His comment - "It is not for judges to rule on political truthfulness" - apparently indicates he hadn't read the judgment and had no idea of why the court ruled as it did.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
I don't agree with the SC decision for the reasons set out in the previous thread and which I won't bore you all by repeating. Despite those reservations I agree with much of @Cyclefree's piece.
The description given of this Parliament by the AG today was bombastic but accurate. This is the worst Parliament I can recall in my lifetime (58 on Friday). It has been dishonest and utterly destructive of trust.
I believe strongly that the Brexit referendum should not just be "respected" but implemented. It is very important to our democracy that this is so, even the SC acknowledged that in their decision. But the damage done by those who are not willing to accept a democratic decision and indeed by some on the winning side who have behaved like buffoons will reverberate for a long time. There is a lot of repair work to be done.
BiB - I think it would be very good if @DavidL could be allowed to provide the alternative view in a thread header.
I have just watched what Geoffrey Cox said earlier and was flabbergasted by what he said about parliament having no right to sit.
Is this an Attorney-General's idea of supporting the rule of law?
His Prime Minister has clearly stated that due legal process is "running away". I know he said Fuck Business. He appears to have joined in with Fuck the Law.
Thatcher will be turning in her grave. I remember her speech about the triumpgh of the rule of law. How far a once great party has fallen.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Tory rebel MP Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
I have just watched what Geoffrey Cox said earlier and was flabbergasted by what he said about parliament having no right to sit.
Is this an Attorney-General's idea of supporting the rule of law?
His Prime Minister has clearly stated that due legal process is "running away". I know he said Fuck Business. He appears to have joined in with Fuck the Law.
Thatcher will be turning in her grave. I remember her speech about the triumpgh of the rule of law. How far a once great party has fallen.
Boris would be hailing the rule of law if he had won the case.
I have just watched what Geoffrey Cox said earlier and was flabbergasted by what he said about parliament having no right to sit.
Is this an Attorney-General's idea of supporting the rule of law?
His Prime Minister has clearly stated that due legal process is "running away". I know he said Fuck Business. He appears to have joined in with Fuck the Law.
Thatcher will be turning in her grave. I remember her speech about the triumpgh of the rule of law. How far a once great party has fallen.
oh dont be silly you were calling the tory bastards not so long ago.
I don't agree with the SC decision for the reasons set out in the previous thread and which I won't bore you all by repeating. Despite those reservations I agree with much of @Cyclefree's piece.
The description given of this Parliament by the AG today was bombastic but accurate. This is the worst Parliament I can recall in my lifetime (58 on Friday). It has been dishonest and utterly destructive of trust.
I believe strongly that the Brexit referendum should not just be "respected" but implemented. It is very important to our democracy that this is so, even the SC acknowledged that in their decision. But the damage done by those who are not willing to accept a democratic decision and indeed by some on the winning side who have behaved like buffoons will reverberate for a long time. There is a lot of repair work to be done.
BiB - I think it would be very good if @DavidL could be allowed to provide the alternative view in a thread header.
David knows if he submits a thread it will be published.
He's written a couple in the past and they were published.
I don't agree with the SC decision for the reasons set out in the previous thread and which I won't bore you all by repeating. Despite those reservations I agree with much of @Cyclefree's piece.
The description given of this Parliament by the AG today was bombastic but accurate. This is the worst Parliament I can recall in my lifetime (58 on Friday). It has been dishonest and utterly destructive of trust.
I believe strongly that the Brexit referendum should not just be "respected" but implemented. It is very important to our democracy that this is so, even the SC acknowledged that in their decision. But the damage done by those who are not willing to accept a democratic decision and indeed by some on the winning side who have behaved like buffoons will reverberate for a long time. There is a lot of repair work to be done.
BiB - I think it would be very good if @DavidL could be allowed to provide the alternative view in a thread header.
David knows if he submits a thread it will be published.
He's written a couple in the past and they were published.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
Since I've resigned I've seen nothing to make me regret my decision, without wanting to speak for David Herdson, Richard Nabavi, and Scrapheap I'd expect them to say the same.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
Whatever this government’s agenda is, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that it’s not conservative. You were right to leave.
One of the advantages of doing this via an Act rather than a FTPA motion is the PMs ability to set the GE date via proclaimation can be taken away. Though we are already past the point where an election can be held before 31/10 anyway. Unless the Act starts amending existing law of campaign length as well. Which the opposition has no resson to agree to.
