Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 468 of 497 FirstFirst ... 368418458466467468469470478 ... LastLast
Results 4,671 to 4,680 of 4970
  1. #4671
    Established TDF Member Doomanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Evesham
    Posts
    3,319
    Likes (Given)
    1057
    Likes (Received)
    1988
    Leave.eu are already going after the judges.

    Dumbojo will just ignore it and carry on bumbling his way to a no deal by default.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisch View Post
    Seriously, forget about sidemount - it's bollocks.

  2. #4672
    Established TDF Member jamesp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Wrexham
    Posts
    4,462
    Likes (Given)
    2459
    Likes (Received)
    1580
    Quote Originally Posted by Doomanic View Post
    Leave.eu are already going after the judges.

    Dumbojo will just ignore it and carry on bumbling his way to a no deal by default.
    About what I expect; anybody with a shred of self respect would not be resigning either.

    Bottle of scotch and a pistol with one round would be nearer the mark.

  3. #4673
    Confused? You will be. Jay_Benson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Belper
    Posts
    2,631
    Likes (Given)
    1885
    Likes (Received)
    1432
    I really don't want him to leave. He is too much of an asset to the Remain cause. I suspect he will duck all responsibility - don';t forget that Rees-Mogg was also there so is also implicated.

    In other news: The hotest ticket in the world is the one to sit in when Boris meets the Queen. I would love to be there.
    For information to help you plan your dive trip in the UK and Eire try www.planyourdivetrip.co.uk

    Public transport planning info at www.traveline.info

  4. #4674
    Established TDF Member Doomanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Evesham
    Posts
    3,319
    Likes (Given)
    1057
    Likes (Received)
    1988
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisch View Post
    Seriously, forget about sidemount - it's bollocks.

  5. #4675
    Established TDF Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    West Lothian
    Posts
    1,955
    Likes (Given)
    696
    Likes (Received)
    630
    Interesting that Leave.EU are going after the judges of the Supreme Court as Enemies of the People for not allowing anyone irrespective of position to wilfully run a steamroller over the law of the land. The true enemies of the people are those who seek to run roughshod over the proper rule of law and are caught out in various levels of skulduggery.

    I sincerely doubt it will make a huge difference as the current bunch of schemers have shown no regard to the standards of public office. I have no doubt that Bojo will try another prorogation or similar stunt.

    Interesting to note that the judges have left the way forward in the hands of the Speaker and parliament and not the PM or government.

  6. #4676
    Established TDF Member Chrisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    7,651
    Likes (Given)
    720
    Likes (Received)
    3302
    Quote Originally Posted by Neilwood View Post
    ... The true enemies of the people are those who seek to run roughshod over the proper rule of law ...
    Just talking to a customer and he thought "they (unspecified) should just leave him (Johnson) to get on with it".

    The law is irrelevant to the religion. Getting the foreigners out is imperative and no cost too high, legal or otherwise.

  7. #4677
    I used to be Cheeky UnCheeky Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    573
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Neilwood View Post
    Leave.EU are going after the judges of the Supreme Court
    fuckwits (Leave.EU that is)

    a large part of me regards today's decision as wholly unsurprising

    the headlines could better be

    "Supreme Court unanimously confirms that the separation of powers really does exist, so what we have known for 450 odd years remains unchanged"

    or

    "lying litigating party who chooses to give no evidence thinking that will let it get away with it surprised when it loses anyway"


    I would urge everyone, instead of reading anyone else's slant on it, to watch the whole of Brenda giving the summary of the decision - simple, clear, limited in scope, but unequivocal and unarguably correct



    or watch it here

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/pr.../judgment.html

    or read the full text of the summary here

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...92-summary.pdf

    and then read the official full judgment here

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/do...2-judgment.pdf

    the full version includes more detail on issues such as -

    " if the issue before the court is justiciable, deciding it will not offend
    against the separation of powers. As we have just indicated, the court will be
    performing its proper function under our constitution. Indeed, by ensuring that the
    Government does not use the power of prorogation unlawfully with the effect of
    preventing Parliament from carrying out its proper functions, the court will be giving
    effect to the separation of powers"

    and

    "Although the United Kingdom does not have a single document entitled “The
    Constitution”, it nevertheless possesses a Constitution, established over the course
    of our history by common law, statutes, conventions and practice. Since it has not
    been codified, it has developed pragmatically, and remains sufficiently flexible to
    be capable of further development. Nevertheless, it includes numerous principles of
    law, which are enforceable by the courts in the same way as other legal principles.
    In giving them effect, the courts have the responsibility of upholding the values and
    principles of our constitution and making them effective. It is their particular
    responsibility to determine the legal limits of the powers conferred on each branch
    of government, and to decide whether any exercise of power has transgressed those
    limits. The courts cannot shirk that responsibility merely on the ground that the
    question raised is political in tone or context"

    and

    "50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the
    power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue
    Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the
    prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable
    justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a
    legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such
    a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such
    an exceptional course.

