| Prorogation 10:44 - Sep 24 with 13158 views | waynekerr55 |
Illegal. Will Boris resign? |  |
| |  |
| Prorogation on 13:11 - Sep 26 with 1098 views | waynekerr55 |
| Prorogation on 11:07 - Sep 26 by GreatBritton |
That's it. I can't stop myself. I have to offer something on this pitiful thread.
Planet Swans has some fine minds; it also has some of the stupidest, least literate, bigoted, ignorant minds (if that's not too grand a word) I have ever encountered. It is no suprise to me that the latter category favour crashing out of the EU.
It is not about party loyalties either. Two at least of the fine minds hold allegiances diametrically opposed to my own. I respect the cogency of their arguments, if not their party allegiances. What grates on my sensitivities like an angle grinder on a testicle is the utter balderdash and personal vituperation of the thickos.
Rant paused pro tem. |
Have an up arrow for the excellent use of vituperation | |
| |
| Prorogation on 23:00 - Sep 26 with 1018 views | DJack |
| Prorogation on 13:11 - Sep 26 by waynekerr55 |
Have an up arrow for the excellent use of vituperation |
Have a down arrow for not having to google the word...  |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| Prorogation on 09:07 - Sep 27 with 944 views | Kerouac |
Dr. Sheila Lawlor;
(Dr Sheila Lawlor is Director of Politeia where she directs the social and economic policy programme and is by background an academic historian. She has published many books and pamphlets, most recently Deal, No Deal? The Battle for Britain’s Democracy.)
"The orchestrated attack against the Prime Minister’s decision to move on ahead with the Government’s programme and a Queen’s speech after the annual conference recess reveals, once again, the lengths to which those who lost the 2016 referendum will go to stop the democratic decision of voters in 2016 and again in 2017 from being put into effect. The real outrage is not that Boris Johnson is moving decisively to honour his predecessor’s pledge to voters to leave the EU, deal or no deal, repeated in the Conservative manifesto and endorsed by an Act of Parliament; nor that he intends to tackle the ambitious programme for economic and social regeneration for which the country cries out. Rather, there is cause for genuine outrage that the last government ducked and weaved on its duty to do these things, and that Remain-backing MPs ganged up in a parliamentary dictatorship under the Speaker to defy the electorate and call the shots. Those now protesting against the limited extension to Parliament’s normal three-week conference recess for the prorogation before the Queen’s Speech have from the outset sought to obstruct or reverse the people’s decision to leave the EU. It need hardly be added that they are mostly Opposition MPs, a handful of Tory rebels, and the usual contingent of fringe opposition parties, with plenty of noise on the streets from the anti-democratic militants on whom such parties can call to threaten the fabric of democracy. Despite the fact that the authority of these MPs comes from the people, they have used their office to frustrate the legitimate workings of democracy, and to violate the very constitution, under which they were elected. We have to look back more than a century to find a similar parliamentary attempt to prevent the express wish of the people from being executed. In 1909-1910 the House of Lords tried to veto the then Liberal Government’s Budget, the heart of its radical reforms providing for new social security and pension schemes. Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day, defeated the move by threatening to flood the Lords with his own nominees. By contrast today’s anti-democratic MPs have, until now, been been allowed to get away with their unconstitutional obstruction of voters’ authority. Theresa May, many believed, started out with the best of intentions to see Britain’s interests through, deal or no deal. But good intentions were no substitute for ruthless determination to use the toolkit of government to do her duty and take Britain out of the EU, if necessary facing down the enemies of democracy, whether in the EU or in Parliament. Instead, having gone along with EU agenda and approach in negotiations with Brussels, she then tried to appease Brexit’s opponents in the Commons and finally colluded with them against Brexit, in favour of a deal that compromised the UK’s sovereignty, kept the county in an EU customs union, subject to its laws and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Boris Johnson, by contrast, has understood the fundamental truth of Britain’s unwritten constitution. The authority to exercise political power