The problem for the Government with trying to amend the FTPA is it would be a Christmas Tree Bill and in the shirt and medium term solve none of their problems with being unable to get a FTPA motion through.
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
When you say, "diehard Remainers", you forget to note many voted three times to leave against the likes of JRM. By no means all of them, but what you're actually talking about is people who won't leave without a deal because they're not, you know, crackers.
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
So. A party that sacks its own MPs to render itself into a sizeable minority. With an Attourney General who denounces this parliament as dead with no right to sit. And a Prime Minister now DEMANDING that the opposition parties vote it out of existence.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
Leaving the EU is a Bennite agenda. There’s nothing conservative about it.
Enoch Powell backed Brexit well before it was fashionable as a Conservative alongside Benn
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
Leaving the EU is a Bennite agenda. There’s nothing conservative about it.
Enoch Powell backed Brexit well before it was fashionable as a Conservative alongside Benn
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
I have just watched what Geoffrey Cox said earlier and was flabbergasted by what he said about parliament having no right to sit.
Is this an Attorney-General's idea of supporting the rule of law?
His Prime Minister has clearly stated that due legal process is "running away". I know he said Fuck Business. He appears to have joined in with Fuck the Law.
Thatcher will be turning in her grave. I remember her speech about the triumpgh of the rule of law. How far a once great party has fallen.
oh dont be silly you were calling the tory bastards not so long ago.
Bastards. Absolutely. But they used to be better than this. They used to pass horrendous laws - but they were LAWS. Voted for by an elected parliament. Enacted under the rule of law.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
This fake government is not entitled to an election on its own terms. It can wait until other approaches have been tried out.
Radicalisation is probably a better word. Not unique to ultra-Brexiteers either, you see the same thing with the Momentum moonbats, or Trump supporters.
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
When you say, "diehard Remainers", you forget to note many voted three times to leave against the likes of JRM. By no means all of them, but what you're actually talking about is people who won't leave without a deal because they're not, you know, crackers.
It would be a government of Labour diehard Remainers led by Beckett, Tory diehard Remainers like Grieve and LD diehard Remainers along with a few SNP diehard Remainers, none of whom voted for the Withdrawal Agreement either
I like Rory Stewart. The PM cannot be more constrained in his view than anyone else though. To think what you like, and to say what you think are pretty important aspects of our society.
When the SC says that the PM has acted unlawfully then its more than reasonable for him to disagree. He must though go along with the SC.
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
When you say, "diehard Remainers", you forget to note many voted three times to leave against the likes of JRM. By no means all of them, but what you're actually talking about is people who won't leave without a deal because they're not, you know, crackers.
It would be a government of Labour diehard Remainers led by Beckett, Tory diehard Remainers like Grieve and LD diehard Remainers along with a few SNP diehard Remainers, none of whom voted for the Withdrawal Agreement either
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
This fake government is not entitled to an election on its own terms. It can wait until other approaches have been tried out.
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
Margaret Beckett says she would not refuse if asked by the House of Commons to become caretaker PM. Dominic Grieve says 'If Margaret was Prime Minister I would support her and I would be happy to serve in her administration.'
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
When you say, "diehard Remainers", you forget to note many voted three times to leave against the likes of JRM. By no means all of them, but what you're actually talking about is people who won't leave without a deal because they're not, you know, crackers.
It would be a government of Labour diehard Remainers led by Beckett, Tory diehard Remainers like Grieve and LD diehard Remainers along with a few SNP diehard Remainers, none of whom voted for the Withdrawal Agreement either
Probably representing a small majority of the current electorate but it time to give up diehard as it has no real meaning
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
Since I've resigned I've seen nothing to make me regret my decision, without wanting to speak for David Herdson, Richard Nabavi, and Scrapheap I'd expect them to say the same.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
Whatever this government’s agenda is, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that it’s not conservative. You were right to leave.
Any genuine conservative must be feeling very queasy about the antics of this government. Could anyone imagine any previous Conservative Attorney General making a speech like the one Cox delivered today?
So. A party that sacks its own MPs to render itself into a sizeable minority. With an Attourney General who denounces this parliament as dead with no right to sit. And a Prime Minister now DEMANDING that the opposition parties vote it out of existence.
We truly live in crazy times.
And an opposition desperate to avoid the PM seat !
