EU referendum are you in or out

[Absolute_Zero]

*In theory* the Stephen Kinnock amendment could be used to bring back the Withdrawal Bill with changes/compromises, as it was nodded through. The likelihood is that John Bercow (before the 31st of October) or his successor as Speaker would not allow that through.

Disagree. If it were significantly different than before then he surely would allow it... effectually, it wouldn't be the same bill being re-presented. e.g. a NI-only backstop.

[Cloudane]

in the event of further deadlock Johnson then HAS to write a letter to the EU asking for an extension to Article 50.

Yet he's said he won't, which invites the question of how he'd be forced to. I did see the suggestion though that the courts could simply get an official to write the letter and instruct the EU to consider their signature to be the equivalent of Boris's.

[tufty]

*In theory* the Stephen Kinnock amendment could be used to bring back the Withdrawal Bill with changes/compromises, as it was nodded through. The likelihood is that John Bercow (before the 31st of October) or his successor as Speaker would not allow that through.

Disagree. If it were significantly different than before then he surely would allow it... effectually, it wouldn't be the same bill being re-presented. e.g. a NI-only backstop.

Doesn't fucking matter. Once the new session starts, it's a new bill.

[Absolute_Zero]

Doesn't fucking matter. Once the new session starts, it's a new bill.

Depends. If the Supreme Court rules prorogation offside...

[tufty]

If the Supreme Court rules prorogation offside...

Sure. But thats a big fucking "if", I wouldn't bet my money on it happening.

It's 1-1 at the moment, Gina Miller's case was kicked out on, as I understand it, the basis that the judiciary and the executive are separate, that the judiciary should not exert in the executive sphere, and vice versa. I can see that bearing more weight than the scottish court judgment.

OTOH, IANAL.

[Harlequin]

The Belfast high court has ruled similarly, on the same grounds, in the NI cases (going to the appeal court tomorrow). The Scottish appeal ruling is different possibly because Scotland has a slightly different legal system and tradition, permitting a ruling on bad faith motivation. I do not know how these differences are usually dealt with in the UK supreme court, which I presume has to honour both English and Scottish law and traditions.

[merman]

If the Supreme Court rules prorogation offside...

Sure. But thats a big fucking "if", I wouldn't bet my money on it happening.

It's 1-1 at the moment, Gina Miller's case was kicked out on, as I understand it, the basis that the judiciary and the executive are separate, that the judiciary should not exert in the executive sphere, and vice versa. I can see that bearing more weight than the scottish court judgment.

OTOH, IANAL.

True, but the evidence seems to be growing that the advice to the Queen she should prorogue Parliament was not 100% kosher. On that basis the Supreme Court CAN rule it was unconstitutional AND unlawful. And then anyone can perform a citizen's arrest on Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson to present him to the Court.

[tufty]

True, but the evidence seems to be growing that the advice to the Queen she should prorogue Parliament was not 100% kosher.

The Scottish Court of Session has already judged 100% that this was the case. Unless the Supreme Court overthrows that decision, it stands.

The Supreme Court has 2 things to decide - The first, and most important, is whether the judiciary even gets to decide on this. The English and Irish High Courts have already decided that it doesn't. If the Supreme Court backs that up, they don't need to decide on the issue of whether prorogation was proper. Not sure if that wouldn't leave the Scottish decision in place on the facts, though. If, however, they decide the courts do have a right to decide, they then have to decide if Boris' political decision was as he has stated - I think that's pretty much a slam-dunk, but actually ruling it to be the case, not so much so; that decision means the government (such as it is) falls.

[tufty]

Or, of course, I could well be talking shite.

[KlaxonCow]

In my opinion, the Supreme Court MUST judge itself to be competent to rule.

Because of, you know, the principle that "the Law is Supreme" and the Supreme Court is the most supreme of that supremacy.

Ergo, if it's not competent to rule than that's implicitly a statement that the law is NOT supreme, and that we can throw out the Magna Carta Clause 39, which disallows "the Divine Right of Kings".

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

In other words, the law is supreme. Only judge ("law of the land") and jury ("judgment of his peers") are allowed to dish out punishments.

Anything else is vigilantism and is a criminal offence. No matter if you're prince or pauper, Prime Minister or homeless tramp.

And this, of course, is the most fundamental legal principle to uphold - why, despite most of the Magna Carta having fallen away since 1215, Clause 39 and Clause 40 still stand in modern law - because anything less is, somewhat by definition, tyranny.

The law being supreme means that no-one can be made subject to the arbitrary whims of anyone else. No "free man" is anyone else's property. This is there to guarantee that promise of "equal justice for all". If Boris breaks the law then he gets bundled into court - for judge and jury to decide his fate - absolutely no different from anyone else. Of course, equally, Boris has every right to legal representation and to know the charges against him and so forth.

But the Supreme Court MUST rule itself competent, in my view, or all those legal crucial anti-tyranny principles of law just fly out the window, because it's saying that the law isn't supreme in certain circumstances. I mean, for fuck's sake, the word "Supreme" is in their very name! That's the whole point. The buck MUST stop with them, or you're implicitly saying that the Prime Minister - or other MPs, as the PM is only "first among equals" - is above the law here and there.

Nixon's infamous "when the President does it, then it's not illegal" actually becomes legally sanctioned.

The Supreme Court MUST be competent to rule, or we simply do not live under the rule of law.

[tufty]

If anything bad was going to happen it would have been priced into the markets already and it hasn't so it'll be fine.

8.3 billion of aggregate short positions taken out by those who backed brexit and funded Johnson.

Its being priced in.

[tufty]

Meanwhile, the government redacted some of Boris' handwritten notes when releasing them to the courts.



What did they redact?

"that girly swot Cameron"

:facepalm.gif:

[Cloudane]

christ, he can barely write. I'm struggling to make out the words. 'earning test crush' is presumably 'earning their trust'
'drit see augtiy specially shocking cbont tis prorogation' I think must be 'don't see anything especially shocking about this prorogation'

[venusian]

"crust", I should think.

[Dio]

I hope you never have to read MY writing if you're complaining at that.