Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

Status
Not open for further replies.
woody69 said:
I struggle to see past the fact that it rules out any possibility of the UK negotiating a new customs union with the EU after we leave. It rejects the UK having a close relationship with the Single Market so strips out the safety net on workplace rights, consumer protections and environmental standards. Even by the Government’s own estimates, the basic free trade agreement envisaged by the deal would make every region and nation in the UK poorer.

You can also add that if this deal is passed, then there is a very real risk that we would crash out on no deal terms at the end of December 2020.

Where do you think it is vastly superior out of interest?
Click to expand...
Firstly note that I voted Remain BECAUSE of many of the sort of things you state are advantages of May's deal. But, in reality, May's deal wasn't a Leave deal at all - it was a deal to Remain!

But, I've accepted the Referendum result.... The comparisons you are making indicate to me that you have not - as you still are still wanting benefits that only come with being an EU member!

BoJo's deal removes the potential (and too likely, imo) to be kept within the EU - by the EU - that May's deal had, so that's the important 'improvement'!

If UK is leaving the EU, that 'close relationship' etc. must be removed - otherwise UK hasn't left (control by) the EU!

Again, May's deal was a Bad Deal (that, to quote her, was worse than No Deal) in that regard - it wasn't leaving the EU at all! That's why it's important to get an FTA asap - rather poorer alternative to Customs Union imo, but controlled mutually - not purely by EU. Likewise, Single Market - huge benefit, imo, nut controlld by EU so has to be go - and replaced by a UK or mutually controlled mechanism. Same applies to/for Consumer Protection, Workplace Standards, Research co-operation, Cross Border Policing etc. that are currently under EU 'control' - UK has to find a way to achieve the current/desired levels of co-operation but under UK control!

In summary, you are simply (consciously or unconsciously) continuing the Leave v Rermain debate - so haven't accepted the Referendum result! And that also applies to many MPs as well. Until that (acceptance) happens, BoJo's deal will continue to be deemed to be 'poor'!
 
Last edited:
Hobbit said:
On every point my opinion differs, though not necessarily is different, from yours.

I'd argue that every govt is economical with the truth during periods of high intensity.

On the issue of the extension, he had no choice. Whatever he may have said, as PM he probably recognised there was no way he could break the law.

On the point of deal 'v' no deal; that still isn't resolved. It could even come down to the EU saying enough is enough.

As for leaking then retracting. Is anyone really surprised by this tactic? Every govt does it.

As for calling the judiciary's impartiality into question; hell yes, and rightly so. There's enough evidence, no pun intended, that judges made up their minds based on probabilities not hard facts. By saying Johnson did it for x reason, and not the one stated by either Johnson or his lawyers, was basically formed on opinion not fact. Scotland's own "not proven'" verdict in the case is based on probability, not fact. = "Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction."
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - but it is simply not right to just accept these types of tactics. Other people doing it doesn't make it right and while it may be tactic used by others, generally to manage the news cycle, in the case of the current government - it is far more blatant and dishonest, especially given how frequently it is happening and with the stakes high.

On the subject of prorogation - you are so wrong here it is frightening. It is clear his intention was to avoid scrutiny - which is ultimately why the Scottish court and Supreme court came to the clear verdicts it did.
You may remember that during the Scottish case the government refused / declined to provide a witness statement stating the intention of the prorogation (clearly because they were either going to perjure themselves or give the game up).

Instead the government lawyers argued that it was basically up to the government when to progrogue and for how long - without the need for justification. Something that, thankfully, the courts put a stop to, which will correctly deter / prevent future governments from trying the same tactic.
 
Grant85 said:
I'm sorry - but it is simply not right to just accept these types of tactics. Other people doing it doesn't make it right and while it may be tactic used by others, generally to manage the news cycle, in the case of the current government - it is far more blatant and dishonest, especially given how frequently it is happening and with the stakes high.

On the subject of prorogation - you are so wrong here it is frightening. It is clear his intention was to avoid scrutiny - which is ultimately why the Scottish court and Supreme court came to the clear verdicts it did.
You may remember that during the Scottish case the government refused / declined to provide a witness statement stating the intention of the prorogation (clearly because they were either going to perjure themselves or give the game up).

Instead the government lawyers argued that it was basically up to the government when to progrogue and for how long - without the need for justification. Something that, thankfully, the courts put a stop to, which will correctly deter / prevent future governments from trying the same tactic.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it is simply not right, I said every govt does it. And I agree its not acceptable. However, in mitigation I'd argue that taking the higher moral ground in a morass of deception that exists in Parliament doesn't help either. Until all sides in parliament decide to on a better code of conduct things won't change. And idealism, as much as it is right, just won't get things done.

