NationStates

Phoenicaea wrote:^i read extract posted, detailing the matter of scottish judge. does it might say english law admits oral agreement (so, any doubts cast upon such deeds), while scottish does not?

The English court saw such a move of high policy (choosing to prorogue parliament) as being beyond judicial control, as the unelected judges should not stray into the realm of politics. Scottish judges, however, are of the opinion that no matter is beyond judicial control, and that even high policy can be applied unlawfully.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Phoenicaea wrote:^i read extract posted, detailing the matter of scottish judge. does it might say english law admits oral agreement (so, any doubts cast upon such deeds), while scottish does not?

The English court saw such a move of high policy (choosing to prorogue parliament) as being beyond judicial control, as the unelected judges should not stray into the realm of politics. Scottish judges, however, are of the opinion that no matter is beyond judicial control, and that even high policy can be applied unlawfully.

A very American stance on things.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:The English court saw such a move of high policy (choosing to prorogue parliament) as being beyond judicial control, as the unelected judges should not stray into the realm of politics. Scottish judges, however, are of the opinion that no matter is beyond judicial control, and that even high policy can be applied unlawfully.

A very American stance on things.

Not really: it's been a feature of Scottish common law for longer than the US has been a thing. One might more accurately say that America has a very Scottish stance on things.

Salandriagado wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
A very American stance on things.

Not really: it's been a feature of Scottish common law for longer than the US has been a thing. One might more accurately say that America has a very Scottish stance on things.

And when was the last time a Scottish court started making rulings on UK political decisions? That is a feature of the American system, where the British court system isn’t supposed to make rulings on political issues. Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court tries to put the lid back on this can of worms by overruling the Scottish courts decision. Of course, the sensible thing would be to pass some legislation officially preventing the judiciary from ruling on political issues, but our “esteemed” representatives are hardly acting in any sensible manor.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Not really: it's been a feature of Scottish common law for longer than the US has been a thing. One might more accurately say that America has a very Scottish stance on things.

And when was the last time a Scottish court started making rulings on UK political decisions? That is a feature of the American system, where the British court system isn’t supposed to make rulings on political issues. Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court tries to put the lid back on this can of worms by overruling the Scottish courts decision. Of course, the sensible thing would be to pass some legislation officially preventing the judiciary from ruling on political issues, but our “esteemed” representatives are hardly acting in any sensible manor.

What are political issues?

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
And when was the last time a Scottish court started making rulings on UK political decisions? That is a feature of the American system, where the British court system isn’t supposed to make rulings on political issues. Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court tries to put the lid back on this can of worms by overruling the Scottish courts decision. Of course, the sensible thing would be to pass some legislation officially preventing the judiciary from ruling on political issues, but our “esteemed” representatives are hardly acting in any sensible manor.

What are political issues?

These days? EVERYTHING.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
And when was the last time a Scottish court started making rulings on UK political decisions? That is a feature of the American system, where the British court system isn’t supposed to make rulings on political issues. Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court tries to put the lid back on this can of worms by overruling the Scottish courts decision. Of course, the sensible thing would be to pass some legislation officially preventing the judiciary from ruling on political issues, but our “esteemed” representatives are hardly acting in any sensible manor.

What are political issues?

Making and passing laws, use of government powers and responsibility, that sort of thing.

So the Yellowhammer docs have been released in full now.

Vassenor wrote:So the Yellowhammer docs have been released in full now.

Looks to have been very reduced from an original script. 5 pages is lightweight.
So essentially it's exactly what would be expected to happen in that event, and therefore the "get ready for Brexit" campaign was the right idea if this is the direction the government wants to take.
Not quite the "run to the hills screaming" report, but then again it does miss out some obvious points. Of course those that screech will screech about it, but more to the point it is perhaps ice to the senses of those who had been rampantly keen for it before and a point at which we should really take a hard look at this decision.

EDIT:
Although interestingly enough this has come out at the same time as the denial of release of information regarding the prorogue situation, so a case of petty distraction. Additionally some sources suggest this document was listed as "Base situation" a while ago, however is now being released under the title of "worst case" to the public.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

You're right. What we need is some sort of legislative session where they can debate these issues and settle things in a grown up fashion, say, by voting on them...

Vassenor wrote:So the Yellowhammer docs have been released in full now.

Yup. The redacted bit, para. 15, reads as follows:

15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.

Nimzonia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults.

You're right. What we need is some sort of legislative session where they can debate these issues and settle things in a grown up fashion, say, by voting on them...

You mean like the last three years? Or the time after the party conferences? Or the time they had before the prologue?

Or are you suggesting parliament stay open 24/7?

Gravlen wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So the Yellowhammer docs have been released in full now.

Yup. The redacted bit, para. 15, reads as follows:

15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.

So turns out magical zero tariff neoliberalism does not actually work: who knew?
But to merely mention “free trade” does not magically help and sometimes actually hurts is of course heresy to the prevailing religion.

Gravlen wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So the Yellowhammer docs have been released in full now.

