UKH

Supreme court has ruled that the matter is justiceable.

Limit of prorogation power: "A decision to prorogue will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing without reasonable justification the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions."

"This prolonged suspension of parliament democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances. Parliament has a right to a voice in how that change came about."

"The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification has been put before the court."

"The decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful."

Holy shit. What next?

Ooft!: "The PM's advice to her majesty was unlawful, void, and to of no effect... The prorogation was also unlawful, void, and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued."

Reasoning seemed clear and logical with little doubt about the outcome as evidenced by a unanimous verdict 

Slap for Bojo but, as you say, what next?

Wow.

Unanimous

What next indeed.

Hasn’t the precedent already been set.

Some time in the tower followed by a public beheading and head displayed on a spike on a London Bridge.

Although I’m not sure that would satisfy the UKC regulars. Too soft a punishment for a Tory. 

I'm guessing thinly veiled threats against the judiciary from Number 10, "Traitors" and "Enemies of the people" headlines in the Telegraph and Mail and death threats towards Miller et al from various losers.

What next?

Various politicians all of the remain variety demanding an end to Brexit, a people’s vote and Johnson’s resignation, outside of the Supreme Court within minutes of the verdict.

Hopefully, we have seen the last of  the sly and scheming  Cummings whose advice  helped get us into this chaos.

I'm glad that the Law lords have followed the recent dictum of Wercat LJ who beat them 2it in the other thread:

"One could equally argue that if we have a Constitution, composed of laws and conventions, that it is "The Law" that the Executive must act within the constitution, since it is only the constitution which gives the Executive any power at all.  If the Executive has acted ultra-vires with respect to the Constitution then it has no power so to do, and further, if it does not recognise the Constitutionn then it does not recognise that which grants its own existence, authority and powers."

Contrary to popular and populist opinion, and to my own darkest fears, I did hope that the judiciary would make this decision as not to have so done would have been to surrender their power for the forseeable future to intervene in the case of a runaway Executive.

What next? The end of the Labour conference?...which would be a shame as it's been comedy gold

can this be appealed ? maybe one of the European courts

A unique insight into how labour would be better at running the country. 😂

I refer you to my post of 2103 on Thursday, made from Llanberis YHA in reply to Pec

"If Boris has dispensed with the constitution not only are his acts unlawful but they are null and void and therefore Parliament is not properly prorogued at all and can sit with equal effect to any sitting of the Ecxecutive."

Call Thomasdixon ...

Give us a job - I'll pay my own way.

That would be a laugh - BJ going to "Europe" to dig him out of trouble because he doesn't want to be in Europe.

Nothing much. What is Parliament actually going to do?

Now if they’d said from the start; this is illegal, we’re still here, we’re going to meet in Oxford and pass an Act to put Johnson in the stocks, we might have had some fun.

jcm

Oh Yes to that

When you have been stuffed 11 nil, you can't really quibble about a dodgy offside decision for the fifth goal.

Utterly humiliating but I suspect Bojo will try and shrug it off and blame others. 

Hanged, drawn and quartered, as a minimum !

So this will put an interesting slant on BoJo's speech in New York today.

What's the betting he'll resign then?

Already all other parties have called for his resignation.

What happens if he resigns?

Do we get another Conservative leader election?

That should take us past Oct 31st nicely.

Has Johnson played a blinder?

Stunning. Gives some reassurance that we are not totally at the mercy of charlatans. 

I believe there is a 2 week process that would allow a Gov of National Unity to be formed provided it can demonstrate a majority in Parliament

In theory leader of the opposition can try to form a government.

But I doubt BJ would resign.

In reply to you and balmybaldwin - I’m not sure that this is what happens.

BBC article on the subject:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49810261

Do you not think this a resigning matter for Johnson?

Jubilate!

It's been a messy conference with some daft policy announcements, however:

Would a referendum between remain and May's deal (or close) get us out of the current mess? Yes, regardless of what JC or others campaign for.

Would a Labour government end up in this mess with a court ruling against them? No

I don't think it's sunk in with conservatives such has yourself just what a f*cked up situation the Conservative Party has got this country into. You know, the party that has just expelled the ex-chancellor.

PS Never grasp at straws when climbing!

It seems to me that the Government wasn't trying too hard in this case, some of the things they did were almost provoking the court.   Boris looks too damned happy when asked about this case and how he's going to avoid sending the letter asking for the extension to the EU.

I think there's a plan we've not seen yet and it is probably just as dirty and undemocratic as the proroguing thing.   

It's now 11:30  - surely it's all been sorted by now....

Even if he were to resign, I presume they would just slot Gove in to carry on regardless.

In fact, Carry on Regardless would be  great for a remake of a  film in a series we thought had died. I will have to think about casting.....not sure whether to envisage the originals like Barbara Windsor, Sid James etc in the roles or to start with the present generation of actors.

What gives you that idea?

I don’t know, like he broke the law, in a way, that, according to 11 of the best legal minds in the land « The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. »

Under any normal circumstances this is a nailed on resignation. Under any normal circumstances...

In what other walk of life would acting unlawfully in such an extreme and unprecedented manner not be grounds for resignation?

I’m not defending his actions, it was obvious that his plan was to disrupt parliament.

Johnson, Rees-Mogg et al surely must resign.

I expect in reality Parliament will reconvene tomorrow and the clown show will roll on, a new nadir passed, noted and forgotten.

jk

I can't see anywhere Baron suggests this wouldn't be a resigning matter (in normal circumstances). Just because he is for Brexit doesn't mean he should be piled upon.

Like all of us, we just don't know what will happen next or what Johnson will do

In any other walk of life Johnson wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.

He should resign.

If he does will this create as many if not more problems than it solves?

Thanks for that!  

You lumped it in with demands to stop Brexit, so I assumed that was something you wouldn't be happy with. Question stands either way.

Never mind resigning, but asking for privacy, retiring to the library, and pulling the revolver from the desk drawer....

CB

I responded that your ‘what next’ with a commentary about what was literally happening next.

It was the politicians who brought Brexit into their comments about what was a legal case.

Are you sure it wasn't Crispin Odey's plan?

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/channel-four-tories-at-war-cri...

"You're not going to change this current parliament, so you've got to dissolve it in some way."

Sounds like it could have been.

Some daft announcements?

They couldn’t even work out whether they’d counted a show of hands properly the other day. 

Don't fall into the trap that others make here. Just because I think remainers and labour supports are a bunch of idiots doesn’t mean I am a brexiteer or a conservative. 

Since instead of the Churchillian hero he sees himself as, his legacy would then to become the answer to an easy Pub Quiz question.

His ego will not let him resign.

Most likely a deputy will take over as caretaker until a new leader and PM can be elected. Gove for caretaker at a guess.

If he resigns, yes assuming there are candidates.

How? There will be a PM, that PM still has to pass a WA or request an A50 extension and they refuse the cabinet secretary will have to do it. Johnson has been caught with his pants down again, it's not some strategic masterstroke revealed. in ordinary times his career would have died this morning.

jk

One thing he definitely won’t do is resign. He’s not an easy man to make feel ashamed, and the idea of abandoning the limelight would run contrary to his very deepest conviction - viz, that he personally deserves at all times and in all circumstances to be the centre of attention.

jcm

https://newsthump.com/2019/09/24/boris-johnson-pledges-to-take-prorogation-...