On the subject of prorogation, sorry to frighten you, you say it was his clear intention. My answer to that is prove it. You provide a statement from whatever media source or govt announcement that shows that was his intention and I'll hold my hands up. And that is also my argument about the court's decision. Your interpretation was they didn't want to perjure themselves or give the game away. Another interpretation put forward at the time was the govt didn't provide a witness statement for the Scottish court as they expected to lose but knew that an appeal would end up in the Supreme Court in London. That aside, I think it showed a huge amount of disrespect to the Scottish Court, someone should have been there.

As an side, I watched a lot of the feed from the Supreme Court, and it came down to opinions, not facts. And that, in my opinion, is when the judiciary interfered in an area they shouldn't have. If they had a proven fact, I would happily support the court's decision. They didn't and, in effect, you had a group of judges making political decisions - very, very, very wrong.

The courts may have been right but it was never proven.

As for how long a govt can prorogue for, I believe that should be explained to Parliament at the time of announcing the decision to prorogue. Forgetting the current rubbish, or reasons behind it, this was the longest session of parliament since whenever. Various ministers and depts will have needed time to create the policies and proposed legislation for the Queen's Speech. I believe the govt of the day should be able to choose how long they want to prorogue but there should be a time limit to it.
 
Hobbit said:
...
As for calling the judiciary's impartiality into question; hell yes, and rightly so. There's enough evidence, no pun intended, that judges made up their minds based on probabilities not hard facts. By saying Johnson did it for x reason, and not the one stated by either Johnson or his lawyers, was basically formed on opinion not fact. Scotland's own "not proven'" verdict in the case is based on probability, not fact. = "Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction."
Click to expand...

You are (totally wrong by) confusing the Judiciary's 'judgement' role - where, indeed, Judges certainly make judgements based on probabilities etc. as opposed to hard facts - and impartiality - aka bias! Judges, especially at higher levels, are constantly using their judgement to resolve and rule based on probabilities. The title 'Judge' should be enough to make that plain!

Btw. Was there a 'Not Proven' decision 'in this case'? I can't find one, so would be interested to the circumstances.
 
Foxholer said:
You are (totally wrong by) confusing the Judiciary's 'judgement' role - where, indeed, Judges certainly make judgements based on probabilities etc. as opposed to hard facts - and impartiality - aka bias! Judges, especially at higher levels, are constantly using their judgement to resolve and rule based on probabilities. The title 'Judge' should be enough to make that plain!

Btw. Was there a 'Not Proven' decision 'in this case'? I can't find one, so would be interested to the circumstances.
Click to expand...

I thank my learned friend for providing such a level of education. However, I am aware that Supreme Court judges set precedent and rulings via opinions. However, I stand by my opinion that Supreme Court judges using opinions in political judgements is wholly wrong.

BTW, You can use BOLD as much as you like but it still doesn't make you look any cleverer, just very foolish. Good use of exclamation marks though.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Hobbit said:
On every point my opinion differs, though not necessarily is different, from yours.

I'd argue that every govt is economical with the truth during periods of high intensity.

On the issue of the extension, he had no choice. Whatever he may have said, as PM he probably recognised there was no way he could break the law.

On the point of deal 'v' no deal; that still isn't resolved. It could even come down to the EU saying enough is enough.

As for leaking then retracting. Is anyone really surprised by this tactic? Every govt does it.

As for calling the judiciary's impartiality into question; hell yes, and rightly so. There's enough evidence, no pun intended, that judges made up their minds based on probabilities not hard facts. By saying Johnson did it for x reason, and not the one stated by either Johnson or his lawyers, was basically formed on opinion not fact. Scotland's own "not proven'" verdict in the case is based on probability, not fact. = "Both in the "solemn" and the "summary" acquittals, not proven is interpreted as indicating that the jury or judge, respectively, is not convinced of the innocence of the accused; in fact, they may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but do not find the proofs sufficient for a conviction."
Click to expand...

I could well be wrong (and as you point out I often am) but was it not the case that central to the Court of Sessions verdict was that the government legal team could not provide any justifiable reason (in fact) for the extended period of prorogation in the lead up to a Queens Speech. The government case might well have been helped had any minister or official been willing or able to provide a sworn affidavit on the reason for the extended prorogation - that none was provided was not the reason for the verdict, but it didn't help.

Though I might be getting my Court of Session response muddled with a point about a Supreme Court ruling o_O

EDIT - oops @Grant85 already covered this.
 
Last edited:
Grant85 said:
...
We also see the 'No. 10 source' throwing dozens of proposals and points of view into the ether. They can test the water on these with an anonymous source - sadly journalists are all too quick to throw them into the public domain. It is then easy for the government to roll back on these points in public.
...
Click to expand...

Peter Oborne despairing about this also on CH4 News - and raging against senior journalists for running with it (and mea culpa on that also)

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=413000532961671
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I could well be wrong (and as you point out I often am) but was it not the case that central to the Court of Sessions verdict was that the government legal team could not provide any justifiable reason (in fact) for the extended period of prorogation in the lead up to a Queens Speech. The government case might well have been helped had any minister or official been willing or able to provide a sworn affidavit on the reason for the extended prorogation - that none was provided was not the reason for the verdict, but it didn't help.

