Discussion:
Is the Bexit question all over?
Add Reply
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-07 12:08:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What has the remain camp achieved?


They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means that they can pass any legislation they like.


The time is now right to look at their limitations.

They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or decided there.


A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.

There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of 433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.


In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.


Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election whenever it comes.


Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to instruct me.


Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.


This brings us to the question of default


What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.


Fortunately the Treaty of Lisbon is quite clear on this:


"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."


If that is not a default position I don't know what is!


The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.


Further "If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."

In other words, start from scratch.


So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government


I wonder ...
abelard
2019-09-07 12:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of 433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to instruct me.
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
Further "If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49."
In other words, start from scratch.
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
I wonder ...
auntie pammy says he can be forced to sign an oath of loyalty to the
likes of clarke, grieve, agent cob and diane abbot...

they couldn't even force me to do that...

i'm looking forward to their hysteria when he just says...sorry chaps
we're out...

i expect the main song to be 'it wasn't my fault....he done it sir'
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-07 18:44:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.

The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.

Another route to a GE is to pass a bill saying something like "Not
withstanding the FTPA, the next general election will be on October
15th" but then that needs to make it unamended through both the HoC and
the HoL to become law.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of 433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
As we saw this week, we also need Labour cooperation to dissolve
Parliament under the 2/3rd majority rule. They have 240 MPs, more than
1/3rd of the total.

ISTM that Labour, plus the other opposition parties and the ex-Tories
who've had the whip removed from them are intent on ensuring the Article
50 extension is secured before the next GE occurs.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to instruct me.
Are you claiming that if the Benn bill becomes law, that Boris will not
be legally obliged as PM to make the request it demands?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.

ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?

Regards,

James
Keema's Nan
2019-09-07 19:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means
that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this
country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers
have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or
decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to
accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The
only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its
term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which
would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support
a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.
The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.
Another route to a GE is to pass a bill saying something like "Not
withstanding the FTPA, the next general election will be on October
15th" but then that needs to make it unamended through both the HoC and
the HoL to become law.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of
433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a
potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn
Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The
speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case
traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament
It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their
choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
As we saw this week, we also need Labour cooperation to dissolve
Parliament under the 2/3rd majority rule. They have 240 MPs, more than
1/3rd of the total.
ISTM that Labour, plus the other opposition parties and the ex-Tories
who've had the whip removed from them are intent on ensuring the Article
50 extension is secured before the next GE occurs.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election
whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc
opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to
instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to
instruct me.
Are you claiming that if the Benn bill becomes law, that Boris will not
be legally obliged as PM to make the request it demands?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of
Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to
arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on
the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already
been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date
of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously
decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's
government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't
enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally)
This is the same parliament (almost) which voted by 498 votes to 114 - (a
majority of 384) to give Theresa May the power to invoke A50.

And now everyone in the EU seems happy that in two years a majority of 384
out of 650 has been turned into a majority for the opposite?

What do they think happened in order to have our MPs perform the biggest
U-turn of all time?
.
Post by James Hammerton
and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
Even though the country voted for exactly the opposite?

What a free and fair democracy we have.
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
No, but why should he care? There have been many politicians throughout the
centuries who have broken the law in order to fight for their beliefs.

Of course, if they happen to be on the left these people are called martyrs.

The ultimate in hypocrisy....
James Hammerton
2019-09-07 19:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means
that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this
country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers
have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or
decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to
accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The
only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its
term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which
would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support
a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.
The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.
Another route to a GE is to pass a bill saying something like "Not
withstanding the FTPA, the next general election will be on October
15th" but then that needs to make it unamended through both the HoC and
the HoL to become law.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of
433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a
potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn
Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The
speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case
traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament
It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their
choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
As we saw this week, we also need Labour cooperation to dissolve
Parliament under the 2/3rd majority rule. They have 240 MPs, more than
1/3rd of the total.
ISTM that Labour, plus the other opposition parties and the ex-Tories
who've had the whip removed from them are intent on ensuring the Article
50 extension is secured before the next GE occurs.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election
whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc
opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to
instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to
instruct me.
Are you claiming that if the Benn bill becomes law, that Boris will not
be legally obliged as PM to make the request it demands?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of
Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to
arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on
the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already
been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date
of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously
decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's
government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't
enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally)
This is the same parliament (almost) which voted by 498 votes to 114 - (a
majority of 384) to give Theresa May the power to invoke A50.
And now everyone in the EU seems happy that in two years a majority of 384
out of 650 has been turned into a majority for the opposite?
They might cite David Davis on democracies changing their minds,
assuming they care.
Post by Keema's Nan
What do they think happened in order to have our MPs perform the biggest
U-turn of all time?
Why would they care what happened so long as the revocation is
"uneqivocal and unconditional"?
Post by Keema's Nan
.
Post by James Hammerton
and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
Even though the country voted for exactly the opposite?
Yup. See my comment above about citing David Davis on democracies
changing their mind...
Post by Keema's Nan
What a free and fair democracy we have.
You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
No, but why should he care?
If he goes to the polls having sought the extension after everything
he's said, wouldn't the other parties have a field day over him breaking
his 'do or die' promise?

OTOH if he does break the law, will he be punished for doing so? Even
if not, will it help or hinder his chances of remaining as PM and
winning an election if he's portrayed as a law breaker?

Regards,

James
Keema's Nan
2019-09-07 20:39:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means
that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this
country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers
have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or
decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to
accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The
only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its
term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which
would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support
a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.
The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.
Another route to a GE is to pass a bill saying something like "Not
withstanding the FTPA, the next general election will be on October
15th" but then that needs to make it unamended through both the HoC and
the HoL to become law.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of
433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a
potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn
Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The
speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case
traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament
It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their
choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
As we saw this week, we also need Labour cooperation to dissolve
Parliament under the 2/3rd majority rule. They have 240 MPs, more than
1/3rd of the total.
ISTM that Labour, plus the other opposition parties and the ex-Tories
who've had the whip removed from them are intent on ensuring the Article
50 extension is secured before the next GE occurs.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election
whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc
opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to
instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to
instruct me.
Are you claiming that if the Benn bill becomes law, that Boris will not
be legally obliged as PM to make the request it demands?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of
Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to
arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on
the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already
been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date
of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously
decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's
government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't
enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally)
This is the same parliament (almost) which voted by 498 votes to 114 - (a
majority of 384) to give Theresa May the power to invoke A50.
And now everyone in the EU seems happy that in two years a majority of 384
out of 650 has been turned into a majority for the opposite?
They might cite David Davis on democracies changing their minds,
assuming they care.
Post by Keema's Nan
What do they think happened in order to have our MPs perform the biggest
U-turn of all time?
Why would they care what happened so long as the revocation is
"uneqivocal and unconditional"?
Because we haven’t had a revoke referendum, which is the least they
can do after having sabotaged the A50 schedule in the first place.

Now they want an extension to the extension - but for what purpose? So that
Corbyn can work out how to seize power without a mandate?
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Keema's Nan
.
Post by James Hammerton
and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
Even though the country voted for exactly the opposite?
Yup. See my comment above about citing David Davis on democracies
changing their mind...
Post by Keema's Nan
What a free and fair democracy we have.
You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment.
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
No, but why should he care?
If he goes to the polls having sought the extension after everything
he's said, wouldn't the other parties have a field day over him breaking
his 'do or die' promise?
OTOH if he does break the law, will he be punished for doing so? Even
if not, will it help or hinder his chances of remaining as PM and
winning an election if he's portrayed as a law breaker?
Regards,
James
abelard
2019-09-07 20:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 20:17:42 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
If he goes to the polls having sought the extension after everything
he's said, wouldn't the other parties have a field day over him breaking
his 'do or die' promise?
OTOH if he does break the law, will he be punished for doing so?
i can't see it
Post by James Hammerton
Even
if not, will it help or hinder his chances of remaining as PM and
winning an election if he's portrayed as a law breaker?
wont he get some version of royal pardon?

i'm mad enough that i'd let them try making a martyr of me!