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Why ? Why should a General Election on the terms of this discredited government. First and foremost, the agenda of the majority in this Parliament must be implemented [ from what is already enacted ] and then a General election should be held. I am not sure that all 21 expelled Tory MPs plus the CHUKs or ex-CHUKs would necessarily agree. They may want a People's vote done first.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
This fake government is not entitled to an election on its own terms. It can wait until other approaches have been tried out.
Same went for Theresa May?
She commanded a majority in 2017. Boris Johnson was installed as Prime Minister without a majority, without a mandate and without the ability to win any votes in the Commons. He’s a mere placeholder.
How many times are leavers going to threaten violence....it is tedious.....someone who keeps going on about how they are going to hit you, rarely does. If they really want to become terrorists I am sure the police and judges can deal with them.
Ignoramus isn't a latin noun; it's the first person plural of the verb ignorare (ie it means "we have no knowledge of"). So the plural of the English noun is 'ignoramuses'.
Thank you. But mine sounds better and it is a different word. It has a dual meaning.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
Right. Nice try. 'Ignorami' is a back formation of the kind often coined by ignoramuses trying to sound intelligent.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called o the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
Too many lies over too many years led to this.
A few referendums in the EU have stood e.g. Denmark and Sweden's votes to reject the Euro but generally e.g. in France and Ireland if a Treaty is rejected for instance the EU change a comma, send me it and with the national Government force it through in a second referendum
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
I would expect Corbyn to make it clear he will expel any Labour MP who did this.
Whatever this government’s agenda is, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that it’s not conservative. You were right to leave.
There has always been a difference between Conservative and conservative. I'm a Conservative but I'm not conservative. I want a right liberal party not a conservative party.
Having said that I 100% support a free and independent judiciary for liberal reasons.
Bibi survives again (albeit this time only if nationalist Lieberman agrees to govern with religious parties otherwise it will be Ganz PM leading a centrist unity government)
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
I would expect Corbyn to make it clear he will expel any Labour MP who did this.
that would be all those principledLabour MPs who hate Corbyn but keep him in place.
It is all well and good for Jezza to call for Boris to go, because he is so outraged...but then not VONC him. I think a lot of people will find that rather strange.
How fitting that IDS should be called after the absurd theatre of the extended applause for the Prime Minister's response to the LotO. It did bring to mind the standing ovation he received at his last party conference as leader.
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
I would expect Corbyn to make it clear he will expel any Labour MP who did this.
It depends on how many. if it was enough to form a government I don't think he could. it'd have to be over 200 MPs
Corbyn has managed to misquote the Supreme Court. What a numpty.
Well its all a bit complicated for Uncle Thickie.
"Unlawful, void and of no effect." If you want to make a catchphrase of it you should probably find out what it is.
Could anyone have been a worse LotO?
I have no idea how he did so shit in his A-Levels...
I've always felt A-levels are a good measure. Corbyn's abilities suggest to me that his performance was only slight above the best he could have expected.
It is all well and good for Jezza to call for Boris to go, because he is so outraged...but then not VONC him. I think a lot of people will find that rather strange.
maybe he should change tack and say pretty please ?
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
This is the Cummings agenda. He wants a politicised Civil Service and Judiciary. He is going for broke and some Conservatives (in name only) are enabling this.
Since I've resigned I've seen nothing to make me regret my decision, without wanting to speak for David Herdson, Richard Nabavi, and Scrapheap I'd expect them to say the same.
Those who remain in the Tory and support the trashing of the rule of law and a partisan judiciary will be spoken in the same breath as Vichyists.
Whatever this government’s agenda is, the one thing I am absolutely sure of is that it’s not conservative. You were right to leave.
Any genuine conservative must be feeling very queasy about the antics of this government. Could anyone imagine any previous Conservative Attorney General making a speech like the one Cox delivered today?
What I find frightening is how lightly people like Cox can abandon principles like the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, which they've paid lip service to for their whole careers, once they see it as politically expedient.
Honourable politicians really are few and far between, aren't they?
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
I would expect Corbyn to make it clear he will expel any Labour MP who did this.
that would be all those principledLabour MPs who hate Corbyn but keep him in place.
Indeed, they know their best chances of getting back after the inevitable election is to have "the Labour Party" after their name on the ballot paper.
Not "Ma Beckett's Crazy Gang of Self-Confessed Morons".
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
Won't happen in that way - Beckett's roots in Labour are far too deep to be a sort of Ramsay Macdonald mark 2. I wouldn't rule out Labour backing her eventually, so long as Corbyn is given a chance first.
