Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

1297298300302303316

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,753 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    A real example which tied up our legal and legislative system for 35 years.

    Either way - when the topic at hand is prorogation - I doubt an Irish government could go to the people with a constitutional amendment that meant that any future government could suspend parliament at will for as long as they deemed advantageous..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    lawred2 wrote: »
    But surely the same reasoning applied in the English courts?

    I'm not arguing for anything here just curious why the English High Court ruling would be considered so obviously unreasonable as to be so likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
    The English case was heard in the High Court, the appeal is being heard in the Supreme court

    It is not uncommon for lower courts to rule in favour of the status quo when there is any doubt about precedent, while the Supreme court (relatively new and all that it is) is in the business of creating legal precedent where there wasn't one before.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Either way - when the topic at hand is prorogation - I doubt an Irish government could go to the people with a constitutional amendment that meant that any future government could suspend parliament at will for as long as they deemed advantageous..

    There can't be any changes to the our constitution here in Ireland without a referendum put the people first


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,753 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The English case was heard in the High Court, the appeal is being heard in the Supreme court
    what did I say?
    Akrasia wrote: »
    It is not uncommon for lower courts to rule in favour of the status quo when there is any doubt about precedent, while the Supreme court (relatively new and all that it is) is in the business of creating legal precedent where there wasn't one before.

    ok that's interesting... understand now why the two courts could end up with judgments seemingly at odds with each other.. one rules on existing precedent while the other might seek to establish it..

    so - what's the difference then between the Scottish courts and the English courts? Are they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,753 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    There can't be any changes to the our constitution here in Ireland without a referendum put the people first

    That's exactly what I said :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,776 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    lawred2 wrote: »
    re they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

    Different legal basis.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    lawred2 wrote: »
    so - what's the difference then between the Scottish courts and the English courts? Are they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

    Scotland doesn't just have its own courts, it has its own laws.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,753 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Scotland doesn't just have its own courts, it has its own laws.

    I understand that. So inferred in what you've just said is that prorogation was deemed illegal in Scotland on a point of law? Is that the case?

    It's still a common law system as far as I was aware.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,199 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    54and56 wrote: »
    They are a very well established German company so will do things by the book. They won't have taken the decision lightly but they know (or are very confident) a No Deal Brexit would be such a disaster that shutting down is the correct commercial decision to make.

    We've had experience of this in my département here in France, where it is considerably more difficult to shutter an established business. The (not very competitive) local factory was sold to a German business in the last decade, but the French workers refused to apply any common sense to the proposed evolution of their working practices. After several years of being persistently loss-making, the German owners decided to pull the plug.

    Despite the incredibly complex and worker-friendly regulations in force, they had dotted every i, crossed every t and lined up every duck before they announced the closure. The workers went absolutely mental (like only the French do :rolleyes:) and spent a fortune of their own and other people's money taking the Germans to every court and tribunal they could think of. Every single challenge was thrown out.

    I happen to know some of the people who worked there. Those who saw the closure - and the generous redundancy package - as an opportunity, took the money, found another job and have since done very well for themselves. Those who ranted and raved about it all are sitting on roundabouts wearing yellow jackets, voting for Marine LePen and whinging about the EU/Germans/foreigners in exactly the same way as Brexiters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,249 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    lawred2 wrote: »
    I understand that. So inferred in what you've just said is that prorogation was deemed illegal in Scotland on a point of law? Is that the case?

    It's still a common law system as far as I was aware.

    The case was originally rejected on the same basis as the English high court that the courts did not have jurisdiction over the HOC Parliamentary procedure, but it was appealed to a bench of 3 Court of Session Judges (supreme court in Scotland) who heard arguments that this instance was more than just a normal parliamentary procedure and that Johnson was acting in bad faith to bypass parliament which is supposed to be sovereign.

    Once these arguments have ruled upon, and the Scottish appeals court found against Johnson on these arguments, the Supreme Court will have to consider this judgement and I cannot see them ruling that Johnson has the legal right to request a prorogation for any cause and for any duration. It would be absolutely ludicrous and the implications for UK democracy would be catastrophic.

    Chomsky(2017) on the Republican party

    "Has there ever been an organisation in human history that is dedicated, with such commitment, to the destruction of organised human life on Earth?"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    A real example which tied up our legal and legislative system for 35 years.