imv he'll end up with public support despite the hysteria
in the fossil media
--
www.abelard.org
MM
2019-09-09 08:15:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Sep 2019 20:03:36 +0100, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means
that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this
country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers
have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or
decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to
accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The
only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its
term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which
would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support
a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.
The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.
Another route to a GE is to pass a bill saying something like "Not
withstanding the FTPA, the next general election will be on October
15th" but then that needs to make it unamended through both the HoC and
the HoL to become law.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are 650 MPs in the HoC and so this would translate into a majority of
433. Of those 289 are Tory held. 433-289 = 144 votes needed with a
potential 56 non Labour votes available. This calculation includes 7 Sinn
Fein votes. Sinn Fein simply does not participate in the UK HoC. The
speaker does not vote except in the event of a tie in which case
traditionally he votes in favour of the the motion under discussion.
In short without Tory cooperation it is impossible to dissolve Parliament
It is also impossible to postpone dissolution until "a time of their
choosing" That is the very point of the 2/3 majority rule.
As we saw this week, we also need Labour cooperation to dissolve
Parliament under the 2/3rd majority rule. They have 240 MPs, more than
1/3rd of the total.
ISTM that Labour, plus the other opposition parties and the ex-Tories
who've had the whip removed from them are intent on ensuring the Article
50 extension is secured before the next GE occurs.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Forget defectors! Most of them at least are toast at the next election
whenever it comes.
Being "in control of Parliament" does not include right of an ad hoc
opposition to dictate government action. Parliament has no more right to
instruct Boris Johnson to do this, that or the other than they have to
instruct me.
Are you claiming that if the Benn bill becomes law, that Boris will not
be legally obliged as PM to make the request it demands?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Like all other ministers, he is a Minister of the Crown and not of
Parliament. Within the limits of this capacity, he can do as he likes.
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
This brings us to the question of default
What happens if Boris goes to Brussels and, as seems likely, fails to
arrive at an agreement that is substantially different to that already on
the table, endorsed by the EU as the last word on the matter and already
been rejected 3 times by the HoC. Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
"The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date
of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, *failing that*, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously
decides to extend this period."
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's
government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't
enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally)
This is the same parliament (almost) which voted by 498 votes to 114 - (a
majority of 384) to give Theresa May the power to invoke A50.
And now everyone in the EU seems happy that in two years a majority of 384
out of 650 has been turned into a majority for the opposite?
What do they think happened in order to have our MPs perform the biggest
U-turn of all time?
.
Post by James Hammerton
and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
Even though the country voted for exactly the opposite?
What a free and fair democracy we have.
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
No, but why should he care? There have been many politicians throughout the
centuries who have broken the law in order to fight for their beliefs.
Of course, if they happen to be on the left these people are called martyrs.
The ultimate in hypocrisy....
Will you be contributing to Boris's impeachment defence fund?

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-08 09:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
You are aware of course of the legal term ultra vires?

It may well be that any attempt to shackle the legitimate government of the day may be unlawful in itself There are limits even to parliamentary powerand if it comes to it, then this might be offered in defence


It could become a very prolonged case.


What I do know is that the only way open to any group, including Parliament for removing any government from office involves a general election. The FTPA makes that very clear.


The opposition have been offered this facility and have emphatically declined it!


It could well be argued that all of this has as much to do with an opposition wishing to rid itself of a government that it sees as a barrier to its own succession as it has to do with Brexit

This government can be accused of nothing other than seeking ways to comply with the freely expressed wishes of a free people through the provisions of a treaty solemnly entered into and to which we feel bound.

It is the Remainers who are in the wrong not the leavers.

It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.


Then there are the pragmatics of the matter.


I Boris does go to Brussels which he probably will, the he goes not as Boris Johnson, but to represent the British government. Cabinet government is based upon collective responsibility. Are we to suffer the spectacle of the entire British cabinet being dragged before the courts? If not why not?


I think not but it would be a question to be asked.

For the first time in my life, this country is not only ungoverned but ungovernable It's a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for long. We are in the meantime wide open to our enemies both within and without.


we haven't reached that situation as yet but are getting close to the point where the PM or his successor will go to the Queen and advise her to sign a proclamation (which can't be successfully challenged in court) declaring a state of emergency and suspending Parliament indefinitely without pay. If necessary the Chiefs of Staff might be requested to use their resources to occupy the Palace of Westminster. Now that really would be a coup.

Such action would create time for something on the grounds of a Royal Commission to investigate how such a situation came about and the placement of prime responsibility. Those found responsible could be barred from public office for life.


The situation would then never arise again!
Keema's Nan
2019-09-08 09:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this
country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or
pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
For the first time in my life, this country is not only ungoverned but
ungovernable It's a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for long. We
are in the meantime wide open to our enemies both within and without.
we haven't reached that situation as yet but are getting close to the point
where the PM or his successor will go to the Queen and advise her to sign a
proclamation (which can't be successfully challenged in court) declaring a
state of emergency and suspending Parliament indefinitely without pay. If
necessary the Chiefs of Staff might be requested to use their resources to
occupy the Palace of Westminster. Now that really would be a coup.
Such action would create time for something on the grounds of a Royal
Commission to investigate how such a situation came about and the placement
of prime responsibility. Those found responsible could be barred from public
office for life.
The situation would then never arise again!
Very thought provoking.

It just shows how easy it is for a group of politicians, claiming to be
acting on the will of the majority, can seize parliamentary control from the
current Prime Minister and virtually pass, or block, any legislation they
like.
James Hammerton
2019-09-08 20:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
You are aware of course of the legal term ultra vires?
I am. Are you claiming that Parliament enacting the Benn bill involves
Parliament acting beyond its powers?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It may well be that any attempt to shackle the legitimate government of the day may be unlawful in itself
'may well be' - that doesn't sound certain. How can passing an Act of
Parliament or the subsequent enforcement of that Act be considered ultra
viras?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
There are limits even to parliamentary powerand if it comes to it, then this might be offered in defence
What legal or constitutional limits on Parliament do you have in mind?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It could become a very prolonged case.
What I do know is that the only way open to any group, including Parliament for removing any government from office involves a general election. The FTPA makes that very clear.
Actually it doesn't make that clear because there is an explicit option
for removing a government from office and instituting a new one within
the FTPA itself.

If there is a vote of no confidence (VONC), the FTPA explicitly allows
for a new government to be formed within 14 days of the VONC without a
general election. So if another MP can be found who commands a majority
in Parliament (not necessarily the same majority the previous PM had
commanded) then he may form a new government.

The interesting point about the present scenario is this option has not
been taken by those seeking to obtain another extension to the A50
deadline.

Instead they used their majority to pass legislation that the minority
government did not want, and then withheld their votes to prevent a
general election that would have allowed a new government (if so
inclined) to remove said legislation.

It is a most remarkable situation and I am not aware of what legal
recourse the government has if they cannot secure a general election in
time to prevent having to make the request.

I get the impression not only that you feel that what has happened is
wrong but that there must be some law or constitutional principle that
can be invoked to rectify the situation.

Yet the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that has been a staple of
the British constitution for centuries suggests that actually this is
Parliament doing its job.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The opposition have been offered this facility and have emphatically declined it >
It could well be argued that all of this has as much to do with an opposition wishing to rid itself of a government that it sees as a barrier to its own succession as it has to do with Brexit
This government can be accused of nothing other than seeking ways to comply with the freely expressed wishes of a free people through the provisions of a treaty solemnly entered into and to which we feel bound.
It is the Remainers who are in the wrong not the leavers.
It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.
But surely it is a staple of the British constitution, such as it is,
that we are all bound by the law of the land and if Parliament enacts a
law, then the government of the day is bound by it too?

Is it not the role of the legislature to pass laws and the courts to
then interpret and enforce them?

If so, how could Parliament be considered acting ultra vires by passing
a law or in using the courts to enforce that law?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
For the first time in my life, this country is not only ungoverned but ungovernable
It certainly looks that way for the moment.

It's a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for long. We are
in the meantime wide open to our enemies both within and without.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
we haven't reached that situation as yet but are getting close to the point where the PM or his successor will go to the Queen and advise her to sign a proclamation (which can't be successfully challenged in court) declaring a state of emergency and suspending Parliament indefinitely without pay.
Is this the only way out for Boris? What precisely would be the emergency?

Regards,

James
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-09 08:51:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
You are aware of course of the legal term ultra vires?
I am. Are you claiming that Parliament enacting the Benn bill involves
Parliament acting beyond its powers?
I most certainly am!

Boris Johnson was elected to Parliament by exactly the same process as Hillary Benn.

Parliament exists for the most part to hold the Executive (the government) to account. Holding to account does not include the formation of an alternative government. If the combined opposition has issues with the present incumbent government then they have constitutional process through which to get rid of it which they have declined to use.

Rather than not trusting Boris, perhaps it's closer to the truth to suggest they don't trust the people even less?

Of course Parliament rightly makes, repeals and amends laws. However these laws in the main apply to all of us. Yous tell me of a law that has been tailored to target one individual let alone one that has suffered a campaign of vilification ever since he took office about 6 weeks ago.


