|
imo moderate tories don't have anything much to worry about from BXP in a pre-Brexit Johnson-led GE, outside of ultra-marginals. Few people vote based on the individual candidate anyway, and Johnson is legit ready, willing & able to do a NDB, and you know he's gonna campaign hard on "vote Tory to protect Brexit". You could probably put a fake moustache on Jean-Claude Juncker & he'd get elected if he had the right colour rosette on.
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
Hallucinogenic Toreador posted:Don't we have to ask for an extension? Art 50 TEU, para. 3 posted:The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 10:48
|
|
|
uh yeah. I've already talked a bit about judicial review this week (& honestly I'm not particularly an expert in it, but I know some stuff). Government decisions are subject to challenge through the courts in a way that Acts of Parliament just aren't. If Government specifically defied an Act of Parliament, the courts would have the authority to say "nope, that's illegal, don't do that", and if Government did it anyway they would be in contempt of court, and liable to have the rozzers come round and chuck them in prison for 2 years. Whether that'd actually happen or not is another question, but that's the law. e: Like, it wouldn't even be ambiguous, it's not just that the courts technically have the authority to do that, they'd pretty much have to accept any challenge to a decision that contradicts an Act of Parliament, "illegality" is by far the easiest way to succeed in an application for JR. The remedies themselves are discretionary, but c'mon, anything short of an actual Court Order with consequences for noncompliance would be loving pointless. I don't believe that even Johnson et al are stupid enough to voluntarily risk actual criminal consequences, either it's just bluster or they're hoping for political consequences somewhere before an Order gets made that they can leverage into passing the Enabling Act Borrovan fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Sep 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 10:57
|
|
|
Taear posted:The biggest thing that's happened - especially if you're retired - is that the cost of stuff has gone up. But people see that as a normal thing, so it doesn't seem to count. & still people call PROJECT FEAR when you say "look at this very real thing that has literally happened in reality"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
RockyB posted:When you've seen everything shut down for the last 50 years, someone telling you that more factories have shut down doesn't really come as a surprise or change your world view. oh.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 11:30
|
|
|
e: ^^^ I've seen them on the telly, and I'm a reclusive shut-in nerdOwlFancier posted:But that's not the same thing as the police siding with him personally over parliament, which I think is unlikely. The way it'd have to go down is:- -Government defies an AoP; -someone applies for JR; -the Court accepts the application (no-brainer), and orders Gov't to not do that (discretionary, but c'mon) -Government defies the order; -Whichever-ministers are arrested and charged with contempt of court (this is the bit that's up to police and prosecutors, but it's literally their job, and I'm p sure the courts would just order them to so it's their own necks on the line if they don't. No criminal lawyer over here tho) -A trial happens, wherein all the most expensive lawyers in the land argue that Gov't had totally defied an unambiguous Court Order accidentally in good faith and thus lacked the mens rea or some stupid poo poo, probably getting them off but with an even clearer and less ambiguous order to stop loving around -If found guilty, sentencing, maximum penalty of 2 years or more usually a slap on the wrist if you're rich & white enough; if not, they've probably got a new order to comply with and would get hosed if they didn't e: vvv lmao I don't know, I guess Parliament does technically have the authority to pass the Send The Goons Round And gently caress Em Up Act 2019, idk what powers Bercow has without passing an Act tho 
Borrovan fucked around with this message at 11:42 on Sep 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 11:38
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Hasn’t the Tory government already defied a whole bunch of court orders with literally no consequence? There was a shittonne of non-binding parliamentary resolutions, which is pretty bad in constitutional terms but not straight-up illegal like an Act of Parliament would be
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:It's more just astonishment at modern capitalism that we can somehow lose all our industry and still somehow be a rich country? That we still get all these imports of the same goods made overseas somehow and send back... nothing? in return. Balance of payments has been negative for ages and by some magic the city of london makes countries still send things here? 