    It didn't tie up the legislative system for 35 years. It was a hot-button topic that successive governments sought to brush under the carpet, but it never brought the State to a standstill.
    lawred2 wrote: »
    urm I think that's sarcasm but as I'm straying into waters deeper than I'm comfortable with - I'm not so sure.

    I thought uncodified constitutions were in the minority.

    It is and they are :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,753 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The case was originally rejected on the same basis as the English high court that the courts did not have jurisdiction over the HOC Parliamentary procedure, but it was appealed to a bench of 3 Court of Session Judges (supreme court in Scotland) who heard arguments that this instance was more than just a normal parliamentary procedure and that Johnson was acting in bad faith to bypass parliament which is supposed to be sovereign.

    Once these arguments have ruled upon, and the Scottish appeals court found against Johnson on these arguments, the Supreme Court will have to consider this judgement and I cannot see them ruling that Johnson has the legal right to request a prorogation for any cause and for any duration. It would be absolutely ludicrous and the implications for UK democracy would be catastrophic.

    thanks for that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭trellheim


    geffbyupy wrote: »
    How do you think the next election will work out in the Six Counties? I doubt there will be a nationalist majority but I would bet that the DUP will lose a seat and SF will gain one, probably from that Nigel Dodds in North Belfast or Emma Pengelly in South Belfast, which previously had an SDLP seat.


    The next election will be in a post Oct-31 world ...ask us then !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    lawred2 wrote: »
    so - what's the difference then between the Scottish courts and the English courts? Are they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?
    Two separate legal systems. The UK is not a federation like say Germany. In Germany federal law trumps state law if there is any disagreement but this concept does not hold in the UK where the systems exist in parallel and there is no "federal law". It has been argued that if there is a disagreement here, the more conservative legal system should take precedence (Scots law in this case). This is all uncharted territory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,190 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    This isn't strictly Brexit related but I just had to share this here, seems I missed it completely before!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,981 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    lawred2 wrote: »

    so - what's the difference then between the Scottish courts and the English courts? Are they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?

    The Scottish case went to the outer court which ruled against Cherry and co, they appealed to the inner court (highest court in Scotland) which overturned the outer court and said it was unlawful. The UK govt then appealed to the UK Supreme court

    The English case never got to the highest court in England, they appealed straight to the UK Supreme court


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,988 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    I didn't watch all of the morning proceedings, but Lord Keen is painful in his delivery. I hope for his sake that this doesn't play a role as there is no flow to the way he is presenting his arguments and even accounting for the stop-start nature of the proceeding with questions being asked, he seems to break his own momentum constantly and it does seem like he has delayed answering a few questions already.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,988 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Ah, these judges know their stuff. They just asked Lord Keen some of the questions that people have as well. One of them was whether the recess could have been voted against by parliament and he acknowledge it could have been, even if it hasn't happened in a long time. Then on the timing of the prorogation and why it couldn't have been done after conference season as the amount of time lost would have been roughly what the government says, 7 days, and parliament and committee's would still have been sitting.

    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1173973494658457600?s=20


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Enzokk wrote: »
    I didn't watch all of the morning proceedings, but Lord Keen is painful in his delivery. I hope for his sake that this doesn't play a role as there is no flow to the way he is presenting his arguments and even accounting for the stop-start nature of the proceeding with questions being asked, he seems to break his own momentum constantly and it does seem like he has delayed answering a few questions already.

    Very different to Pannick this morning, he was very smooth. Questions seemed to be helping him make points, not stopping him in his tracks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,988 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Very different to Pannick this morning, he was very smooth. Questions seemed to be helping him make points, not stopping him in his tracks.


    From the little I saw this morning that was my impression as well. I cannot help but notice that Lord Keen wasn't keen to address why there was not signed statement on the reason for the prorogation other than there are other documents and that means it really isn't an issue. That seems to be missing the point.

    He was also asked on the reasons for prorogation and why they wanted to include the recess period, and for me he didn't address these at all. I wish I knew whether this meant anything or if in fact the way he avoided answering pointed questions actually means more than avoiding the answers.

    That is it for today though, back again tomorrow for more.

    Just a quick follow up to see what Mark Francois is up to, and it is only to suggest violence in case he doesn't get his way.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1173942067631972353?s=20


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Enzokk wrote: »
    From the little I saw this morning that was my impression as well. I cannot help but notice that Lord Keen wasn't keen to address why there was not signed statement on the reason for the prorogation other than there are other documents and that means it really isn't an issue. That seems to be missing the point.