The law in question has but one purpose to prevent the PM from carrying out a mandate granted by the British people.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It may well be that any attempt to shackle the legitimate government of the day may be unlawful in itself
What legal or constitutional limits on Parliament do you have in mind?
Well for a start, both government and Parliament are restrained by international treaty not to pass certain regulations e.g. capital punishment, human rights, jurisdiction over areas of sea, airspace sec. A home - limitations to detention without trial, right of legal representation etc.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It could become a very prolonged case.
What I do know is that the only way open to any group, including Parliament for removing any government from office involves a general election. The FTPA makes that very clear.
Actually it doesn't make that clear because there is an explicit option
for removing a government from office and instituting a new one within
the FTPA itself.
If there is a vote of no confidence (VONC), the FTPA explicitly allows
for a new government to be formed within 14 days of the VONC without a
general election. So if another MP can be found who commands a majority
in Parliament (not necessarily the same majority the previous PM had
commanded) then he may form a new government.
The interesting point about the present scenario is this option has not
been taken by those seeking to obtain another extension to the A50
deadline.
Instead they used their majority to pass legislation that the minority
government did not want, and then withheld their votes to prevent a
general election that would have allowed a new government (if so
inclined) to remove said legislation.
It is a most remarkable situation and I am not aware of what legal
recourse the government has if they cannot secure a general election in
time to prevent having to make the request.
I get the impression not only that you feel that what has happened is
wrong but that there must be some law or constitutional principle that
can be invoked to rectify the situation.
The present law has seemed work pretty world since 2010? It was designed to remove the advantage held by incumbent PM's to choose the dates of elections.
Post by James Hammerton
Yet the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that has been a staple of
the British constitution for centuries suggests that actually this is
Parliament doing its job.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The opposition have been offered this facility and have emphatically declined it >
It could well be argued that all of this has as much to do with an opposition wishing to rid itself of a government that it sees as a barrier to its own succession as it has to do with Brexit
This government can be accused of nothing other than seeking ways to comply with the freely expressed wishes of a free people through the provisions of a treaty solemnly entered into and to which we feel bound.
It is the Remainers who are in the wrong not the leavers.
It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.
But surely it is a staple of the British constitution, such as it is,
that we are all bound by the law of the land and if Parliament enacts a
law, then the government of the day is bound by it too?
Is it not the role of the legislature to pass laws and the courts to
then interpret and enforce them?
It is indeed it is also a discretionary decision by a court as to whether it should hear a particular case.
Post by James Hammerton
If so, how could Parliament be considered acting ultra vires by passing
a law or in using the courts to enforce that law?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
For the first time in my life, this country is not only ungoverned but ungovernable
It certainly looks that way for the moment.
It's a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for long. We are
in the meantime wide open to our enemies both within and without.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
we haven't reached that situation as yet but are getting close to the point where the PM or his successor will go to the Queen and advise her to sign a proclamation (which can't be successfully challenged in court) declaring a state of emergency and suspending Parliament indefinitely without pay.
Is this the only way out for Boris? What precisely would be the emergency?
The fact that the non governance of the country is one of the gravest situations any country could face.

What would happen if a new General Galtieri decided to chance his arm. If Spanish forces marched into Gibraltar? The Cypriot Government decided not to honour the agreement the sovereign bases? A shipload of passengers were hi jacked or taken by a hostile power whilst on the high seas. A National emergency?


The world is not only a precarious but a fluid place. Communications are instant. Such events could already have taken place the very next time we tune in our TVs.



Civilised nations need governments
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 21:17:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
If that is not a default position I don't know what is!
The ToL is an international Treaty seriously entered into by this country's government. You can't muck it around by revocations or pretending we didn't enter into it.
The EU's own court has said we can revoke our Article 50 notification
(so long as we do so unequivocally and unconditionally) and we remain in
the EU with our present rights and responsibilities as an EU member.
ISTM the critical question is this: Once the Benn bill receives Royal
Assent, can Boris find a way to get his election without having to make
the request for an extension and without breaking the law?
You are aware of course of the legal term ultra vires?
I am. Are you claiming that Parliament enacting the Benn bill involves
Parliament acting beyond its powers?
I most certainly am!
OK then... I am not a constitutional expert and I suspect you aren't
either but let's see where we get...
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Boris Johnson was elected to Parliament by exactly the same process as Hillary Benn.
Parliament exists for the most part to hold the Executive (the government) to account. Holding to account does not include the formation of an alternative government. If the combined opposition has issues with the present incumbent government then they have constitutional process through which to get rid of it which they have declined to use.
Agreed with all of this so far - but I note that Parliament can propose
legislation (e.g. private member's bills) and amend the government's
proposed legislation in the course of its normal functioning and thus
could have enacted something like the Benn bill at any point during the
Article 50 process if it so chose, either by tacking it onto government
legislation or getting space for it via the private members bills.

At the moment, it is not clear to me why we should consider the Benn
bill as ultra vires either in terms of how it got onto the books or in
terms of its content.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Rather than not trusting Boris, perhaps it's closer to the truth to suggest they don't trust the people even less?
You might say that...

Either way the ostensible goal of the opposition MPs has been clear - to
force an extension in the Article 50 process in order to avert a 'no
deal' Brexit.

They would concede an election once this extension is in place (maybe
only because they'd have to) but not before.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Of course Parliament rightly makes, repeals and amends laws. However these laws in the main apply to all of us. Yous tell me of a law that has been tailored to target one individual let alone one that has suffered a campaign of vilification ever since he took office about 6 weeks ago.
But this law isn't tailored to Boris Johnson, it is tailored to the
Prime Minister, i.e. the holder of the office of PM and it is not the
only law to do so.

E.g. look at the occurrences of the phrase "The Prime Minister must..."
in this legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made

It is even quite specific about the PM's duty to consult Scottish
Ministers, including having regard to memorandum's of understanding,
during the process of appointing commissioners.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The law in question has but one purpose to prevent the PM from carrying out a mandate granted by the British people.
Why would that purpose matter to the court trying this case? Why would
they accept that it is indeed the sole purpose of the law in question?

Do you expect a jury to be hearing this or a judge?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It may well be that any attempt to shackle the legitimate government of the day may be unlawful in itself
What legal or constitutional limits on Parliament do you have in mind?
Well for a start, both government and Parliament are restrained by international treaty not to pass certain regulations e.g. capital punishment, human rights, jurisdiction over areas of sea, airspace sec. A home - limitations to detention without trial, right of legal representation etc.
I'm sure Boris would be able to appoint a top barrister to represent him
in any court case, and probably would get bail should that be an issue.
I think you'd need to argue somehow that the duty placed on him by the
Benn bill is a violation of his rights or a violation of the rule of law
somehow. Your references to international treaties aren't enlightening
me as to what specifically the case would be.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It could become a very prolonged case.
What I do know is that the only way open to any group, including Parliament for removing any government from office involves a general election. The FTPA makes that very clear.
Actually it doesn't make that clear because there is an explicit option
for removing a government from office and instituting a new one within
the FTPA itself.
If there is a vote of no confidence (VONC), the FTPA explicitly allows
for a new government to be formed within 14 days of the VONC without a
general election. So if another MP can be found who commands a majority
in Parliament (not necessarily the same majority the previous PM had
commanded) then he may form a new government.
The interesting point about the present scenario is this option has not
been taken by those seeking to obtain another extension to the A50
deadline.
Instead they used their majority to pass legislation that the minority
government did not want, and then withheld their votes to prevent a
general election that would have allowed a new government (if so
inclined) to remove said legislation.
It is a most remarkable situation and I am not aware of what legal
recourse the government has if they cannot secure a general election in
time to prevent having to make the request.
I get the impression not only that you feel that what has happened is
wrong but that there must be some law or constitutional principle that
can be invoked to rectify the situation.
The present law has seemed work pretty world since 2010? It was designed to remove the advantage held by incumbent PM's to choose the dates of elections.
May was able to do precisely that in 2017 but it has prevented Boris
from doing it now and it seems probable that he won't get his election
until November, by which time the opposition believe they'll have forced
him to seek (and the EU will have granted) the extension.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Yet the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty that has been a staple of
the British constitution for centuries suggests that actually this is
Parliament doing its job.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
The opposition have been offered this facility and have emphatically declined it >
It could well be argued that all of this has as much to do with an opposition wishing to rid itself of a government that it sees as a barrier to its own succession as it has to do with Brexit
This government can be accused of nothing other than seeking ways to comply with the freely expressed wishes of a free people through the provisions of a treaty solemnly entered into and to which we feel bound.
It is the Remainers who are in the wrong not the leavers.
It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.
But surely it is a staple of the British constitution, such as it is,
that we are all bound by the law of the land and if Parliament enacts a
law, then the government of the day is bound by it too?
Is it not the role of the legislature to pass laws and the courts to
then interpret and enforce them?
It is indeed it is also a discretionary decision by a court as to whether it should hear a particular case.
You expect the case against Boris (should it arise) to be dismissed by
the courts? I'd expect it to go to all the way to the supreme court
given the importance it has... assuming Boris fights it all the way.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
If so, how could Parliament be considered acting ultra vires by passing
a law or in using the courts to enforce that law?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
For the first time in my life, this country is not only ungoverned but ungovernable
It certainly looks that way for the moment.
It's a situation that cannot be allowed to continue for long. We are
in the meantime wide open to our enemies both within and without.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
we haven't reached that situation as yet but are getting close to the point where the PM or his successor will go to the Queen and advise her to sign a proclamation (which can't be successfully challenged in court) declaring a state of emergency and suspending Parliament indefinitely without pay.
Is this the only way out for Boris? What precisely would be the emergency?
The fact that the non governance of the country is one of the gravest situations any country could face.
What would happen if a new General Galtieri decided to chance his arm. If Spanish forces marched into Gibraltar? The Cypriot Government decided not to honour the agreement the sovereign bases? A shipload of passengers were hi jacked or taken by a hostile power whilst on the high seas. A National emergency?
Whoever is the PM could invoke the emergency powers should any of those
cases arise. Why would it need invoking without any such event first
arising?