Borrovan fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Sep 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
FT was urging MPs to back a VONC the other day e: I don't read the FT, they said so on the radio
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 12:48
|
|
|
Just want to amend my lawposting from yesterday based on something I heard on the radio (didn't quite understand the question): I posted yesterday that it's unambiguously illegal for Government to defy an Act of Parliament, which is true. A Bill doesn't become an Act until it receives royal assent. By convention, the monarch has to provide assent for any Bill that is passed up by both houses. Except on the advice of her ministers. The last time the monarch refused royal assent was the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708, at which point it was already considered settled that the monarch had to provide assent for any Bill whatsoever. It was only because after that particular Bill was passed it became known that a French warfleet was sailing towards Scotland (y'know, their historic allies in the ongoing battle against the perfidious English) that everyone suddenly considered that maybe the monarch can refuse assent if everyone's basically in agreement that it's a really good idea. This was the first and only time the "on the advice of her ministers" exception was even considered. Basically, Boris can just say DON'T SIGN THAT LIZ before anything passed by Parliament becomes an Act, and a legal challenge to that would be very uncertain. ...not that any of this is likely to be an issue, because of course the Queen would exercise her discretion this time, where her own ministers are themselves blatantly defying conventi- *starts making GBS threads uncontrollably out of own mouth*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2019 08:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wouldn't it still be up to bercow whether the government is in contempt of parliament? ...and nor does anyone else in definitive terms, May's government was literally the first time in history that's happened so it's all a bit ambiguous. What happened then though is that Parliament decided that the Government was in contempt of Parliament. Bercow just decides that there's a case to answer or something, and it goes to a vote. Barry Foster posted:There are no rules, only power and those willing to wield it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2019 08:26
|
|
|
Podcast good. You fuckers made me guffaw on a crowded train with the gag about the Atlantic e: AceOfFlames posted:These have been my mottos for the past decade. You literally have no basis for comparison here. You've just baselessly asserted that it's better than the alternative, which justifies the behaviour that makes you feel poo poo and leads to these kinds of lovely assertion, it's a textbook vicious circle that any therapist would spot in a split second. Get therapy ffs Borrovan fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
I got that job I interviewed for  My spies tell me that I was not the first choice (for basically my own job lol) & there was a massive row about it, but at least I know who my friends are now, & more to the point, no soul destroying job market for me! 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 10:12
|
|
|
It's supposed to help because you need to actually engage with your therapy for it to work & acknowledging the very obvious answer to that question is the first step towards doing that you numpty E: like the whole point of therapy is to help you acknowledge that you're basically wrong about a bunch of stuff which is causing you harm, how the hell are you supposed to do that without asking questions that expose the contradictions in your thinking Borrovan fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Sep 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
*cribs Churchill's speech about the time he ordered soldiers to open fire on striking miners in Tonypandy word for word* Expressed regret, FAIL
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:why does no one care that dennis skinner supports brexit? Am posting this from one of those work pods everyone was railing against last month. Oh, except it's owned by the University I'm visiting, is free to use, and is actually pretty drat useful. Nationalise shitposting booths imo
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:I can't remember, is anything happening to punish her for literally siding with the tories over her own party over and over and over and over again? https://mobile.twitter.com/KateHoeyMP/status/1148198081143476225
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 13:37
|
|
|
GE dates on her resignation letter suggest she might not have known that when she signed it though 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
lmao imagine looking at a landlord class sustaining itself by extracting money from the poor for no work and thinking it's the loving socialists that are the entitled ones
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Definitely a libertarian, thinks squatting is literally rape. Like if we're gonna go with this analogy we should bear in mind that possessory title is a thing. No time to figure out the full implications tho, I've gotta go mail this cheque for my dick payments or a guy with 20 dicks will come and cut my dick off
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Last vagina I moved into, the owner forgot to tell me that there was already someone in there, and let me tell you that was exactly as awkward as you'd imagine
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