Yup. The redacted bit, para. 15, reads as follows:

15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.

Oh, so the three-day week with smartphones.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Nimzonia wrote:
You're right. What we need is some sort of legislative session where they can debate these issues and settle things in a grown up fashion, say, by voting on them...

You mean like the last three years? Or the time after the party conferences? Or the time they had before the prologue?

Or are you suggesting parliament stay open 24/7?

You seem to expect our MPs to "take their petty squabbles" somewhere besides the courts, and "settle things like adults" - I am just wondering where that might be?

Novus America wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Yup. The redacted bit, para. 15, reads as follows:

15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.

So turns out magical zero tariff neoliberalism does not actually work: who knew?
But to merely mention “free trade” does not magically help and sometimes actually hurts is of course heresy to the prevailing religion.

The crusty magazines stuck to every other table in Wetherspoons lied to us, is there nowhere left we can trust?

Nimzonia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
You mean like the last three years? Or the time after the party conferences? Or the time they had before the prologue?

Or are you suggesting parliament stay open 24/7?

You seem to expect our MPs to "take their petty squabbles" somewhere besides the courts, and "settle things like adults" - I am just wondering where that might be?

Parliament, talking to each other, accepting they’ve lost.

*edit*
Or we could set up a boxing ring and have MPs fight it out. Make BBC parliament pay per view on MP grudge matches and they may actually start contributing.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Nimzonia wrote:
You seem to expect our MPs to "take their petty squabbles" somewhere besides the courts, and "settle things like adults" - I am just wondering where that might be?

Parliament, talking to each other, accepting they’ve lost.

*edit*
Or we could set up a boxing ring and have MPs fight it out. Make BBC parliament pay per view on MP grudge matches and they may actually start contributing.

Can't talk in Parliament if it's shut. Hence the legal case.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Parliament, talking to each other, accepting they’ve lost.

*edit*
Or we could set up a boxing ring and have MPs fight it out. Make BBC parliament pay per view on MP grudge matches and they may actually start contributing.

Can't talk in Parliament if it's shut. Hence the legal case.

They had time before it shut, and they’ll have time again afterwards.

A simple bill empowering the commons to temporarily suspend prologue until Brexit has been settled, or require the PM submit the suggestion before Parliament and only stopping it if a majority object. Those are just the obvious suggestions, I’m sure actual legislators and their arm of advisors would me more then capable of coming up with something.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Nimzonia wrote:
You seem to expect our MPs to "take their petty squabbles" somewhere besides the courts, and "settle things like adults" - I am just wondering where that might be?

Parliament, talking to each other, accepting they’ve lost.

So let me get this straight. Parliament is prorogued, but going to the courts to get it convened again is "Yet another falling of the current political class when they take their petty squabbles to court like a episode of judge Judy rather then settle things like adults", and you think that should be done in parliament instead, even though parliament is prorogued?

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Can't talk in Parliament if it's shut. Hence the legal case.

They had time before it shut, and they’ll have time again afterwards.

"Don't go to court, go to Parliament and talk it out."
"That's what we're trying to do, and that's why we go to court."
"Well I don't mean you should go to Parliament and talk right now! Or for the next five weeks..."

Sounds legit.

Gravlen wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
They had time before it shut, and they’ll have time again afterwards.

"Don't go to court, go to Parliament and talk it out."
"That's what we're trying to do, and that's why we go to court."
"Well I don't mean you should go to Parliament and talk right now! Or for the next five weeks..."

Sounds legit.

Leavers tend to have.....interesting chains of logic in their arguments.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Gravlen wrote:"Don't go to court, go to Parliament and talk it out."
"That's what we're trying to do, and that's why we go to court."
"Well I don't mean you should go to Parliament and talk right now! Or for the next five weeks..."

Sounds legit.

Leavers tend to have.....interesting chains of logic in their arguments.

There was time before it happened, there will be time after it happens. They got beat at their own stupid game, and are now refusing to admit defeat and potentially setting a precedent that the courts can rule, and potentially overrule the government. What next, overturning ‘unconstitutional’ legislation?

And remainers don’t?

I’m not even arguing it from a Brexit stance, it’s just desperate publicity seeking, general incompetence and infighting.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Leavers tend to have.....interesting chains of logic in their arguments.

There was time before it happened, there will be time after it happens. They got beat at their own stupid game, and are now refusing to admit defeat and potentially setting a precedent that the courts can rule, and potentially overrule the government. What next, overturning ‘unconstitutional’ legislation?

And remainers don’t?

I’m not even arguing it from a Brexit stance, it’s just desperate publicity seeking, general incompetence and infighting.

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!?

Nimzonia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
There was time before it happened, there will be time after it happens. They got beat at their own stupid game, and are now refusing to admit defeat and potentially setting a precedent that the courts can rule, and potentially overrule the government. What next, overturning ‘unconstitutional’ legislation?

And remainers don’t?

I’m not even arguing it from a Brexit stance, it’s just desperate publicity seeking, general incompetence and infighting.

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.