BREXIT |OT2.0| No government is better than a bojo government

JediTimeBoy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,053
Boris Johnson should resign if he has misled Queen about reasons for prorogation, says Dominic Grieve

Dominic Grieve, the former Conservative attorney general and one of the 21 MPs who had the whip removed last week after rebelling over Brexit, has told BBC News that, if Boris Johnson misled the Queen about the reasons for prorogation, he should resign.

If it were to be the case that the government had misled the Queen about the reasons for suspending parliament, and the motives for it, that would be a very serious matter indeed. Indeed, in my view, it would then be the moment for Mr Johnson to resign, and very swiftly.

(time stamp 12:05).
 
OP
OP
Uzzy

Uzzy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,773
Well that's something. Boris Johnson has been found in court to have lied to the Queen. Even in today's insane world, that should be a resigning matter.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,300
London
Love how each side is digging their trench deeper. Its England vs Scotland in the biggest constitutional punch-up this little island has ever seen.
Isn't he the governments top law man, and english to boot?.
He already had to tell Boris that following the law was kinda important for a government, which is nutty in itself.

oops, he was born in Wales but is an english mp.
 

iapetus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,284
51% in favour of Northern Ireland leaving the Union.
Can we all agree that 51% is a shitty majority for major and irreversible changes to a country? Because if we can't, then we don't appear to have learned much...

The 'in ten years time' figures are crazily pointless - that would massively depend on the outcome of Brexit. If a no-deal Brexit were to go ahead for example, I could see support for reunification being higher than that within two years.
 

phisheep

Member
Oct 26, 2017
733
You'd probably be the expert here to ask on this: David Allen Green's Twitter thread says this:



Are you able to elaborate on this? Curious what the specific differences are.
Dicey was an absolutist so for as Parliament goes. Parliament can make or unmake any law whatsoever. Could even legislate to to legalise heroin in the USA, and it would be given effect to by the courts ( though there might be a bit of a jurisdictional problem!). I don't recall him giving the same latitude to the executive though.
 

Kalor

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,193
Can we all agree that 51% is a shitty majority for major and irreversible changes to a country? Because if we can't, then we don't appear to have learned much...

The 'in ten years time' figures are crazily pointless - that would massively depend on the outcome of Brexit. If a no-deal Brexit were to go ahead for example, I could see support for reunification being higher than that within two years.
It's especially shitty in a place which has historic and ongoing violence directly related to the question being asked.
 

GrizzleBoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,116
Interesting, John Major gave a witness statement against Boris' prorogation.
Even more interestingly, is that Boris/Cummimgs could get Jacob Reese Mogg/Andrea Leadsom/James Cleverly/Dajid Javid to do all the rounds in all types of media to claim it was just a standard suspension of parliament.

But they were unable to get a SINGLE person from ANYWHERE to sign a witness statement to back up Boris' claim that it was a normal suspension.

I wonder why?
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,967
FTR I think having a referendum before a GE is silly given what BJ's doing, but I do think Labour should push quickly for a referendum once (and if) they're government
Watson putting pressure on Corbyn to hold a referendum ASAP is only a good thing IMO
But corbyn and Labour have already said that part of their election campaign would be to hold another vote on brexit so Tom saying this shit is completely pointless and does nothing to help stopping brexit
 

kradical

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,195
FTR I think having a referendum before a GE is silly given what BJ's doing, but I do think Labour should push quickly for a referendum once (and if) they're government
Watson putting pressure on Corbyn to hold a referendum ASAP is only a good thing IMO
Labour policy is to negotiate a deal with the EU in 3-6 months after a GE and immediately put it to a referendum.
 

Vagabundo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
935
Can we all agree that 51% is a shitty majority for major and irreversible changes to a country? Because if we can't, then we don't appear to have learned much...

The 'in ten years time' figures are crazily pointless - that would massively depend on the outcome of Brexit. If a no-deal Brexit were to go ahead for example, I could see support for reunification being higher than that within two years.
It's especially shitty in a place which has historic and ongoing violence directly related to the question being asked.
Here's a good run down on how a border poll could come about:


I'd say it is unlikely until Brexit has been well settled before we'll get one and if it looks like Unification would win then watch the DUP fight tooth and nail to stop it.

