"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:

That is why Boris should resign immediately, thus setting a precedent
for any future PM who might wrongly advise the monarch.

Thats not how precedents work and you dont know that he
did wrongly advise Liz anyway. For all you know he may well
have just told he that he was going to prorogue parliament
for 5 weeks.

That would avoid giving some future monarch, perhaps as yet unborn, an
excuse to try to reclaim some of the ancient powers of kings.

Liz doesnt have to accept all the advice she is given.
She is in fact free to say that would be unlawful.

And then accept it.

She doesnt have to do that.

However, Boris seems far too arrogant even to admit he made a mistake,
despite the unanimous ruling of 11 of the highest judges in the land.

Its no news that legal parasites keep attempting to have more
say on what must be done, as Sumption has spelled out so clearly.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,

Corse no other party leader has ever done anything like that, eh ?

presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he so
dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st
October.

He knows that there is no chance of that, no matter how much he stirs.

But in challenging the other parties to face the electorate in what the
country badly needs, ie a general election, he is building up his people
against Parliament and the establishment' case.

What he is actually doing is distracting the fools with comments
like the one about Jo Cox so they dont have time to come up
with another stunt like trying to force him to ask for an extension.

He will be able to use that pretty effectively later.

That remains to be seen.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:59, Rod Speed wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the
advice of the Prime Minister. She cannot take it into her own hands
to second guess what the courts might decide if they become
involved...

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to
do?
Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake, even
if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her. If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

If she doesn't take it, she runs the risk of being wrong.

And if she does take it, she runs the risk of being wrong too.

And if she's wrong, she's in a constitutional pickle. She will have
interfered with the lawful business of the elected government.

That's part of the job and why she gets paid such stupid money to do it.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

Got a cite for that?

Got one for your claim that she gets the privy council to
advise her on who to ask to form the govt after a general
election and just how she gets just one piece of advice on
that given the membership of the privy council that she
has to obey ?

of course it would be her fault.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely if
he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her.

Thats wrong when the demand is unlawful.

But who's to say it's unlawful?

The PM certainly doesnt.

That's her constitutional position. It doesn't end up well for monarchs
in a democracy if they try to interfere. They tend to get abolished, or
worse.

Doesnt happen anymore.

That's only because monarchs have wound their necks in, and very sensibly
avoided any active interference.

Nope, because you lot dont even hang murderers anymore.

And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

Which she is in no position to decide for herself.

Bull****.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,
presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he
so dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st
October.

Which is exactly what the country needs. It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.

There aint gunna be a general election before 29-Oct, you watch.

I doubt that there will be just after a default no deal brexit on 29-Oct
either because the parliament would carry on regardless and it makes
sense to wait till its proven that the no deal brexit works fine to have
a general election.

No. If there's no general election just after a default no-deal Brexit,
it will be because the opposition is still running scared of the
electorate, and is rather strangely unwilling even to try to assume the
power they've been saying is what the country desperately needs.

No point in a general election after a 29-Oct default no deal brexit
because it would no longer be a hung parliament anymore, because
the only thing parliament could do then is ask the EU to be allowed to
join the EU again, and even that parliament isnt going to be that stupid.

It's a very odd situation. And it doesn't reflect well on Labour at all.

They dont care. Trots dont believe that parliament is even relevant.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:06:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's usual troll****

REALLY? 02:06 am in Australia??? AGAIN? ...and you are out of bed already?
LOL Is your senility not letting you sleep in again, you abnormal,
85-year-old trolling senile sow?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:03:25 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


You're the one

YOU are the one starting with your insipid trolling EVERY NIGHT between 1
and 4 am, you abnormal trolling senile pest!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 02:16:41 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 121 !!! lines of the senile Australian asshole's troll****

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 26/09/2019 17:16, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:59, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the
advice, if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled
to do?

Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job
longer than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a
mistake, even if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her.Â* If a mistake is made and she has caused
it by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

If she doesn't take it, she runs the risk of being wrong.

