Brother Blades Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Thought Barry Sheerwater was going to have an aneurysm there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Detournement said: IDS makes a good point about the Supreme Court conveniently forgetting about the possibility of a VONC. That would be delving into politics big style. The simple question was whether the prorogation was legal or not, and whether its effect was to stop Parliament from doing its duty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, welshbairn said: That would be delving into politics big style. The simple question was whether the prorogation was legal or not, and whether its effect was to stop Parliament from doing its duty. Confidence votes are surely part of the constitution? It's impossible to say that Parliament was stymied when they knew about the prorogation, had the opportunity to withdraw confidence in the government and choose not to. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Detournement said: Confidence votes are surely part of the constitution? It's impossible to say that Parliament was stymied when they knew about the prorogation, had the opportunity to withdraw confidence in the government and choose not to. They made a political choice not to call a VONC until a no deal brexit on Oct 31st is off the table. That has nothing to do with the Supreme Court case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Mas Mark Francois challenged anyone to a square-go yet ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 There's about 150 MPs in the house 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 18 minutes ago, Detournement said: Confidence votes are surely part of the constitution? It's impossible to say that Parliament was stymied when they knew about the prorogation, had the opportunity to withdraw confidence in the government and choose not to. I'm assuming you already know this, but I'll spell out exactly why there couldn't be a VONC. After a VONC, there is a 14 day period for either the existing government to regain confidence of the house, or a new government to gain it. The existing PM, however, does not have to resign to give someone else a chance at forming a government. After the 14 days an election is triggered, where Boris can pick the date as he pleases. Hence in a VONC situation Boris can effectively just make an election happen in November and crash out without a deal. This is why VONC isn't a option until the immediate threat of no deal is taken off the table. The FTPA has created a situation where you have a government that de facto does not enjoy the confidence of the HOC but de jure enjoys the confidence of the house, and that seems to be what the Tories are seething about as a "constitutional threat". I'd argue it's not even a bad thing as Scotland has shown for 7 of the past 12 years that having a government without an absolute majority can absolutely be a good thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Putting Brexit to one side, and I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but with this supreme court ruling does it mean that any wealthy individual in future can take the government to court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said: Putting Brexit to one side, and I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but with this supreme court ruling does it mean that any wealthy individual in future can take the government to court? I think anybody has always been able to take th egovernment to court, surely? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: I think anybody has always been able to take th egovernment to court, surely? You definitely need money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Detournement said: You definitely need money. Yeah but that goes for pretty much any court action unless you can find someone to fund you. In principle, anyone can take the government to court though. Companies do it relatively routinely. Edited September 25, 2019 by Gordon EF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said: Putting Brexit to one side, and I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but with this supreme court ruling does it mean that any wealthy individual in future can take the government to court? The likes of the Daily Mail (surprise surprise) were "outraged" about this and did run a succession of stories about how their nemesis Gina Miller and the "elite" could pervert the law and overrule Government if they didn't fancy something. "Democracy is dead", "The day Democracy died", etc, etc. I always find it highly amusing when they refer to all on the Remain side as the "elite" as if all the Brexiteer mob are just ordinary working class punters just out to earn a decent crust.................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Donathan said: I'm assuming you already know this, but I'll spell out exactly why there couldn't be a VONC. After a VONC, there is a 14 day period for either the existing government to regain confidence of the house, or a new government to gain it. The existing PM, however, does not have to resign to give someone else a chance at forming a government. After the 14 days an election is triggered, where Boris can pick the date as he pleases. Hence in a VONC situation Boris can effectively just make an election happen in November and crash out without a deal. This is why VONC isn't a option until the immediate threat of no deal is taken off the table. The FTPA has created a situation where you have a government that de facto does not enjoy the confidence of the HOC but de jure enjoys the confidence of the house, and that seems to be what the Tories are seething about as a "constitutional threat". I'd argue it's not even a bad thing as Scotland has shown for 7 of the past 12 years that having a government without an absolute majority can absolutely be a good thing. Bit of bummer that there appears to be a potential loop hole in the Benn act really but it’s amendable. After that’s achieved hopefully we’ll get our General Election but there are varied interests at play here, as always. Edited September 25, 2019 by Londonwell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Londonwell said: Bit of bummer that there appears to be a potential loop hole in the Benn act really but it’s amendable. After that’s achieved hopefully we’ll get our General Election. What "loop hole" are you on about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 8 minutes ago, Donathan said: What "loop hole" are you on about? Sorry, thought you wrote "hoop hole". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Donathan said: What "loop hole" are you on about? To quote Joylon Maugham , “that if a withdrawal agreement is approved by the commons on, or prior to October 19, the obligation in the Benn Act for the PM to request an extension falls away.” Which has raised concerns that the mad Brexiteers could exploit the need to pass further legislation by Oct 31 and block votes thereby crashing out without a deal. That is what a lot of opposition MP’s are concerned about. Others, of course, are worried about losing their seat. Edited September 25, 2019 by Londonwell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 20 minutes ago, Donathan said: What "loop hole" are you on about? Think he means this.. https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) Another potential loophole in this thread. Basically sending a second letter saying "Only kidding, no extension needed, we'll be off as arranged on the 31st. Love Boris." Edited September 25, 2019 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donathan Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 56 minutes ago, Londonwell said: To quote Joylon Maugham , “that if a withdrawal agreement is approved by the commons on, or prior to October 19, the obligation in the Benn Act for the PM to request an extension falls away.” Which has raised concerns that the mad Brexiteers could exploit the need to pass further legislation by Oct 31 and block votes thereby crashing out without a deal. That is what a lot of opposition MP’s are concerned about. Others, of course, are worried about losing their seat. 51 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Think he means this.. https://waitingfortax.com/2019/09/15/the-flaw-in-the-benn-act/ This loophole would rely on MPs approving a withdrawal agreement. Now, there are 329 explicitly anti-no deal MPs, that's the number who backed the Benn bill. If Boris brings back the WA and gets the Brexiteers to vote it through, these 329 will know exactly what Boris is doing and vote against the WA accordingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Gove making a total arse of himself over Yellowhammer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.