Regards,

James
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-10 18:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.
But surely it is a staple of the British constitution, such as it is,
that we are all bound by the law of the land and if Parliament enacts a
law, then the government of the day is bound by it too?
Is it not the role of the legislature to pass laws and the courts to
then interpret and enforce them?
It is indeed it is also a discretionary decision by a court as to whether it should hear a particular case.
You expect the case against Boris (should it arise) to be dismissed by
the courts? I'd expect it to go to all the way to the supreme court
given the importance it has... assuming Boris fights it all the way.
I would expect "the case against Boris"? (There you're at it!) to go straight to the supreme court and quickly in view of the public interest.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
If so, how could Parliament be considered acting ultra vires by passing
a law or in using the courts to enforce that law?
Parliament is not being considered to be acting ultra vires. Only individuals can claim this as a defence and only then when they can make a case that those who are prosecuting the case against them are either not entitled to do so or that they have no such case to answer.


Clearly there can be no question of ultra vires unless the act in question has been committed. Perhaps there are two flaws here. First action following the act would be a little previous in that it would be too late and hence pointless, in that the UK will already have left the EU "with or without a deal" "No deal" does not require any prior announcement. The levying of tariffs against EU goods would be sufficient. No deal is no more than a statement of fact.


Second but more involved In this country we have separation of powers This means that both government and judiciary are loath to tangle horns You don't have to be a genius to work out why. Generally speaking, disputes between government an opposition are deemed by their Lordships to be political in nature and as such to belong in that domain. Fore similar reasons governments do not reverse court judgments.


Finally there is a question of liability. In this country we have cabinet government based upon collective responsibility. The question arises therefore as to whether the PM speaks for himself or on behalf of the full cabinet and therefore whether all not one are culpable.


For these two (now three) reasons I would not expect Boris Johnson to appear before a court, let alone be jailed by one. It's all a pantomime really.



What could happen is that the EU will be given notice a week or a month after Oct 31st. British Customs Officers will begin collecting tariffs on EU imports and any that have not complied with instructions as to how these should be paid will be turned back.


Then, thank God, Brexit will be complete.
James Hammerton
2019-09-10 22:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
It may well be that regardless of the letter of the law any court might consider that how a legitimate government conducts itself is a political rather than a legal matter and as such is outside the court's remit.
But surely it is a staple of the British constitution, such as it is,
that we are all bound by the law of the land and if Parliament enacts a
law, then the government of the day is bound by it too?
Is it not the role of the legislature to pass laws and the courts to
then interpret and enforce them?
It is indeed it is also a discretionary decision by a court as to whether it should hear a particular case.
You expect the case against Boris (should it arise) to be dismissed by
the courts? I'd expect it to go to all the way to the supreme court
given the importance it has... assuming Boris fights it all the way.
I would expect "the case against Boris"? (There you're at it!)
What do you mean by that comment?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
to go straight to the supreme court and quickly in view of the public interest.
Then why the comment about "discretionary decision by a court as to
whether it should hear a particular case"?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by James Hammerton
If so, how could Parliament be considered acting ultra vires by passing
a law or in using the courts to enforce that law?
Parliament is not being considered to be acting ultra vires. Only individuals can claim this as a defence and only then when they can make a case that those who are prosecuting the case against them are either not entitled to do so or that they have no such case to answer.
OK. So you are positing that anyone attempting to enforce this law,
would be acting ultra vires.

Dominic Grieve in his recent groaniad article claimed that if Boris
failed to send the letter a court order would be granted to oblige him
and if he failed to obey the court order he would then be jailed. Who
would be acting ultra vires in this scenario? The person applying for
the court order? The judge issuing the court order? The police arresting
Boris for failure to comply with the order?
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Clearly there can be no question of ultra vires unless the act in question has been committed. Perhaps there are two flaws here. First action following the act would be a little previous in that it would be too late and hence pointless, in that the UK will already have left the EU "with or without a deal" "No deal" does not require any prior announcement. The levying of tariffs against EU goods would be sufficient. No deal is no more than a statement of fact.
I don't agee that it would necessarily be "too late". The European Union
(Withdrawal) (No. 6) Act stipulates that unless 1 of 2 conditions are
met (namely a deal being agreed and approved by the HoC or the HoC
voting to approve 'no deal'), the PM must send the letter by no later
than October 19th.

If Boris defied this legislation, there's 9 working days between the
19th October and the 31st October for legal action to be brought against
him, and perhaps more importantly that is also 9 working days to appoint
a new PM who would then send the letter and the EU to agree to it. A
tight timetable to be sure but not impossible.

The main obstacle would be the failure to agree on who a new PM would
be, which is the very reason why the opposition went down this
legislative route rather than calling for a motion of no confidence.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Second but more involved In this country we have separation of powers This means that both government and judiciary are loath to tangle horns You don't have to be a genius to work out why. Generally speaking, disputes between government an opposition are deemed by their Lordships to be political in nature and as such to belong in that domain. Fore similar reasons governments do not reverse court judgments.
Agreed but here we'd have the PM accused of disobeying a law (and
possibly a court order issued against him in the name of that law) that
is now on the statute books, surely that is not a mere dispute between
the opposition and the government but an alleged breaking of what is now
the law of the land? Surely that is enough to indicate that the courts
have to decide whether or not the law has indeed been broken.
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Finally there is a question of liability. In this country we have cabinet government based upon collective responsibility. The question arises therefore as to whether the PM speaks for himself or on behalf of the full cabinet and therefore whether all not one are culpable.
Given the duty is placed on the Prime Minister to send the letter (no
one else is mentioned) and given that it is not unusual for legislation
to place specific duties on those holding specific public positions (and
this includes the PM in some cases), why would collective responsbility
require anyone else to be there? Is the whole cabinet considered to be
the PM? Are they all to send a letter?!

Regards,

James
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-16 12:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Agreed but here we'd have the PM accused of disobeying a law (and
possibly a court order issued against him in the name of that law) that
is now on the statute books, surely that is not a mere dispute between
the opposition and the government but an alleged breaking of what is now
the law of the land? Surely that is enough to indicate that the courts
have to decide whether or not the law has indeed been broken.
It's not as simple as that. First of all the court has to satisfy itself regarding it competence to issue judgement.


First of all the UK government is not Parliament's government. They have no right to elect it they cannot dismiss it or any member of it there is not even a law that states that minsters should necessarily be MPs but of course it would be unusual these days if one were not but it has been known.


We are talking of H.M Government. Government ministers exercise their authority trough the possession of seal of Office granted by the Crown on the recommendation of the PM. Parliament has no hand in it and there is no way They can remove any minister's seal of Office. That is the prerogative of the PM through the Crown and Privy Council. Under such circumstances of course the holder usually sees the game to be up and resigns his seals voluntarily.


Where a minister is a member of the HoC there is a social expectation that he shall endeavour to *represent* his constituents not be a delegate for them. Where a court seeks. Some MP's seem to have difficulty in differentiating between the terms 'delegate' and 'representative'.


Any court or indeed anybody who seeks to interfere with an MP's right to represent his constituents is likely to run up against the barrier of Parliamentary privilege. This is why the use of court writs within the Palace of Westminster. is severely restricted. Indirectly, it's the reason why the door to the chamber of the HoC is ceremoniously slammed in the face of Black Rod during the opening. It is the commons asserting its independence from both Executive and judiciary.

Similar social expectations apply to government. Governments are general held by the electorate as necessary. They are further expected to govern. It is they
who decide upon whether a particular treaty/agreement shall be signed not Parliament.

Of course Parliament can hold government to account. Since governments are selected on the basis of command of a majority in Parliament then the process of holding to account, involves the withholding of any such majority in a motion of confidence. This option has been offered the opposition (such that it is) and they have *chosen* to refuse it. The offer is unlikely to remain open in perpetuity.

So no matter what So the High Court Tipstaff is unlikely to march into the House and arrest Boris Johnson no matter what Dominic Grieve says. He wouldn't get across the carpet!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Finally there is a question of liability. In this country we have cabinet government based upon collective responsibility. The question arises therefore as to whether the PM speaks for himself or on behalf of the full cabinet and therefore whether all not one are culpable.
Given the duty is placed on the Prime Minister to send the letter (no
one else is mentioned) and given that it is not unusual for legislation
to place specific duties on those holding specific public positions (and
this includes the PM in some cases), why would collective responsbility
require anyone else to be there? Is the whole cabinet considered to be
the PM? Are they all to send a letter?!
Don't be silly!


The PM is head of the government and the contents of the letter will be decided unanimously in cabinet (not Parliament). At the end of this process any dissenting cabinet member would be free to resign (or be dismissed) and the PM would go to Brussels on behalf of the UK cabinet. As a *representative* in other words. The EU has insisted time and time again that that (as does article 50) the negotiations will be conducted with the "British Government"


So to sum up. AISI this lot will end on or a few days before Oct 31 with Boris Johnson somehow declaring negotiations are at an end and no agreement has been reached. A mere statement of fact. This will leave the opposition high and dry with the option of picking up the government offer with the UK now outside the EU and fait accompli"

No party would are reverse the Brexit process.