And if she does take it, she runs the risk of being wrong too.

But in that case she can claim she's just a rubber stamp doing her
constitutional duty on advice.

She can't do that if she's wrong.

And if she's wrong, she's in a constitutional pickle.Â* She will have
interfered with the lawful business of the elected government.

That's part of the job and why she gets paid such stupid money to do it.

No, she's not paid anything like enough to have to decide anything. Do
try to be sensible.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

Got a cite for that?

Got one for your claim that she gets the privy council to
advise her on who to ask to form the govt after a general
election and just how she gets just one piece of advice on
that given the membership of the privy council that she
has to obey ?

If you think she does it off her own bat, I think you have a very
strange idea of how it works and what part she actually plays.

of course it would be her fault.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely
if he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but
she has to do what the government demands of her.

Thats wrong when the demand is unlawful.

But who's to say it's unlawful?

The PM certainly doesnt.

I asked who does, not who doesn't.

No answer?

That's her constitutional position.Â* It doesn't end up well for
monarchs in a democracy if they try to interfere.Â* They tend to get
abolished, or worse.

Doesnt happen anymore.

That's only because monarchs have wound their necks in, and very
sensibly avoided any active interference.

Nope, because you lot dont even hang murderers anymore.

And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

Which she is in no position to decide for herself.

Bull****.

Your logic is impeccable as always. No wonder everyone finds it so
persuasive.

No point in a general election after a 29-Oct default no deal brexit
because it would no longer be a hung parliament anymore, because
the only thing parliament could do then is ask the EU to be allowed to
join the EU again, and even that parliament isnt going to be that stupid.

Are you trying to make any sense?

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 17:16, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 10:59, Rod Speed wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to
do?

Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake,
even if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her. If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take,

She isnt constitutionally bound to take unlawful advice.

If she doesn't take it, she runs the risk of being wrong.

And if she does take it, she runs the risk of being wrong too.

But in that case she can claim she's just a rubber stamp doing her
constitutional duty on advice.

There is no such constitutional duty with deciding
who gets invited to be the next govt alone.

And its very far from clear that she does have any
constitutional duty to do what is unlawful now too.

She can't do that if she's wrong.

And if she's wrong, she's in a constitutional pickle. She will have
interfered with the lawful business of the elected government.

That's part of the job and why she gets paid such stupid money to do it.

No, she's not paid anything like enough to have to decide anything. Do
try to be sensible.

I'll be ignoring this sort of sniping.

In fact she is constitutionally bound to refuse that advice.

Got a cite for that?

Got one for your claim that she gets the privy council to
advise her on who to ask to form the govt after a general
election and just how she gets just one piece of advice on
that given the membership of the privy council that she
has to obey ?

If you think she does it off her own bat,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

I think you have a very strange idea of how it works and what part she
actually plays.

of course it would be her fault.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely if
he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her.

Thats wrong when the demand is unlawful.

But who's to say it's unlawful?

The PM certainly doesnt.

I asked who does, not who doesn't.

Obviously Liz does in that situation.

That's her constitutional position. It doesn't end up well for
monarchs in a democracy if they try to interfere. They tend to get
abolished, or worse.

Doesnt happen anymore.

That's only because monarchs have wound their necks in, and very
sensibly avoided any active interference.

Nope, because you lot dont even hang murderers anymore.

And wouldnt with an unlawful demand.

Which she is in no position to decide for herself.

Bull****.

Your logic is impeccable as always. No wonder everyone finds it so
persuasive.

Corse you never ever say bollix yourself, eh ?

No point in a general election after a 29-Oct default no deal brexit
because it would no longer be a hung parliament anymore, because
the only thing parliament could do then is ask the EU to be allowed to
join the EU again, and even that parliament isnt going to be that stupid.

Are you trying to make any sense?

There you go again.

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 18:27:16 +0200, Foreskin Peeler
wrote:

[FLUHS Grik skata]...and better air in here again! [sic][SIC!!! LOL]

Watch, it geezer!

That's, a little HYPOCRITICAL of you, anus...given that you've stayed
up until 2 am to STALK this your latest stalking beneficiary!

On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not.Â* She is still bound constitutionally to follow the
advice of the Prime Minister.Â* She cannot take it into her own
hands to second guess what the courts might decide if they become
involved...

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to
do?
Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake,
even if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her.Â* If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take, of
course it would be her fault.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that, with all her experience, if she
refused to do as advised, on the basis that to do so was unlawful, it
would be because it was unlawful,

But she's not qualified to say what is unlawful and what isn't. That's
what we have courts for these days.

And the consequence if she got it wrong would be very serious. It would
be a constitutional crisis.

not because she had made a mistake and
deprived the government of the ability to do something it was entitled to.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely if
he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does. Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

...
When you step into unknown territory, the prudent will take the best
advice available.Â* Because it's unknown territory, however, that
advice is subject to error and 'events, dear boy, events'.Â* If things
go wrong, it's not reasonable after the event to blame either the
advisor or the person taking that advice.

Except that just about the only people NOT advising Boris that what he
was planning to do was unconstitutional were his band of extreme
Brexiteers, who seemed less interested in the legality of it than in
whether it would make it easier to get a no deal Brexit. That is not
taking the best advice available. It is taking the advice that agrees
with what you want and ignoring the majority view.

He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job
it is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the
opposition benches who might be just a tad biassed.

However, Boris seems far too arrogant even to admit he made a
mistake, despite the unanimous ruling of 11 of the highest judges in
the land.

Isn't 20:20 hindsight a wonderful thing?

No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice. The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

The courts have it easy. They can just decide, after the event, what
they want to decide. And that applies especially to the Supreme Court
whose judgements cannot be challenged but may nevertheless be wrong.

The fact is, the Supreme Court ventured into completely unmarked
territory with its judgement, and had in fact to reverse an earlier
decision by the English High Court.Â* What Boris did wasn't therefore
clearly wrong when he did it; it was only subsequently decided that it
was.Â* And that doesn't make it a resigning matter in anyone's book.

The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme Court
specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the High
Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we will
never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only the
Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the ruling
that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in
uncharted areas in advance of doing what you want to do. You may
succeed even in the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the
Supreme Court. Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't. When
Boris made his decision, it wasn't. And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide. Indeed,
no-one had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after
all the arguments had been put. Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,
presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he
so dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st
October.

Which is exactly what the country needs.Â* It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.

I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything. Boris
is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will be
stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the Labour
Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems, who have
already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely to be more
than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung parliament.
However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have sought a further
extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*. Now is the time we have a government in office but
not in power. It is being prevented from governing by those who
apparently think it's a good game to stop it and have a good laugh.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday. It is
paralysed. It can't do anything, and it won't do anything to resolve
the situation.

It's all very dispiriting and childish. I expect better.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 17:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:56, nightjar wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:41, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/09/2019 12:00, nightjar wrote:
...
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it,

I think not. She is still bound constitutionally to follow the
advice of the Prime Minister. She cannot take it into her own hands
to second guess what the courts might decide if they become
involved...

Constitutional experts interviewed last night suggest that the
judgment opens up the possibility that she could ignore the advice,
if she had grounds to think it was unlawful.

What would happen if she got it wrong, and denied the legitimate
government the ability to do something it was perfectly entitled to
do?
Constitutionally, that would be an outrage and a crisis.

I think you do the Queen a disservice. She has been at the job longer
than Boris has been alive. It wouldn't be her who made a mistake, even
if she chose to refuse the advice,

Of course it would be her. If a mistake is made and she has caused it
by not following the advice she is constitutionally bound to take, of
course it would be her fault.

You misunderstand me. I was saying that, with all her experience, if she
refused to do as advised, on the basis that to do so was unlawful, it
would be because it was unlawful,

But she's not qualified to say what is unlawful and what isn't. That's
what we have courts for these days.