But it is a simple majority. Ireland has a long history of referendums, the south has them every two years or so and they are always simple majorities.
 

nature boy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,087
Labour policy is to negotiate a deal with the EU in 3-6 months after a GE and immediately put it to a referendum.
* contingent on how long the extension the EU grants, although that's fairly reasonable timeframe

The EU will have to decide on the length before there's a guarantee of a GE (although very likely) and who's forms government and what their intentions are.
 

jem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,645
Shit, looks like I was misreading: the matter being referred to the UKSC, is a final decision on interdiction (prohibiting prorogation). But as part of that, UKSC will look at the judgment handed, and therefore whether it agrees.



The first two paragraphs on the second page, are the reasons for the decision.
DO NOT read the replies to that tweet if you're at work.

One is extremely NSFW.
 

Vennt

Member
Oct 27, 2017
204
51% in favour of Northern Ireland leaving the Union.
A good way to see a resurgence of the UVF & UDA
Here's a good run down on how a border poll could come about:


I'd say it is unlikely until Brexit has been well settled before we'll get one and if it looks like Unification would win then watch the DUP fight tooth and nail to stop it.

But it is a simple majority. Ireland has a long history of referendums, the south has them every two years or so and they are always simple majorities.
There is nothing 'simple' about reunification, it's not the DUP you'd need to worry about, it'd be a revitalised UVF and friends and a civil war.

No poll under 75%+ is worth a damn.
 

kmag

Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,675
What's interesting about the Supreme Court case is not so much the difference between Scots Law and English Common Law, it's what the Scots court found compared to what the English High court didn't.

While we only have a summary judgment, it's clear that the Court of Session has made a judgment that Johnson mislead the Queen, the English court avoided that completely concentrating on whether the whole issue was justiciable. I don't see how the Supreme Court could completely ignore the Court of Session by narrowly framing it as an issue of whether or not the issue is justiciable, but then the Supreme Court has a pretty sketchy history when it comes to Scots Law (Due to it's prominance Scots lawyers study a decent bit of common law, English lawyers do far less if anything on Scots law)
 

kradical

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,195
A good way to see a resurgence of the UVF & UDA


There is nothing 'simple' about reunification, it's not the DUP you'd need to worry about, it'd be a revitalised UVF and friends and a civil war.

No poll under 75%+ is worth a damn.
No, a border poll must be a simple majority. What possible justification could you have for keeping Northern Ireland in the UK if 74% of the people wanted to become part of a united Ireland? The conditions for a border poll are specified in The Good Friday agreement.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,036
Can we all agree that 51% is a shitty majority for major and irreversible changes to a country? Because if we can't, then we don't appear to have learned much...

The 'in ten years time' figures are crazily pointless - that would massively depend on the outcome of Brexit. If a no-deal Brexit were to go ahead for example, I could see support for reunification being higher than that within two years.
52% seems to have been enough previously.. :/
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,587
Can we all agree that 51% is a shitty majority for major and irreversible changes to a country? Because if we can't, then we don't appear to have learned much...

The 'in ten years time' figures are crazily pointless - that would massively depend on the outcome of Brexit. If a no-deal Brexit were to go ahead for example, I could see support for reunification being higher than that within two years.
It's an interesting starting point, though. Presumably things would shift stronger if it wasn't just a random poll but an actual campaign behind it. I also feel that the majority of 51% is fine, as long as can be sure that enough people participated in the referendum. Like saying that turnout must be over 75% for it to matter.
 

kradical

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,195
As part of the Good Friday Agreement, an explicit provision for holding a Northern Ireland border poll was made in UK law. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that “if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland”, the Secretary of State shall make an Order in Council enabling a border poll.

It is not clear exactly what would satisfy this requirement. The Constitution Unit suggests that a consistent majority in opinion polls, a Catholic majority in a census, a nationalist majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly, or a vote by a majority in the Assembly could all be considered evidence of majority support for a united Ireland. However, the Secretary of State must ultimately decide whether the condition has been met.
If both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland voted in favour of reunification, the Good Friday Agreement states that it “will be a binding obligation on both governments to introduce and support in their respective parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish”.
 

kmag

Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,675
A good way to see a resurgence of the UVF & UDA


There is nothing 'simple' about reunification, it's not the DUP you'd need to worry about, it'd be a revitalised UVF and friends and a civil war.

