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.
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
Professor Moriarty wrote: » 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.
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
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Very different to Pannick this morning, he was very smooth. Questions seemed to be helping him make points, not stopping him in his tracks.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » A real example which tied up our legal and legislative system for 35 years.
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.
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.
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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Scotland doesn't just have its own courts, it has its own laws.
lawred2 wrote: » re they not as conservative where precedent is concerned?
WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: » There can't be any changes to the our constitution here in Ireland without a referendum put the people first
Akrasia wrote: » The English case was heard in the High Court, the appeal is being heard in the Supreme court
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.
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..
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.
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » I believe that the hearings will take 3 full days from today to Thursday with no indication at present of when the judgement will be announced.
BonnieSituation wrote: » That's obviously why so much of the world operates without a codified constitution...
lawred2 wrote: » A good example but a fairly extreme example all the same...
Enzokk wrote: » They are scheduled to hear arguments today and tomorrow, not sure how long it will take for them to rule after that.
[Deleted User] wrote: » How many days will the Supreme Court thing take?