... who of course will have to uphold the unanimous ruling of our Supreme Court. Looks as if Bojo is digging an ever deeper hole to bury himself in.

  Meanwhile, the Labour party delegates plan to plunge the stake deep into Boris’s heart by......boycotting Tom Watson’s speech 😂

How do you boycott something that isn't happening?

I don't think they can do that because he can't demonstrate a majority in Parliament.  The only reason boris was able to succeed May is because May was in a position to assure the queen that Bojo would have a majority (albeit a tiny one)

He has been shown to have LIED to HM (and indeed Parliament) regarding proroguing.

He cannot command a majority.

HM could well "invite" someone else, who can command a majority, to form a government.

Then the Law Lords or Parliament can deal with BJ's criminality.

Resignation is the easy way out - it should be instant dismissal with everything that comes with it regarding disgrace, followed by criminal proceedings. The b*st*rd deserves at least jail.

I’m not sure he has been found to have lied, because they considered effect rather than motive. 

We all know he did of course. 

Penny for Lady Hale’s thoughts on the matter...

It's almost like you're trying to change the subject.

And who is the Queen going to invite given that nobody commands a majority and she’s just had her fingers burned by politicians?

Your last point is wishful thinking.

There's no trap, it's just looking at this rationally. These are extraordinary times the Tories and this government has got us into. Anyone who's first comment on this thread is about the Labour party is obviously delusional about the state we are in, and must have some partisan sympathy for Bojo.

It's pretty much crowing about a listing ship, while clinging the battered remnants of the one you were afloat in. Assumption over your motives are fair enough.

I assume there is a difference between ‘unlawful’ and ‘illegal’. 

Here, he has just done something that he has no right in law to do. As opposed to doing something that there’s an actual law against doing. 

Subtle difference? 

Obviously? 

I’m not a Labour supporter so therefore I must support the conservatives? Wow!

Very noticeable that all commentators are referring to BJ having "acted unlawfully" and not one has suggested he has "broken the law".

Yes Mr OnRock, the fact that your first response to this was to criticise Labour speaks volumes. 

No it wasn’t. 

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/breaking_prorogation_ruling-710...

I’m not sure that’s necessarily exactly what unlawful and illegal mean, but otherwise agreed. He’s purported to do something which doesn’t have legal effect, as opposed to committing a criminal offence.

Still time for the latter, of course, but he’s done nothing yet that might get him jailed.

jcm

Please don't anybody take me for an apologist for Johnson but:

1. He hasn't been shown in court to have lied to the Queen. There was no judgement on lying at all.

There wasn't even any need to give a reason to the Queen for recommending prorogation and it would have been extraordinarily stupid if they chose to do so.

Obviously subsequent public explanations that (a 5 week) prorogation by Johnson and Mogg was perfectly normal and only about getting ready for a Queen's speech were barefaced lies but everybody knew that anyway. Maybe a case for misconduct in public office?

2. The Government being judged to have acted unlawfully isn't the same as acting illegally or criminally. There have been plenty of other (less dramatic and less constitutionally important) cases where courts have found the Government has acted unlawfully in some decision and they have just been forced to rethink the decision. 

BTW, does anybody else, when they hear about Jacob Rees-Mogg always think of: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0903/3194/products/Mog_Bad_Thing_1024x102...

Apologies, I got you mixed up with someone else. Looks like my comment still applies to some other posters though.

So would you now acknowledge that even though Labour had a poor conference, it's nothing compared to the shitshow Boris is putting on?

One in the eye for the ERG! Good 😊

In a thread back when Johnstone was selected I said his tactics were quite clear to me. 1. He intends to remain PM. 2. He knows he hasn't a chance in hell of reaching an agreement, so he will bluster and bullshit to show it was the EU's fault. 3. He will secretly welcome the kind of maneuvers that will stymie him ( as has happened) and will then be able to turn around and say I did what I promised but it was taken out of my hands by remainers. 

No,I don't think we've heard the last of Johnstone and he'll wriggle out of this one like the slimy fat slug he is and even perhaps lead the Conservatives back to victory. Only a resolute Parliamentary consensus will ensure that we don't go out without a deal of some sort and I'm afraid I don't think that is going to happen. 

That's a good and interesting point. So what then, automatic election in which case parliament will be dissolved or does parliament get a crack (or two assuming Corbyn fails) at a caretaker government? Can't see him quitting anyway, he's shameless and still on course to deliver brexit as far as I can see.

jk

They should get a crack at forming a caretaker government. 2 weeks to do so after a vote of no confidence.

That would be the obvious thing to do. It's lunacy to have a GE and potential no-deal exit in the same month. That should be accepted by all regardless of political affiliation, but we are in strange times, and we don't have a reasonably balanced media.

EDIT: Further proof of strange times if any were needed... PMs special adviser tweets b*llocks on an account titled the 'Odyssean Project'

Think that does deserve a few 😂😂😂😂😂

But it was clearly implied.

Yes, let’s hope this doesn’t get him off the hook with the Acuri business. 

I can't wait to see the headlines in tomorrow's papers. No doubt The Express will have something along the lines of the judges being Enemies Of The People. The Telegraph might really struggle to support Johnson without looking like the gutter press (if it didn't do so already).

Just listening to Johnson on the radio. He immediately went on about parliament frustrating Brexit, which is an illuminating response to a judgement on the lawfulness of prorogation for the purposes of having a Queen’s speech....

It’s already happening on Twitter. 

The Lords explicitly avoided passing any judgment whatever on it. Not their job. 

Another depressing aspect of today's news was seeing Corbyn naiively making out that the SC verdict was handing him the keys to Number 10.

What hook? A hundred grand of public woman to get a woman to sleep with you? Chicken feed. Money well spaffed.

jcm

The Telegraph won’t have the least difficulty. They’ll take the new far-right line that this proves we need directly-appointed justices - appointed by the PM, that is.

jcm

Yes, Johnson isn’t really bothering much about keeping up appearances with the nothing-to-do-with-Brexit lie, is he? But then he never meant to, presumably. The rest of them have been the same - those that are allowed to speak - Raab, for instance.

jcm

Resignation is for people with honour, people like Boris get sacked for gross misconduct and escorted from the building by burly security guards.

We can but hope.

somehow, I think not.

Before: "Proroguing parliament has nothing to do with Brexit"

After: "People are simply trying to stop Brexit at any cost"

WTF? Does he not realise? Or doesn't he care?

He’s not really a details person.

What a wonderfully dry comment, Dave.

They didn't say it wasn't their job, just that in this case there was no need to consider Johnson's motives (i.e. was he lying) because a reasonable justification for that length of prorogation hadn't been put forward by the Gov in court, and hence they could rule merely on the effect (not allowing supremacy of parliament, etc.) of the prorogation in determining its lawfulness.

Would have become much trickier if the ruling had depended on ascertaining BJ's motives and truthfulness, although one of the Law Lords did express surprise that there was no witness statement from the Gov (lying in that is a criminal offence IIRC, perjury), which is probably why BJ didn't submit one are persuade any of his ministers to submit one.

What the Law Lords actually thought (about BJ lying) will probably have to wait for retirements and memoirs, but since they tend to judge from the available evidence, it should be fairly easy to guess what they think about it

Does that mean we all get to have a go?