No poll under 75%+ is worth a damn.
By the same token, the IRA et al aren't going to sit quietly if there's majority support for unification and it wasn't forthcoming. A majoritarian poll was part of the quid pro quo of the Good Friday Agreement. All roads from here are shitty, that's the main problem with the kicking of the hornets nest which is Brexit.
 

iapetus

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,284
52% seems to have been enough previously.. :/
It really doesn't, though, does it? It's not enough to be statistically significant, and it's a narrow enough margin that it can be affected by every little bit of news that pushes things one way or the other (whether that news is true or printed on the side of a bus). To make major constitutional changes you need to be pretty sure that another vote the next week wouldn't result in people wanting to change things back.
 

mclem

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,592
What's interesting about the Supreme Court case is not so much the difference between Scots Law and English Common Law, it's what the Scots court found compared to what the English High court didn't.

While we only have a summary judgment, it's clear that the Court of Session has made a judgment that Johnson mislead the Queen, the English court avoided that completely concentrating on whether the whole issue was justiciable. I don't see how the Supreme Court could completely ignore the Court of Session by narrowly framing it as an issue of whether or not the issue is justiciable, but then the Supreme Court has a pretty sketchy history when it comes to Scots Law (Due to it's prominance Scots lawyers study a decent bit of common law, English lawyers do far less if anything on Scots law)
It strikes me that there's still an interesting corollary here: Even if the SC do decide to regard the issue as one that's not justiciable, that means they're still letting the perception of "Hey, the PM lied to the Queen" implicitly stand. You'd imagine that that would be damaging, but...
 

Rodelero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,293
It's an interesting starting point, though. Presumably things would shift stronger if it wasn't just a random poll but an actual campaign behind it. I also feel that the majority of 51% is fine, as long as can be sure that enough people participated in the referendum. Like saying that turnout must be over 75% for it to matter.
At which point the DUP quietly advise unionists to stay home, and the majority ends up at 90% with 60% turnout...
 

solidussnaku

Member
Nov 29, 2017
884
Shock, farage is playing the tory base against the cons.

I'll say it again, the bxp aims to replace the tories, not be subservient to them. You don't spend a summer in trumpland learning election tactics just to come back and take it from the party you are hell bent in replacing.

Ironically, farage is doing the same tactic the gov is using with the EU. Make shit tier offers and then act all offended when it gets rejected.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,036
It really doesn't, though, does it? It's not enough to be statistically significant, and it's a narrow enough margin that it can be affected by every little bit of news that pushes things one way or the other (whether that news is true or printed on the side of a bus). To make major constitutional changes you need to be pretty sure that another vote the next week wouldn't result in people wanting to change things back.
Oh I agree, couldn't turn down the opporunity to be sarky though. Need a supramajority for anything Ireland related and should have been the same for Brexit. It literally shouldn't be legal for the government to allow a simple majority in cases like that just because it suits them.
 

kmag

Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,675
It strikes me that there's still an interesting corollary here: Even if the SC do decide to regard the issue as one that's not justiciable, that means they're still letting the perception of "Hey, the PM lied to the Queen" implicitly stand. You'd imagine that that would be damaging, but...
Typically, the UKSC don't deal with matters of fact stated from a lower court, just points of law. It'll be interesting what the Inner Court of Session's actual written judgment states. It may be that there's clear grounds for a Misconduct in public office offense, but I doubt you'd get Dame Dick to get the rozzers to actually investigate.
 

31GhostsIV

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,824
Shock, farage is playing the tory base against the cons.

I'll say it again, the bxp aims to replace the tories, not be subservient to them. You don't spend a summer in trumpland learning election tactics just to come back and take it from the party you are hell bent in replacing.

Ironically, farage is doing the same tactic the gov is using with the EU. Make shit tier offers and then act all offended when it gets rejected.
Did The Brexit Company ever reveal their funding sources? Or their manifesto? They promised both after the EU elections. The scenario smells a lot like Trump and his tax returns.

Also re: Watson, he has a point. If the Tories get in on a tiny majority again they'll spin it as 'the will of the people for no deal', the Brexit question needs to be separated from the election.