UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

is anything sane yet?

[Vassenor]

Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price pledges to ditch Brexit in election

[Duhon]

Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price pledges to ditch Brexit in election

... i sense the land of song breaking free

[Zhivotnoye]

Show us that you aren't lazy/illiterate and read my replies to yours.

I'm not here to serve you. I've already explained how you're cherrypicking, either you were too lazy to read it or you indeed cannot read. Either way, i'm not here to repeat myself over and over again.

Have a good day.



Good job at leaving a whole lot out. Not sure what you're aiming at with this post, but it sure as shit doesn't look like much.

Here's the thing. I have read your posts. I have not seen any explanation for how pointing out that Boris, JRM and Redwood, along with their donors, stand to personally profit from No Deal is cherry picking. Just repeated assertions that it is with no elaboration. Assertions are not evidence, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

In short: Shit or get off the pot.

Thank you for admitting that you did not read my posts.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36207503#p36207503

[The New California Republic]

Yeah I can still hear them too, so I don't know how true the claim is, but supposedly the age that it happens does tend to vary.

I just stopped being able to hear the various local cat- and youth-repellers. Life is so much quieter now.

There really doesn't seem to be a hard-and-fast cut-off-point on when people can hear those things.

I've known some folk well into their fifties who can still hear them.

[Vassenor]

Here's the thing. I have read your posts. I have not seen any explanation for how pointing out that Boris, JRM and Redwood, along with their donors, stand to personally profit from No Deal is cherry picking. Just repeated assertions that it is with no elaboration. Assertions are not evidence, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

In short: Shit or get off the pot.

Thank you for admitting that you did not read my posts.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36207503#p36207503

So I'm cherry picking because I cited a single example in a post. That's fucking weak and you know it.

By this argument you've been cherrypicking because you've only attacked that and not, say, all the other examples of negatives and problems I've cited.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Here's the thing. I have read your posts. I have not seen any explanation for how pointing out that Boris, JRM and Redwood, along with their donors, stand to personally profit from No Deal is cherry picking. Just repeated assertions that it is with no elaboration. Assertions are not evidence, and claims made without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

In short: Shit or get off the pot.

Thank you for admitting that you did not read my posts.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=36207503#p36207503

If you believe that other MPs should be mentioned, then maybe you should demonstrate why those other MPs should be mentioned instead of attacking others for not doing it.

[Salandriagado]

So Lord Keen is currently arguing that the advice to prorogue was illegal (so Boris Johnson broke the law), but the actual prorogation was legal (because the Queen can do what she likes, basically). This is directly after a brief debate as to whether or not something which proceeds in Parliament is necessarily a Proceeding of Parliament.

And now someone has tried to argue over the history of the Law Lords, in a room full of former Law Lords.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So Lord Keen is currently arguing that the advice to prorogue was illegal (so Boris Johnson broke the law), but the actual prorogation was legal (because the Queen can do what she likes, basically). This is directly after a brief debate as to whether or not something which proceeds in Parliament is necessarily a Proceeding of Parliament.

Lord Keen is a very odd lawyer. Most of the famous lawyers (famous to people who are interested in law at least) have a particular method of going about things. Keens method seems to be to twist people around in circles so the jury or judges get a headache.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

So Lord Keen is currently arguing that the advice to prorogue was illegal (so Boris Johnson broke the law), but the actual prorogation was legal (because the Queen can do what she likes, basically). This is directly after a brief debate as to whether or not something which proceeds in Parliament is necessarily a Proceeding of Parliament.

Those questions both make a lot of legal sense, tbh. Especially if you see the advice and the subsequent prorogation as two separate actions, which is absolutely necessary. If they are one and the same, then the PM has the authority to prorogue, and the Queen does not. Then the prorogation is illegal. But if the Queen has the sole power to prorogue, then an illegal advice can still lead to a legal decision.

[Aclion]

Laying out the Supreme Court so it looks like an all seeing eye is just a bit creepy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087

I uneagerly anticipate the practically inevitable conspiracy theories, in the event that the Supreme Court decide that Boris Johnson's advice to the queen was misleading and the prorogation was aimed at preventing Parliament scrutinising the government properly.

Boris doesn't need to prevent parliament doing things properly, they're perfectly capable of doing that themselves. XD

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So Lord Keen is currently arguing that the advice to prorogue was illegal (so Boris Johnson broke the law), but the actual prorogation was legal (because the Queen can do what she likes, basically). This is directly after a brief debate as to whether or not something which proceeds in Parliament is necessarily a Proceeding of Parliament.

Those questions both make a lot of legal sense, tbh. Especially if you see the advice and the subsequent prorogation as two separate actions, which is absolutely necessary. If they are one and the same, then the PM has the authority to prorogue, and the Queen does not. Then the prorogation is illegal. But if the Queen has the sole power to prorogue, then an illegal advice can still lead to a legal decision.

Is Lord Pannick leading the council for those seeking to have it ruled illegal?

[Salandriagado]

Those questions both make a lot of legal sense, tbh. Especially if you see the advice and the subsequent prorogation as two separate actions, which is absolutely necessary. If they are one and the same, then the PM has the authority to prorogue, and the Queen does not. Then the prorogation is illegal. But if the Queen has the sole power to prorogue, then an illegal advice can still lead to a legal decision.

Is Lord Pannick leading the council for those seeking to have it ruled illegal?

Yeah, his bit was this morning.


We're now onto

"So this report has to be published by the 9th, and laid before parliament by the end of the day in which it is published"
"Yes, and there is an intention to comply with that."
"Really, so when are you going to lay it before parliament?"
"The 14th."
*Everybody sighs*

[Nakena]

is anything sane yet?

What, you asking for here?

This ride is far from being over. Theres more to come.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Is Lord Pannick leading the council for those seeking to have it ruled illegal?

Yeah, his bit was this morning.


We're now onto

"So this report has to be published by the 9th, and laid before parliament by the end of the day in which it is published"
"Yes, and there is an intention to comply with that."
"Really, so when are you going to lay it before parliament?"
"The 14th."
*Everybody sighs*

Please don't tell me that Keen is lead counsel. Please.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Is Lord Pannick leading the council for those seeking to have it ruled illegal?

Yeah, his bit was this morning.


We're now onto

"So this report has to be published by the 9th, and laid before parliament by the end of the day in which it is published"
"Yes, and there is an intention to comply with that."
"Really, so when are you going to lay it before parliament?"
"The 14th."
*Everybody sighs*

EA Games - the Government.

[Salandriagado]

Yeah, his bit was this morning.


We're now onto

"So this report has to be published by the 9th, and laid before parliament by the end of the day in which it is published"
"Yes, and there is an intention to comply with that."
"Really, so when are you going to lay it before parliament?"
"The 14th."
*Everybody sighs*

Please don't tell me that Keen is lead counsel. Please.

It looks like it's slightly complicated because there are two cases being bashed together. The people listed are:

Lord Pannick (Appellant for Miller)
Lord Keen (Appellant for Cherry)
Sir James Eadie (Respondent for Miller)
Aidan O'Neill (Respondent for Cherry)
The Lord Advocate James Mure (Oral intervention - Scottish government)
Ronan Lavery (Oral intervention - NI Claimant)
Mike Fordham (Oral Intervention - Counsel General for Wales)
Lord Garnier (Oral Intervention - John Major)

[The New California Republic]

Is Lord Pannick leading the council for those seeking to have it ruled illegal?

Yeah, his bit was this morning.


We're now onto

"So this report has to be published by the 9th, and laid before parliament by the end of the day in which it is published"
"Yes, and there is an intention to comply with that."
"Really, so when are you going to lay it before parliament?"
"The 14th."
*Everybody sighs*

Par for the course.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Please don't tell me that Keen is lead counsel. Please.

It looks like it's slightly complicated because there are two cases being bashed together. The people listed are:

Lord Pannick (Appellant for Miller)
Lord Keen (Appellant for Cherry)
Sir James Eadie (Respondent for Miller)
Aidan O'Neill (Respondent for Cherry)
The Lord Advocate James Mure (Oral intervention - Scottish government)
Ronan Lavery (Oral intervention - NI Claimant)
Mike Fordham (Oral Intervention - Counsel General for Wales)
Lord Garnier (Oral Intervention - John Major)

Does Lord Keen strike you as Lord Pannick's equal?

[Salandriagado]

"The question of "what is a political consideration" that the courts can't rule on" is a political consideration that the courts can't rule on.

Added bonus:

Boris Johnson: We weren't planning to prorogue strategically.
Boris Johnson's Lawyer: the government has been planning this since July.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

"The question of "what is a political consideration" that the courts can't rule on" is a political consideration that the courts can't rule on.

Added bonus:

Boris Johnson: We weren't planning to prorogue strategically.
Boris Johnson's Lawyer: the government has been planning this since July.

I think I understand why 1984 is set in Britain now. This is literal doublethink.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"The question of "what is a political consideration" that the courts can't rule on" is a political consideration that the courts can't rule on.

Added bonus:

Boris Johnson: We weren't planning to prorogue strategically.
Boris Johnson's Lawyer: the government has been planning this since July.

Are we listening to the same stream? When was this mentioned?

[Salandriagado]

It looks like it's slightly complicated because there are two cases being bashed together. The people listed are:

Lord Pannick (Appellant for Miller)
Lord Keen (Appellant for Cherry)
Sir James Eadie (Respondent for Miller)
Aidan O'Neill (Respondent for Cherry)
The Lord Advocate James Mure (Oral intervention - Scottish government)
Ronan Lavery (Oral intervention - NI Claimant)
Mike Fordham (Oral Intervention - Counsel General for Wales)
Lord Garnier (Oral Intervention - John Major)

Does Lord Keen strike you as Lord Pannick's equal?

I missed most of Pannick's speech, but not really. There's certainly significantly more laughter going on this afternoon, and Lady Hale is rather pulling him apart. He's now "going to endeavour to seek for clarification" as to why 14 = 9.

And has written down the wrong reference for the document that he was referring to, which is more than slightly embarrassing.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Does Lord Keen strike you as Lord Pannick's equal?

I missed most of Pannick's speech, but not really. There's certainly significantly more laughter going on this afternoon, and Lady Hale is rather pulling him apart. He's now "going to endeavour to seek for clarification" as to why 14 = 9.

And has written down the wrong reference for the document that he was referring to, which is more than slightly embarrassing.

You'll know what I mean by this. Has he gone more Scottish-sounding yet? He does that when he's in a hole. I've listened to a few of his arguments before.

[Salandriagado]

"The question of "what is a political consideration" that the courts can't rule on" is a political consideration that the courts can't rule on.

Added bonus:

Boris Johnson: We weren't planning to prorogue strategically.
Boris Johnson's Lawyer: the government has been planning this since July.

Are we listening to the same stream? When was this mentioned?

I'm listening to the stream, yes: Keen said that the government had been planning it since July, and that Parliament knew this, because otherwise the amendment to the Norhtern Ireland (Executive Formation) Act wouldn't have happened.


Also, Lady Hale is great.