Bojo was a man who thought he was a roguer.

And he thought that it could last. 

Bojo locked the doors of parliament, Westminster. 

For some chlorinated grass. 

Get back, get back, get back to where you don't belong, get back Bojo. 

Yes, but you have to do Cameron's pig first.

I think Julia Donaldson can rest easy

Johnson has said that he "disagrees" with the Supreme Court's ruling. A unanimous verdict given by 11 eminent Judges, the best legal brains in the country. His arrogance beggars belief. The man has no honour nor decency or he would have resigned immediately.

Now Parliament is not "timed out", so it could theoretically  insert a referendum on a deal by January 31st in period of EU extension. , {probably May's as it legally must be returned to Parliament, and Boris not  got no other}.

Probably failure of no confidence vote in Boris tomorrow. He hangs in.

He could  surrender, but I wouldn't bank on it, to allow a temporary government to get us to Oct 31st.

I am no fan of this farce nor of Bojo.

But I think the whole thing is not helped by the Fixed Term Parlaiment Act and the fact that 2/3 of MPs have to vote in favour of an election.

Until this Act was passed an election was in effect the hands of the PM. We now have a minority govt which cannot go for an election without getting 2/3 of MPs to vote for it.

If BJ was to resign we still would be nowhere near an election which is really what is needed to move things forward politically.

Heard Lord Falconer talk about it, basically saying the whole system is trapped by this Act.

Everybody from the govt, the oppostition etc is stuck in a sort of no mans land.

There’s no majority for a referendum, or a deal or anything else except preventing a no deal in Parliament.

What’s the chances of another proroguing of Parliament in the near future?

Do you really think it is a good idea to have an election and a possible no-deal Brexit in the same month? The whole idea is to get an extension then have a general election without no-deal hanging over us. If Bojo gets a decent majority he can then have his no-deal Brexit at the end of January.

I can't believe the media aren't making this point more. If it has to be no-deal it should be all hands on deck for the month up to it, politicians and civil service. A GE would tie both lots up.

... which was smuggled in quite sneakily by Bojo's party under Cameron (there was some other major national issue at the time - can't remember what it was - so that Joe Public was basically looking the other way.) The MPs who voted for this – which is so contrary all our parliamentary principles - should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

In the 2010 election, the only party not to have fixed term Parliaments as a Manifesto pledge was the Conservatives.  Labour wanted them, but didn't state how long they should be and the Lib Dems stipulated four years.
 

Agreed. Need the referendum option.  And yes Corbyn  could  try to get a directive on his Brexit version { probably lose} as well as May's version to be  on ballot paper. But  legally the referendum will only be on May's WA, imo. And a later GE sorts out the trade agreement side of things if WA wins. Or GE just happens because of a later no confidence vote when the Tory "rebels " have ousted Boris, cause they will be reinstated to get through May's WA. What else is there??

Thanks for reminding me. But can you also remind me where on earth this bizarre, very un-British, authoritarian idea came from? 

Nick Clegg.

Just to add

the decision was put to the Attorney General as he is the governments legal counsel - he ruled very clearly the prorogue was legal, so it’s difficult to see what other legal advice the Prime minister would need - as far as he was concerned it was entirely legal to prorogue parliament.

What did the prime minister say to the queen ... no one knows and that is why the Supreme Court would not comment on it.

Interestingly the Scottish court took a view that the prime minister lied to the queen - seems they’ve got information which they shouldn’t have, they’re mind readers or they’ve made it up. Either way they are at odds with the Supreme Court which I guess the lawyers can give a view on whether this is a significant inconsistency between the two rulings.

Personally I don’t think the prorogue is the smoking gun it’s being made out to be.

Since this is a remain echo chamber you’ll forgive me if I don’t come back to this thread.

If Corbyn calls a no confidence vote tomorrow , I think he's politically without any nowse and self deluded. He'll just hand it over to Boris to gain the advantage of a 35% win in a GE and WTO will win. Boris wants to piss off this Parliament and Corbyn may well assist him!!

Guy Verhstopthat is trolling brexitears about British democracy after the supremes decision, which is unwise right now I think but understandable.

'Brexiteers can never say again the EU is undemocratic'

Guy V. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-brexit-la...

If prorogation for political convenience of the PM was lawful then our constitution would not be worth the paper it is not written on.

That is the price we pay for not having a written constitution. Questions of that importance in other Parliamentary Democracies would usually be decided by referendum.

There again, the UK  and  referenda............................

You will be sorely  missed

Not merely his arrogance but his stupidity. You can’t disagree with the Supreme Court’s statement of the law because what they say is the law. It’s like saying you don’t agree with the Income Tax Act.

jcm

Absolutely agreed. Let's hope that, after this debacle, we may move at last towards getting it all down in tablets of stone.

I’m fairly sure you can disagree with most things including any law that you like.

What’s the chances of Parliament managing to agree a written constitution in a reasonable time scale?

Would such a constitution not be subject to endless amendments and legal challenges.

Does today’s court ruling not show that our present system does work?

Sorry, quite a few questions there.

Of course, any fool can still 'disagree' with the law, e.g. disagree with the driving speed limits or the drink/driving laws. Not sure of the usefulness of your truism.

You can, but the intellectually honest thing to do would be to state exactly *where* the SC went wrong, and what was the flaw in their reasoning - instead of casting accusations of bias and disparaging their motives. The judgement is, after all, available for all to read.

I don't think a PM would ever have been so barmy as to try shutting down parliament if such matters were clearly forbidden in a constitution.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Poll Tax which some people disagreed with to the point of rioting.

Such disagreement helped change the law some would say for the better.

Come now, prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit, remember?

jcm

See Poland 

Sure, you can disagree in the sense of saying you don’t think something should be the law. You can’t disagree in the sense of saying that what the SC say is not in fact the law.

jcm

Did you just use intellectually honest in a post about Johnson?  

I agree with you that this episode suggests strongly that we do not need a written constitution. Our system is much better and more flexible.

Indeed, how anyone can look at the US and think a written constitution desirable is beyond me. It inevitably causes the politicisation if the judiciary. And it’s hard to amend when it doesn’t work. This idea that we should just agree on and then write down in advance the solution to any constitutional problems that may arise is daft.

jcm

Mr Farage said: "The calling of a Queen's Speech and prorogation is the worst political decision ever. Dominic Cummings must go."

Lol

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-news-resign-ni...

Meanwhile JC calls on BJ to resign.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/24/brexit-supreme-court-...

I was impressed by the clarity of today’s ruling which even a layman like myself could understand.

I'm assuming from the dislikes this comment attracted that some people have heard "broken the law" in media reports. That doesn't surprise me but as it was striking to me that all of the earliest commentators I heard - who were mostly lawyers or those very closely connected with the case - seemed to be unanimous in their use of "acted unlawfully". I can only conclude that there's a clarity distinction (whether it be strictly legal terminology or legal convention I would have no idea) that some in the more general media are not aware of.

They aren't at odds.  The Supreme Court didn't say Boris wasn't lying or Boris was acting in good faith it said it could make a ruling on the appeals without considering those issues.   

Merely pointing out what would ha e happened prior to the fixed term act. 

The Supreme Court didn’t get into whether or not Johnson lied because they didn’t need to. You wouldn’t need much nous to work out he did though, from the plethora of evidence available from simply watching the TV.

