Guardian said:
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
There is no comparison between the British press and French press - When I left the Uk the tabloids were called the gutter press , now they've sunk into the sewers and below.
In France if they criticise politicians , everyone gets it and tend to be much less biased.
If I buy a newspaper in France or read it online its full of actual news, local, regional , national and international.
TV shows are fairly neutral as well even if they give all politicians a hard time and discussion programmes tend to have people who actually know what they are talking about.
It's so refreshing.
Of course the dregs of Facebook and such like sadly permeate society.
This is exactly what it's been.
I think they will end up having to go this way as well - but you currently have MP's saying labour will (not them as individuals) respect the will of the first referendum and others saying labour will campaign to remain in a 2nd referendum - they genuinley need to sort that out asap as the confusion will overshadow their other messages
No, they just sacked everyone who didn’t agree. Democracy and all that.
And your hero is a 70 year old who still thinks it's the 1960s and doesn't know if he's Remain or Leave
Who benefits by Labour contesting LibDem/Tory marginals? Tories and Brexiteers. Are Labour offering to not contest those LibDem/Tory marginals or should Lib Dems just bend over to Labour just because? Hilarious rationale
There's nothing bizarre about a Remain party wanting to revoke. There's everything bizarre about a party that wants to be seen as Remain, while they plan to renegotiate for an indefinite amount of time and put the result on a referendum with the leadership presumably backing Leave. While they plan to contest hopeless marginals too. You're either the Soft Brexit party or the Remain party. If you're the former, don't expect freebies from Remain parties. Simples.
Last edited:
Eat your heart out, Bill Hicks.
It cannot be proved that it is being used as a political tool, only a speculation that this is the intention, and BJ has refuted this by quoting his right as a new PM to begin a new session of Parliament after the longest period of sitting in four hundred years. Therefore in so much as prorogation (by precedent) is in the gift/command of the Government of the day, regardless of its lack of a majority, and the request has been agreed by the Queen on that basis, then its distinctly arguable that no actual law has been broken. If as a result of this judgement (for the future and via this precedent) that the courts have the right to interpret what is in the PM's mind when he/she makes a request for prorogation, then future Governments are likely to experience problems, not just with prorogation, but with the concept that judges can via law interpret what a PM decides to do on any given matter where they perceive s/he may not be telling the truth. If that is the case then Politics (as we know it Jim) is dead!
Politics, as we know it may already be dead, but we haven't really noticed yet!
It doesn't need to be proved. It's not happening regularly, nor would it be in the governments interest for it to happen so. Whether he used it as a political tool or not, it's not likely to be done again or at all regularly. And if it is, the courts may adjudicate. If there is evidence there that he has a abused power, then yes they can. This isn't a new concept or precedent though; not sure why you think it is.
This is a specific case of lying to advise on a prerogative power to undermine a 'central pillar' of our democracy, which is why it's being challenged.
The post I quoted said justiciability spoke to the "legality of an act as defined by that law."
And not a particularly nuanced summary, but worth a good
.See my post above. (58230) - The judgement considered there is enough evidence of dishonesty to rule for the appellant.
If the reasons for the decision were based upon legitimate political considerations, including a desire to see that Brexit occurs, they would not be challengeable. However, that is not the contention. [51]The contention is that the reasons which have been proffered by the PM in public (to prepare for a new legislative programme and to cover the period of the party conferences) are not the true ones. The real reason, it is said, is to stymie Parliamentary scrutiny of Government action. Since such scrutiny is a central pillar of the good governance principle which is enshrined in the constitution, the decision cannot be seen as a matter of high policy or politics. It is one which attempts to undermine that pillar. As such, if demonstrated to be true, it would be unlawful. This is not because of the terms of the Claim of Right 1689 or of any speciality of Scots constitutional law, it follows from the application of the common law, informed by applying “the principles ofdemocracy and the rule of law” (Moohan v Lord Advocate2015 SC (UKSC) 1, Lord Hodge at para [35]). The terms of the Claim of Right are not breached simply because Parliament does not sit for a month or so. Parliament has, throughout the year, been allowed to sit.
I'm assuming there is enough proof there as it's not something 3 such senior judges would usually fail on, and the case is going to rest on what I said in the above post, as well as a water fight around what the 'good governance principle' is.
I really want to hear from Barber and King on this; after the Miller case, they suggested that the executive [and tabloids etc] were heavily leaning on the judiciary to find in favour of them in brexit related cases, and that the Judiciary would hold their ground.
Yes, that sounds like t e crux of the matter.
Couple of points:
1. Even though it’s blatently obvious and everyone knows that BJ prorogued parliament to limit discussions on BrExit, it’s seems impossible to prove unless he admits it. So this would be ‘the opinion’ of the court, rather than a slam dunk evidence based decision.
2. Even if the above is true, has an existing law been broken? I can’t see it.
Johnson refused to sign an affidavit (for the Scottish court) stating that he didn't lie to the Queen.
About a third, 1.8m. Still disproportionate GDP to population though, pretty sure it's one of the worst examples of a primate city in the world, actually!
Are you ok MadMike ?Who benefits by Labour contesting LibDem/Tory marginals? Tories and Brexiteers. Are Labour offering to not contest those LibDem/Tory marginals or should Lib Dems just bend over to Labour just because? Hilarious rationale
The Lib Dems are a 3rd party, not as you seem to be suggesting a political party that can win a majority in a election. So with that in mind, the only way the UK can remain in the EU is for the The Labour Party to do well in the coming election and then putting forward another referendum(For the millionth time there is no stop brexit button) . The Lib Dems splitting the vote and causing Labour Remain MP to lose isn't helpful. Also if the Lib Dems were smart they would see stepping down as a way keep as many Remain(Most likely liberal) MPs in the Party if Labour/Corbyn do poorly in the next election.