Gary Walker
2019-09-09 04:52:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
What has the remain camp achieved?
They have taken over control of the procedures of parliament which means that they can pass any legislation they like.
The time is now right to look at their limitations.
They are *not* the government of this country. The government of this country sits around the cabinet table in Downing Street. These Remainers have no seat at this table. Neither are they privy to what is said or decided there.
A primary role of Parliament is to hold the government executive to accounts. Holding them to account does not mean replacing government. The only ultimate way in which a government can be replaced is either when its term comes to an end or (under the Fixed Parliamentary term Act) which would require the HoC to pass a motion of no confidence or fail to support a motion of confidence in th incumbent government by a 2/3 majority.
Clarification: The FTPA allows a general election to be called if 2/3rd
of all members (not merely those who vote) of the HoC vote for it.
The other route under the FTPA is losing a vote of no confidence and if
no alternative government can be formed, then we have a general election.
The thing is, any MP can call for a vote of no confidence. That doesn't mean it will get debated and under Bercow, it's not likely if a backbencher were to do it. Corbyn is frit, but how would the speaker react if, say, the Home Secretary were to call for such a motion?
abelard
2019-09-09 09:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?

or even to 'a position'?
--
www.abelard.org
Norman Wells
2019-09-09 10:49:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.

Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Moomin
2019-09-09 12:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
Grikbahhar®™
2019-09-09 13:02:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
Tall Henry
2019-09-09 13:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grikbahhar®™
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
How does a low-life shiteater like you even dare mention the Queen?
Peeler
2019-09-09 18:46:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 09 Sep 2019 06:02:00 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
Post by Grikbahhar®™
Post by Moomin
Only if the Queen gives assent.
A mere formality. When has the Queen ever refused to give assent?
I wonder what the Queen's stance is on pedophilic serb peasants like you,
pedophilic gay Razovic! ;-) Don't you wonder, too? <BG>
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic answering a question whether there
is any meaningful debate to lower the age of consent:
"If there isn't, there should be."
MID: <ZAMUE.174724$***@usenetxs.com>
abelard
2019-09-09 15:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Completely, unless it breaches human rights legislation.
a silly comment...you can't be allocated to pay a special
norman or saxon tax
Post by Moomin
Post by Norman Wells
Parliament is sovereign. Why can't it make whatever laws it likes?
Even if they're bad form.
Only if the Queen gives assent.
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 18:31:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?

Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-09 19:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...

a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'

clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them

my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 20:16:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
Maybe - but take a note of this legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made

There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-09 20:33:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!

i still harbour some unease
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 21:40:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?

From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.

The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.

As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-10 09:03:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person

further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...a behaviour
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!

imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-10 21:14:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.

If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.

Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.

What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.

Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
Post by abelard
further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...
A fair comment, but does that mean this law is open to a legal challenge?

a behaviour
Post by abelard
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
Agreed. It's an organisation/institution.
Post by abelard
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
not valid on what grounds precisely? Are those grounds even sufficient
that our courts would agree to allow a challenge to be made?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?

I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-11 10:11:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..

i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...
A fair comment, but does that mean this law is open to a legal challenge?
a behaviour
Post by abelard
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
Agreed. It's an organisation/institution.
Post by abelard
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
not valid on what grounds precisely? Are those grounds even sufficient
that our courts would agree to allow a challenge to be made?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it...
he most clearly is not
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
what's the sentence?

if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'

of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me

a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'

there is a crossroads between politics and the law...

we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-11 21:11:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?

Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?

[snip]
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.

If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.

So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-11 23:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
that is my guess, though i can never plumb the depths of
human folly
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Post by James Hammerton
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!

law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
he's got to worry also about social unrest
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
indeed
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
it looks that way to me...their mood music *looks* very confident
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
i think you put my view accurately
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland

i can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense

my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-14 21:01:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
that is my guess, though i can never plumb the depths of
human folly
I note that is your *guess*.

Nearly all commentary I've seen so far, including commentary from people
who study or who practice the law in the UK, seems to accept that
because Parliament passed this law, Boris is legally obliged to obey and
could be punished for failing to do so, unless he can find a loophole
(or manages to come back with a deal parilament approves or persuades
parliament to exit without a deal).

The only people I've come across who question the validity of this law
are here on uk.p.m, and they're not as far as I'm aware doing so on the
basis of any legal training.

It is possible (probable?) the lawyers, police and judges accept the
supremacy of Parliament and thus accept its right to legislate, subject
to e.g. the ECHR and other international treaties Parliament has chosen
to accept.

So it does not seem improbable to me that the PM may find himself facing
legal action if he does not comply with the order.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Maybe - but is he wrong about being able to obtain a court order to
enforce this law?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!
I'm not following here.
Post by abelard
law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
he's got to worry also about social unrest
Many predict social unrest if we leave without a deal and some of the
more severe alleged consequences follow - if we have judges persuaded
that there's a serious risk that leaving without a deal has such a risk
associated with it they may be inclined to believe Parliament was
allowed to pass the law and enforce the order to request the extension.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
indeed
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
it looks that way to me...their mood music *looks* very confident
It does - maybe they've got some powder they're carefully keeping dry to
deal with this, or maybe they want people to believe they do.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
i think you put my view accurately
OK - the critical question is whether this view would fly with our
lawyers and judges. Any sign that it will?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
Post by abelard
i can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense
my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
Which of the ECHR rights would you suggest could be invoked here?

Regards,

James
Roger
2019-09-14 21:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
No, only the appeal. The original judgement said this is not the courts business.
James Hammerton
2019-09-15 18:14:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Roger
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
No, only the appeal. The original judgement said this is not the courts business.
Indeed it did, thanks for the reminder.

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-15 16:51:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:01:16 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
that is my guess, though i can never plumb the depths of
human folly
I note that is your *guess*.
such i the real world
Post by James Hammerton
Nearly all commentary I've seen so far, including commentary from people
who study or who practice the law in the UK, seems to accept that
because Parliament passed this law, Boris is legally obliged to obey and
could be punished for failing to do so, unless he can find a loophole
(or manages to come back with a deal parilament approves or persuades
parliament to exit without a deal).
The only people I've come across who question the validity of this law
are here on uk.p.m, and they're not as far as I'm aware doing so on the
basis of any legal training.
It is possible (probable?) the lawyers, police and judges accept the
supremacy of Parliament and thus accept its right to legislate, subject
to e.g. the ECHR and other international treaties Parliament has chosen
to accept.
So it does not seem improbable to me that the PM may find himself facing
legal action if he does not comply with the order.
all your speculation is also possible :-)
what is the sheep index

i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Maybe - but is he wrong about being able to obtain a court order to
enforce this law?
that i don't see happening ...though he in particular is likely
to try it on
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!
I'm not following here.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html
No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’

‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the
sentence first!’

‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.

‘I won’t!’ said Alice.

‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody
moved.

‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by
this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
read through the above including your comments and apply
this...

riots are also a social happening...so are elections

'law' has no special status
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
he's got to worry also about social unrest
Many predict social unrest if we leave without a deal and some of the
more severe alleged consequences follow - if we have judges persuaded
that there's a serious risk that leaving without a deal has such a risk
associated with it they may be inclined to believe Parliament was
allowed to pass the law and enforce the order to request the extension.
laughingly called 'the establishment by 'reporters, lawyers and
politicians
very few 'journalists' will write against 'the establishment..they
wish to assume they are part of it...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
it looks that way to me...their mood music *looks* very confident
It does - maybe they've got some powder they're carefully keeping dry to
deal with this, or maybe they want people to believe they do.
imv he is more likely to confront them

today in my reading...

a journalist...a man who write a column of two on any subject
he knows absolutely nothing about... simenon aged 18...(33)
i see no change
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
i think you put my view accurately
OK - the critical question is whether this view would fly with our
lawyers and judges. Any sign that it will?
i've never met a judge who remained in contact with reality

it is the normal outcome of unquestioned power
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
roger interpreted me correctly in his response
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense
my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
Which of the ECHR rights would you suggest could be invoked here?
the job of a lawyer is to seek out a reason for anything
you or the opposition should wish...

he is a paid salesperson...nothing much else
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2019-09-15 18:48:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:01:16 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:11:30 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
that is my guess, though i can never plumb the depths of
human folly
I note that is your *guess*.
such i the real world
Fair point. I am not sure what your reasoning behind this guess is other
than in vague terms such as claims there's "a dozen ways around it" and
the police, judiciary wanting to stay out of a political dispute.

ISTM we have some Scottish judges already getting embroiled in the
political dispute, albeit relating to a different action of the
government's...

Maybe it would help if you could outline 3 of those ways?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Nearly all commentary I've seen so far, including commentary from people
who study or who practice the law in the UK, seems to accept that
because Parliament passed this law, Boris is legally obliged to obey and
could be punished for failing to do so, unless he can find a loophole
(or manages to come back with a deal parilament approves or persuades
parliament to exit without a deal).
The only people I've come across who question the validity of this law
are here on uk.p.m, and they're not as far as I'm aware doing so on the
basis of any legal training.
It is possible (probable?) the lawyers, police and judges accept the
supremacy of Parliament and thus accept its right to legislate, subject
to e.g. the ECHR and other international treaties Parliament has chosen
to accept.
So it does not seem improbable to me that the PM may find himself facing
legal action if he does not comply with the order.
all your speculation is also possible :-)
OK
Post by abelard
what is the sheep index
Are you referring to "i was only following orders" ?

