Brexit related judicial reviews: Supreme Court | Judgment: Prorogation was unlawful

vidic blood & sand said:
:lol:

Nothing about it is a bad idea. Nothing butt uncertainty is harming us. The rest is just you being scared by the things you choose to listen to.
Click to expand...

Nothing about it is a bad idea? Literally nothing? Only uncertainty? Yeah all those people who know what they are talking about. I shouldn't listen to them and show create imaginary scenarios in my head which have no backing from anyone who knows whats going on.
 
Full bodied red said:
I'd have thought that the DUP can be ' bought ' out of their objections - they do have form....

I still think the best solution for the whole shebang would be a GE - but I'm not expecting Corbyn and Swinson to agree.
Click to expand...

I think the DUP are pretty irrelevant now - a GE would probably happen and everyone would be back where they were with a few losses here and there, although Corbyn seems to be intent on losing as many seats as possible.
 
Wensley is banned from this thread for pedantic wumming. A lesson on the judiciary and how laws work is not needed.
 
The thread that keeps on giving. Between claiming that The EU are only using The Backstop as a bargaining chip, and that the Judges in The Supreme Court aren't experts in constitutional law. It's like a shite episode of The Thick Of It.
 
Shouldn't generalise I know.

But it really does feel like the vast majority of leave voters are so ignorant of how things actually work.

My Auntie voted leave because of immigration. Why she thought leaving the EU would have anything to do with stopping immigration I don't know but there you go.
 
On an associated issue but far removed from the general I'm right you are wrong thrust of the threads so far. I wonder if tomorrow Johnson will seek to prorogue parliament for 4 or 5 days using the argument of needing to hold a party conference. If he were to do so I wonder how it could legitimately be objected to given that the Lib Dems and the Labour party have already held theirs.

Silly me. Should not have used the term prorogue. It would be calling a recess for 4 or 5 days.
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
Out of interest, why does UK have an unwritten constitution?
Click to expand...

Because written ones have to be agreed and we can't agree on what to put in it and they become inflexible, see US gun laws. We tend to do this, wait until a point becomes contested and then reinterpret precedent or set new precedent.
 
JakeC said:
The thread that keeps on giving. Between claiming that The EU are only using The Backstop as a bargaining chip, and that the Judges in The Supreme Court aren't experts in constitutional law. It's like a shite episode of The Thick Of It.
Click to expand...
Yep, they could run a kebab shop as well as deciding on constitutional matters.
 
Sir Matt said:
If you have a choice between a bench trial or a jury trial, you pick the jury trial because you know they are not experts in the law and are open to other influences or biases. You can't equate the two positions.
Click to expand...

That depends if you did it or not :)
 
sammsky1 said:
If it’s unwritten, whose job is it to remember it? And why if they forget a few words.

I’m being serious!
Click to expand...

It is written, but it's all over the place and continually in a state of being rewritten via new acts of parliament and judicial decisions. When folk say it's unwritten they mean there isn't a single golden document entombed at Westminster that folk can point to and say "This right here is the constitution." Instead it's the accumulation of acts and decisions of the centuries to which is now added the latest Supreme Court judgement.
 
WensleyMU said:
They had probably seen that wacko european Lib Dem guy banging on about it.

And yes, he's quite mental. Unhinged even. Thankfully part of a deluded minority.
Click to expand...

Gonna be honest I've heard and had at this point hundreds of conversations with leavers and non have presented anything that even resembles a coherent argument. Either they use the same lies as before or completely ignore all reason and logic and say they just feel it will be good.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Because written ones have to be agreed and we can't agree on what to put in it and they become inflexible, see US gun laws. We tend to do this, wait until a point becomes contested and then reinterpret precedent or set new precedent.
Click to expand...

Ekkie Thump said:
It is written, but it's all over the place and continually in a state of being rewritten via new acts of parliament and judicial decisions. When folk say it's unwritten they mean there isn't a single golden document entombed at Westminster that folk can point to and say "This right here is the constitution." Instead it's the accumulation of acts and decisions of the centuries to which is now added the latest Supreme Court judgement.
Click to expand...

So it’s the ever evolving latest version of the law of the land. Ok. Makes sense.

Good idea thinking about it.
 
mancan92 said:
Gonna be honest I've heard and had at this point hundreds of conversations with leavers and non have presented anything that even resembles a coherent argument. Either they use the same lies as before or completely ignore all reason and logic and say they just feel it will be good.
Click to expand...

We voted to Leave!

Just get on with it!

That seems to be their argument as to why they want to leave.
 
Virgil said:
On an associated issue but far removed from the general I'm right you are wrong thrust of the threads so far. I wonder if tomorrow Johnson will seek to prorogue parliament for 4 or 5 days using the argument of needing to hold a party conference. If he were to do so I wonder how it could legitimately be objected to given that the Lib Dems and the Labour party have already held theirs.

Silly me. Should not have used the term prorogue. It would be calling a recess for 4 or 5 days.
Click to expand...
For recess, He’d have to win a vote. Doubt he’ll win that vote.
 
sammsky1 said:
So it’s the ever evolving latest version of the law of the land. Ok. Makes sense.

Good idea thinking about it.
Click to expand...

It is and all this drama is just exactly how such a system should work in practice.

You only have to look to the US or dare i say religion to see why one true document is a bad idea.
 
We're back in the "Irish border is a made up problem to keep us in the EU" territory :lol:
 
vidic blood & sand said:
The government's objection is that they would obviously see it as a step towards the unification of Ireland.
Click to expand...

