Shouldn't the title be changed to Berc in again?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Did he say he's leaving at the next GE or the 31st of October, whichever comes first?
Yeah but he's back for now.
When he does go it will be interesting to see how the house now votes for/decides on, a 'neutral speaker'...maybe we should hold a public (Will of the People) referendum?
Don't laugh, the rest of this parliament will lead to even more precedents being set, some of which will change parliament and thereby our unwritten constitution forever... well until we decide to write one that is!
Now who could we ask to write it...Gina Miller perhaps? Would save her millions in lawyers fees if she can, not only seek to uphold the Constitution, but write it as well!
What are you even rambling about?
Sorry - I wasn't implying a criticism of Ms Phillips or her statements (far from it). I just wrote the past badly.
Just don’t get this. For years I have listened to defenders of our unwritten constitution, mostly Tories, bang on about how flexible it is and adaptable to new circumstances. Well here it is, adapting away to all these new circumstances, and the Tories keep crying about it. I wish they would make their fecking minds up. (For what it is worth, I support wholesale constitutional reform and a written constitution)
I feel @Maticmaker is conflating constitutional change with that of parliamentary precedent/procedure.
The constitution is doing just fine. Working as intended.
@nickm Why do you feel that a written constitution suits us more than an adaptive one based on common law?
The constitution is doing just fine. Working as intended.
@nickm Why do you feel that a written constitution suits us more than an adaptive one based on common law?
@nickm Why do you feel that a written constitution suits us more than an adaptive one based on common law?[/QUOTE]
Look around.
1) because we need a new constitutional arrangement to prevent the break up of the UK. Time to write the bloody rules down
2) the flaky lack of explicit rules around the referendum is how we got into this mess
3) the lack of understanding of how our country works, because who fecking knows apart from a few members of the establishment, is fuelling the mob
I used to think constitutional reform was a matter for nerds. But the way things are going, there is nothing more important than having clear rules that everyone understands.
Look around.
1) because we need a new constitutional arrangement to prevent the break up of the UK. Time to write the bloody rules down
2) the flaky lack of explicit rules around the referendum is how we got into this mess
3) the lack of understanding of how our country works, because who fecking knows apart from a few members of the establishment, is fuelling the mob
I used to think constitutional reform was a matter for nerds. But the way things are going, there is nothing more important than having clear rules that everyone understands.
Look around.
1) because we need a new constitutional arrangement to prevent the break up of the UK. Time to write the bloody rules down
2) the flaky lack of explicit rules around the referendum is how we got into this mess
3) the lack of understanding of how our country works, because who fecking knows apart from a few members of the establishment, is fuelling the mob
I used to think constitutional reform was a matter for nerds. But the way things are going, there is nothing more important than having clear rules that everyone understands.[/QUOTE]
on point 1. I believe Brexit is far more crucial than the constitution in the medium term to that aim. No deal and breaking the gfa will go a long way to breaking up the Union.
on point 2. A constitution would not generally define referendum rules.
3. I believe the point has merit. A clear rule set may help. However it also has significant downside.
A written constitution will not solve any of these problems, this whole farce just proves that we need the ability to adapt to prevent abuse.
Anyway what i came to post:
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
Anyway what i came to post:
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
On 1) I think you are right the horse has bolted on this, but I wonder if we’d had a different, less Westminster and London centric politics longer ago, perhaps more of a federal UK with the structure more clearly defined (ie written down) whether this might have reduced the pressures and nationalisms that have fuelled Brexit.
2) they can and in Ireland I believe, it does. Up to the writers of the constitution to define the role of referendums in the political process, what they are for etc, so we don’t end up with confusion. Eg The lack of clarity of the constitutional role of the Brexit vote is how we’ve ended up with an advisory referendum splitting the country and causing a crises between whether it’s the referendum or parliament that decides stuff.
3) I think the People, if they are genuinely sovereign, must know how that sovereignty is expressed in practise.
A written constitution will not solve any of these problems, this whole farce just proves that we need the ability to adapt to prevent abuse.
Anyway what i came to post:
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
The Telegraph is propaganda rag now and they make no pretence of it.
A written constitution will not solve any of these problems, this whole farce just proves that we need the ability to adapt to prevent abuse.
Anyway what i came to post:
The former is the government begging for help and surely undermines this whole argument that we need to pretend we're absolutely ready or they won't deal. Also jesus fecking christ let's hope we block no deal.
The latter is extraordinary, not only a former journalist denouncing the telegraph but the guy who was chancellor just a few month ago quoting the telegraph comments section
I mean the four current headlines on telegraph.co.uk read:
- Boris Johnson: I will spend £13bn and build 40 new hospitals
- Boris Johnson interview: 'Surrender Act? More like the Abject Capitulation Act'
- Boris Johnson reveals £5bn broadband bonanza
- Rich or poor, everyone will benefit from Boris Johnson’s tax cuts
They might as well hire Steve Bannon as chief editor at this point.
His interview this morning was astonishing. Pretty much spent the entire time deflecting with "but Labour...", Nothing to declare about his feck buddy Arcuri and how it's all just an attack on him, plus refused to say if he apologized to the Queen. The man is just an utterly pompous twat of the highest order.