comes from the people. So it has been for as long as history records, as long as people recorded the struggles in parish and country, in Parliament and in law; and to maintain that freedom, Parliaments and MPs, monarchs and governments have ultimately had to bow to the people’s will. The most dramatic example of this in recent centuries was the repeal of the Corn Laws — in the early decades of the 19th century, people formed leagues and societies and campaigned for the repeal of the duties, really a tax on imported corn, that kept up the price of bread, then a staple food on which the working men and women of Britain fed their families and themselves. Ultimately, a Tory Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, gave way to that demand, and did so against the vested interests of landowners and the protests by MPs in his own party. Though he heads a Conservative government, Boris Johnson is no more a partisan Prime Minister than Peel, who repealed the Corn Laws to execute the people’s will. He knows now is no time to appease the treachery of MPs and Brexit’s opponents. Institutional order has always mattered. Even at the height of World War Two, the King’s Speech took place each year, to announce the programme for the current year: not just that armed struggle would continue to preserve freedom at home and restore it abroad, but also other measures that victory would make possible — an education system for all, universal social insurance and land reform. The King’s Speech was a symbol of his people’s determination to see the war through, as the means to a better end. Johnson must therefore persist. Until he gets Brexit done, the people of this country will remain deprived of their constitutional right to determine how they are governed and by whom. Instead MPs will have usurped that power to undermine people’s right. And the EU’s leaders, rubbing their hands on the sidelines in Brussels, will crack on with their plans to chain the UK economy to its customs union, its laws, and to the European Court of Justice for which politics comes before freedom." |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 09:15 - Sep 27 with 933 views | ItchySphincter |
| Prorogation on 09:07 - Sep 27 by Kerouac |
Dr. Sheila Lawlor;
(Dr Sheila Lawlor is Director of Politeia where she directs the social and economic policy programme and is by background an academic historian. She has published many books and pamphlets, most recently Deal, No Deal? The Battle for Britain’s Democracy.)
"The orchestrated attack against the Prime Minister’s decision to move on ahead with the Government’s programme and a Queen’s speech after the annual conference recess reveals, once again, the lengths to which those who lost the 2016 referendum will go to stop the democratic decision of voters in 2016 and again in 2017 from being put into effect. The real outrage is not that Boris Johnson is moving decisively to honour his predecessor’s pledge to voters to leave the EU, deal or no deal, repeated in the Conservative manifesto and endorsed by an Act of Parliament; nor that he intends to tackle the ambitious programme for economic and social regeneration for which the country cries out. Rather, there is cause for genuine outrage that the last government ducked and weaved on its duty to do these things, and that Remain-backing MPs ganged up in a parliamentary dictatorship under the Speaker to defy the electorate and call the shots. Those now protesting against the limited extension to Parliament’s normal three-week conference recess for the prorogation before the Queen’s Speech have from the outset sought to obstruct or reverse the people’s decision to leave the EU. It need hardly be added that they are mostly Opposition MPs, a handful of Tory rebels, and the usual contingent of fringe opposition parties, with plenty of noise on the streets from the anti-democratic militants on whom such parties can call to threaten the fabric of democracy. Despite the fact that the authority of these MPs comes from the people, they have used their office to frustrate the legitimate workings of democracy, and to violate the very constitution, under which they were elected. We have to look back more than a century to find a similar parliamentary attempt to prevent the express wish of the people from being executed. In 1909-1910 the House of Lords tried to veto the then Liberal Government’s Budget, the heart of its radical reforms providing for new social security and pension schemes. Herbert Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day, defeated the move by threatening to flood the Lords with his own nominees. By contrast today’s anti-democratic MPs have, until