freddiestarfish posted:I could either get a mortgage I can't physically afford, or rent a house at twice the price. Like I'm not saying we have to guillotine them all right away, but we could at least fling a little bit of dog poo poo at them or something?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Dark thought... if Johnson can apparently prorogue on a whim, can he just extend it indefinitely? Or have the house back for 5 minutes then prorogue again til November 1st? What's stopping him? And gently caress it looks like he's pissing off the judiciary. They had Lord Sumption on Today this morning saying "lol gently caress no he cannot do this poo poo". Lord Sumption, for reference, is a guy whose whole gimmick is being literally the only judge ever who spends the whole time trying to limit the power of the judiciary and rant about how judges need to interfere less with politics and commerce and law and should pretty much do nothing ever. If he's saying it's time for the courts to step in, you can p much guarantee every judge in the country smells blood. Borrovan fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Sep 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:"left fascism" could be ancaps I guess
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
Surely anything juicy was deleted before the vote
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
Surprise T Rex posted:Have they managed to pass anything at all yet? 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Why can't/couldn't parliament just vote to stay open?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, that's technically defying the monarchy, which is its own constitutional hand grenade. There's no constitutional reason for not doing it. There's probably a practical or political reason, but idk what it is
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 09:39
|
|
|
imo this LD A50 thing is good for Jeremy Corbyn. Their core voter base are big brained very rational adults who are obsessed with compromise and decorum, very few of whom will openly back totally ignoring a referendum (& as someone already said, the ones that would aren't voting Labour anyway). The move just exposes the core hypocrisy of the LDs' position. Plus this move is very obviously in response to Labour backing a second referendum, and attacking Labour Brexit policy for being too Brexitey when it's exactly what the LDs were calling for until seconds ago is such transparent horseshit that, again, the only people who will buy it are rabid smoothbrains. "voting Lib Dem out of principle"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 09:53
|
|
|
It's not a real article (that's not to say he didn't repeatedly & deliberately poo poo himself tho). Looks like he had a real normal one last night, anyway. Up late telling everyone he's definitely not a Tory and showing off a scan of a 2 1/2 year old cheque to "prove" he paid tax once.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:Single issue remainers will definitely flock to the Lib Dems e: & unlike most single issues, this one probably has voters that aren't
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
radmonger posted:he could even adopt a defensible Brexit strategy
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 11:23
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:What would concern me is if polling (yes I know) shows that the libs have a large enough bloc that neither the Labour or Tory parties can get a majority without them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Feel like this works without "african" involved.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Arrival chat: I found it pretty boring, but the concept led to a very interesting conversation about philosophy of religion, since it basically introduces viewers to the concept of transcendentalism. The "question" posed at the end that someone mentioned is more of an answer imo: "whether you'd live your life differently" is philosophically absurd from the transcendental perspective, since the tragedy that "will" happen has already happened, simultaneously with everything else that you will ever experience. It's all just life. PM name chat: "Johnson" is also a word for penis & so is self-evidently the superior choice imo Law chat: holy loving poo poo. Pretty sure this is the first time in history an argument based on democracy & the rule of law has been accepted, this is a big loving deal. The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in Scottish law, so it's Scottish law they should be applying here - but since the decision will also bind what happens in the rUK, the outcome could get a bit messy. Anyone know what remedy the Court of Session ordered? No time to check, but bear in mind that 95% of what the non-legal press has to say about law stuff is bullshit. Other: haven't seen anyone call Tom Watson a oval office for a bit, so just throwing this out there: Tom Watson is a massive loving oval office.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:For civil matters but not for criminal matters. I assume it is for constitutional matters too? e: Mr. Fortitude posted:So what's likely to happen next? Supreme Court ruling? What happens in the interim largely depends on (a)what the Court of Session ordered, and (b)politics. I'll try to find the time to look at the judgment later but bear in mind most of what anyone's saying about this is likely to be bullshit. Borrovan fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
Lmao cool, cheers. Sounds like Parliament's still open then, someone call Jo Swinson back from her jollies e: been saving this one. Newborns: 
Borrovan fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
Sanitary Naptime posted:If you wanna pm me some stuff for tonight’s podcast recording on this that would be greatly appreciated
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