Christ they can't even see what is in their own best interest.
So the people vote marches were a completely waste of time for you then ? Oh god we are going to lose another referendum aren't we.
Last edited:
Well it wasn't meant to and I don't think it did but I can see how what I wrote could be confused. What I was trying to say was that Justiciability speaks to the "extent of the law" and it's only once justiciability is established that the frames of reference exist within which an act can be deemed legal or illegal by a court. Basically, justiciability is the right to judge and this is separate from the rectitude of any specific judgment. So even if the Supreme Court finds in the governments favour in this specific instance the Court of Session wants a precedent to remain that doubts about a prorogation's length and rationale are sufficient grounds for judicial relief.
Yeah (I've read it n'all by the way). I can see their point and their argument for justiciability seems particularly persuasive with regards to principles of good governance and rationality. I agree that if it is determined that a government prorogued parliament to avoid scrutiny then a court should indeed be able to annul it. That precedent should absolutely be set and I would hope that the Supreme Court does so regardless of if it finds for the government in the current matter.
With regards to that matter the Court of Session is essentially arguing that the length of the prorogation is inconsistent with the government's stated intent and that in the absence of further justification the court should infer an ulterior motive. It finds those motives to have been aired by Mogg and other members of the Cabinet in the not so distant past and also infers them from the situation in which prorogation was announced (ie the immediacy of Brexit). It also infers them from the secrecy with which the government planned the prorogation and the lies it appears to have communicated to the petitioners in the run up to the case being heard. That's all very plausible and it's also my opinion that it's true. It certainly seems more plausible than having a 35 day prorogation on grounds that usually take less than 10 to complete. In fact the more I write the more convinced I am it might stick it's just that I'm not (and thank feck) the Supreme Court. I do think that the Supreme Court would require a case against the government to be compelling before it moves to undermine a prerogative power and I'm not certain it won't require direct proof to be that bar.
I thought the shtick was about going back to the mid 1970's ?And your hero is a 70 year old who still thinks it's the 1960s and doesn't know if he's Remain or Leave
Come on Paul its only just past lunch time.
Not sure why some are ''celebrating'' the encounter as it looks like she believed him in the end.
Oh I'm fine, I'm just in stitches with your hilarious posts.
The best way to ensure Remain is to get a large Lib Dem membership in HoC that actually fights to remain, unlike Labour. If Labour want to actually win an election, all they have to do is ditch the most unpopular opposition leader in British politics history and change their tune. Rather than expect Lib Dems to stand aside and throw a hissy when they don't.
Christ they can't even see what is in their own best interest
EDIT: It's really amusing how Lib Dems splitting the remain vote is not OK, but Labour doing the same thing is. What has Corbynism done to your brain, poor lad?
Very original and hugely amusing, keep it up.
Others say that, no it was the mess of the late 1960s that caused the problems of the early to mid 1970s
I think that if they do find it justiciable, the evidence is plenty compelling. I'm ever so slowly inching to predicting a ruling against the government. Though I do think they may say something like 'but we can't unprorogue or punish him, you politicians need to impeach.'
He's quite stuck up for someone from that Southern powerhouse of Sheffield isn't he?
I think at this point trying to second guess what the courts may decide is impossible.
Yeah it’s times like this that the bullshit in the British press comes to the fore. Normally, you’re aware of it, but can except it.....because you ignore it. When you’re aware it’s having an impact on so many voters it’s very frustrating
Doesn't look at all like that to me.
Yeah I might be wrong on this. It just looks like at around the 1.40 minute mark there some doubt in her. Plus the whole - ''I hope your right''. (Not saying Boris won her over to vote tory or anything that serious)
She also seemed to coherent to be from Doncaster. For example, shouldn't she be on Spice? Social media tells me Doncasters population are on a diet of Spice and despair to the theme of Michael Jackson's Thriller.
Not to be taken literally btw, in case anyone was wondering. Doncasters a great place to pass through while sleeping on the train.
Not to be taken literally btw, in case anyone was wondering. Doncasters a great place to pass through while sleeping on the train.
Sounds about right. I come from not far away and it’s always been a shithole. They have a decent swimming pool and ice rink though in their defense.
The Tory's are going to create a new minister position titled "Minister for protecting the British way of life" apparently.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Vote Labour.
And your hero is a 70 year old who still thinks it's the 1960s and doesn't know if he's Remain or Leave
Lets hear it for the TOGs!...Do I come here often?
The best thing about it is the train station, and that's not totally in jest...
'England prevails!'
Also, are you actually from Stamford Bridge as in near York? Used to drive past it all the time on the A1079 when I was at Uni in Hull and would visit my friends at York. Always thought it was random that it was a real place and Chelsea named their ground after it.
Putting aside the whole Labour don't actually want to go back in time. You could really be talking about anything right here(Please god don't tell me your not talking about the introduction of speed limits), so whatever I guess.
Hopefully this means us Brits get our Lebensraum, I quite fancy a chateau in the south of France.
After further digging to find a link to the story, seems someone was playing tricks. It was actually the EU, not the Tory Party and the position was Protecting European way of life.