How many times are leavers going to threaten violence....it is tedious.....someone who keeps going on about how they are going to hit you, rarely does. If they really want to become terrorists I am sure the police and judges can deal with them.
I don’t think he’s actually threatening violence. He is correct in that in previous centuries issues like we find ourselves in now would/ could have led to civil war. Whether it was monarch against parliament or Internecine power struggles, two diametrically opposed sides would have resulted in actual conflict. That’s what happened and the victor took all.
We like to think we’ve grown up from all that. We most likely have. But don’t forget it wasn’t long ago that France nearly slipped into civil war even whilst it was in the EC (common market?)
I wonder whether the PM and A-G would agree with the following:-
"And you know, my friends, the most difficult thing is to explain what a rule of law is, as distinct from just an oppressive law. They say, well we've got a lot of regulations, the government makes them, the government dictates to us. That's not what a rule of law is, I say. It's having wise judges who decide fairly and whose decisions are taken and honoured. It's having your laws made in a parliament which is accountable to the people and which you know are going to be honourably administered. That's why we don't just call it law, we call it a rule of law. You cannot have freedom without a rule of law, and that is the most difficult thing, I think, to get into countries that have never known it."
Or this:-
The third guarantee of liberty is the rule of law. The idea that all are equal under the law is deeply rooted in our democratic systems and nowhere else..... The thought that no one in the state can escape the law is, after all, a daring one...... This is not a thought which the powerful can easily accept. Those who hold sway in totalitarian states take good care that the rule of law does not challenge their authority."
The opposition parties maybe need to consider the possibility that just when they decide they want a general election the Conservatives may decide they don't want one. After all they also have in excess of a third of MPs and so can block an election under the FTPA in the same way that the opposition parties are doing atm.
This is why I have been betting on a long-dated election. Probably it will come this year but the odds of later years have been quite ridiculous at times. 2021 went triple digits at one point.
I backed 2021 at 75 last night. I'm happy with that bet.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
This fake government is not entitled to an election on its own terms. It can wait until other approaches have been tried out.
Same went for Theresa May?
She commanded a majority in 2017. Boris Johnson was installed as Prime Minister without a majority, without a mandate and without the ability to win any votes in the Commons. He’s a mere placeholder.
Wasn’t her majority though... saying Boris was ‘installed’ implies she wasn’t... poor show Alastair
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
I would expect Corbyn to make it clear he will expel any Labour MP who did this.
Perhaps. But remember, a GNU is in his interest. He can't boot Johnson because like Johnson he is terrified of putting his name to an extension to A50. Anyway, why boot them - won't have time to select new candidates. And as he is nailed on to win a majority of 704 he'll be able to have his Momentum Blackshirts slowly remove them at their leisure.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need confirmation hearings in Parliament for judges put forward for the Supreme Court bench by the Lord Chancellor and the Government and appointments board exactly as they have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.
So called Conservatives such as @HYUFD have lost their senses. They are prepared to trash the independence of the judiciary for the sake of BREXIT because many of them have forgotten conservative values as they have morphed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
Too many lies over too many years led to this.
Maybe instead of just waiting they should have got stuck in doing some thinking and working on how Brexit could sensibly be achieved?
As I floated earlier, Ma Beckett and her government would be made up of the half of the Labour Party looking to disconnect from Corbyn, the SNP, ex Tory rebels etc etc. The Labour and Tory front benches will sit it out and sit chuntering alongside each other from a sedentary position
Won't happen in that way - Beckett's roots in Labour are far too deep to be a sort of Ramsay Macdonald mark 2. I wouldn't rule out Labour backing her eventually, so long as Corbyn is given a chance first.
The numbers won't allow it that way anyway. it will need all or most of the labour party to achieve a small majority
How many times are leavers going to threaten violence....it is tedious.....someone who keeps going on about how they are going to hit you, rarely does. If they really want to become terrorists I am sure the police and judges can deal with them.
Here’s Irish ex pm John Bruton threatening Boris Johnson with assassination, today.
I wonder whether the PM and A-G would agree with the following:-
"And you know, my friends, the most difficult thing is to explain what a rule of law is, as distinct from just an oppressive law. They say, well we've got a lot of regulations, the government makes them, the government dictates to us. That's not what a rule of law is, I say. It's having wise judges who decide fairly and whose decisions are taken and honoured. It's having your laws made in a parliament which is accountable to the people and which you know are going to be honourably administered. That's why we don't just call it law, we call it a rule of law. You cannot have freedom without a rule of law, and that is the most difficult thing, I think, to get into countries that have never known it."
