court appeal hearing, the Queen could open re-open parliament by royal decree.

Brexit....the gift that keeps giving! If it was not so serious, it would be .

I honestly hope she does reopen it just as a subtle way of saying "piss off" to Boris for his shenanigans.

Water John wrote: »

So no civil servant signed off on the reason for prorogation of Parliament because they would have been signing a lie. Grieve knows this.
Their is thus serious evidence that the PM misled the Queen. I did ask about that at the time.
If the evidence is provided to Parliament today, that should be available to the Courts.

This whole excersice from the start has been based solely on lies, deciet, corrupt money, russian trolling and poisonous idiots with no interest in anything except themselves. It would be epic on so many levels if this ultimately leads to an A50 withdrawal and a significant investigation into all this as well as serious reform of their political structures AND reigning in deceptive media outlets to prevent anything like this happening again but the more this goes on the more I get the feeling there wont be a Brexit as it looks like the whole corrupt house of cards is starting to disintegrate under the weight of its own deception.

Call me Al

If it does reopen on the back of this ruling it wili be a real kick in the ar$e for Johnson's SPADs.

Aside from this it's fascinating to see the Brexit nationalists on Twitter turning their arrogant focus, spite, and insults from Ireland and its citizens over to Scotland, its people and its laws.

Strazdas

Call me Al wrote: »

If it does reopen on the back of this ruling it wili be a real kick in the ar$e for Johnson's SPADs.

Aside from this it's fascinating to see the Brexit nationalists on Twitter turning their arrogant focus, spite, and insults from Ireland and its citizens over to Scotland, its people and its laws.

Do they like anyone? I've seen them attack Ireland, Scotland, France and Germany regularly.

Trump being their right wing dictator of choice of course.

lola85

Infini wrote: »

I honestly hope she does reopen it just as a subtle way of saying "piss off" to Boris for his shenanigans.



This whole excersice from the start has been based solely on lies, deciet, corrupt money, russian trolling and poisonous idiots with no interest in anything except themselves. It would be epic on so many levels if this ultimately leads to an A50 withdrawal and a significant investigation into all this as well as serious reform of their political structures AND reigning in deceptive media outlets to prevent anything like this happening again but the more this goes on the more I get the feeling there wont be a Brexit as it looks like the whole corrupt house of cards is starting to disintegrate under the weight of its own deception.

Not forgetting David Cameron’s fathers dodgy dealings in the panama papers and suddenly Cameron calls a referendum.

All very sisnister.

Leroy42

Call me Al wrote: »

If it does reopen on the back of this ruling it wili be a real kick in the ar$e for Johnson's SPADs.

Aside from this it's fascinating to see the Brexit nationalists on Twitter turning their arrogant focus, spite, and insults from Ireland and its citizens over to Scotland, its people and its laws.

And let us not forget that denizen of UK constitutionality that is JRM. The man talks a great game about the Queen and the constitution but in his first senior political office is has potentially lied directly to the Queen.

Professor Moriarty

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Its not that deep , seems to be at most 150-200m between NI and Scotland

http://fishing-app.gpsnauticalcharts.com/i-boating-fishing-web-app/fishing-marine-charts-navigation.html?title=Irish+Sea++Western+Part+boating+app#10.25/54.9833/-5.5013

but anyways, its still an insane idea especially when one looks at HS2 or new nuclear plants that over ran in UK

To reiterate, it will cost more than Trump's wall.

Enzokk

I think this confirms a lot of people's opinion of the work from Laura Keunssberg,

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1171713664392597505?s=20

If you look at her tweets after this one it seems like she is always behind on this story today and just reporting what is coming out and not really on top of it. This was the first tweet but her retweets and her tweets themselves seems so behind and it does feel like she is either slow or not following the correct people, especially as it pertains to this story today at least. She seems to rely on statements instead of focusing on the story here, the PM basically has been found in the courts to have lied to the Queen.

ArmaniJeanss

I see Luke Pollard (Labour, Plymouth&Devon) has gone back into the HoC.

https://twitter.com/LukePollard/status/1171757980481654784


Must admit I assumed after prorogation that it would be in some weird sort of lockdown, possibly guarded by a strangely named regiment with swords and 18th century battledress.

trellheim

there is unfortunately a ton of buried explosives between NI and GB. See https://www2.gov.scot/uploads/documents/ae08beauforts.fh10.pdf

VinLieger

trellheim wrote: »

there is unfortunately a ton of buried explosives between NI and GB. See https://www2.gov.scot/uploads/documents/ae08beauforts.fh10.pdf

The irony of that is quite beautiful