    51. That standard is one that can be applied in practice. The extent to which
    prorogation frustrates or prevents Parliament’s ability to perform its legislative
    functions and its supervision of the executive is a question of fact which presents no
    greater difficulty than many other questions of fact which are routinely decided by
    the courts. The court then has to decide whether the Prime Minister’s explanation
    for advising that Parliament should be prorogued is a reasonable justification for a
    prorogation having those effects. The Prime Minister’s wish to end one session of
    Parliament and to begin another will normally be enough in itself to justify the short
    period of prorogation which has been normal in modern practice. It could only be in
    unusual circumstances that any further justification might be necessary. Even in
    such a case, when considering the justification put forward, the court would have to
    bear in mind that the decision whether to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament
    falls within the area of responsibility of the Prime Minister, and that it may in some
    circumstances involve a range of considerations, including matters of political
    judgment. The court would therefore have to consider any justification that might
    be advanced with sensitivity to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime
    Minister, and with a corresponding degree of caution. Nevertheless, it is the court’s
    responsibility to determine whether the Prime Minster has remained within the legal
    limits of the power. If not, the final question will be whether the consequences are
    sufficiently serious to call for the court’s intervention"

    and

    55. Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a
    representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have
    elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people (unlike
    the position in some other democracies). The Government exists because it has the
    confidence of the House of Commons. It has no democratic legitimacy other than
    that. This means that it is accountable to the House of Commons - and indeed to the
    House of Lords - for its actions, remembering always that the actual task of
    governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts. The first
    question, therefore, is whether the Prime Minister’s action had the effect of
    frustrating or preventing the constitutional role of Parliament in holding the
    Government to account.

    56. The answer is that of course it did.

    and

    59. The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the
    Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is
    four to six days. Departments bid for the Bills they would like to have in the next
    session. Government business managers meet to select the Bills to be included,
    usually after discussion with the Prime Minister, and Cabinet is asked to endorse the
    decisions. Drafting the speech itself does not take much time once the substance is
    clear. Sir John’s evidence is that he has never known a Government to need as much
    as five weeks to put together its legislative agenda

    and

    70. It follows that Parliament has not been prorogued and that this court should
    make declarations to that effect. We have been told by counsel for the Prime
    Minister that he will “take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any
    declaration made by the court” and we expect him to do so. However, it appears to
    us that, as Parliament is not prorogued, it is for Parliament to decide what to do next.
    There is no need for Parliament to be recalled under the Meeting of Parliament Act
    1797. Nor has Parliament voted to adjourn or go into recess. Unless there is some
    Parliamentary rule to the contrary of which we are unaware, the Speaker of the
    House of Commons and the Lord Speaker can take immediate steps to enable each
    House to meet as soon as possible to decide upon a way forward. That would, of
    course, be a proceeding in Parliament which could not be called in question in this
    or any other court.

    its not very long (25 well spaced pages) - worth a read to understand it properly

  8. #4678
    Established TDF Member Chrisch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Poole
    Posts
    7,651
    Likes (Given)
    720
    Likes (Received)
    3302
    Quote Originally Posted by UnCheeky Monkey View Post
    ...
    I would urge everyone, instead of reading anyone else's slant on it, to watch the whole of Brenda giving the summary of the decision - simple, clear, limited in scope, but unequivocal and unarguably correct...
    nahh -Strictly is on innit.

  9. #4679
    A Moderate Mal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Suffolk, UK
    Posts
    1,106
    Likes (Given)
    254
    Likes (Received)
    1158
    Too far, Chris - please reword.
    Thanks
    Mal

    I have now removed Chris' post for violating the terms and conditions
    Last edited by Mal; 24-09-2019 at 06:00 PM.

  10. #4680
    Cheeky Monkey... Paul Evans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Three Bridges
    Posts
    2,432
    Likes (Given)
    3846
    Likes (Received)
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal View Post
    Too far, Chris - please reword.
    Thanks
    Mal
    Semantics.........
    “Attitude is a choice. Happiness is a choice. Optimism is a choice. Kindness is a choice. Giving is a choice. Respect is a choice. Whatever choice you make makes you. Choose wisely.”
    Roy T. Bennett, The Light in the Heart


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •