NationStates

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.

Every law student agrees with you because she doesn't write her judgements in archaic english.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
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.

Not yet, no. He has gone full existentialism, though: "sure, this court is allowed to rule on whether something is good governance, but how do you actually know what "good governance" means?"

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.

Also apparently because there was the opportunity to put a prorogation block into that bill then this prorogation is entirely legal and cannot be revoked because reasons.

Salandriagado wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.

Not yet, no. He has gone full existentialism, though: "sure, this court is allowed to rule on whether something is good governance, but how do you actually know what "good governance" means?"

I tell you, this is the EA Games cabinet.

Vassenor wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
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.

Also apparently because there was the opportunity to put a prorogation block into that bill then this prorogation is entirely legal and cannot be revoked because reasons.

It could be a persuasive argument actually. It opens up a legislative intent question.

"Can you show us the communications that lead people to decide to prorogue?"
"Only if they were different from published reasons"
"Were they different from published reasons?"
"No"
"Can we... check?"
"No"



"Why did Boris Johnson refuse to sign an affidavit?"
"Probably because he was lying, but you aren't allowed to draw inferences from that."

Labour's managed to rally round and find another internal fight it can have with itself, this time in the form of trying to axe and replace it's autonomous student wing, the fairly overtly Blairite and not very democratic Labour Students.

"Parliament can't recall itself during a recess."
"The Speaker of the House of Lords can recall Parliament during a recess."

Both quotes from Keen, less than a minute apart.

We live in the stupidest timeline.

Has anybody actually pointed out the law that says you can't prorogue for political reasons and secondly the one that forces the queen to do it? Convention is not the same as law and secondly the effect of this seems to be that Parliment has said we submit our parliamentary sovereignty through the monarch to the courts thus it does not exist anymore since Prorogation is a royal prerogative power.

I don't expect our republican members to give much of a shit lol but I think in the desperation to thwart brexit at any cost it's collaterally wrecking the constitution and we will end up in a worse place in the long term.

The Nihilistic view wrote:Has anybody actually pointed out the law that says you can't prorogue for political reasons and secondly the one that forces the queen to do it? Convention is not the same as law and secondly the effect of this seems to be that Parliment has said we submit our parliamentary sovereignty through the monarch to the courts thus it does not exist anymore since Prorogation is a royal prerogative power.

I don't expect our republican members to give much of a shit lol but I think in the desperation to thwart brexit at any cost it's collaterally wrecking the constitution and we will end up in a worse place in the long term.

I don't think that "it was for political reasons" is the actual reasoning behind the prorogue being illegal, and it doesn't exactly matter if the Queen has to do it if the Queen did do it.
That being said, I am entirely unfamiliar with British law, so I'll take a step back from now on.

So he's finished, and despite saying that he'd get to the government's reasons for proroguing "shortly" at five past two, and being directly asked for them several times, he's provided nothing.

The Nihilistic view wrote:Has anybody actually pointed out the law that says you can't prorogue for political reasons and secondly the one that forces the queen to do it? Convention is not the same as law and secondly the effect of this seems to be that Parliment has said we submit our parliamentary sovereignty through the monarch to the courts thus it does not exist anymore since Prorogation is a royal prerogative power.

I don't expect our republican members to give much of a shit lol but I think in the desperation to thwart brexit at any cost it's collaterally wrecking the constitution and we will end up in a worse place in the long term.

That's not even remotely what's happening. Even the government's lawyer has outright admitted that the advice to prorogue was unlawful. He's just arguing that the court can't do anything about it.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Boris has chosen not to submit a statement to the court explaining his reasons for prorouging. An interesting decision.

Trying to avoid a perjury charge as well.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton.

---

The New California Republic wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote: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.

I've never experienced these things. I think they're illegal here.

So where are we on everything?

Thermodolia wrote:So where are we on everything?

Nowhere? Nowhere.

Thermodolia wrote:So where are we on everything?

SCOTUK is currently discussing the prorogue.

Ifreann wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I've known some folk well into their fifties who can still hear them.

I've never experienced these things. I think they're illegal here.

Ultrasonic devices? Hm, that's a weird thing to ban if true.

Or are you talking about folk in their fifties?

Thermodolia wrote:So where are we on everything?

Don't ask stupid questions. Nobody knows that. Even the people who know won't tell you because secretly they're not actually sure. Some people don't know if they know, they might tell you, but they don't know if they're right.

The New California Republic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:
I've never experienced these things. I think they're illegal here.

Ultrasonic devices? Hm, that's a weird thing to ban if true.

Or are you talking about folk in their fifties?

Youf repelling ultrasonics. As I recall their use would constitute assault, and weirdly it isn't legal to assault teens for loitering. Don't understand it myself.

Ifreann wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Ultrasonic devices? Hm, that's a weird thing to ban if true.

Or are you talking about folk in their fifties?

Youf repelling ultrasonics. As I recall their use would constitute assault, and weirdly it isn't legal to assault teens for loitering. Don't understand it myself.

I was more meaning pests. And no that's not what I mean by pests.

The Free Joy State wrote:

The New California Republic wrote: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.

Here you can test it: https://youtu.be/_SHFwmPQ_rQ?t=137 (Noise warning!)

The New California Republic wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:So where are we on everything?

SCOTUK is currently discussing the prorogue.

Oh fun. So BoJo might not get that. At this point it might make more sense to make Comrade Corbyn PM as he seems to be the one in charge

Nakena wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote: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.

Here you can test it: https://youtu.be/_SHFwmPQ_rQ?t=137

Thanks a lot...my head hurts now.

Evil Dictators Happyland wrote:We live in the stupidest timeline.

No, the stupidest timeline is that one where Neil Armstrong died of old age without anyone having got any further than he did.

Oh wait, that's us too...