E.g. the extent to which judges will enforce "the will of Parliament"
because it is laid down in a statute?
Post by abelard
i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Maybe - but is he wrong about being able to obtain a court order to
enforce this law?
that i don't see happening ...
Because you think the judges won't want to touch the issue with a long
bargepole? Why would they be so reluctant?
Post by abelard
though he in particular is likely
to try it on
Interestingly so far it's been Miller, Cherry and Maugham bringing the
cases so far, with Major backing one of them.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!
I'm not following here.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html
No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the
sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody
moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by
this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Ah - you're suggesting that in granting a court order against the PM,
the judge would effectively be giving the verdict first?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
read through the above including your comments and apply
this...
riots are also a social happening...so are elections
I can see judges deciding they don't want to contribute to a situation
where riots break out. It's not clear to me that this possibility points
clearly in favour or or against enforcing the Benn Act. Certainly if
arguments are made on this point the "anti no deal" brigade will claim
the riots will occur due to the consequences of leaving the EU without a
deal - and may even point to Yellowhammer and other government documents
to back their case up.

I can also see a judge deciding the issue before them might be better
settled via an election rather than in the courts. On the other hand
could it not be argued that allowing the government to ignore a law
passed by Parliament undermines the rule of law? A judge might consider
themselves concerned by anything that undermines the rule of law...
Post by abelard
'law' has no special status
I'm not clear on what you mean with this statement.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
he's got to worry also about social unrest
Many predict social unrest if we leave without a deal and some of the
more severe alleged consequences follow - if we have judges persuaded
that there's a serious risk that leaving without a deal has such a risk
associated with it they may be inclined to believe Parliament was
allowed to pass the law and enforce the order to request the extension.
laughingly called 'the establishment by 'reporters, lawyers and
politicians
very few 'journalists' will write against 'the establishment..they
wish to assume they are part of it...
True - but about the only people disputing the claims are those solidly
aligned to the Brexit cause - even the government's own civil servants
have been making such claims. Why would the judiciary discount the
claims in such circs?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
it looks that way to me...their mood music *looks* very confident
It does - maybe they've got some powder they're carefully keeping dry to
deal with this, or maybe they want people to believe they do.
imv he is more likely to confront them
Why?
Post by abelard
today in my reading...
a journalist...a man who write a column of two on any subject
he knows absolutely nothing about... simenon aged 18...(33)
i see no change
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
i think you put my view accurately
OK - the critical question is whether this view would fly with our
lawyers and judges. Any sign that it will?
i've never met a judge who remained in contact with reality
I'm not sure whether that helps your claims about the likelihood of the
judges enforcing the Benn Act...
Post by abelard
it is the normal outcome of unquestioned power
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
the first step in scotchland
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
roger interpreted me correctly in his response
Yup - your reference to "socialist johnny" confused me a bit there -
Major joined the English case not the Scottish case.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense
my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
Which of the ECHR rights would you suggest could be invoked here?
the job of a lawyer is to seek out a reason for anything
you or the opposition should wish...
Uhuh. You made reference, in a tone of amusement, to the possibility of
an appeal to the ECHR being used by the PM.

I'd have thought that's because you can see that one or more of the
rights contained therein might be applicable (in an amusing way?) to the
case.
Post by abelard
he is a paid salesperson...nothing much else
Albeit a very specialised one - who needs to have a good knowledge of
the law and the ability to look up past cases for relevant precedent
("sales pitch that worked in the past"?) and what people call "the gift
of the gab" (though every salesman can benefit from that).

Regards,

James
abelard
2019-09-15 21:27:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:48:56 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
ISTM we have some Scottish judges already getting embroiled in the
political dispute, albeit relating to a different action of the
government's...
i'm not scotch...but i do know 'the scotch' voted against brexit....

so i must move to the squishy concept of 'identity'...what percentage
of those living in scotchland believe they are scotch....and to what
degree..ie, how 'strongly'...what measure am i to use?

a willingness to oppose westminster(the superior culture!)...seems 3
'judges' did that...
so now we await the superior court....

of course their 'careers' rest on local jobsworths...
Post by James Hammerton
Maybe it would help if you could outline 3 of those ways?
please spell this out for me...to me it is all a dynamic house of
cards...where an element is the emotions of individuals and
various collectives
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
what is the sheep index
Are you referring to "i was only following orders" ?
E.g. the extent to which judges will enforce "the will of Parliament"
because it is laid down in a statute?
i'm content to number that as 'one' element
though imv the scotch element is little more than an exaggerated
county council
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i study people...that includes lawyers and reptiles! and even
politicians
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
imv grieve is out to lunch....ego much too big for his intelligence
Maybe - but is he wrong about being able to obtain a court order to
enforce this law?
that i don't see happening ...
Because you think the judges won't want to touch the issue with a long
bargepole? Why would they be so reluctant?
imv back covering is a major element of the overwhelming
mass of people
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
though he in particular is likely
to try it on
Interestingly so far it's been Miller, Cherry and Maugham bringing the
cases so far, with Major backing one of them.
do i read that as grieve's natural self preservation
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
first a trial...
or is alician, first the verdict!
I'm not following here.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/alice/chapter12.html
No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’
‘Stuff and nonsense!’ said Alice loudly. ‘The idea of having the
sentence first!’
‘Hold your tongue!’ said the Queen, turning purple.
‘I won’t!’ said Alice.
‘Off with her head!’ the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody
moved.
‘Who cares for you?’ said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by
this time.) ‘You’re nothing but a pack of cards!’
Ah - you're suggesting that in granting a court order against the PM,
the judge would effectively be giving the verdict first?
that is part of structure as i see it

(the system is further dynamic inasmuch as nothing has actually
happened...much cannot even be judged until after the
expediting of the democratic will...
or running roughshod over the public will to the great cost
of uk government integrity)
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
law is not an absolute...it is a social construct....despite all the
pomposity being promoted by the media
Agreed.
read through the above including your comments and apply
this...
riots are also a social happening...so are elections
I can see judges deciding they don't want to contribute to a situation
where riots break out. It's not clear to me that this possibility points
clearly in favour or or against enforcing the Benn Act. Certainly if
arguments are made on this point the "anti no deal" brigade will claim
the riots will occur due to the consequences of leaving the EU without a
deal - and may even point to Yellowhammer and other government documents
to back their case up.
I can also see a judge deciding the issue before them might be better
settled via an election rather than in the courts.
a reasonable minimising of social costs

imv yellowhammer is close to unalloyed bollox...but time will tell
on that judgement
Post by James Hammerton
On the other hand
could it not be argued that allowing the government to ignore a law
passed by Parliament undermines the rule of law? A judge might consider
themselves concerned by anything that undermines the rule of law...
i can see no interpretation of 'law' that allows parliament to
over rule the democratic will
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
'law' has no special status
I'm not clear on what you mean with this statement.
it is just a social convention...imv that can be calculated
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
laughingly called 'the establishment by 'reporters, lawyers and
politicians
very few 'journalists' will write against 'the establishment..they
wish to assume they are part of it...
True - but about the only people disputing the claims are those solidly
aligned to the Brexit cause - even the government's own civil servants
have been making such claims. Why would the judiciary discount the
claims in such circs?
the serve the masses....and the masses have ruled against them

it is both risky to go against that *and* involves long term costs...
putting the pammies back in their box is just business as usual
over centuries...their whining is close to irrelevant however
much the bawl
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
It does - maybe they've got some powder they're carefully keeping dry to
deal with this, or maybe they want people to believe they do.
imv he is more likely to confront them
Why?
his education and abilities
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i've never met a judge who remained in contact with reality
I'm not sure whether that helps your claims about the likelihood of the
judges enforcing the Benn Act...
i don't think of them as intellectuals but as self serving bums on
seats...iow i don't take them at their own evaluations
they are not the sort of persons from which heroes are produced
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
I'm not sure what this is referring to. Recent rulings of the Scottish
Court of Session have not been in the government's favour.
roger interpreted me correctly in his response
Yup - your reference to "socialist johnny" confused me a bit there -
Major joined the English case not the Scottish case.
ok...no problem....sorry if i miscommunicated
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
i can but hope the uk supreme court shows similar sense
my inclination to the amusing makes my dream of an appeal
to the echr!
Which of the ECHR rights would you suggest could be invoked here?
the job of a lawyer is to seek out a reason for anything
you or the opposition should wish...
Uhuh. You made reference, in a tone of amusement, to the possibility of
an appeal to the ECHR being used by the PM.
I'd have thought that's because you can see that one or more of the
rights contained therein might be applicable (in an amusing way?) to the
case.
eg a law applying to one person..

who has what authority? the eussr!
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
he is a paid salesperson...nothing much else
Albeit a very specialised one - who needs to have a good knowledge of
the law and the ability to look up past cases for relevant precedent
("sales pitch that worked in the past"?) and what people call "the gift
of the gab" (though every salesman can benefit from that).
so is a computer salesman...or a 'plane salesman...