Or this:-
The third guarantee of liberty is the rule of law. The idea that all are equal under the law is deeply rooted in our democratic systems and nowhere else..... The thought that no one in the state can escape the law is, after all, a daring one...... This is not a thought which the powerful can easily accept. Those who hold sway in totalitarian states take good care that the rule of law does not challenge their authority."
It comes to something when one starts to think of Margaret Thatcher as a wise and just prime minister.
How many times are leavers going to threaten violence....it is tedious.....someone who keeps going on about how they are going to hit you, rarely does. If they really want to become terrorists I am sure the police and judges can deal with them.
I don’t think he’s actually threatening violence. He is correct in that in previous centuries issues like we find ourselves in now would/ could have led to civil war. Whether it was monarch against parliament or Internecine power struggles, two diametrically opposed sides would have resulted in actual conflict. That’s what happened and the victor took all.
We like to think we’ve grown up from all that. We most likely have. But don’t forget it wasn’t long ago that France nearly slipped into civil war even whilst it was in the EC (common market?)
We have more recent experience of it within the UK.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
This fake government is not entitled to an election on its own terms. It can wait until other approaches have been tried out.
Same went for Theresa May?
She commanded a majority in 2017. Boris Johnson was installed as Prime Minister without a majority, without a mandate and without the ability to win any votes in the Commons. He’s a mere placeholder.
Wasn’t her majority though... saying Boris was ‘installed’ implies she wasn’t... poor show Alastair
I didn’t say she wasn’t installed. But Boris Johnson has none of the features of a leader with any authority, has not sought to gain them and now seeks to game the system to his advantage. He has no claim to be indulged on this.
We now have a Supreme Court clearly making political judgements on finely balanced constitutional matters, a clear shift from the old Law Lords.
Hence Cox has correctly stated we now need co have in the US for judges nominated by the President
The Supreme Court stuffed with judges approved by Seumas Milne and Jon Lansman? Really? Is that what you want?
Quite so Nabbers.hed into the BREXIT-Lite Party.
No, just we now have a Conservative Party willing to push a Conservative agenda and not bow down to a left liberal agenda without response.
The US has had some excellent recent conservative judges in the Supreme Court like Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas
I regret to say that you have totally lost the plot.
I don't want conservative judges, liberal judges or socialist judges.
I want a judiciary free of political taint that will decide cases on their legal merit and not because they owe their allegiance to a party political cause.
Well let’s hope we get there in the future..
Before the SC judgment on Tuesday few considered the SC political. Now one judgment has gone against your view you've had a fit of the vapours.
Very sad.
Surely you can see the psychology at work. The EU has a truly terrible history of circumventing plebiscitary democracy, either ignoring referendums, or co-opting the local elite to get referendums overturned. Or the EU just lies (the Lisbon Treaty).
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
Too many lies over too many years led to this.
Maybe instead of just waiting they should have got stuck in doing some thinking and working on how Brexit could sensibly be achieved?
I’m not defending the lead Brexiteers. They turned out to be the most egregious shower of lazy shits. David Davis. Jeez.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Why ? Why should a General Election on the terms of this discredited government. First and foremost, the agenda of the majority in this Parliament must be implemented [ from what is already enacted ] and then a General election should be held. I am not sure that all 21 expelled Tory MPs plus the CHUKs or ex-CHUKs would necessarily agree. They may want a People's vote done first.
Then Parliament should replace the executive
We do not have government by a committee of the whole house
If the election is held before 31st October, then Johnson can tell Brexiteers that he will still take them out before that date and thereby squeeze BXP votes. Even if the Art.50 letter is sent, it can be rescinded. I am not sure how the opposition can "guarantee" that extension is indeed carried out unless election date is after 31.10.2019
At this point, it is literally impossible to hold a legally valid election by 31 October. The next question is whether we want to have Brexit happen in the middle of an election campaign. I'd have thought not, if only on practical grounds - there will no doubt be a few matters for Ministers to attend to and they can't do that and simultaneously make speeches in Carlisle and Scunthorpe and smultaneously observe the purdah rule that nothing controversial can be during during an election.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Why ? Why should a General Election on the terms of this discredited government. First and foremost, the agenda of the majority in this Parliament must be implemented [ from what is already enacted ] and then a General election should be held. I am not sure that all 21 expelled Tory MPs plus the CHUKs or ex-CHUKs would necessarily agree. They may want a People's vote done first.