It seems to me the AG’s job is to declare that whatever the PM of the time’s view is on the biggest political issue of the time is lawful (looking back to Blair/Iraq). 

US politicisation seems an extreme exception, it doesn't seem to happen in western Europe for example. People  complain about judges but their appointment is not a political issue.

No doubt he's as sick of experts as Michael Gove.

Some bedtime reading. 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

I’m guessing another few days of debating and a vote of some kind on Friday on what they should do next. 

This is from the dusty archives of memory, but unlawful and illegal  are not synonyms. If you do something unlawful you simply do not have the legal authority for your action therefore what you do can be overturned. If you do something illegal you break the law and you face whatever sanction is prescribed by law.

However, understanding this distinction doesn't prevent me wanting a show trial ending with the PM's head on a spike.

T.

A selection of articles from tomorrow's Torygraph

(I don't pay them anything, but I get emails) -

Boris must act boldly to snatch Brexit victory from the jaws of judicial defeat

Stewart Jackson

The Supreme Court has sided with usurping Remainers over the people

John Longworth

To bow to this judgment would be to choose Supreme Court-ocracy over our constitutional monarchy

Andrew Lilico

You can dislike a particular law; you can dislike being convicted of a crime; but to disagree with a Supreme Court ruling is to question the judgement of the Supreme Court and put your own judgement above it. That is arrogant enough, but to do so just because the ruling goes against you is both arrogant and infantile.

Are you Dominic Raab? 

Death is too good for the likes of BigJob, with any luck he'll go down in history as laughing stock, for the buffoon he is, and probably won't have won a single vote in Parliament.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/bookmarkers-cut-odds-on-boris-...

One spin-off benefit of today's ruling is that I'm sat listening to the Best of the Supremes

But perversely, Boris becomes a more attractive magnet for the Brexit hardliners of the Farage Party. He's playing for those people in a GE, not going into coalition with Farage group but successfully stealing their ground in Brexit kudos- and winning. He's definitely still a contender in a populist driven GE.

Referendum  even on a May's WA deal seems the safest and fairest option to avoid a minority definition of Brexit thrust upon us.  With GE after.

Aren't you gonna hang him

Could we tone this shit down? There’s troubled people on both sides of the brexit debate and in the febrile atmosphere we have at the moment another act of political violence could have ramifications for generations. 

Indeed.

I suspect they're not being entirely serious.

Personally, I'd vote for death by cow trampling - we may as well have maximum comic value from his demise.

But if he fails to deliver Brexit on Oct 31st, he'll lose votes to the Farage party - a split leave vote is probably going to be needed to avoid a conservative majority.

We’ve only had

’head on a spike’ x2

’death’s too good for him’

’shoot himself’

’public beheading’

Just the usual UKC banter.

I take Lemony's point, along with the embedded knowledge that climbing and climbers have a rich seam of black humour, that many comments that may read as beyond the pale when considered in isolation come into a more ironic focus when this is considered, that what wouldn't get a reaction beyond a microgesture in conversation, where much communication comes from other non-verbal cues, can seem cold, harsh, offensive and distressing when read on a screen on your own, and that in a society becoming ever more divided, perhaps people need to start reining things in a little as a small first step towards reconciliation and rebuilding, as we'll all still be here when this is settled.

Much else might be said. And in truth I'd be happy to see the PM's metaphorical head on an editorial spike, as that might mean the story's done.

T.

I'm a staunch remainer, however I love that, amongst others, you and Cander come on with views that challenge mine and make me think - please let this continue - don't get out off by the vociferous few (they are not the majority, on anything)

And anyway, as a remainer, I may not be a Boris fan but I'm also not a Jeremy fan either, that is a problem for the British electorate 

I’m with you on this, Baron pretty much always has a well thought rational viewpoint.  Like you I am also remain but cannot vote labour  Corbyn at the helm. 

She's just had her fingers burnt by right-wing no-deal-brexiteers, NOT by politicians in general.

And why shouldn't I think wishfully that we could get out of this mess before the racist extremist right-wing lying fascists tear this country apart.

Maybe someone should check whether or not he's paid his taxes, after all, he does try to model himself on Trump.

Any individual can have whatever view they like.

The Prime Minister is supposed to speak and behave in an appropriate manner however.

The Queen should have him taken out and prorogued so hard he can't sit for a month. 

Why should we ?

First of all the Brexiteers started the violence by stated that if they didn't get what they wanted then there would be trouble - and with the BNP and other racist Nationalists on their side such threats were evidently not false. The only way to fight such violence is to ensure that the other side knows that you will retaliate in like manner - meekly giving in never works, it just invites further violence (or threats of).

Secondly many people regard what Johnson as done to be treasonous to some degree -and the only penalty for that does seem to be a necktie party - unfortunately not in public as that is no longer allowed.

Steve Bell's on top form with this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/sep/24/steve-bell-on...

I think using the US is a bit of an unfair example . The electoral system and only having two parties are two ways I can think which have over time distorted the political system. There better examples of written constitutions - Germany being one.

If the deal was Frank Field's "Norway for now" we'd be out already.

I see the current government’s attempts to steamroller us out of the EU without any real intent of reaching a deal as political violence.

I also increasingly see a treacherous hand behind Boris’ government.

The only actual incitement to physical violence I have seen is from various loud mouthed Brexit minded individuals talking up what they’ll do if we don’t leave, and the news reports of death threats being sent to remain figures.  All of which is for sure being stirred up by an orchestrated “grass roots” movement under the thrall of the same people behind our government.

So forgive me if I join in with my view that the best place for traitors prepared to sell the population out is swinging in the wind under tower bridge.... 

That is precisely the danger of a GE. A belief that the vote of Brexiteers will by split if Boris misses 31st October. But imagine if you saw any prospect of Bexit disappearing,  as a Leave voter. Boris is imagining that thought in Brexiteers' heads and he will say to them vote for me or see a loss of any EU withdrawal atall . That is your option, Brexiteers.

He has not got into bed with Farage because he thinks he can win people over because generally the UK would go for him as PM rather then Farage as PM. And Boris has the air time

.All Boris has to do is get the outrage of Brexiteers behind him and not Farage. Its all  about pandering to an electorate now.

And remember SNP and Lib dem split in Scotland helps Boris get his 35% majority/mandate.

Referendum is safest/ fairest option to determine this Bexit  imo

As regards a referendum , I belong to no  political party, everyone is power grabbing around me, and i feel like the man in the Fawlty Towers sketch where he is totally annoyed and finally screams

Gin and orange,lemon squash , scotch and water PLEASE.

High if we elect a majority or a stable coalition intent on delivering it.

Ideally.

Yes and no. We still have a powerful and impartial judiciary but a PM genuinely blindsided (if we take this sequence of events at face value) by a supreme court ruling against him on a matter this serious suggests to me there is too much ambiguity in the present arrangement.

jk

If the Conservatives win a huge majority would you be happy with them writing the UK’s first written constitution?

If the Conservatives win a huge majority, I would suggest the chances of them writing a formal written constitution are approximately zero. 

This is true but my point was that a constitution written by a Conservative government would be far different than one written by a Labour government.

Neither constitution would be acceptable to a large number of people.

Where do the Scots, Irish, Welsh, Scousers fit into it?