a salesman is high on the social ladder, which is why he is paid more
than most employees
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2019-09-12 11:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:14:09 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course
of action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson,
it names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office
of Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
there are a dozen ways around it..
the conditions have changed..
it's politics..
i don't believe it enforceable and the more i chew over it the less
i believe it will fly
Are you saying that it is unenforcable because it is a highly
politically motivated law?
Thus lawyers, police, judges will want to stay out of a political
dispute despite it appearing in the form of the defiance of a statute?
[snip]
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some
MPs, including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a
QC) who wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least
difficult to contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the
moment. I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson
as defined under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
Grieve wrote about obtaining a court order to force Johnson to play ball
and claimed that if he defied a court order he'd be jailed.
If a court order was issued and Johnson defied it, yes I can see the
police doing this.
So now the question is whether judge would issue such an order.
Post by abelard
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
Do you believe a judge would be wary of trying this due to it being a
politically motivated action?
Post by abelard
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
A jury trial might be exactly what Johnson would need to fight this.
Post by abelard
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
The noises coming from the government and Johnson himself suggest they
may well be approaching it in this manner.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to
carry out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
i think it goes far beyond that into regions a world that is not
really a matter of 'legal grounds'
there is a crossroads between politics and the law...
Are viewing the Benn act as having a somewhat similar status to a bill
of attainder?
Post by abelard
we've already had courts telling socialist johnny to
piss off with his silly games...
Can you remind me of an example?
Regards,
James
This looks like an interesting exchange. When I get a moment, maybe I
should unplonk Abelard from my kill file and get new posts.

On the other hand, maybe not. Abelard's twaddle is be more than most
people can stomach.
Pamela
2019-09-12 11:15:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
can you see plod walking up to his door mob handed to arrest him?
(what *sane* cop would take the job?
can you see any judge trying it?
what about a jury?...with 4 tories on it etc....
what's the sentence?
if he has any backbone imv he 'should' say 'do your worst'
of course the sheepdom index of the british people does look
high...to me
a lawyers job is not to tell you what you can't do...
it is to tell you how to do what you already intend to do
It's the usual Abelard argument, full of wacky notions.

"Sane cops", "sheepdom", "tories on a jury", ....
Pamela
2019-09-12 22:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
a specificity that applies just to johnson...who is a free person
The Act (it is now on the statute books) does not name Boris Johnson, it
names the Prime Minister, it is thus prescribing a duty to someone
holding a public office.
If Boris resigned, he would no longer be required to send the letter,
just as any other public official would no longer be required to carry
out their duties if they resign their position.
Prescribing duties to holders of public offices, including the office of
Prime Minister, is not an unusual feature of past legislation.
What is unusual is the fact the opposition gained control over
Parliamentary procedure to enact this and the very specific nature of
the prescribed course of action should certain circumstances arise.
Do either of these unusual aspects of the Act make it open to a legal
challenge?
Post by abelard
further, they are trying to turn him into a delegate...
A fair comment, but does that mean this law is open to a legal
challenge?
a behaviour
Post by abelard
they are complaining about in refusing to act as delegates to
the voters!
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed
by Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to
have been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
1)parliament is not a person
Agreed. It's an organisation/institution.
Post by abelard
2)imv it may well not be valid(rather that it is not invalid!!)
not valid on what grounds precisely? Are those grounds even sufficient
that our courts would agree to allow a challenge to be made?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't
help much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
a lesser problem to me as they claim to have no constitution and
thus be free to 'make it up as they go along'
which could be sold as a positive feature of uk governance
Post by James Hammerton
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
she was part of it... he most clearly is not
Noted.
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some
MPs, including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a
QC) who wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least
difficult to contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
but is it legal!!
The law was enacted by the legislature. I (as a lay person) don't see
any obvious violation of any other laws that are in force at the moment.
I don't see it as even violating the rights of Boris Johnson as defined
under the HRA.
Post by abelard
imv negatives are not legal(rightly) in britain....that which is
not illegal...is legal
Indeed - was it illegal for Parliament to pass this legislation? Would
it be illegal for a court order to be issued to require the PM to carry
out the obligations set out in the legislation?
I am not aware of any legal grounds to say that either of these things
are/would be illegal...
Regards,
James
Don't forget to let Abelard know that unlawful, which gets used a lot in
th enews at the moment, does not necessarily mean illegal. I think he
might be getting confused.
abelard
2019-09-10 09:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 22:40:37 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 21:16:57 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:31:53 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 19:44:21 +0100, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
The government must obey the law - Parliament can make the law and is
about to complete the enaction of a law requiring the PM to request an
extension of Article 50 before the 31st October deadline is reached.
to what extent can a 'law' be made to apply to one person?
or even to 'a position'?
Do we not have already have laws prescribing duties associated with the
various positions of public office?
Isn't the Benn bill simply placing a duty on the Prime Minister (and
thus on whoever holds that position)?
fine as far as that goes...
the person is not the position...
Agreed - but if Boris is PM at the time the law starts to bite, he's
the one who is required to send the letter.
Post by abelard
a chief policeperson is to stop crime and keep the peace...
clearly all he tries is to try...and as a placeholder he decides
whether he has tried and how he tried...
it doesn't say he must go and sign a particular order
it doesn't even insist he 'succeeds'
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/25/part/8/chapter/1/crossheading/the-commissioners/made
There's numerous things the PM 'must' do under this Act. If Parliament
is legitimately able to enact a law stating that the PM "must" appoint
some commissioners and "must" consult the Scottish Ministers during the
process of doing so, then ISTM rather difficult to then say it is not
valid for Parliament enact a law stating that the PM "must" seek an
extension of Article 50. How exactly is the line between the two being
drawn?
it doesn't say that he must appoint jack the lad...cousin
to the panjandrum
So it's the specificity of the law in prescribing a certain course of
action that you find dubious?
From my perspective - I find this law and the way it arose quite
remarkable but I cannot see an obvious legal/constitutional reason why
it would be considered invalid by our courts given that it was passed by
Parliament and the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty seems to have
been guiding Britain's evolving constitution for some time now.
The fact some conventions may have been broken to get here doesn't help
much since breaking conventions (or at least those governing
parliamentary procedure) does not seem to be against the law either.
As a matter of curiosity - what did you make of the Cooper-Letwin bill
that led to May to seeking an extension?
Post by abelard
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
clearly he can be sacked...but politicians are different...
pretty well nobody but the people can sack them
my poorly informed instinct sees this order as dubious at best
My poorly informed instinct is that this law was cooked up by some MPs,
including some legally trained MPs (e.g. Dominic Grieve is a QC) who
wanted something that would be legally sound, or at least difficult to
contest in court should the attempt be made.
thanx for your reply...it is useful to me and maybe to my
understanding!
i still harbour some unease
It smells a bit iffy to me too, it's just I don't see it as being
obviously illegal.
i'm modifying the thread title as i think this important
--
www.abelard.org
Gary Walker
2019-09-09 06:01:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;

"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"

[....]

"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister (be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension. Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.

There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension, either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.

The forces of Remain would scream blue murder, of course. Gina Miller would head off to the courts yet again. But what difference would it make? The default position is that Britain will leave the EU on 31 October and that is that. Remainers would be left wondering how they had let it slip when they had the opportunity of fighting an election over the issue of no Brexit – and having at least a sporting chance of Britain electing a Prime Minister who was prepared to pull the plug on Brexit and withdraw Article 50 in the last few days before 31 October."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/remainers-may-regret-not-backing-an-october-general-election/

"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
MM
2019-09-09 08:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while
Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister
(be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be
reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept
such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU
members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension.
Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
I'm confident that Macron will be persuaded. Probably just a phone
call from Angela and he'll roll over.
Post by Gary Walker
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension,
either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make
sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to
request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
So, in other words, you seriously suggest that one and the same person
can request an extension while at the same time rejecting it?

I mean, Boris Johnson doesn't usually need much help to look stupid,
but this would be an historic event!
Post by Gary Walker
The forces of Remain would scream blue murder, of course. Gina Miller would head off
to the courts yet again. But what difference would it make? The default position is that Britain
will leave the EU on 31 October and that is that. Remainers would be left wondering how
they had let it slip when they had the opportunity of fighting an election over the issue of
no Brexit – and having at least a sporting chance of Britain electing a Prime Minister who
was prepared to pull the plug on Brexit and withdraw Article 50 in the last few days before 31 October."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/remainers-may-regret-not-backing-an-october-general-election/
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.

However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests. It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)

MM
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-09-09 08:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
We've heard all this before in relation to the referendum result.


