ChatterBank0 min ago
Fao Naomi
102 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by spathiphyllum. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Really, ve? Bringing a case like this is actually rather valuable, and will probably serve to protect democracy in the long run. Consider the ruling in the London case, where the judges have said that, in their opinion, the prerogative power of prorogation is not justiciable if it has been brought for political reasons, no matter how long the time limit. This means that in future a Prime Minister could be legally free to prorogue Parliament for arbitrarily long. Politically this would undoubtedly be difficult, but if shutting Parliament down for however long the PM wishes isn't destroying democracy then I don't know what is.
Whatever the Supreme Court Rules next week (or possibly the week after) it's almost certain that Parliament will respond in due course by introducing a law that limits the scope of prorogation to prevent such abuses in future.
A few other points:
1. As the High Court case also notes, prorogation for a Queen's Speech only really needs a few days, rather than over a month.
2. The expected conference recess is an entirely different beast, because during a recess (as opposed to a prorogation), Select Committees still function. So the idea that only a few days were lost is utter nonsense even according to the judges who ruled in the government's favour.
Whatever the Supreme Court Rules next week (or possibly the week after) it's almost certain that Parliament will respond in due course by introducing a law that limits the scope of prorogation to prevent such abuses in future.
A few other points:
1. As the High Court case also notes, prorogation for a Queen's Speech only really needs a few days, rather than over a month.
2. The expected conference recess is an entirely different beast, because during a recess (as opposed to a prorogation), Select Committees still function. So the idea that only a few days were lost is utter nonsense even according to the judges who ruled in the government's favour.
//Bringing a case like this is actually rather valuable, and will probably serve to protect democracy in the long run//
Do you understand the prerogative power of the EU Commission, Jim, or of the limits of the EU "Parliament" to constrain or hold it to account?
When you've done your homework come back to me and talk about democracy.
Do you understand the prerogative power of the EU Commission, Jim, or of the limits of the EU "Parliament" to constrain or hold it to account?
When you've done your homework come back to me and talk about democracy.
Since the EU Commission nominations must pass through the EU Parliament -- and since the EU Council also plays a part in monitoring and composing the Commission, I think it's not a dreadful balance.
But of course it's just a distraction. I'm satisfied that I've done my homework, as you put it. Here we have a case that people have a right to bring, poses some important questions, and has divided legal opinion. I don't doubt that some of the reasons for bringing the case are cynical, but then so was the prorogation in the first place. Everybody knows that. Brexiteers even celebrated it, or demanded that it take place over exit day, etc. Both sides are entitled to their fair share of cynicism -- but the end product will be, I am sure we'd all accept, a correct and proper legal judgement.
But of course it's just a distraction. I'm satisfied that I've done my homework, as you put it. Here we have a case that people have a right to bring, poses some important questions, and has divided legal opinion. I don't doubt that some of the reasons for bringing the case are cynical, but then so was the prorogation in the first place. Everybody knows that. Brexiteers even celebrated it, or demanded that it take place over exit day, etc. Both sides are entitled to their fair share of cynicism -- but the end product will be, I am sure we'd all accept, a correct and proper legal judgement.
In sum, Jim, I think the EU is a political project more than an economic one and that its aims are the destruction of sovereign states. It is whatever the opposite of "populist" is. Try global and elitist.
Their motives, of course, are totally benign in the general sense that we're going to be better off having the important decisions decided by clever bureaucrats and "experts" than the lottery of popular elections. And (I suggest) in the more specific sense that our beneficiaries will actually be well and justly rewarded for their well-intentioned dirigisme.
Their motives, of course, are totally benign in the general sense that we're going to be better off having the important decisions decided by clever bureaucrats and "experts" than the lottery of popular elections. And (I suggest) in the more specific sense that our beneficiaries will actually be well and justly rewarded for their well-intentioned dirigisme.
The Inner House's full decision has been given.
https:/
https:/
I still cannot work out why Parliament is being allowed to change the law to stop a no deal just because most MPs don't want one. The vote was to remain or leave and we voted to leave. There was no mention of stipulations to stay or leave with a deal or no deal so why change the rules just because it suits them and take off a major bargining tool. Anyone in business knows that you don't take bargining options off the table when you are negotiating to try and get a deal. They have had 3 years to come up with something and as far as I can see we are no further forward with it now than when we started and we never will be with this lot supposedly representing us. All they have done is make us a laughing stock around the world.
Naomi my darling how nice of you to join us better late than never they say.
You know why this thread is titled "FAO Naomi" It's because i wanted your attention.. as always.
However, do you not remember, when brexit first came about, our disagreements about the consequences? They were fobbed off as ludicrous ideas however it seems the Gov is preparing for my ludicrous ideas in case they become a reality.
you were persistent in saying there would be no queues at Dover
You know why this thread is titled "FAO Naomi" It's because i wanted your attention.. as always.
However, do you not remember, when brexit first came about, our disagreements about the consequences? They were fobbed off as ludicrous ideas however it seems the Gov is preparing for my ludicrous ideas in case they become a reality.
you were persistent in saying there would be no queues at Dover
Spath, //you were persistent in saying there would be no queues at Dover//
And you persist in saying that even though, being aware that lorries have queued at Dover for years, I’ve never said it.
From Kent Police:
//Operation Stack, also known as Op Stack, is a way of managing traffic during disruption to Eurotunnel or ferry services in Kent.
Lorries waiting to use these services queue on the M20 and all other traffic is diverted to other routes.//
https:/
Incidentally spath, contributing to AB is not my priority in life.
And you persist in saying that even though, being aware that lorries have queued at Dover for years, I’ve never said it.
From Kent Police:
//Operation Stack, also known as Op Stack, is a way of managing traffic during disruption to Eurotunnel or ferry services in Kent.
Lorries waiting to use these services queue on the M20 and all other traffic is diverted to other routes.//
https:/
Incidentally spath, contributing to AB is not my priority in life.