  The power of the Supreme Court, as reflected in their ruling, massively increases the judiciary's role in politics. We are heading towards the politicisation of the judiciary without any of the checks and balances that accompany it in the US.

You're clearly forgetting that at one time the supreme legal body was the House of Lords, a legislative body. Judiciary and legislature are actually more separate than they were before. 

Either we're a parliamentary democracy or we're not.

Johnson chose 'not' in order to deliver brexit for personal and party benefit. The court decided we are to ensure that delivery is appropriately scrutinised and approved. Johnson chose to force that decision, not the court.

jk

Yes, that is true and this appears to set a precedent for the powers of the judiciary.

True, so is it your argument that no precedent has been set? The H of L is and was part of parliament (albeit an unelected and undemocratic one) . The Supreme court is not.

Basically yes, if they're elected with that in the manifesto then I won't complain in principal. I may not like what they include and I may choose to oppose it as I can but that's a functioning democracy, it doesn't start and stop at the ballot box.

jk

We were heading towards a presidential system without any of the checks and balances that accompany it in the US.

The non-political judgement of the supreme court has, for the moment stopped the above.

At what length of prorogation, without a reasonable justification, would you accept they could intervene? 6 weeks, 6 months?

BTW, most of the right wing press seems to agree that Bojo was lying, as this judgement is apparently an attempt to stop Brexit, so prorogation was intended to force Brexit through. According to them.

That is a politically charged assertion.  But you provide zero evidence.

All the evidence is that the judiciary asserted their function to check an out-of-control Executive.  For them Not to have so done would have set a precedent of no-return with the scope for arbitrary government massively increased and no way back

   In case it was not clear or obvious, I am not arguing that the Supreme Court judgement was wrong. I am arguing that by making judgements on this the Supreme court has set a precedent. I find this concerning because the underlying reason for the brexit vote is the alienation of large parts of the electorate from parliament and from the insititutions in Brussels. They will be further alienated by the idea that unelected judges have such powers over government.

   This has opened it, in the future, to charges of political bias as in the US. We therefore need to think very carefully about this precedent and how, if we want these judicial powers to be maintained, the judiciary should be chosen. Or should we, as in Australia, limit the scope of judicial review. Or, rather than letting an unelected judicary create law by precedent, insist that the law (on prorogation) is made by parliament.

Tricky for parliament to make law on prorogation when Borid prorogues parliament.

  It was a political question that the Scottish high court judges decided was not within their scope to rule on (based on 300 years of precedent). The Supreme Court decided that it was within the scope of the judiciary. They may have a right to extend and create the law like this but that does mean it is not a dangerous precedent.

They had time to try. They should certainly make it a priority.

Court protecting elected parliament against prorogation is a far more benign precedent than PM being able to suspend parliament for political convenience.

That might alienate some who don't want parliamentary sovereignty. Not worth  undermining parliament to please those who think government should not be subordinate to an elected parliament.

Of course the law on prorogation is made by Parliament. If Parliament chooses to pass a law about it, it can do so, and that will be the end of the question.

I see no need whatsoever to ‘insist’ upon that. It plainly should be the law that government cannot close down Parliament to do things for which it does not have a majority, and now we know it is, even if the government lies about its motives. That’s as it should be.

jcm

Again, this language is just silly. You think the Supreme Court’s judgment wasn’t ‘based on 300 years of precedent’?

jcm

In what way do you think this is a dangerous precedent? It reestablishes the fact that in this country Parliament is supreme, and as JCM points out it can still legislate to change the law. Johnson's action was the really dangerous precedent.

What's the point now? We've established that closing down parliament for a singular political purpose isn't legal. Unless you think Borid, or his replacement, would be keen to try again. There are more pressing matters to get on with at the moment. 

It wasn't, because you keep talking about a political judgement, when it clearly wasn't. It was a sound interpretation of existing legal principles.

The alternative is that government, or the executive, is not accountable to the law.

I see no evidence this was a political judgement.

This does set a precedent, but only because no other PM has tried to pull a fast one like this before. Can't put it any better than elsewhere did 

'Court protecting elected parliament against prorogation is a far more benign precedent than PM being able to suspend parliament for political convenience.'

We need a better constitution, a better form of government, I totally agree. It's Bojo's action which demonstrate that.

  No I didn't. I said, and the High Court said, that is was a judgement about a political issue which lower courts regarded as nonjusticable.

  No, the alternative is parliament creating the law and the judiciary ruling on it.

So, we agree.

The Court of Session judges in Scotland decided it was judiciable and found against the government which appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court refused the appeal.  It was the English High Court which decided it was not judiciable.

The logical consequence of the government's argument is that the Prime Minister can prorogue parliament for as long as he likes, whenever he likes for whatever reason he chooses.  That would be a ridiculous position in a country where the Prime Minister is not even directly elected.

The government could have admitted that the power to prorogue parliament was not unlimited and argued that their actions in this case were reasonable but they refused to give a witness statement under oath explaining why they had done so.   Presumably because they knew there was a ton of e-mail which would show their motive was to prevent parliamentary scrutiny.  

'You think the Supreme Court’s judgment wasn’t ‘based on 300 years of precedent’?'

I thought the reason that the Supreme Court got involved was that there was no direct precedent, therefore it was the job of the SC to create a precedent for the future.

I think this judgement explains why you were both wrong, and why this was not a judgement on political issues.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2019-0192-judgment.pdf

That's what happened yesterday, see above document.

Well I think Geoffrey Cox has jusrt outlined what the Government's new line is going to be:
"This parliament is a dead parliament. I should no longer sit. It has no moral right to sit on these green benches."

That’s an easy and lazy accusation to make. The judgement clearly set-out why it was proper for them to judge on the matter, quoting precedent over hundreds of years. What, specifically, do you disagree with?

That’s a very helpful way of looking at it.

Moral right or not that'll get him precisely nowhere while his party is lead by a man parliament, quite justifiably, wouldn't trust with a stapler. Johnson made this mess by his mendacity, as far as I can see he now has to stew in it until at least Halloween. He'll eventually prevail but for now he's deservedly a plaything at parliament's mercy.

jk

He’s not talking to Parliament; he just wants a sound bite on the news to help fight off Farage.

jcm

And Sheerman's response promptly burnt Cox's eyebrows off. I can't imagine how bored I'm going to get of the various attempts of the government to goad the house into voting for a GE. Prorogation will seem like a blessing within a week.

   You’ll have to do better than provide the whole thing. Which bit makes your point?

  The relationship between government and parliament is obviously political. As Lord Sumption says “What’s revolutionary is that...it makes the the courts the ultimate arbiter of what political reasons for doing this (prorogation) are good enough”

Or that it should be a prompt to parliament to legislate to avoid that. Where there is a legislative gap in our constitutional processes which can be left open to abuse of convention, then the SC *must* make judgements when asked. The fact of the matter in this case, the judgement said that the government offered no reason for the prorogation, let alone a good reason.

To be fair the initial Court of Session judgement decided it was not justiciable it was only after appeal to the Inner House that it was found to be so. 

Rather similar to the trajectory in England. 

No I don't. Have you read it? If not then it's you who needs to do better. You are not in a position to make the claims you have until you do.