How do you know? Have you experienced Brexit? Has any country?
Post by MM
However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests. It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)
abelard
2019-09-09 09:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
1)you have no way of quantifying such alleged damage....
2)a majority value 'freedom' over your fake claims, as the
people's vote demonstrated...
3)loss of freedom/democracy is a far higher price than
some alleged economic damage made by a materialist
...as dozens of countries have discovered...
while the price to get free of resulting dictatorships
is paid in blood and poverty


"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
We've heard all this before in relation to the referendum result.
How do you know? Have you experienced Brexit? Has any country?
Post by MM
However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests. It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-09-09 09:45:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
1)you have no way of quantifying such alleged damage....
2)a majority value 'freedom' over your fake claims, as the
people's vote demonstrated...
3)loss of freedom/democracy is a far higher price than
some alleged economic damage made by a materialist
...as dozens of countries have discovered...
while the price to get free of resulting dictatorships
is paid in blood and poverty
Economic threats probably don't mean much to a political entity with a
rich elite :-)
Post by abelard
"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
We've heard all this before in relation to the referendum result.
How do you know? Have you experienced Brexit? Has any country?
Post by MM
However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests. It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)
abelard
2019-09-09 10:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
1)you have no way of quantifying such alleged damage....
2)a majority value 'freedom' over your fake claims, as the
people's vote demonstrated...
3)loss of freedom/democracy is a far higher price than
some alleged economic damage made by a materialist
...as dozens of countries have discovered...
while the price to get free of resulting dictatorships
is paid in blood and poverty
Economic threats probably don't mean much to a political entity with a
rich elite :-)
what does mean much? and to whom!
--
www.abelard.org
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-09-09 10:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
1)you have no way of quantifying such alleged damage....
2)a majority value 'freedom' over your fake claims, as the
people's vote demonstrated...
3)loss of freedom/democracy is a far higher price than
some alleged economic damage made by a materialist
...as dozens of countries have discovered...
while the price to get free of resulting dictatorships
is paid in blood and poverty
Economic threats probably don't mean much to a political entity with a
rich elite :-)
what does mean much? and to whom!
ISTM that power is everything to those who make the decisions affecting
EU citizens. And money, of course, though their own incomes are safe
from the effects of their decisions.
abelard
2019-09-09 10:33:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by abelard
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
1)you have no way of quantifying such alleged damage....
2)a majority value 'freedom' over your fake claims, as the
people's vote demonstrated...
3)loss of freedom/democracy is a far higher price than
some alleged economic damage made by a materialist
...as dozens of countries have discovered...
while the price to get free of resulting dictatorships
is paid in blood and poverty
Economic threats probably don't mean much to a political entity with a
rich elite :-)
what does mean much? and to whom!
ISTM that power is everything to those who make the decisions affecting
EU citizens. And money, of course, though their own incomes are safe
from the effects of their decisions.
such is life..

however, the so-called poor are rich beyond compare with
most of their ancestors

politics is about the condition of the masses, not about the
extremely small (insignificant) numbers driving ferraris

banging on about the lottery winners is just a distraction
ploy of dishonest politicians
--
www.abelard.org
Gary Walker
2019-09-09 09:17:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while
Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister
(be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be
reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept
such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU
members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension.
Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
I'm confident that Macron will be persuaded. Probably just a phone
call from Angela and he'll roll over.
Post by Gary Walker
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension,
either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make
sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to
request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
So, in other words, you seriously suggest that one and the same person
can request an extension while at the same time rejecting it?
I mean, Boris Johnson doesn't usually need much help to look stupid,
but this would be an historic event!
Post by Gary Walker
The forces of Remain would scream blue murder, of course. Gina Miller would head off
to the courts yet again. But what difference would it make? The default position is that Britain
will leave the EU on 31 October and that is that. Remainers would be left wondering how
they had let it slip when they had the opportunity of fighting an election over the issue of
no Brexit – and having at least a sporting chance of Britain electing a Prime Minister who
was prepared to pull the plug on Brexit and withdraw Article 50 in the last few days before 31 October."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/remainers-may-regret-not-backing-an-october-general-election/
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests.
Really? Does the Bill exclude such inclusions?

"Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the government would abide by the law but will "look very carefully" at its "interpretation" of the legislation."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49630094

You see, in their haste, the Remainers have been careless in their treachery.
Post by MM
It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)
MM
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-09-09 09:39:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 23:01:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while
Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister
(be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be
reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept
such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU
members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension.
Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
I'm confident that Macron will be persuaded. Probably just a phone
call from Angela and he'll roll over.
Of course. She'll say 'Jump!', and they'll all say 'how high?' :-)
Post by MM
Post by Gary Walker
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension,
either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make
sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to
request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
So, in other words, you seriously suggest that one and the same person
can request an extension while at the same time rejecting it?
Not reject it - just dissuade them from accepting somehow.
Post by MM
I mean, Boris Johnson doesn't usually need much help to look stupid,
but this would be an historic event!
Post by Gary Walker
The forces of Remain would scream blue murder, of course. Gina Miller would head off
to the courts yet again. But what difference would it make? The default position is that Britain
will leave the EU on 31 October and that is that. Remainers would be left wondering how
they had let it slip when they had the opportunity of fighting an election over the issue of
no Brexit – and having at least a sporting chance of Britain electing a Prime Minister who
was prepared to pull the plug on Brexit and withdraw Article 50 in the last few days before 31 October."
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/remainers-may-regret-not-backing-an-october-general-election/
"I am applying for a three month extension to Britain's withdrawal from the EU and £200bn in rebates, payable immediately"
If that's what it takes, £200bn is small beer compared to the harm a
no-deal Brexit would cause.
However, the formal request to extend Article 50 could not possibly
contain a rider such as the Spectator suggests. It's just some
right-wing journalist stirring the shit. (Plenty of those creatures.)
MM
The right-, or left-, wingedness of the journalist doesn't by itself
invalidate the hypothesis; but it has to be said that of all the many
and varying possible scenarios I've read (and the Speccy will usually
contain one or two each week, by various leavers and remainers), none
has called it correctly. :-)
Andy Walker
2019-09-09 16:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by MM
So, in other words, you seriously suggest that one and the same
person can request an extension while at the same time rejecting
it?
Not reject it - just dissuade them from accepting somehow.
"Hello, Malta. Would you like £X as a brib^H^H^H^Hboost to
your Tourist Development Fund, payable as long as we're out of the
EU on November 1st? All it needs is your veto. Oh, the EU is
giving you £2X? Not a problem, bye. Hello, Cyprus. Would you like
£X .... Hello Latvia/Greece/Poland ...." Choose X to suit the
economies of the chosen countries.

Cost to UK: £X if some country agrees. France may not even
need a bri^H^H^Hcontribution. Cost to EU net contributors: £2NX,
where N is the number of countries counter-bri^H^H^Hfunded. Seems
like a win-win for Mr Johnson and Malta [or whichever].
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Mark Devon
2019-09-09 17:24:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dinky Toy BonZo wants a deal. What do u reckon, Brexiteers? All those Brexiteers here, who really think BonZo is a Churchill-type, a man of substance, what do you reckon now? The Tory party under BonZo wants a deal, yes?
Keema's Nan
2019-09-09 17:43:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Devon
Dinky Toy BonZo wants a deal. What do u reckon, Brexiteers? All those
Brexiteers here, who really think BonZo is a Churchill-type, a man of
substance, what do you reckon now? The Tory party under BonZo wants a deal,
yes?
No.
James Hammerton
2019-09-09 18:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister (be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension. Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension, either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
The Benn bill prescribes the precise form the letter must take, so at
what point does the PM attach conditions not mentioned in the letter to
achieve this goal?

Regards,

James
Gary Walker
2019-09-10 13:50:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister (be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension. Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension, either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
The Benn bill prescribes the precise form the letter must take, so at
what point does the PM attach conditions not mentioned in the letter to
achieve this goal?
I have to admit that I was careless and hadn't read the actual Bill, relying on a not-so-accurate description on the web. here is the Bill;

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168560598650621953.html

A possible course would be to deliver the letter, start legal proceedings against the Bill and rescind the application, all in short order.
MM
2019-09-11 08:43:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Gary Walker
Post by Gary Walker
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Gary Walker
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
So if I were Boris that's the card I would be playing No power on earth can make him enter into any agreement with the EU government
An interesting angle from the Spectator;
"Remainers may regret not backing an October general election"
[....]
"But is delaying an election really in the interests of Remain? The trouble is that while Hilary Benn’s bill, which will become law on Monday, would oblige the Prime Minister (be it Boris or anyone else) to request an extension to Article 50 if no deal can be reached by 19 October, it doesn’t, and couldn’t possibly, oblige the EU to accept such a request. Given that such an extension would have to be ratified by all EU members, there are some doubts as to whether the EU would approve an extension. Emmanuel Macron, for one, is believed to be lukewarm on the idea.
There is another EU leader who is known to be not so keen on the idea of an extension, either – one Boris Johnson. Ultimately, the Prime Minister has it in his power to make sure that the UK does not get an extension (even while fulfilling his legal duty to request one) by making certain demands that the EU is bound to refuse.
The Benn bill prescribes the precise form the letter must take, so at
what point does the PM attach conditions not mentioned in the letter to
achieve this goal?
I have to admit that I was careless and hadn't read the actual Bill, relying on a not-so-accurate description on the web. here is the Bill;
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168560598650621953.html
A possible course would be to deliver the letter, start legal proceedings against the Bill and rescind the application, all in short order.
On what grounds would such "legal proceedings" be mounted?

MM
Mark Devon
2019-09-09 13:47:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
((What has the remain camp achieved?))

A great amount. As for the Eton so-called establishment elites they haven't achieved much more than a Prorogue Holiday....slouching around all day forever now, it seems.....I guess that's what non-patriots do.
Loading...