And the consequence if she got it wrong would be very serious. It would
be a constitutional crisis.

not because she had made a mistake and deprived the government of the
ability to do something it was entitled to.

rather than simply question Boris (while he stays PM) more closely if
he appears to be doing something unusual or controversial.

No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does. Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

...
When you step into unknown territory, the prudent will take the best
advice available. Because it's unknown territory, however, that advice
is subject to error and 'events, dear boy, events'. If things go wrong,
it's not reasonable after the event to blame either the advisor or the
person taking that advice.

Except that just about the only people NOT advising Boris that what he
was planning to do was unconstitutional were his band of extreme
Brexiteers, who seemed less interested in the legality of it than in
whether it would make it easier to get a no deal Brexit. That is not
taking the best advice available. It is taking the advice that agrees
with what you want and ignoring the majority view.

He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job it
is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the opposition
benches who might be just a tad biassed.

However, Boris seems far too arrogant even to admit he made a mistake,
despite the unanimous ruling of 11 of the highest judges in the land.

Isn't 20:20 hindsight a wonderful thing?

No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he went
ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice. The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

The courts have it easy. They can just decide, after the event, what they
want to decide. And that applies especially to the Supreme Court whose
judgements cannot be challenged but may nevertheless be wrong.

The fact is, the Supreme Court ventured into completely unmarked
territory with its judgement, and had in fact to reverse an earlier
decision by the English High Court. What Boris did wasn't therefore
clearly wrong when he did it; it was only subsequently decided that it
was. And that doesn't make it a resigning matter in anyone's book.

The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was not
a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme Court
specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the High
Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we will
never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only the
Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the ruling
that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in uncharted
areas in advance of doing what you want to do. You may succeed even in
the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't. When Boris
made his decision, it wasn't. And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide. Indeed, no-one
had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after all the
arguments had been put. Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Instead, he seems intent on stirring up dissent in parliament,
presumably in the hope that will trigger the vote of no confidence he
so dearly wants, so that there can be a general election before 31st
October.

Which is exactly what the country needs. It currently has a
non-functioning government and a Parliament intent on maintaining that
status.

I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything. Boris
is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will be
stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the Labour
Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems, who have
already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely to be more
than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung parliament.
However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have sought a further
extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*. Now is the time we have a government in office but not
in power. It is being prevented from governing by those who apparently
think it's a good game to stop it and have a good laugh.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday. It is
paralysed. It can't do anything,

It clearly did attempt to force Boris to ask for an extension.

and it won't do anything to resolve the situation.

It clearly did when it attempted to force Boris to ask for an extension.

It's all very dispiriting and childish. I expect better.

Then do the decent thing and set fire to yourself outside Westminster,
that will certainly make them cave in and have a general election now.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:02:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Are you trying to make any sense?

There you go again.

Exposing your idiocy? You do so quite well all by yourself, senile Rodent!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:38:52 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 159 !!! lines of the senile trolling asshole's latest
troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

In article ,
sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron ("Grik-basturd") wrote:

[flush]

"You may have something there. This touchy-feely 'New Man' attitude
isn't getting me anywhere. Perhaps I should go for the more basic
Neanderthal approach." -- sick old nazoid pedo Andrew "Andrzej" Baron,
Message-ID: #1/1.

On 26/09/2019 18:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
....
No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does.Â* Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

As I am sure I said earlier, this was the opinion expressed by an expert
on constitutional matters during a TV interview. Hence, I can't give the
basis for that view, although I got the impression that it was the
decision itself, rather than any specific part of the ruling.

....
He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job
it is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the
opposition benches who might be just a tad biassed.

We don't actually know what the advice he received was. A former Cabinet
Minister says that, contrary to normal practice, the advice letter was
not distributed in Cabinet. So, only the Attorney General and Boris know
what the contents of that letter were. Labour is trying to get the
letter published, so we can see whether he was wrongly advised or
decided to ignore good advice.