    He was also asked on the reasons for prorogation and why they wanted to include the recess period, and for me he didn't address these at all. I wish I knew whether this meant anything or if in fact the way he avoided answering pointed questions actually means more than avoiding the answers.

    That is it for today though, back again tomorrow for more.

    Just a quick follow up to see what Mark Francois is up to, and it is only to suggest violence in case he doesn't get his way.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1173942067631972353?s=20

    Had a big bunfight with Sam Gyimah on same show. The guy would start a fight with his own shadow.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Enzokk wrote: »
    From the little I saw this morning that was my impression as well. I cannot help but notice that Lord Keen wasn't keen to address why there was not signed statement on the reason for the prorogation other than there are other documents and that means it really isn't an issue. That seems to be missing the point.

    He was also asked on the reasons for prorogation and why they wanted to include the recess period, and for me he didn't address these at all. I wish I knew whether this meant anything or if in fact the way he avoided answering pointed questions actually means more than avoiding the answers.

    That is it for today though, back again tomorrow for more.

    Just a quick follow up to see what Mark Francois is up to, and it is only to suggest violence in case he doesn't get his way.

    https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1173942067631972353?s=20

    Francois could well be right. The Telegraph, Express and Mail have whipped up English nationalism in a way that I haven't seen before. They have abandoned any pretence of independent reportage as a quick scan of their headlines will show. Ditto the ERG and Brexit Party.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,654 ✭✭✭Infini


    Francois could well be right. The Telegraph, Express and Mail have whipped up English nationalism in a way that I haven't seen before. They have abandoned any pretence of independent reportage as a quick scan of their headlines will show. Ditto the ERG and Brexit Party.

    Honestly I would be of the opinion of so what, if you dont tackle it now you get riots when people have their rights and other benefits removed because of Brexit. THe simple truth is the Telegraph, Mail, Express and the sun are propaganda rags peddling bull and lies and need to be held to account for publshing such distorted rubbish to begin with. Either they're hauled before the courts for publishing misinformation or those who run them are held to account. Either way they're standards have fallen into the gutter and they need to be dragged back to a level of quality thats reliable and verifiable or they're shut down for basically lying and speading misinformation just like the anti-vaxxer idiots.

    The ERG are a bunch of self serving clowns and I'm pretty sure they've some rather nasty stuff hidden in the closet it doesnt take a genius to figure out they're purely out engineering this for their own benefit and not the country and as for the Brexit "party" they're just a front for other's namely that troll Farage, no policies, no idea's, only Brexit or Riot.

    I'd be honest if there's a serious investigation into these wasters I wouldn't be suprised if theres more than a few dirty secrets buried there, follow the money and you find out who the real puppeteers of this are. As for Brexit itself it's a scam and if politicians were a Bit Braver they'd stop this madness and cut off any BS on this whole thing, the whole thing was built on lies and was nothing more than a Tory party scam and any of those advocating this is a good thing need to be told that they dont have any facts, they're talking out of their hole and that they have no right to take people's rights away purely for vanity. As for will of the people 17.4milliion of a population of 64million+ is not a majority plain and simple and the whole referendum was won on misinformation and lies and is thus invalid based on those 2 facts alone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,959 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Akrasia wrote: »
    No Matter who the Labour leader is, they will be character assassinated by the UK press and the troll army

    If Labour were clever they would announce a change of leader the day before an election, so that all of the Tory campaigning which will be entirely focused on how bad Corbyn is, would be immediately neutralised, and they wouldn't have the time to poison the public against whoever the new Labour leader happened to be.

    Chances of this happening are zero due to the egos and personalities involved


    The UK press seem to have it both ways for criticising Labour. Elect a Corbyn type as leader and they vilify him as an evil communist who'll ruin the country. Elect a centrist and they'll be accused of being a "Blairite" and out of touch with the real Labour core.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,394 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Infini wrote: »
    Honestly I would be of the opinion of so what, if you dont tackle it now you get riots when people have their rights and other benefits removed because of Brexit. THe simple truth is the Telegraph, Mail, Express and the sun are propaganda rags peddling bull and lies and need to be held to account for publshing such distorted rubbish to begin with.

    The ERG are a bunch of self serving clowns and I'm pretty sure they've some rather nasty stuff hidden in the closet it doesnt take a genius to figure out they're purely out engineering this for their own benefit and not the country and as for the Brexit "party" they're just a front for other's namely that troll Farage, no policies, no idea's, only Brexit or Riot.