now, been been allowed to get away with their unconstitutional obstruction of voters’ authority. Theresa May, many believed, started out with the best of intentions to see Britain’s interests through, deal or no deal. But good intentions were no substitute for ruthless determination to use the toolkit of government to do her duty and take Britain out of the EU, if necessary facing down the enemies of democracy, whether in the EU or in Parliament. Instead, having gone along with EU agenda and approach in negotiations with Brussels, she then tried to appease Brexit’s opponents in the Commons and finally colluded with them against Brexit, in favour of a deal that compromised the UK’s sovereignty, kept the county in an EU customs union, subject to its laws and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Boris Johnson, by contrast, has understood the fundamental truth of Britain’s unwritten constitution. The authority to exercise political power comes from the people. So it has been for as long as history records, as long as people recorded the struggles in parish and country, in Parliament and in law; and to maintain that freedom, Parliaments and MPs, monarchs and governments have ultimately had to bow to the people’s will. The most dramatic example of this in recent centuries was the repeal of the Corn Laws — in the early decades of the 19th century, people formed leagues and societies and campaigned for the repeal of the duties, really a tax on imported corn, that kept up the price of bread, then a staple food on which the working men and women of Britain fed their families and themselves. Ultimately, a Tory Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, gave way to that demand, and did so against the vested interests of landowners and the protests by MPs in his own party. Though he heads a Conservative government, Boris Johnson is no more a partisan Prime Minister than Peel, who repealed the Corn Laws to execute the people’s will. He knows now is no time to appease the treachery of MPs and Brexit’s opponents. Institutional order has always mattered. Even at the height of World War Two, the King’s Speech took place each year, to announce the programme for the current year: not just that armed struggle would continue to preserve freedom at home and restore it abroad, but also other measures that victory would make possible — an education system for all, universal social insurance and land reform. The King’s Speech was a symbol of his people’s determination to see the war through, as the means to a better end. Johnson must therefore persist. Until he gets Brexit done, the people of this country will remain deprived of their constitutional right to determine how they are governed and by whom. Instead MPs will have usurped that power to undermine people’s right. And the EU’s leaders, rubbing their hands on the sidelines in Brussels, will crack on with their plans to chain the UK economy to its customs union, its laws, and to the European Court of Justice for which politics comes before freedom." |
Warra a load of old shit.
Funny as f*ck that leave won the vote, leave have so far kept us in and leave have now shat the bed.
Excellent. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 09:20 - Sep 27 with 925 views | Kerouac |
| Prorogation on 09:15 - Sep 27 by ItchySphincter |
Warra a load of old shit.
Funny as f*ck that leave won the vote, leave have so far kept us in and leave have now shat the bed.
Excellent. |
Look out, it's one of those anti-Brexit intellectuals. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 09:20 - Sep 27 with 924 views | WarwickHunt |
| Prorogation on 09:15 - Sep 27 by ItchySphincter |
Warra a load of old shit.
Funny as f*ck that leave won the vote, leave have so far kept us in and leave have now shat the bed.
Excellent. |
Sheila Lawlor.  |  | | |
| Prorogation on 09:27 - Sep 27 with 905 views | Kerouac |
| Prorogation on 09:20 - Sep 27 by WarwickHunt |
Sheila Lawlor. |
You seem to think mentioning someone's name and laughing should suffice as an argument.
Maybe I'm just "thick as mince" though 'ay. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 09:29 - Sep 27 with 900 views | Kerouac |
Lord Lilley;
(Peter Lilley is a former Conservative MP, representing St. Albans between 1983 and 1997, and Hitchin and Harpenden between 1997 and 2017. He has held a variety of ministerial and shadow ministerial roles, including serving in the Cabinet between 1990 and 1997 and as Shadow Chancellor and Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party in the late 1990s. He sat on the Exiting the European Union Select Committee between 2016 and 2017. He joined the House of Lords in June 2018.)