If you really can't be arsed to read a short document then do a search for 'bill of rights'. That deals with your point about 'parliament creating the law and the judiciary ruling on it'.

I can't find the context of that quote as it's behind a paywall, though the title is

"Supreme Court ruling is the natural result of Boris Johnson’s constitutional vandalism"

What you have quoted seems odd, as one of the major points of yesterdays judgement was there was no reason given for prorogation from the government (in court) (page 21 (58)). The was no comment on what the political reason could have been, which seems right and proper.

The Supreme Court (Judiciary) don’t hold power, but they enforce the law to ensure that power is handled in accordance with our constitution.  The Government (Executive) withdrew power from Parliament (Legislature) unlawfully according to this ruling and handed that power back to the Parliament.

I use the brackets to show it could basically be a GCSE textbook example of separation of powers.

  Sumption argues that the Court’s decision was justified by Johnson’s vandalism. But nevertheless agrees that it was revolutionary.

Not quite right, the government did give a reason for the prorogation, namely new Queen's speech.

They did not give any reason for why the prorogation for a Queen's speech needed to be that much longer than normal during a time of national "crisis". And it was on those grounds that it was deemed unlawful (in that it stopped parliament exercising its constitutional role at a time when that role was precisely needed).

 No, they create law, which is an enormous power to hold. In this case they have chosen to create law that governs the relationship between the executive and parliament.

Quite right, in my haste I neglected to type 'prorogation for 5 weeks'. I did link to the relevant bloomin paragraph though! The important point regarding my discussion with Pat is that no political reason for doing so was speculated on, they were not concerned with motive.

  No, that’s not important at all in your discussion with me because I’m not suggesting that court discussed the motives, political or otherwise.

It was you who posted this

'it makes the the courts the ultimate arbiter of what political reasons for doing this (prorogation) are good enough'

They did not consider political reason at all.

And my arse did they create a law yesterday.

Oh, please, Nick, be a bit more careful. You surely know the difference between the Judiciary and the Legislature? Of course the Supreme Court doesn't create the law.

The legislature makes statute law. Courts make common law.

Common law is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. Common law influences the decision-making process in unusual cases where the outcome cannot be determined based on existing statutes or written rules of law. 

From Fullfact

"The IfG’s Raphael Hogarth describes the ruling as “highly significant”. It is not only “a powerful statement of parliament’s role in the constitution” but “also a sign of the supreme court’s own developing role: to police the boundaries of constitutionally proper behaviour.”

Professor Tom Poole of the London School of Economics told FactCheck that today’s decision “rearranges in significant respects some really fundamental aspects of our constitution, especially the relationship between law and politics within it.”

“I can’t think of a bigger UK constitutional law case,” he says."

It is in this sense that I am arguing that the Supreme Court is taking an unprecedented interest in political issues.

As for making laws: "Judge made laws are the legal doctrines established by judicial precedents rather than by a statute. In other words, judge interprets a law in such a way to create a new law. They are also known as case law. Judge made laws are based on the legal principle “stare decisis” which means to stand by that which is decided."

https://definitions.uslegal.com › judge-made-laws

(Like the US, the UK's legal system is  a common law not a civil law based system)

If prorogement was/is political as the government argued then it should unlawful rather than non-justiciable. 

Screw the nuance of law or whatever. There is no nuance in  parliamentary scrutiny by elected representatives being key to democracy. Therefore prorogement by the govt  for political purposes must be at least unlawful.

Otherwise govt allows scrutiny when it deigns to allow it which is a crazy idea.

Not justified.  The Supreme Court has simply developed the law governing its power to enforce the proper function of the Constitution.  Policing is not the same as legislating, fortunately, yet.

One might as well speak of the police being political for enforcing laws passed by politicians

Plus it is more correct to speak of Common Law in England and Wales as being "unenacted" rather than "unwritten" as written records are made of court judgements that may be used as precedent and available for anyone from Judges to Law students to consider as precedent

Bleating about whether the court’s superb judgment was or was not political is nothing to the purpose. It is obvious that governments should not be able to shut down Parliament to avoid scrutiny and prevent legislation being passed which the government does not like. The court is the obvious body to enforce that.

Stopping a far-right crook like Johnson from constitutional vandalism is hardly the end of days. As has been said elsewhere with regard to the present pearl-clutching at the Daily Telegraph, imagine their approach to the constitutional question if it had been Corbyn proroguing Parliament while he disbanded the Army.

jcm

Saw this elsewhere -

" Amazed that so many Brexiteers who insisted that the prorogation was nothing to do with Brexit, are now adamant that prorogation being declared unlawful is an attempt to stop Brexit"........ you couldn't make it up.

Dave

Presumably parliament will continue to avoid making any usefull decisions, just like in the last three years.

The opponents of BJ have a majority in parliament. The current mess of BJ's government continues because his opponents favour infighting over compromising on a realistic brexit policy and a leader.

Could we tone this shit down? 

 A comment meant in Jest.  KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON.

No, we are having a general election soon, there's really no point in the opposition trying to find a compromise. Their current plan to stop no deal then have a general election is reasonable. 

For most of the last 3 years the Tories/DUP have had a majority. The expectation was on them to get something through. May could have taken a different approach after the 2017 election, to try and get cross party compromise, but she chose not to.

Exactly, my way or no way.

Also, the opposition's plan isn't really "stopping no deal". It's actually "stopping no deal being sneaked in (by the lying PM with no integrity) by the back door whilst we're not looking or otherwise engaged". I suspect that most of the opposition parties would accept no deal if that was clearly the wish of parliament or clearly the wish of the people (or maybe they'd need both).

Much as I dislike JC, and have serious reservations about what has happened to the Labour party (Momentum & anti-Semitism), at least they now have a reasonable policy about Brexit that is pragmatic rather than the idealism that has got us into this mess.

It wasn't a political issue, it was a constitutional issue.

The Supreme Court was carrying out one of the functions it was set up for... by an act of parliament!  It is only 'unprecedented', or exceptional, as I would put it because

1) The Supreme Court has only existed for 10 years, previously judgements on constitutional issues were taken by the House of Lords.

and mainly

2) No other PM has tried to pull a fast one like this before.

I know what common law is but unless you think before yesterday the executive had the power to prorogue parliament for as long as it likes, the law was not changed.

Agreed. I also think they are sensible to stop both a general election and no do-deal occurring in the same month. Surprised the media hasn't picked up on how daft it would be to tie politicians and the civil service up when we would need all hand on deck for a no-deal exit.

You do realise the ‘Supreme’ Court is simply a rebranding if the HL, don’t you?

jcm

Edit: One thing you can say about Brexit.. I've learnt a lot. 

If they can agree that they want to sort brexit with another election, that would be a nice compromise to move things forward. 

Why keep BJ and not install somebody else in charge that can be better trusted to prevent no deal and organize the election?

PS I meant brexit policy more in terms of process than in terms of an endpoint

It may come to that but I think it's too early yet, in that it would benefit Boris in the longer term. I would think they will wait to see if he comes back from the summit with a deal.

hmm, must be a big benefit if the general view is that it is in the interest of the nation to have BJ prime minister....

Better to have him PM for 3 more weeks rather than 5 more years, yeah sure.

Meanwhile, on the subject of proroguing and Johnson, he appears to have unilaterally prorogued himself today in order to avoid much the same parliamentary scrutiny as he tried proroguing the whole of parliament to avoid.

Confirmed by the Speaker today in answer to a question from a Labour MP that under the present framework it’s not possible to hold an election before 31st October.

Are Labour about to make their move?

Look, we've all misunderstood everything.

Here it is, Hear it explained!

https://brexitcentral.com/how-sad-that-british-courts-are-becoming-as-polit...

Why can’t they just accept the ruling?

Because they can't do it quickly enough to have someone in place to prevent a no-deal as I understand it. Whilst the opposition will easily find enough to vote for VONC, they may not yet have agreement on a GNU (which they would have 2 weeks to form from point of VONC) the risk i that they can't find someone, earliest election date is now 5th Nov, and therefore there won't be a chance to force BJ to request the extension.

With hindsight it was certainly predictable, although not for any political reasons. If the decision had gone the other way it effectively would have allowed any sitting PM to dismiss parliament for any length of time and for any reason, with the full backing of UK law.

Not quite the message Peter Lilley may have been trying to get across, but that may have more to do with his own political predictability than it has to do with the political predictability of the UK Supreme Court.

ps. I love his phrase: "a rogue majority of MPs". Now there's a loaded concept!

Did you read it?  The first para is that they accept that the judgment is law but that this doesn't mean it can't be argued with.  The Court invented new law (that the PM can't prorogue without "good" (whatever that means)) reasons, which must be well evidenced, for longer than some period (probably between 4-6 days, on the word of John Major, who himself prorogued for much longer)).  They didn't quote precedent that told them that, because there were no cases establishing that as law.  They have the power to do this of course but they are supposed to limit themselves, they're not supposed to get involved in politics.  Law is supposed to be predictable based on what the law is, not what it ought to be.

That's why the AG told the PM he could go ahead.  It's his job to tell the PM what he can do, he's supposed to ensure the government don't lose in court, and he failed because the Court decided to change the law.  I don't actually think it's a bad law, seems reasonable enough, but it's supposed to be for Parliament to create law (which they could have done), not judges.

To all those saying that the court couldn't rule otherwise or it couldn't rule against a 4 year prorogue in future - nonsense, it can overrule itself, and in extreme cases it's supposed to.  This isn't an extreme case, it's a political one.

I think you will find it will not so much overrule itself as distinguish a new case either in law or fact, a somewhat important distinction

Where the courts have interpreted the law (or made common law), or extended it, or whatever you want to call it (doesn't matter), parliament can (if they don't like what the court has done) always make new statute law that overrides, reverses or clarifies the court's rulings. That's what parliamentary supremacy allows.

Of course if the government has a working majority, then it's able to do just that as long as it can carry enough of its own party with it.

I’m a leaver, believe it or not.

Johnson’s proroguing was unlawful but also unnecessary.

He should just accept the judgement and move on.

I know, and I agree as well, it’s all just politicking.  It’s a shame the court got involved.

Michael Hood - of course, but that doesn’t mean they should have intervened here.

Why is it shameful that the Supreme Court had to unaminously remind the 'PM' about a point of law? 

It sounds as if you don't know very much about the way our law works if you sneer at the notion of "good reasons".

which comes back to my original point: internal arguing has higher priority than getting rid of BJ for his opponents. 

For God's sake: they didn't "remind the PM about a point of law". They decided what the law is.

... which itself is loaded with false and quite frankly dangerous connotations. You can "decide" what colour to paint your house but the Supreme Court judgement allowed no such element of free choice. The judges were not making anything up as they went along.

Rather they 'determined' what the law is, by means of careful analysis of all relevant factors.

  So, you want to have a debate about the difference between "decided" and "determined"? Really?

Haven't you got better things to do, because I have!

Language matters. Especially when precisely that kind of deliberate ambiguity is being used in an attempt to discredit the members of the Supreme Court and their decision.

You're clever enough to know that already.

  So what point are you making in the differentiating between determine and decide?

  And is it you argument that judges cannot decide or make law, or that they haven't done so in this case?

Please stop deliberately confusing the two very different meanings of 'decide'. I can't see any point other than to leave people with a very wrong impression as to what the judges were actually doing.

I know full well you're fully aware of what you're doing, even though I can't for the life of me imagine why an intelligent chap like you would be doing it, unless you have more that a little in common with those very few charlatans pushing for a no-deal outcome for purely personal gain.

Because the people like yourself they radicalised to serve their needs would cry foul then vote for Farage's lot en masse in the upcoming election robbing them of power and threatening their backers' investment.

jk

You will have noted that I said he should just accept the ruling.

I’m not crying foul.

  I am trying to make you clarify what you think that they were able to do and what they actually did in this case. Stop obfuscating and answer the question please.

  Do you still actually believe that nonsense you peddled about Odey they other day?

I'm presuming that you've got a problem with the Supreme Court judgement (can't remember if you've explicitly said so). The judgement sets out the SC's line of reasoning, firstly why they believe that the questions asked come under their remit, then how they came about their ruling, and finally what outcomes they as the SC were delivering.

Exactly which bits of that reasoning do you disagree with? Where exactly do you think the SC has got it wrong?

I presume you're trying to be exact with language because "determine" implies a level of thought and consideration whereas "decide" could just be eeny, meeny, miney, mo.

  No, I have no problem with the Supreme Court judgement.

Pretty much, yes. I could 'decide' what to have for breakfast, which would offer me scope for personal input into the outcome. Then I could 'determine' what someone else had for breakfast, based perhaps on the crumbs on their plate. After investigation of the crumbs I could reach a 'decision' as to what they must have eaten but that decision is a completely different meaning of the word than my 'decision' to choose eggs.

The use of the word 'decide' when referring to what the judges were tasked with is no accident, rather its deliberate vagueness is crafted to suggest a degree of personal choice that simply wasn't available to the Supreme Court judges in making their ruling.

Words are not mathematical constructs but they do have varying degrees of applicability in different situations and can be misused for intended effect (without necessarily being strictly incorrect) just as easily as used precisely for clarity.

Edit:

decide: "make a choice from a number of alternatives"

determine: "ascertain or establish exactly by research or calculation"

I'm fully aware that these are not the only definitions but they serve to illustrate my point rather well.

You must be confusing me with someone else since not until this very sentence have I ever typed the name Odey.

I presume he's referring, in rather inaccurate and intemperate fashion, to the thread on disaster capitalism you started. 

 I'll repeat my question that you appear to be avoiding: "And is it you argument that judges cannot decide or make law, or that they haven't done so in this case?"

I am referring to the Disaster Capitalism thread that you started which was a real eye opener for me, but probably not in the way that you might have hoped.

I assume that you had actually read it, because one of the major examples it cited was Crispin Odey? Come to think of it , it might explain a lot of you hadn't actually read it.

Now now, no need to become more odious. You made a point which was factually incorrect and I pointed out the mistake. I cannot be held responsible for the direction in which a thread I create ends up taking, nor do I wish to spend time now on that particular strawman.

Please tone down your language. It's one of the reasons that UKC has become so unpleasant.

You re-raised and appear to still believe in what you now conveniently choose to dismiss as a "strawman" that you don't want to spend time on. It's not about "the direction which a thread takes". It's about your post which was factually incorrect and I pointed out the mistake.

Are you going to answer the question that you appear to be avoiding: "And is it you argument that judges cannot decide or make law, or that they haven't done so in this case?"