    I'd be honest if there's a serious investigation into these wasters I wouldn't be suprised if theres more than a few dirty secrets buried there, follow the money and you find out who the real puppeteers of this are.

    Indeed. But many people no longer want facts, explanations or depth. They want simple slogans that feed into their sense of Englishness and their sense of entitlement. So these papers and politicians tell them what they want to hear. Much like Trump supporters, they don't care about any secrets or realities. They just want to believe in something and someone. Brexit and Brexiteers answer that call perfectly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭ElectronVolt


    I'm most definitely in favour of an European Union, but I am a bit stunned at Guy Verhofstadt's speech at the Liberal Democrats conference where he talked about a world of 'Empires'. I understand what he was trying to say i.e. that the EU was a collection of nations, standing together against, being able to operate in a world of empires and emerging empires, but that is not how it came across at all.

    https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1173548730542448645?s=09

    The choice of language was extremely clumsy and the word 'empire' in these islands is an incredibly loaded phrase and immediately brings up connotations of the British Empire, both in the minds of those of us who would found that empire abhorrent and those on the right in England who quite like the idea of the days of 'Rule Britannia'.

    I get what he was trying to say, but I think he's managed to paint the EU as an emergent imperial force and that is likely to play extremely badly with both Brexiteers and Remainers.

    The EU needs to get across the point that it's not something that can be compared to militarily imposed empires of the past. It's more like crowdsourcing, pooling and bringing together of a group of smaller, generally like minded countries to allow them to exist in a world of bullying empires. It's about having scale and an ability to stand independently without being bounced between major global economic and military powers, but that absolutely is not how his speech will be interpreted.

    His choice of language and delivery has probably just fed the trolls with rocket fuel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,654 ✭✭✭Infini


    Indeed. But many people no longer want facts, explanations or depth. They want simple slogans that feed into their sense of Englishness and their sense of entitlement. So these papers and politicians tell them what they want to hear. Much like Trump supporters, they don't care about any secrets or realities. They just want to believe in something and someone. Brexit and Brexiteers answer that call perfectly.

    Sadly they're just fooling themselves and worse they're dragging other's down with their blind faith in a lie and delusion and fail to see how damaging it's gonna be to themselves. Sadly they're gonna end up having to suffer for their own stupidity simply because they refuse to listen to reason and it wont be because anyone wished it on them but because they brought it on themselves. I swear human stupidity is the cancer of this existence. :/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    The UK press seem to have it both ways for criticising Labour. Elect a Corbyn type as leader and they vilify him as an evil communist who'll ruin the country. Elect a centrist and they'll be accused of being a "Blairite" and out of touch with the real Labour core.

    The right wing press will never get behind any kind of leftist labour leader, witness how they monstered soft left Ed, but corbyn is also getting it from the centre ground and left leaning outlets lime the guardian. And yet all that happened in 2017 and it just played into corbyns hands, all that rabid Marxist Stalinist stuff did not resonate with an electorate who see the modern world in different terms and I suspect that'll all be repeated next to e around. The post you were responding to about replacing corbyn on the eve of polling date was, I thought, a little bonkers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,379 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Indeed. But many people no longer want facts, explanations or depth. They want simple slogans that feed into their sense of Englishness and their sense of entitlement. So these papers and politicians tell them what they want to hear. Much like Trump supporters, they don't care about any secrets or realities. They just want to believe in something and someone. Brexit and Brexiteers answer that call perfectly.

    It's a bit of a perfect storm. A dumbed down section of the population being lied to by a corrupt press (and wanting to be lied to, as the press are feeding them a load of bile that ties in with their bigoted attitudes).

    Best guess is that this leads to the break up of the UK. It seems to be mainly England going through this craziness.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,046 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Strazdas wrote: »
    Best guess is that this leads to the break up of the UK. It seems to be mainly England going through this craziness.

    The arguments made against the EU can be made against the UK as well, so watch the hypocrisy ensue when the English must do a 180 flip from arguing against one union, right into arguing for another. The one that they're at the head of, incidentally, and can dictate the terms of.

    Or, to use Brexiteers' own rhetoric against them, the UK is an undemocratic construct whereby laws are imposed from London in which Scotland, Wales and NI have little say. They have an unelected upper house, and an unelected head of state.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement