UK Politics Thread X: Boris' Big Bonkers Brexit Bash

[Fartsniffage]

As said by Fart, this is a challenge before a British court. They can strike it down.

And the deal can moet certainly be struck down by the ECJ, since the ECJ will retain jurisdiction over the UK for the two year transition period. Honestly, did you read the deal?

As a footnote, you also mixed up the ECJ and the ECtHR. The ECtHR will retain its jurisdiction over the UK since it is not leaving the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation from the EU.

The UK Supreme Court can’t strike down an act of Parliament.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/2 ... confusion/

“No it cannot. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate public policy, but to interpret law and develop it where necessary, through well-established processes and methods of reasoning.”

They're not asking the Court to strike down anything. They're asking it to prevent the deal being voted on in the first place as accepting it would be breaking current British law. One the law in question has been changed then it could be presented for a vote in Parliament.

It's a tactic to delay the vote past tomorrow to force Boris to send the extension request to Europe.

[Dooom35796821595]

The UK Supreme Court can’t strike down an act of Parliament.

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/01/2 ... confusion/

“No it cannot. Unlike some Supreme Courts in other parts of the world, the UK Supreme Court does not have the power to ‘strike down’ legislation passed by the UK Parliament. It is not the Court’s role to formulate public policy, but to interpret law and develop it where necessary, through well-established processes and methods of reasoning.”

They're not asking the Court to strike down anything. They're asking it to prevent the deal being voted on in the first place as accepting it would be breaking current British law. One the law in question has been changed then it could be presented for a vote in Parliament.

It's a tactic to delay the vote past tomorrow to force Boris to send the extension request to Europe.

GCCS claimed they could strike it down.

And I don’t see how the courts could delay a vote any more then they can revoke an act of parliament.

[Fartsniffage]

They're not asking the Court to strike down anything. They're asking it to prevent the deal being voted on in the first place as accepting it would be breaking current British law. One the law in question has been changed then it could be presented for a vote in Parliament.

It's a tactic to delay the vote past tomorrow to force Boris to send the extension request to Europe.

GCCS claimed they could strike it down.

And I don’t see how the courts could delay a vote any more then they can revoke an act of parliament.

Good for him. He's wrong.

I think their seeking an injunction to force the government to appeal it or be seen as considering itself above the law. They only need it delayed by a day.

[Dooom35796821595]

GCCS claimed they could strike it down.

And I don’t see how the courts could delay a vote any more then they can revoke an act of parliament.

Good for him. He's wrong.

I think their seeking an injunction to force the government to appeal it or be seen as considering itself above the law. They only need it delayed by a day.

Parliament sort of is above the law, since it writes it. And I think Boris would prefer that, since it can be spun as parliamentary supremacy (which it sort of is) over sending an extension request.

At the end of the day it’s using legal trickery to try and sabotage the government and Parliament. The court should ignore it.

[Fartsniffage]

Good for him. He's wrong.

I think their seeking an injunction to force the government to appeal it or be seen as considering itself above the law. They only need it delayed by a day.

Parliament sort of is above the law, since it writes it. And I think Boris would prefer that, since it can be spun as parliamentary supremacy (which it sort of is) over sending an extension request.

At the end of the day it’s using legal trickery to try and sabotage the government and Parliament. The court should ignore it.

Parliament is, the Government isn't. There is a difference.

[Dooom35796821595]

Parliament sort of is above the law, since it writes it. And I think Boris would prefer that, since it can be spun as parliamentary supremacy (which it sort of is) over sending an extension request.

At the end of the day it’s using legal trickery to try and sabotage the government and Parliament. The court should ignore it.

Parliament is, the Government isn't. There is a difference.

Ah, right. Missed that.

Still overly political, the courts should wait until after the act is passed, since it can be amended later.
Also, wasn’t that 19th deadline only going to be enforced if they thought the PM was going to try and loophole a hard exit? The benn act surely wouldn’t apply if the government are acting in good faith and it’s the courts causing the issue, so the court would have to allow it one way or another.