Well there doesn't appear to be any other solution if the UK leave the EU. A choice they may have to make or accept the backstop until a realistic solution is found some time in the future.
 
sammsky1 said:
If it’s unwritten, whose job is it to remember it? And why if they forget a few words.

I’m being serious!
Click to expand...

Yes I know you are and I apologise for the previous flippant answer.

I suspect its to do with the origins of how we are ruled. When King John was forced to sign the MC it was the begining of a written constitution, but that's are far as it got because he and the other nobles realised the value of precedent, because they could set it, they kept it and referred everything back to the Crown.
We like to think of ourselves as UK Citizens and in many senses we are, but officially we are all "Subjects" of HM, i.e. its HM's Prime Minister, HM's Government, HM's Parliament, HM's Courts, Judges, etc. therefore an unwritten constitution favours a situation were the masses are subject to going where they are pushed, based on precedence set by their lord and masters... well something like that anyway, is why we don't have a written Constitution!
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes I know you are and I apologise for the previous flippant answer.

I suspect its to do with the origins of how we are ruled. When King John was forced to sign the MC it was the begining of a written constitution, but that's are far as it got because he and the other nobles realised the value of precedent, because they could set it, they kept it and referred everything back to the Crown.
We like to think of ourselves as UK Citizens and in many senses we are, but officially we are all "Subjects" of HM, i.e. its HM's Prime Minister, HM's Government, HM's Parliament, HM's Courts, Judges, etc. therefore an unwritten constitution favours a situation were the masses are subject to going where they are pushed, based on precedence set by their lord and masters... well something like that anyway, is why we don't have a written Constitution!
Click to expand...
thanks for the explanation!
 
I was singing this earlier and thinking of making a meme. Someone beat me to it! :lol:

 
WensleyMU said:
Simple question.

Did the judges require the evidence, which included a number of experts on both sides to put forward their respective cases before being able to make their judgement.

If the answer is yes, then the judges relied on the testimony and expert knowledge of those putting the case before them.

If not, then they may as well call themselves Dredd.

It's a simple question. One that should have a simple answer.

To assist those struggling to grasp this basic concept, imagine that it was a jury, and not the judge making the judgement.

Are juries experts too?

Oh, and as today set a precedent, my views were based on the previous precedent.
Click to expand...
You're through the looking glass now old chap. This is an extraordinary piece of pedantic drivel that, even by your impressively high standards of obtuse wummery, is ludicrous.
Why do you do this? What is the pleasure you derive from such dogma inspired pedantic chuntering? Do you think it helps you drive home the, occasionally well though out though to my mind mostly incorrect, opinions that you choose to bury under this nonsense? I stopped even trying to talk to you weeks ago because of this. Please stop.
 
Rumoured that Boris Johnson is under pressure to sack Wensley.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Easier to change, easier to move with the times, easier to obfuscate.
Click to expand...

It's actually not true. You probably know it but customary law is very difficult to change, more difficult than written law because the latter has a clear legislative process while the former can only die with time and ignorance.
 
Djemba-Djemba said:
We voted to Leave!

Just get on with it!

That seems to be their argument as to why they want to leave.
Click to expand...

I have found the exact opposite. I have listened to many well formed arguments that have given me food for thought as a remainer.

I find it ironic though that individuals on the left side of the political spectrum question the intellect /decisions of the leave voters with very similar arguments that the privileged few used in 19 century England to deny the working man the vote for so long.

Personally I find it very sad reading the comments in both the Daily Mail and the Guardian at the amount of disrespect and lack of compromise individuals have for an opinion and ideal outside their own bubble.

In one sentence a left leaning person/remainer can castigate Boris Johnson for being undemocratic and then go on to suggest article 50 should be revoked.

On the right they are equally as bad in wanting Farage to become PM forgetting the convenient fact that he has yet to gain a majority to even be an MP.

In the middle there are the majority - people like me thinking why are people so extreme in their views. There is good and bad in both leave and remain but some having nailed their colours to the mast seem unable to shift their views even into a compromise position.

It has become a battle and a very, very unpleasant one that is waging in public and in the corridors of power.
 
K13 said:
I have found the exact opposite. I have listened to many well formed arguments that have given me food for thought as a remainer.

I find it ironic though that individuals on the left side of the political spectrum question the intellect /decisions of the leave voters with very similar arguments that the privileged few used in 19 century England to deny the working man the vote for so long.

Personally I find it very sad reading the comments in both the Daily Mail and the Guardian at the amount of disrespect and lack of compromise individuals have for an opinion and ideal outside their own bubble.

In one sentence a left leaning person/remainer can castigate Boris Johnson for being undemocratic and then go on to suggest article 50 should be revoked.

On the right they are equally as bad in wanting Farage to become PM forgetting the convenient fact that he has yet to gain a majority to even be an MP.

In the middle there are the majority - people like me thinking why are people so extreme in their views. There is good and bad in both leave and remain but some having nailed their colours to the mast seem unable to shift their views even into a compromise position.

It has become a battle and a very, very unpleasant one that is waging in public and in the corridors of power.
Click to expand...

Care to share any?

I'm not doubting you, I just haven't heard any myself.
 
Grinner said:
Wensley is banned from this thread for pedantic wumming. A lesson on the judiciary and how laws work is not needed.
Click to expand...

I know you have a job to do but I was enjoying reading his threads. I understood the point he was making and it was very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.