Then Parliament should replace the executive
We do not have government by a committee of the whole house
The FTPA is a corrosive piece of legislation
The government has no right to demand that events take place at its dictation. It made its bed and it is lying on it. It will have to wait until it suits others to dispose of it.
Ignoramus isn't a latin noun; it's the first person plural of the verb ignorare (ie it means "we have no knowledge of"). So the plural of the English noun is 'ignoramuses'.
Thank you. But mine sounds better and it is a different word. It has a dual meaning.
Ignorami - depending on context it can mean 'people who are ignorant' OR it can mean 'people who are ignored'.
Of course sometimes those people are one and the same - e.g. the Weatherspoons demographic - but by no means always.
Right. Nice try. 'Ignorami' is a back formation of the kind often coined by ignoramuses trying to sound intelligent.
You and your cod-Latin have been had on toast.
I reckon “ignorami” refers to people so ignorant that they get bent out of shape
On the last thread some people have wondered why "Greta isn't suing the US and China, which combine for 50% of climate damaging emissions".
The rather simple reason for that is this:
A group of 16 children from 15 different countries (Greta Thunberg being one of them) are bringing forward a legal challenge under a legal provision from a protocol to the United Nation's convention from 1989 on the protection of children's rights. This legal challenge is directed against five different countries. Besides France, these are Germany, Turkey, Argentina and Brazil. They argue that industrial policies of these countries are responsible for changing the earth's climate in a way that is ill suited to sustain human life on the time scale of their expected life spans, and thus impinges on their rights to live their lives in decent conditions, as the convention is intended to secure.
The reason why these legal challenges cannot be directed towards China or the USA is the fact that China and the USA have refused to recognize these children's rights - in a legal form - in the first place, and refused to sign that UN convention, so therefor cannot be sued.
Of course it is a symbolic act and stands little chance to force a change of things immediately, it is obviously part of a political process on which people will have very different views.
That's very interesting - thanks.
Could we interest you in doing a PB header on German attitudes to what's happening with Brexit?
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Why ? Why should a General Election on the terms of this discredited government. First and foremost, the agenda of the majority in this Parliament must be implemented [ from what is already enacted ] and then a General election should be held. I am not sure that all 21 expelled Tory MPs plus the CHUKs or ex-CHUKs would necessarily agree. They may want a People's vote done first.
Then Parliament should replace the executive
We do not have government by a committee of the whole house
The FTPA is a corrosive piece of legislation
It’s more that Theresa May properly shat the bed during GE2017.
If she’d won a clear majority, by not running the worse campaign in history, she could have repealed it.
We need resolution. A General Election is the best chance of resolution.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Even if everyone voted solely on the Brexit issue (which they won't) how on earth does Johnson winning a majority on 35% of the vote provide a mandate for anything? A referendum is the only way to resolve this.
How many times are leavers going to threaten violence....it is tedious.....someone who keeps going on about how they are going to hit you, rarely does. If they really want to become terrorists I am sure the police and judges can deal with them.
I don’t think he’s actually threatening violence. He is correct in that in previous centuries issues like we find ourselves in now would/ could have led to civil war. Whether it was monarch against parliament or Internecine power struggles, two diametrically opposed sides would have resulted in actual conflict. That’s what happened and the victor took all.
We like to think we’ve grown up from all that. We most likely have. But don’t forget it wasn’t long ago that France nearly slipped into civil war even whilst it was in the EC (common market?)
Surely he's referring directly to the English Civil War in the 17th century.
But it's a bizarre comparison to make, considering that he is complaining about the Supreme Court asserting the right of parliament to sit in the face of the government's use of the royal prerogative.
Perhaps Starkey would have been on the royalist side? Wrong but Wromantic?
The other point to note is that those arguing that the ruling was a disgraceful case of political interference are proving it was correct; after all, what is the damage done to the government's programme or to Brexit by the ruling? If the answer is none - because parliament already had enough time to carry out its functions, as the government and others have argued - then at worst this is a minor interference by the judiciary in an administrative timetabling dispute. Alternatively, if the effect is substantive, which must be the case if it was such a disgrace, then that proves that the government was trying to evade parliament carrying out its role.
You're using logic and reason again, aren't you...
(Parenthetically, how the hell did you ever fit into the Conservative Party? Or was there a time when they weren't all...how can I put this politely...so intense?)
Comments
Eurosceptics are scarred by 40 years of this, from Brussels and from their own Establishment.
When the referendum was unexpectedly won, every hardened eurosceptic in the country said: just wait, they’ll do it again, the europhile elite will try every trick to ignore, subvert, annul or terminally devalue the vote. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
So, the very unusual judgement of the most important court in the land feeds into that lethal narrative, even if in this instance it is not true.
Too many lies over too many years led to this.
Thatcher will be turning in her grave. I remember her speech about the triumpgh of the rule of law. How far a once great party has fallen.
With LD Deputy Leader Ed Davey today saying Jeremy Corbyn would not be acceptable as PM, Dame Margaret is emerging as the favourite to lead a temporary Government of diehard Remainers to extend Article 50 past October 31st, if as is likely Boris resigns as PM rather than extend himself.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-beckett-i-d-serve-as-caretaker-pm-if-they-ask-me-a4246161.html
He's written a couple in the past and they were published.
The problem for the Government with trying to amend the FTPA is it would be a Christmas Tree Bill and in the shirt and medium term solve none of their problems with being unable to get a FTPA motion through.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33625612
We truly live in crazy times.
There should have been a General Election prior to October 31st to (hopefully) give a mandate for some outcome.
It now looks like that is not going to be possible. (Which is retarded, and is entirely the fault of Lab/LD/SNP.)
I therefore now think we need to have the smallest possible extension (one month?) to allow a General Election to be called, because we need a government with a mandate, almost irrespective of what the mandate is.
Could anyone have been a worse LotO?
When the SC says that the PM has acted unlawfully then its more than reasonable for him to disagree. He must though go along with the SC.
Ought to be in pantomime.
But hang on - he is!
Jezza bumbling on about Thomas Cook - pound shop Dennis Skinner.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/25/israels-president-chooses-netanyahu-to-form-government
I am not sure that all 21 expelled Tory MPs plus the CHUKs or ex-CHUKs would necessarily agree. They may want a People's vote done first.
MK Dons 12
Liverpool 1.3
Draw 6.4
You and your cod-Latin have been had on toast.
Having said that I 100% support a free and independent judiciary for liberal reasons.
Honourable politicians really are few and far between, aren't they?
Not "Ma Beckett's Crazy Gang of Self-Confessed Morons".
We like to think we’ve grown up from all that. We most likely have. But don’t forget it wasn’t long ago that France nearly slipped into civil war even whilst it was in the EC (common market?)
"And you know, my friends, the most difficult thing is to explain what a rule of law is, as distinct from just an oppressive law. They say, well we've got a lot of regulations, the government makes them, the government dictates to us. That's not what a rule of law is, I say. It's having wise judges who decide fairly and whose decisions are taken and honoured. It's having your laws made in a parliament which is accountable to the people and which you know are going to be honourably administered. That's why we don't just call it law, we call it a rule of law. You cannot have freedom without a rule of law, and that is the most difficult thing, I think, to get into countries that have never known it."
Or this:-
The third guarantee of liberty is the rule of law. The idea that all are equal under the law is deeply rooted in our democratic systems and nowhere else..... The thought that no one in the state can escape the law is, after all, a daring one...... This is not a thought which the powerful can easily accept. Those who hold sway in totalitarian states take good care that the rule of law does not challenge their authority."
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/boris-johnson-accused-of-seeking-to-create-no-mans-land-at-irish-border
Should this Remainer be jailed? Far worse than anything Starkey has said.
We do not have government by a committee of the whole house
The FTPA is a corrosive piece of legislation
A vote on the FTPA won’t get through without Labour support .
As deluded as Davey.
No. Blackford said he wanted an interim ministry to extend Article 50.
Could we interest you in doing a PB header on German attitudes to what's happening with Brexit?
If she’d won a clear majority, by not running the worse campaign in history, she could have repealed it.
But it's a bizarre comparison to make, considering that he is complaining about the Supreme Court asserting the right of parliament to sit in the face of the government's use of the royal prerogative.
Perhaps Starkey would have been on the royalist side? Wrong but Wromantic?
(Parenthetically, how the hell did you ever fit into the Conservative Party? Or was there a time when they weren't all...how can I put this politely...so intense?)