Not sure how you mean conflate in this instance?
As Parliament is one of the three Pillars of our current Constitution, then precedents set in the context of how procedures etc are arrived at and carried out in Parliament and how they are taken forward in future, would I assume ultimately affect any unwritten Constitution that is based on Precedence. This may especially be true as the linkage between Executive/Parliament/Judiciary now seems to becoming more tenuous, in a political sense, the longer this apparent 'Mexican standoff' between Parliament and the Executive, continues.
Possibly the law of unintended consequences may apply further down the road (along with the now famous Brexit tin can) perhaps ?
I have no particular expertise in these matters just applying what seems common sense; however if you do posses such expertise I will bow to your superior knowledge
Yes of course, the Tories see themselves as the natural party of Government in the UK, for centuries they and their predecessors have been the main 'precedent setters' they have been (even when out of power) in control. It has suited them in the past to be able to what in effect amounts to making it up as you go!
Even attempting to produce a written Constitution would shine light in places that many people would not want exposed. This is why the current situation is so dangerous in upsetting the status quo, across the UK, i.e. because precedent setting in all three branches of the Constitution, the Executive/Parliament/Judiciary is now a runaway horse, and nobody really knows how to chase it down and stop it.
I disagree with Boris in a lot of what he says (stuff and nonsense in many cases) but he is right about one thing, that Brexit has to be settled now, at least the principle, before even greater forces are unleashed that no one will be able to control. In terms of necessary evils, I suspect many would prefer a decade of renegotiating trade deals with the EU, to a decade of stagnation, political infighting, 'the country going to hell in a hand cart' etc.
You mean like exposing their taxes and hidden money and showing them up to be the Wild West medicine salesmen that they are?
Something like that, the grip on power is the main issue how that is maintained no matter what Government and incidentally it doesn't just effect out and out Tories, there are many fellow travellers. Also the whole issue of people being 'subjects' rather than' citizens', the list is endless. Attempts to draw up a written Constitution would have to first of all 'unearth' a great deal of what has been in play for centuries, before it could even begin to consider how to move forward.
Republicanism is waiting in the wings... Oooh, don't frighten the children!
Bannon would be too subtle. Though the "Europe blowing itself up" will just be the same one they've published every single month for the last 15 years, that's nothing new. But the cult they've created around Boris is insane. Worst thing is, I know it works on their readers.
Not sure how you mean conflate in this instance?
As Parliament is one of the three Pillars of our current Constitution, then precedents set in the context of how procedures etc are arrived at and carried out in Parliament and how they are taken forward in future, would I assume ultimately affect any unwritten Constitution that is based on Precedence. This may especially be true as the linkage between Executive/Parliament/Judiciary now seems to becoming more tenuous, in a political sense, the longer this apparent 'Mexican standoff' between Parliament and the Executive, continues.
Possibly the law of unintended consequences may apply further down the road (along with the now famous Brexit tin can) perhaps ?
I have no particular expertise in these matters just applying what seems common sense; however if you do posses such expertise I will bow to your superior knowledge
We're just 2 mates debating random stuff. Don't worry about it
As I understand it, the constitution underpins the sovereignty of parliament, not how it conducts its business. If parliament chose to dance around a dead goat whilst enacting new laws, that would be hella weird, but not constitutionally significant. It's simply the internal processes of the house.
A constitutional shift would for example be if the judiciary decided they could strike down laws enacted by parliament, or if the executive could prorogue parliament indefinitely.
The prorogation example is a good one to illustrate the trichotomy of governance, and how the constitution underpins it.
The executive have the right to wield certain prerogative powers.
Parliament have a right to scrutinise and hold the executive to account.
The courts have the right through judicial review to decide the limits of certain executive powers IF those powers cause constitutional upset to the balance of power.
By using a prerogative power to prorogue for 5 weeks, the executive sought to stymie the power of parliament. (hence causing a constitutional problem)
Parliament was therefore effectively neutered, so asked the judiciary to intervene (hence causing a constitutional dilemma)
The judiciary had to decide whether the use of prorogation as a prerogative power was justiciable (Declaring within their power the right to limit the prerogative power of prorogation.)
Outcome : Based on the law and the underpinnings of the constitution, they decided it was justiciable to protect parliament. In doing so, they 'pushed' further into what 200 years ago would have been the 'absolute' power of the executive.
Parliament now have the ability to legislate when the courts can get involved in the issue in future, as they can determine the limits of a lawful prorogation. However in the initial instance, they were unable to do so. The constitution was stretched but worked well.
Where our setup/constitution is a bit strange, is executive powers are intimate to parliament, not separated. This is to say, in the current very weird situation, the executive is completely neutered as it does not control parliament. This is what makes the above case possible yet so rare, we have an executive that cannot control parliament as it simply doesn't have the numbers.
The obvious answer to this would be an immediate general election, but to make things worse, the clock is running on a major international treaty. I do think an answer to this would possibly be a compulsory government of unity or some sort of 'caretaker executive' so we're not in the ridiculous situation of legislating for a prime minister to take action that he is diametrically opposed to.
1) agree, though with a more federated government, the constitution would have needed to be flipped on its head as opposed to simply rewritten. You couldn't have parliamentary sovereignty in Westminster and co-equal partners elsewhere.
2) It can be defined into law without constitutional change. The 2011 referendum was for example. I'd posit that the lack of clarity was in the referendum question itself, and that it was the self serving idiots serving it up that screwed the pooch on that one. Absolute clarity in law would have been an outstanding idea though, as well as limitations. Not a constitutional issue though.
3) Yes and no. If you read my remarks to the above poster [in this post] you'll likely see a few of my objections to a written constitution. Stuff like 'what's appropriate now, may not be in 200 years.' How would you approach the union for example? We see the 2nd amendment in the US isn't serving them particularly well now. And remember the constitution simply underpins the institutions of governance. It's not going to fix for example, brexit, or even to address such an extremely unusual situation. To me it's done a really good job though.
Ps. apologies to everybody waiting for a reply from me, and for my short responses lately. It is not a lack of patience or unwillingness to discuss points. I'm simply travelling heavily this week. (And have another 3 days of it to go)
Have fun at the conference, Boris.
Aha! You've been discovered! No further questions your honour.
feck, you got me.
Coinex this weekend! Who would visit a tory conference over that???
We're just 2 mates debating random stuff. Don't worry about it
Fair enough!
Surely how and in what manner Parliament conducts its business is consequential to its retaining/enacting that sovereignty? Dancing around dead goats notwithstanding, many would argue that its the Will of the People expressed through Parliament, that is sovereign not Parliament itself?
The principle of precedence i.e. the right of preceding others, etc. of taking previous outcomes as an example, or rule, must be fundamental to how Parliament operates and conducts its business in the future, hence changes to these operations/practices made in the present day and accepted by the sitting parliament will presumably lay the trail for future Parliaments (including Speakers) to act in accordance.
This the Supreme Court has now found by 11-0 judgement, to be unlawful. What is not clear though, which was prominent in the judgement was it the length of time i.e. five weeks, or the attempt, by prorogation, to stymie the power of Parliament, regardless of the time frame? This would seem to be a precedent that in future could limit prorogation, either by the time span used and/or or by the intention of the prorogation and it would seem to be something that in future is no longer an issue that needs to bother HM?
I am right in thinking that until the judgement by the Supreme Court that what Boris did was not considered unlawful, or shall we say, no precedent had been set, even though previous PM's had prorogued Parliament for political considerations, i.e. John Major (1990's) stymied discussions on the cash for questions affair? It would seem from this judgement that the reason for a PM/Executive to seek, by prorogation, to stymie the scrutiny of parliament is important and this is what carries the weight of the decision. Therefore preventing Parliament from scrutiny of legislation by means of prorogation is now a definite 'no, no'.
What specific underpinnings (in an unwritten Constitution) are you referring to ? Also can you explain just what definitions of 'justiciable' they used related to the protection of parliament?
Presumably having 'broken the ice' so to speak, the Supreme Court will now seek to further push into the 'absolute' power of the executive. If they do so will it be something they take unto themselves or wait for/or react to challenges made in the lower courts by rich individuals (Mrs Miller for exanple).
What was Sir Gerald Nabarro's famous words "British Justice is the best in the World if you can afford it"!
Sorrow for all these questions, but I find this Constitution thing fascinating.
Javid masters irony:
Crooks.
Government won't hold inquiry into hedge funds speculating on no-deal Brexit
Government won't hold inquiry into hedge funds speculating on no-deal Brexit
UK solution to avoiding a hard border is to have 2 hard borders but NOT at the border. Genius.
As always, it's about money.
Presumably with a little area in between known as the DMZ. Maybe we can get advice from North and South Korea about it.
its like Boris is putting forward suggestions to just show he’s suggesting things even though they are completely unworkable (fantasy land stuff) and will be laughed at by the EU and Ireland
Well yeah... But then he will blame them for no deal which was probably the intention all along
Also some manuals you can get from the former German Democratic Republic.
I’m just amazed he hasn’t suggested building a wall yet.
He's thinking about it. The EU can pay for it? (He knows that the cunning Mexicans won't pay for it.)
Jo Swinson - 'Barbarism please'.
Yes of course (you are getting the hang of it now)! Boris keeps posing questions to the EU where the only answer from them has to be 'in the negative'.
However Boris's questions appear to be new ones, in other words he's attempting to demonstrate (at least to the UK audience) that he is taking the initiative in trying to break the log-jam, whereas the EU's only questions to him are the old tired ones they trotted out to Theresa May, "show us your plan", something the UK public is tired of hearing now. Remember most people don't read beyond the headlines!
Those old enough to remember will recall the reaction here to General De Gaulle's consistent "non" to UK's entry into the Common Market in the late sixties and early seventies and later to EU President Jacque Delore's negative response to the UK rebate issue, the current situation is shaping up nicely for Boris... who says precedence is a load of bunkum!
Incredible stuff.