It will be obvious to any intelligent reader that my views have been well presented in my other posts, so far from avoiding your question I've actually gone to considerable lengths in explaining my position.

But you seem to be wanting it spelled out on a plate, presumably so you can engage in some kind of online semantic chess with my response.

Of course judges can decide on legal matters, meaning that they make a determination of the legal situation based on all available legal evidence. And in reaching such a determination it's clear that they may, typically by setting precedent, be said to be making law. 

Nothing contentious at all, unless of course you want to start using words in such a woolly fashion as to lead people into thinking that 'making' law might be the same thing as 'making up' law.

Ok I give up. You win.

Odious was correct.

Language matters.  You know that already. I expressed my reluctance to get involved in a debate about the difference between the meanings of "determine" and "decide" but you inveigled me in it. Now you dismiss it as "semantic chess". You're right, your distinction between "determine" and "decide" is pointless.

  You have now introduced a completely new phrase into the discussion, "making up law" which has very different implications to either "making","deciding" or "determining" law. I've no idea why. This seems very disingenuous.

You have acknowledged, that by setting a precedent, judge can "make" law. It could also be described as "deciding" law, or "determining" law. There is nothing at all to suggest (because I wasn't) that judges were "deciding" law in the sense of "deciding to have breakfast". They were using all their legal knowledge and understanding to"decide", "determine" or "make" the law in this case.

  Clearly judges did have a choice in what they "decided" or "detemined" because three other courts decided something different.

  For three years now the hard core remainers on UKC (and outside) have regularly employed abusive terminology to those that they disagree with (thick, racist, xenophobe,fascist, nazi, liar etc). Most of those people, most of the time don't bother to engage nor to sink to that level. It's mildly irritating but also instructive to see how the remainers react when put on the spot and exposed to some mild criticism themselves.

A little bit of introspection might not go amiss on the part of the hard core remainers.

If the two words are so interchangeable presumably you’re happy to gracefully accept ‘determine’ in place of ‘decide’ and move on?

Obviously, on the basis that they mean the same thing in this case. I never though the distinction worth making in the first place!!

I'm quite happy to let anyone who is in the misfortunate position of having waded through all of these exchanges make their own mind up as to how much of it is semantic quibbling, how much semantic chess and how much is diversionary strawman.

thick, racist, xenophobe,fascist, nazi, liar are not abusive terms they are descriptors of people that are abusive.

Me too, because I still don't know why you think there was a diversion. It wouldn't even have helped the point I was making,and it's completely in your head!!

A bit like your fantasy about "disaster capitalism" and brexit.

Move along please.

As someone who voted leave principally because I wanted parliament to be sovereign, I was very happy with the judgement.

It's quite ironic that many hard core brexiteers are complaining about a judgement that reinforces our parliamentary democracy.

What would you call a person who says "There are no press here" when that person as well as everyone else in the room can plainly see that the press are present?

Nazi?

Idiotic? Personally I think it was so obviously not true that he wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anybody’s  eyes in that case.I think it was full fact that explained that there was media representation but not full press so in his panic he latched on to that. But maybe I’m being overly charitable.

Is this the bit where I’m supposed to put on a dunce’s cap and chant that Boris is a self interested lying wanker? You know, like in Mao’s China? Consider it done.

Are you one of those people that thinks that if a person is often in the wrong  that they are always wrong in every way, and that anyone guilty of nuance is actually a supporter and therefore a bad person?

Your continual “Yeah, but...” defences of Johnson under the guise of nuance are getting tiresome. 

So idiotic is OK to describe a liar but liar to describe liar is somehow abusive. This populist-right stuff is really confusing.,

Not at all. I'm one of those people who thinks that if a person is as dishonest, untrustworthy, incompetent, insensitive, pig-headed, vainglorious and arrogant as Boris Johnson, then they're not fit to be in a position of power and authority, never mind prime minister. I'm sure he'd have some amusing tales to tell down the pub, though.

Indeed. It’s not a difficult concept is it?

Patrick Minford has been a bit quiet of late, I know you are referring to something else, but as you said earlier, words are important.

The Prime Minister saw a camera and panicked. That’s some leadership right there that is. Really a man made of the right stuff to lead the nation in a time of crisis. 

You are one of those people that thinks that if a person is often in the wrong  that they are always wrong in every way, and that anyone guilty of nuance is actually a supporter and therefore a bad person.

It really precludes any sort of reasonable discussion if only one rigidly black and white view of things is considered acceptable. Do you understand why that is a bad thing?

Is it difficult for you to understand that all this maybe and probably is true, but that does not mean that he always lies, or that in this specific case he deliberately lied?

Try and forget Boris for a second, and treat it as a thought exercise.

  No, why do you think that? I wasn’t ask if I think Boris is a liar. I’ve said before that I think he is.

I was asked about a specific incident and gave a specific answer.

Are you one of those people that thinks that if a person is often in the wrong  that they are always wrong in every way, and that anyone guilty of nuance is actually a supporter and therefore a bad person?

Because you said you regarded liar as abuse but then suggested idiotic was just fine. I'm just trying to understand these populist right pc rules about what's acceptable speech. 

"employed abusive terminology to those that they disagree with (... liar etc)."

   I think accuracy is important. For example, if you say, “leavers are all thick or xenophobic or liars” then you are being abusive. If you say “thick xenophobes probably voted leave” you are being accurate.

Difficult?

Which is all anyone else is saying. 

No it’s simply not

You said all leavers are xenophobic or thick.. Others have used racist, fascist, nazi etc. It’s just abuse.

I’m not innocent of it, I’m sure, but if you guys could actually see how the endless stream of scattergun invective looks like to third parties you might be ashamed.

No I didn't. You are just lying. 

Ill put you down as forgetful.

So you don’t think all leavers are xenophobic or thick?

No, you are simply lying. I have never said that, or thought that. I know lying is all the rage in right wing circles but I'm going to point it out when directed at me.

  I remember the discussion. You highlighted the difference between saying they were racist or xenophobic and said they were xenophobic and/or thick.

  Are you splitting hairs on the exact words? Eg phobes v phobic or domething?

Hazarding a guess it's the "all" part he's objecting to...

I’m sure not all leavers are xenophobic or thick. It’s just that most of them say stupid and xenophobic things most of the time, and that their political leaders regard obvious lies and appeals to racism and xenophobia as the best way to secure their votes.

jcm

I have not read the rest of this thread, but I'm bound to say that is the least persuasive argument I have ever read for why I should be supporting your position, whatever that is.

It's just pathetic really.

I would genuinely be pleased if you could point to a Brexit article or speech that doesn't clearly demonstrate JCMs point.

So are you trying to appeal to the Brexit person's guilt at being "stupid and xenophobic" in an attempt to persuade them that they should support remain, or are you trying some other mysterious rhetorical tactic?

Your rhetorical tactic is not in the least bit misleading: it's the loaded question fallacy - "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" 

I'm not trying anything. I've come to the conclusion Brexit is a faith; not open to rationality.

I don't mind for myself, I.'m retiring, I've got my boat and another 100 Munroe's to finish; but Brexit will quantitatively and qualitatively reduce my children and grandchildren's quality of life, without a single compensating benefit that anyone has been able identify. Thanks, folks.