[The Huskar Social Union]

500!

balls.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's a tactic to delay the vote past tomorrow to force Boris to send the extension request to Europe.

But Juncker has ruled out an extension. Tusk has reportedly not ruled one out but he hasn't recently supported one either. If voting against a deal is effectively a no-deal then parliament are breaking their own law (or motion?) that they won't vote for a no-deal.

[Chan Island]

500!

balls.

The dramatic moment is upon us.

But who shall take on the mantle of OPship?

[Gravlen]

GCCS claimed they could strike it down.

And I don’t see how the courts could delay a vote any more then they can revoke an act of parliament.

Good for him. He's wrong.

I think their seeking an injunction to force the government to appeal it or be seen as considering itself above the law. They only need it delayed by a day.

This is what they're asking:

This matter comes to the court before calling on the petitioner’s applicationfor interimorders in terms of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of the Prayer of the petition, namely:

(i)To suspend ad interim the purported agreement which is said by the United Kingdom government to have concluded between it and the European Union and the United Kingdom government, on the basis that this agreement provides for Northern Ireland to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain

(ii)For interdict ad interim against Ministers of the Crown in right of the United Kingdom including the Prime Minister (and anybody acting on their behalf or at their request) from entering into arrangements under which Northern Ireland is to form part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain; and to grant interdict ad interim

Document via this article.

I'm unconvinced by the arguments put forth by O’Neill and his client Maugham. I think the Governments argument is more persuasive in this case, and I'd even question if Maugham has standing to bring this case to the courts at this time.

Let's see what the court says.

[Fartsniffage]

It's a tactic to delay the vote past tomorrow to force Boris to send the extension request to Europe.

But Juncker has ruled out an extension. Tusk has reportedly not ruled one out but he hasn't recently supported one either. If voting against a deal is effectively a no-deal then parliament are breaking their own law (or motion?) that they won't vote for a no-deal.

Parliament isn't bound by it's own laws.

[Dooom35796821595]

But Juncker has ruled out an extension. Tusk has reportedly not ruled one out but he hasn't recently supported one either. If voting against a deal is effectively a no-deal then parliament are breaking their own law (or motion?) that they won't vote for a no-deal.

Parliament isn't bound by it's own laws.

You make Parliament sound like Judge Dredd: “I am the law!”

[Ifreann]

500!

balls.

The dramatic moment is upon us.

But who shall take on the mantle of OPship?

Whoever can bribe the DUP to support them.

[Fartsniffage]

The dramatic moment is upon us.

But who shall take on the mantle of OPship?

Whoever can bribe the DUP to support them.

I have a couple of pallets in my back yard?

[Vassenor]

>Scottish Secretary Alister Jack says he thinks Conservative MPs who do not back Boris Johnson's Brexit deal on Saturday should have the party whip removed.

Oh hey here we go again.

[Chan Island]

>Scottish Secretary Alister Jack says he thinks Conservative MPs who do not back Boris Johnson's Brexit deal on Saturday should have the party whip removed.

Oh hey here we go again.

Ooh, Ooh! Let's guess how many more are going to be expelled!

[Chan Island]

The dramatic moment is upon us.

But who shall take on the mantle of OPship?

Whoever can bribe the DUP to support them.

I have 12p in my pocket, and can pull off a really big smile.
Do I win?

[Ifreann]

Whoever can bribe the DUP to support them.

I have a couple of pallets in my back yard?

Sniffage takes an early lead.

[Dooom35796821595]

>Scottish Secretary Alister Jack says he thinks Conservative MPs who do not back Boris Johnson's Brexit deal on Saturday should have the party whip removed.

Oh hey here we go again.

Ooh, Ooh! Let's guess how many more are going to be expelled!

There can be only one!

[The Blaatschapen]

Nice, this season finale gets its own thread

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ill make a new thread.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Bonjour, i present the new thread