Though I might be getting my Court of Session and Supreme Court rulings mixed up o_O

EDIT - oops @Grant85 already covered this.
Click to expand...

You could be right Hugh. I've looked for the judgement but can't find the detail.

However, below is Number 10's reply;

A spokesman for No 10 said it was "disappointed" by the decision, and would appeal to the Supreme Court.

He added: "The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.

My point, in terms of proof, is where is the evidence. And if you look back around the time of the judgement you will find that I said I don't doubt that it was Johnson's intent to shutdown parliament but, equally, where is the proof. Could anyone call the spokesperson for Number 10 a liar with 100% certainty - reasonable doubt.
 
Hobbit said:
You could be right Hugh. I've looked for the judgement but can't find the detail.

However, below is Number 10's reply;

A spokesman for No 10 said it was "disappointed" by the decision, and would appeal to the Supreme Court.

He added: "The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.

My point, in terms of proof, is where is the evidence. And if you look back around the time of the judgement you will find that I said I don't doubt that it was Johnson's intent to shutdown parliament but, equally, where is the proof. Could anyone call the spokesperson for Number 10 a liar with 100% certainty - reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

All of which is true - but IIRC in the opinion of the Court(s) the government lawyers did not provide a good reason for why, this time for this Queens Speech, the period of prorogation had to be longer than normal.
 
Hobbit said:
I thank my learned friend for providing such a level of education. However, I am aware that Supreme Court judges set precedent and rulings via opinions. However, I stand by my opinion that Supreme Court judges using opinions in political judgements is wholly wrong.
...
Click to expand...
Judgements by Judges in cases that have political ramifications aare no different than any other judgements! In UK, they are not (meant to be and I don't believe ever are) 'political judgements'! That's the essence of the separation of Executive/Legislative and Judiciary. Executive/Legislative constantly make 'political judgements'; Judiciary should never!

Have you worked out why 'judge' is in bold yet btw? It's because they regularly have to make judgements - for which 'opinion' is a synoymn!
 
Hobbit said:
I thank my learned friend for providing such a level of education. However, I am aware that Supreme Court judges set precedent and rulings via opinions. However, I stand by my opinion that Supreme Court judges using opinions in political judgements is wholly wrong.

BTW, You can use BOLD as much as you like but it still doesn't make you look any cleverer, just very foolish. Good use of exclamation marks though.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If said Judges are required to make political judgements should they not be up for election by the public.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
All of which is true - but IIRC in the opinion of the Court(s) the government lawyers did not provide a good reason for why, this time for this Queens Speech, the period of prorogation had to be longer than normal.
Click to expand...

And our wonderful HoC made great use of the time they gained. I'm guessing they're also now reading up on the WA while waiting for the EU !!!
 
clubchamp98 said:
If said Judges are required to make political judgements should they not be up for election by the public.
Click to expand...

There has always been the separation of govt and judiciary for very good reason. The govt should set laws but not interfere with the application of laws. Similarly, the judiciary can ensure that a govt follows the laws but should never, ever interfere with the application of govt.

It sets a very dangerous precedent, a precedent that can go both ways. I have concerns that at sometime in the future we will see the govt clipping the wings of the Supreme Court because of the recent ruling. That worries me even more than what we've just seen.

Although the ruling might have been right, though not proven, it is very, very wrong for unelected officials to be making political judgements.
 
drdel said:
And our wonderful HoC made great use of the time they gained. I'm guessing they're also now reading up on the WA while waiting for the EU !!!
Click to expand...

Which may be true or may be speculation. By the same measure - going by his performance in front of the Lords Committee earlier this week Stephen Barclay could do with doing a bit of reading of it also - maybe focussing on the NI and NI/rUK trade sections.
 
Hobbit said:
There has always been the separation of govt and judiciary for very good reason. The govt should set laws but not interfere with the application of laws. Similarly, the judiciary can ensure that a govt follows the laws but should never, ever interfere with the application of govt.

It sets a very dangerous precedent, a precedent that can go both ways. I have concerns that at sometime in the future we will see the govt clipping the wings of the Supreme Court because of the recent ruling. That worries me even more than what we've just seen.

Although the ruling might have been right, though not proven, it is very, very wrong for unelected officials to be making political judgements.
Click to expand...
I agree .
I think this sort of ruling makes our Judges no more than glorified politicians making judgements.
Judges should deal in facts . They are not accountable to us like politicians are and we can remove politicians we don’t like at the ballot box.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Party holes at golf comps.
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
Pin-seeker
Pin-seeker
Don Barzini
Christmas 2025
14 15 16
Replies
319
Views
8K
kp17
kp17
Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
B
Ping 7 wood head shortage.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
KenL
KenL
VVega
What age is your Seniors?
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Arthur Wedge
Arthur Wedge
Top