UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Vassenor]

So now can we agree that Brexit was a stupid fucking idea?

[Nimzonia]

You're happy to allow the proroguing of parliament for purely partisan reasons, because it happens to facilitate an outcome you want, and you have the temerity to talk about setting precedents!?

It doesn’t facilitate an outcome I want, you’re just assuming I do.

So you're excusing the abuse of executive power to facilitate an outcome you don't want? Sounds legit.

[Fartsniffage]

You're happy to allow the proroguing of parliament for purely partisan reasons, because it happens to facilitate an outcome you want, and you have the temerity to talk about setting precedents!?

It doesn’t facilitate an outcome I want, you’re just assuming I do. I didn’t like Boris manipulating the system, but it fell within procedure and precedent.

The Scottish court found otherwise. Now we wait to see what the Supreme Court says.

[Dooom35796821595]

It doesn’t facilitate an outcome I want, you’re just assuming I do.

So you're excusing the abuse of executive power to facilitate an outcome you don't want? Sounds legit.

It’s only an abuse because people are saying it is, primarily remain factions. And Labour. I may not like it, but that isn’t enough to make it illegal.

I’m saying that it’s an inconsequential action in the larger picture and is only an issue due to the continual inaction and uncertainty. Again, there have been three years of this...uncertainty, because parliament and the MPs and parties that are part of it have been unable to do anything but ask the EU for more time to squander on petty politics rather then make any sort of progress.

[Heloin]

So you're excusing the abuse of executive power to facilitate an outcome you don't want? Sounds legit.

It’s only an abuse because people are saying it is, primarily remain factions. And Labour. I may not like it, but that isn’t enough to make it illegal.

I’m saying that it’s an inconsequential action in the larger picture and is only an issue due to the continual inaction and uncertainty. Again, there have been three years of this...uncertainty, because parliament and the MPs and parties that are part of it have been unable to do anything but ask the EU for more time to squander on petty politics rather then make any sort of progress.

The Scottish courts saying it's unlawful does though.

And Parliament being in prorogue fixes this uncertainty somehow?

[Dooom35796821595]

It doesn’t facilitate an outcome I want, you’re just assuming I do. I didn’t like Boris manipulating the system, but it fell within procedure and precedent.

The Scottish court found otherwise. Now we wait to see what the Supreme Court says.

Which itself was outside the traditional scope of the courts not to rule on political issues. Let’s hope the supreme one gets it right.

[Dooom35796821595]

It’s only an abuse because people are saying it is, primarily remain factions. And Labour. I may not like it, but that isn’t enough to make it illegal.

I’m saying that it’s an inconsequential action in the larger picture and is only an issue due to the continual inaction and uncertainty. Again, there have been three years of this...uncertainty, because parliament and the MPs and parties that are part of it have been unable to do anything but ask the EU for more time to squander on petty politics rather then make any sort of progress.

The Scottish courts saying it's unlawful does though.

And Parliament being in prorogue fixes this uncertainty somehow?

The courts should not make judgements on political issues, prorogue is a political issue.

No, leaving the EU would. Or remaining in it. Or securing a deal. None seem to be something the current parties can agree on, so the prorogue is irrelevant.

[Fartsniffage]

The Scottish court found otherwise. Now we wait to see what the Supreme Court says.

Which itself was outside the traditional scope of the courts not to rule on political issues. Let’s hope the supreme one gets it right.

Bollocks. Here's a recent court ruling on a political issue.

https://www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/stop- ... ial-review

[Dooom35796821595]

Which itself was outside the traditional scope of the courts not to rule on political issues. Let’s hope the supreme one gets it right.

Bollocks. Here's a recent court ruling on a political issue.

https://www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/stop- ... ial-review

“The High Court in London says that advice given by the prime minister to the Queen to suspend parliament is basically "political" - something the government has argued from the get go - and so it's not a matter the courts should get involved in because there are really no legal standards against which to judge it.“ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

The High court in London says its political and this the courts shouldn’t get involved. The Scottish court disagreed. That’s why it’s going to the Supreme Court. Which is also why the courts should stay out of politics if they can’t make a unanimous decision.

[Fartsniffage]

Bollocks. Here's a recent court ruling on a political issue.

https://www.caat.org.uk/campaigns/stop- ... ial-review

“The High Court in London says that advice given by the prime minister to the Queen to suspend parliament is basically "political" - something the government has argued from the get go - and so it's not a matter the courts should get involved in because there are really no legal standards against which to judge it.“ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

The High court in London says its political and this the courts shouldn’t get involved. The Scottish court disagreed. That’s why it’s going to the Supreme Court. Which is also why the courts should stay out of politics if they can’t make a unanimous decision.

The decision on who to sell weapons to is political. What's the difference?

[Nimzonia]

So you're excusing the abuse of executive power to facilitate an outcome you don't want? Sounds legit.

It’s only an abuse because people are saying it is, primarily remain factions.

You might as well say that it's only not an abuse, because people are saying it isn't, primarily leave factions.

I don't see how you can argue that it isn't an abuse of power to shut down parliament for the sole purpose of stifling democratic opposition, unless your judgment is fundamentally biased.

[Dooom35796821595]

“The High Court in London says that advice given by the prime minister to the Queen to suspend parliament is basically "political" - something the government has argued from the get go - and so it's not a matter the courts should get involved in because there are really no legal standards against which to judge it.“ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

The High court in London says its political and this the courts shouldn’t get involved. The Scottish court disagreed. That’s why it’s going to the Supreme Court. Which is also why the courts should stay out of politics if they can’t make a unanimous decision.

The decision on who to sell weapons to is political. What's the difference?

I have no idea, you should probably ask the high court, since that was their interpretation.

It’s only an abuse because people are saying it is, primarily remain factions.

You might as well say that it's only not an abuse, because people are saying it isn't, primarily leave factions.

I don't see how you can argue that it isn't an abuse of power to shut down parliament for the sole purpose of stifling democratic opposition, unless your judgment is fundamentally biased.

Because it’s been done before, by many past PMs?

And stifling what democratic opposition, what were they going to do in those five days before the party conferences that was so important they’ve negated to do it before right now?

[Fartsniffage]

I have no idea, you should probably ask the high court, since that was their interpretation.

Okay. Do you believe the two are different, and if not, why?

[Dooom35796821595]

I have no idea, you should probably ask the high court, since that was their interpretation.

Okay. Do you believe the two are different, and if so, why?

Probably the implication that the court ruling against the prorogue would require parliament to be reopened, thus taking power from parliament and giving it to the courts. Opposed to the arms deal ruling which seems more advisory to parliament, requiring parliament to take the action if any.

[Fartsniffage]

Okay. Do you believe the two are different, and if so, why?

Probably the implication that the court ruling against the prorogue would require parliament to be reopened, thus taking power from parliament and giving it to the courts. Opposed to the arms deal ruling which seems more advisory to parliament, requiring parliament to take the action if any.

So the courts have the ability to rule against some political decisions but not others....

How do we tell the difference?

[Dooom35796821595]

Probably the implication that the court ruling against the prorogue would require parliament to be reopened, thus taking power from parliament and giving it to the courts. Opposed to the arms deal ruling which seems more advisory to parliament, requiring parliament to take the action if any.

So the courts have the ability to rule against some political decisions but not others....

How do we tell the difference?

I have no idea. But a good place to start would be ensuring the courts decision is advisory to parliament, and not actually able to change things on its own.

And yes I know this one is being criticised because parliament is currently closed because of the issue before the court, but parliament is closed a lot, so that’s hardly a unique situation.

[Fartsniffage]

So the courts have the ability to rule against some political decisions but not others....

How do we tell the difference?

I have no idea. But a good place to start would be ensuring the courts decision is advisory to parliament, and not actually able to change things on its own.

And yes I know this one is being criticised because parliament is currently closed because of the issue before the court, but parliament is closed a lot, so that’s hardly a unique situation.

That can't happen for obvious reasons.

[Dooom35796821595]

I have no idea. But a good place to start would be ensuring the courts decision is advisory to parliament, and not actually able to change things on its own.

And yes I know this one is being criticised because parliament is currently closed because of the issue before the court, but parliament is closed a lot, so that’s hardly a unique situation.

That can't happen for obvious reasons.

And why is that?

[Fartsniffage]

That can't happen for obvious reasons.

And why is that?

Because if the Government does something illegal then there has to be a recourse.

[Souseiseki]

Probably the implication that the court ruling against the prorogue would require parliament to be reopened, thus taking power from parliament and giving it to the courts. Opposed to the arms deal ruling which seems more advisory to parliament, requiring parliament to take the action if any.

So the courts have the ability to rule against some political decisions but not others....

How do we tell the difference?

which political decisions? the power to strike down laws under EU or ECHR law is usually clear in what can and cannot be done. this current stuff is about the queen not parliament. are there any other decisions which the courts can rul against?

[Dooom35796821595]

And why is that?

Because if the Government does something illegal then there has to be a recourse.

Ok, perhaps I was a little overzealous earlier, since most of the time it’s the courts holding the government to the laws already passed by Parliament. But this is one of those situations that the London high court thought was political, or too political for them to interfere, since it seems like the courts writing the laws rather then interpreting them.

*edit*
There we go, I knew I was missing something!

As Souseiseki mentioned, this involves the Queen which is why I was inherently opposed to it, it has the odour of republicanism about it.

[Fartsniffage]

Because if the Government does something illegal then there has to be a recourse.

Ok, perhaps I was a little overzealous earlier, since most of the time it’s the courts holding the government to the laws already passed by Parliament. But this is one of those situations that the London high court thought was political, or too political for them to interfere, since it seems like the courts writing the laws rather then interpreting them.

And we're back to a Scottish court disagreeing. If it is true that the government lied to the sovereign then we're really in tricky waters. And it really seems like that might be the case.

[Dooom35796821595]

Ok, perhaps I was a little overzealous earlier, since most of the time it’s the courts holding the government to the laws already passed by Parliament. But this is one of those situations that the London high court thought was political, or too political for them to interfere, since it seems like the courts writing the laws rather then interpreting them.

And we're back to a Scottish court disagreeing. If it is true that the government lied to the sovereign then we're really in tricky waters. And it really seems like that might be the case.

Well, they’re wrong in the sense that it is political, since they’re right in the politics now.

The issue I had was that the courts seem to be implying that it was illegal for the PM to call a prorogue, when it was actually the Queen doing it acting on the PMs advice. That’s essentially what the London court meant when they said it was too political, since it’s about the monarch and the PM advising them.

And yes, if Boris lied to the Sovereign then he has put us in very tricky waters and he can go straight to hell.

[Farnhamia]

And we're back to a Scottish court disagreeing. If it is true that the government lied to the sovereign then we're really in tricky waters. And it really seems like that might be the case.

Well, they’re wrong in the sense that it is political, since they’re right in the politics now.

The issue I had was that the courts seem to be implying that it was illegal for the PM to call a prorogue, when it was actually the Queen doing it acting on the PMs advice. That’s essentially what the London court meant when they said it was too political, since it’s about the monarch and the PM advising them.

And yes, if Boris lied to the Sovereign then he has put us in very tricky waters and he can go straight to hell.

Get Prince Philip to drive him to the gates. That'll scare the life out him.

[Zhivotnoye]

Not upset at all, just pointing out you seem biased.

And your evidence of bias is that I point out facts.

The evidence is cherrypicking.