"The Supreme Court has ruled that the prorogation of Parliament was illegal. That is now the law so the Government must, and will, obey it — like we obey Acts of Parliament. But just as we can criticise an Act of Parliament, we are entitled to criticise this judge-made law. The issue of prorogation itself is of secondary importance. When the decision to prorogue Parliament was announced, I was at a dinner in France and everyone asked what it meant. I confessed I could not see what it achieved since it would not stop a rogue majority of MPs again passing an Act in two days to force the Government to postpone leaving the EU. True, it would stop Parliament meeting during the conference recess — but no-one had suggested that it should. Even though Parliament will now meet, it can achieve nothing that it could not do after 14th October. Indeed, Parliament will look pathetic if it meets during the conference recess but then refuses to call an election or hold a vote of confidence. This prorogation itself may not matter much, but the Supreme Court’s decision nonetheless raises disturbing issues. Who should make the law, on what basis, and to whom should those who make the law be accountable? In principle, new laws should be made by Parliament. MPs are then accountable if the voters dislike the laws they have passed. The role of the courts is to apply the law and assess evidence as to whether defendants have obeyed them. The courts have to interpret statutes, but they do so primarily according to the wording of the Act, not what the judges think the Act should have said. Common Law has developed on the basis of precedent: when the courts come across a new situation, they look for the principles inherent in previous related cases and apply those to the new situation. At least that used to be the position in this country. By contrast, the US Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights habitually develop new law derived not from statute or precedent, but from vague abstract principles. In practice this means that judges can make laws subjectively, often reflecting the zeitgeist in their milieu. Our judges, envious of their US and European counterparts, have increasingly adopted their approach — a process boosted by Tony Blair’s decision to set up a free-standing Supreme Court outside Parliament. Jonathan Sumption criticised this tendency in his Reith Lectures as did Hayek who warned (Principles or Expediency, P66 Law, Legislation and Liberty): “when a general philosophy of the law which is not in accord with the greater part of the existing law [gains] ascendancy… the same lawyers (who are normally rather conservative) become a revolutionary force as effective in transforming the law down to every detail as they were before in preserving it.” Judicial decisions depend less and less on statute or precedent and increasingly on judges’ subjective views. The noteworthy aspect of their ruling on prorogation is not its conclusion, but that it nowhere discusses either direct precedents or statute. No mention of John Major proroguing Parliament for 19 days preventing discussion of the ‘cash for questions’ report; nor prorogations in Canada and similar jurisdictions. No mention that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 explicitly stated that it did not curtail the prerogative to prorogue. Still less does it even discuss whether government has the duty to use all legitimate means to prevent Parliament thwarting the democratic decision of the sovereign people to leave the EU. The implications of this new approach are manifold. First, it undermines the principle that the law should be as clear and knowable as possible. So long as judges apply the words of the statute or draw on precedents, the person in the street usually gets a good idea what the law is. When it depends on judges’ subjective preferences, how can even a Prime Minister know what the law is until the judges pronounce? Indeed, according to the Supreme Court, even the English High Court judges got the law wrong a few weeks ago. Second, if judges make the law in line with their subjective preferences, the only people who can know the law in advance are those familiar with their personal views. By chance I recently spoke to a number of non-political friends who know several Supreme Court judges, all of whom had expressed strident disbelief that anyone could support Brexit. I duly warned colleagues that this negative judgement was almost inevitable despite highly-qualified lawyers assuring us that the High Court ruling would be upheld. Third, when the most senior judges feel free to make new law according to their own personal prejudices, their role inevitably becomes political. That is why the appointment of US Supreme Court judges is a critical political decision. This ruling is a dangerous step in that direction. Fourth, as judges move in that direction, respect for the judiciary and the law itself will be eroded. Britons expect their judges to apply the law impartially, not to be partisans of one political faction or another. In short, the Government must obey this ruling. But judge-made law should not be free from criticism. The court’s failure to consider recent statute or precedents is alarming in itself. But it is even more alarming as a symptom of judges taking upon themselves the right to derive new laws from vague and selected abstract principles. That can only lead to politicisation of judges, their selection on the basis of their political philosophy and the consequent loss of public respect for the judiciary and the law. Regardless of our views on prorogation or Brexit, we should all urge the judges to return to applying existing law not inventing it. Post script: As a Minister, I discovered how subjective modern law-making had become. On the first occasion, to stop privatisation being reversed by foreign state companies taking them over, I planned what became known as ‘the Lilley Doctrine’ — that I would refer to the competition authorities any takeover by a state-owned company. Within government, some feared this might upset the French and suggested that it would contravene European and other laws. The matter was referred up to the Attorney General — the highest legal authority in government — who, after taking the best advice, let me know he was going to rule against me. I asked to see him. There was consternation. To question the law — let alone the highest law officer in the land — was lèse-majesté. However, we met. I argued that his proposed ruling had no solid legal basis. He changed his mind. The second case was even more revealing of how subjective courts can be. The UK had yet to ratify the Maastricht Treaty. The European Court of Justice was set to rule on whether the UK practice of levying National Insurance Contributions on men up to the age of 65, five years longer than women, contravened EU law. All the legal advice, published and internal, was that we were certain to lose. I warned Cabinet that the ruling would come during the parliamentary recess; that, if all the lawyers were correct, we would have to recall Parliament to impose new taxes to make good the loss of revenue. This would be a huge political drama. But, I added, in my view the court would not find against us. My colleagues were puzzled why a eurosceptic like me expected a favourable judgement: I explained that the ECJ was a political court. They would not provoke a political crisis which might put our ratification of the Maastricht Treaty at risk. And so it turned out — after which other Departments sought my advice on their ECJ cases! How sad that our courts should become as politically predictable as the ECJ." | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Prorogation on 09:51 - Sep 27 with 889 views | WarwickHunt |
| Prorogation on 09:27 - Sep 27 by Kerouac |
You seem to think mentioning someone's name and laughing should suffice as an argument.