I actually seriously don't have time to do a bunch of lawposting but I just can't help but respond to thisEl Grillo posted:The court's order has not yet gone into force, as it will be stayed until the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court (and even if Miller/Cherry are successful in the appeal, the Supreme Court might block this order and make a different one of their own). Having read the official summary now, note also that the Court fell short of actually ordering anything, so nobody's getting charged with contempt of court yet whatever happens, if that's a thing anyone was wondering. El Grillo posted:The acts of public authorities (and officials acting on behalf of them) are subject to public law principles. Their acts can be 'judicially reviewed', like the PM's act of advising the Queen to prorogue parliament is being reviewed right now. The consequences if such acts are found to be unlawful depends on what the applicant/petitioner who brought the judicial review against the authority said they wanted, and also on what the court is willing/minded to grant. Unlawful decisions of public authorities can be quashed (unmade), unlawful acts of public authorities can be declared unlawful (declaration) and the authority can be ordered to correct the consequences of their action in some way, etc. The grounds for judicial review are: illegality (i.e., that the decision maker didn't have the lawful authority to do wot they dun); procedural impropriety (i.e., corruption, or not taking account of things that they were lawfully required to take account of... that kind of thing); or, irrationality (in the Wednesbury sense: that is, a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker who applied themselves to the matter could have reached it). There's very little basis for any of these to apply here:- last week's decision (in England and Wales) tells us that he was following the proper procedure, doing something that he had the lawful authority to do, and it wasn't unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (very little is tbh). Have seen the official summary now, and honestly I don't quite understand what they're saying, for two reasons: firstly, they seem to say that it's only because it was an attempt to bypass parliamentary scrutiny that they even had the authority to challenge a prerogative power (when - certainly in England and Wales - it's a settled matter of case law that prerogative powers can be challenged by JR); secondly, it isn't clear on which of these grounds they're challenging it, or whether it's something entirely new (see below). They just don't explain the reasoning fully, so there's not much that can be said until we see the full judgment. I had been working on the assumption that the challenge was based on the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. In brief: we all know what parliamentary sovereignty is - it's only limits are that Parliament can't bind future parliaments (although the limits of this are unclear - both the European Communities Act and the FTPA do things that were previously considered impossible, so who knows how much further Parliament could push it), and the very theoretical limitation that Acts of Parliament might be challenged if they really egregiously violate the rule of law. The rule of law is a very vague constitutional principle, but at its essence basically requires that there exists a system of rules and that these rules are followed, rather than governing arbitrarily or by discretion (hi Pesmerga if you're reading this, yes I know this is a massive oversimplification, feel free to expand!). Whether Acts can be challenged this way is really uncertain - some senior jurists say they can, but quite how we don't know - so, basically this possibility acts as an unspoken "threat" for Parliament not to take the piss or the courts might step in, and even they don't know what crazy poo poo they might do so don't gently caress around. What I'm getting at here is that if even Acts of Parliament might be challenged this way, then prerogative powers - which we already know can be challenged by JR - should, in theory, also be. How this fits into the pre-existing grounds for JR I don't know, it's very theoretical and there's a bunch of arguments that could be made. And, Johnson deliberately trying to bypass Parliament most certainly violates the rule of law, due to parliamentary sovereignty being so well established and it being a transparent attempt to basically overrule it by dictat. Whether this is what the Court of Session was getting at, I don't know; we'll have to wait for the judgment. There's also, as noted, the weirdness that they explicitly said that they only have the jurisdiction to challenge it because of this - which does not jive with the general position for prerogative powers, in England and Wales for sure - so it might be some Scottish weirdness, or they might have "discovered" an entirely new principle. El Grillo posted:When you refer to 'breaking the law' you are probably referring to individuals or organisations committing an unlawful act which constitutes an 'offence'. These can range from parking illegally to murdering someone to committing misconduct in a public office. Offences are chargeable; a charge can be issued against you for acting unlawfully, either by the police (for less serious criminal offences), by a designated public authority (e.g. a local authority, for certain offences like parking fines or highway offences), or by the Crown Prosecution Service (for more serious criminal offences). El Grillo posted:Guavanaut is incorrect regarding judges 'making up laws on the fly'; judges are certainly allowed to make law, that is the foundation of 'common law' legal systems such as ours. Many offences are 'common law' offences which have no basis in statute (parliament has passed no law setting out that offence) but which have simply been created over the centuries by judges. One example is the offence of misconduct in a public office which I mentioned in another answer above. Of course, what they're actually doing is changing the law - and, in cases like Shaw, totally are making it up on the fly. But, the kayfabe is that nuh uh they're just applying or clarifying what the law already was. e:god damnit Guava beating me to my own post  El Grillo posted:
Borrovan fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
El Grillo posted:If you get a second, what's the authority on this? Your post way back in the thread mentioned Case of Proclamations and you acknowledged that was directed at the Crown not the courts. Would be interested to see an authority stating courts in E&W are prohibited from creating new legal principles, and in particular prohibited from creating new offences. Could it have been in/around the Judicature Acts (1873 & 75)? Don't have any of my public law books close to hand to find a secondary source unfortunately
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 16:18
|
|