Maybe I'm just "thick as mince" though 'ay. |
Cutting and pasting drivel from nutters ( ooh look - he's got a degree!) to reinforce your argument just makes you look like an even bigger twà t.
Quite a feat. Keep it up... | | | |
| Prorogation on 09:56 - Sep 27 with 885 views | Kerouac |
| Prorogation on 09:51 - Sep 27 by WarwickHunt |
Cutting and pasting drivel from nutters ( ooh look - he's got a degree!) to reinforce your argument just makes you look like an even bigger twà t.
Quite a feat. Keep it up... |
Yes, they all have degrees and have achieved things in the World of grown ups.
Must be a coincidence.
Name dropping celebs like some kind of star struck, dribbling, teenager is what makes you look a massive tw*t. | |
| |
| Prorogation on 10:12 - Sep 27 with 870 views | WarwickHunt |
| Prorogation on 09:56 - Sep 27 by Kerouac |
Yes, they all have degrees and have achieved things in the World of grown ups.
Must be a coincidence.
Name dropping celebs like some kind of star struck, dribbling, teenager is what makes you look a massive tw*t. |
Wrong end of the wrong stick, fùckwit. I was taking the piss out of one your swivel-eyed, bumpkin mates.
You're too thick to realise. Imagine my surprise... | | | |
| Prorogation on 11:20 - Sep 27 with 834 views | sherpajacob |
Peter Lilley! Peter effin Lilley!
If you are quoting him, there is no hope for you. he makes IDS look like Nelson Mandela.
bring back "drop the dead donkey" |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 13:10 - Sep 27 with 780 views | DdraigGoch |
| Prorogation on 10:12 - Sep 27 by WarwickHunt |
Wrong end of the wrong stick, fùckwit. I was taking the piss out of one your swivel-eyed, bumpkin mates.
You're too thick to realise. Imagine my surprise... |
Wherever your allegiance lies, wherever you sit on political issue you really are a nasty piece of work!
Does this transcend into your real life or just when you’re hiding behind you keyboard? |  | | |
| Prorogation on 14:24 - Sep 27 with 724 views | WarwickHunt |
| Prorogation on 13:10 - Sep 27 by DdraigGoch |
Wherever your allegiance lies, wherever you sit on political issue you really are a nasty piece of work!
Does this transcend into your real life or just when you’re hiding behind you keyboard? |
1. Look up "transcend", fùckwit.
2. I don't say anything on here I wouldn't say to anyone's face. Try me, cocker... | | | |
| Prorogation on 14:32 - Sep 27 with 704 views | BrynCartwright |
| Prorogation on 09:51 - Sep 27 by WarwickHunt |
Cutting and pasting drivel from nutters ( ooh look - he's got a degree!) to reinforce your argument just makes you look like an even bigger twà t.
Quite a feat. Keep it up... |
I might bother reading the cut and pastes if they were split up into logical paragraphs. |  |
| |
| Prorogation on 15:05 - Sep 27 with 676 views | Ace_Jack |
| Prorogation on 09:20 - Sep 27 by Kerouac |
Look out, it's one of those anti-Brexit intellectuals. |
look out, its the man who pretended to be a Lib Dem  |  | | |
| Prorogation on 15:12 - Sep 27 with 663 views | ItchySphincter |
You either have a bank account in the Cayman's or you're thick as f*ck.....
Place your bets folks! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