....
No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice.Â* The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

Given that 14 senior judges, in Scotland and England, unanimously agreed
that the move was unlawful it does not seem to have been that difficult
a case to call. Indeed, there are now calls for the Attorney General, if
he did indeed advise the PM that the move was lawful, to 'consider his
position' (Parliamentary code for resign) as he got it so wrong.

....
The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme
Court specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the
High Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we
will never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only
the Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the
ruling that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in
uncharted areas in advance of doing what you want to do.Â* You may
succeed even in the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the
Supreme Court.Â* Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Although, in this case the success in the High Court was only insofar as
the Court decided it was not within its powers to decide the matter. It
did not provide a contrary opinion on the legality of the action to that
reached by the Court of Session and the Supreme Court.

.... Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't.Â* When
Boris made his decision, it wasn't.Â* And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide.Â* Indeed,
no-one had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after
all the arguments had been put.Â* Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Insiders at No 10 seem to have been fairly definite about it before the
decision came, both in speaking off the record to political reporters
and in the tweet from Larry the cat, which we can probably assume is not
actually written by the cat.

....
I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything.
Boris is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will
be stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the
Labour Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems,
who have already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely
to be more than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung
parliament. However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have
sought a further extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*.

I'm not sure what you think that will achieve. The most likely result is
still a hung parliament.

Now is the time we have a government in office but
not in power.Â* It is being prevented from governing by those who
apparently think it's a good game to stop it and have a good laugh.

They don't think they can trust Boris to request an extension to Brexit
without parliamentary overview. That is why he won't get a general
election until after he makes the request and probably not until after
31st October.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday.Â* It is
paralysed.Â* It can't do anything, and it won't do anything to resolve
the situation.

It is still possible (if highly improbable) for it to reach a deal with
the EU before 19th October.

It's all very dispiriting and childish.Â* I expect better.

I don't have such high hopes of politicians in general nor of Boris and
his cronies in particular.


--
Colin Bignell

"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2019 18:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 16:58, nightjar wrote:
On 26/09/2019 10:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/09/2019 09:39, nightjar wrote:
...
No-one's denying that she can counsel and advise, in private, but she
has to do what the government demands of her...

That is exactly what this decision calls into question. It appears to
give her grounds to do otherwise.

I don't think it does. Can you quote the bit you're relying on?

As I am sure I said earlier, this was the opinion expressed by an expert
on constitutional matters during a TV interview. Hence, I can't give the
basis for that view, although I got the impression that it was the
decision itself, rather than any specific part of the ruling.

...
He took advice as I understand it from the Attorney General, whose job it
is to give it, and not from the ignorant baying masses on the opposition
benches who might be just a tad biassed.

We don't actually know what the advice he received was. A former Cabinet
Minister says that, contrary to normal practice, the advice letter was not
distributed in Cabinet. So, only the Attorney General and Boris know what
the contents of that letter were. Labour is trying to get the letter
published, so we can see whether he was wrongly advised or decided to
ignore good advice.

...
No hindsight required. It was what most people were saying before he
went ahead.

When I want a legal opinion, I don't ask the masses, but a lawyer.

And if it's about an unmapped legal area, I accept that there can be no
really definitive advice. The only thing I can do is do it and if
necessary see what the courts say afterwards.

Given that 14 senior judges, in Scotland and England, unanimously agreed
that the move was unlawful it does not seem to have been that difficult a
case to call. Indeed, there are now calls for the Attorney General, if he
did indeed advise the PM that the move was lawful, to 'consider his
position' (Parliamentary code for resign) as he got it so wrong.

Just more mindless political bull**** given that the english high court
had ruled that it wasnt judiciable and clearly Liz didnt believe that it
was unlawful.

The High Court decision that was reversed had nothing whatsoever to do
with whether or not Boris acted lawfully. The Court ruled that it was
not a matter that could be heard by the Courts (which the Supreme Court
specifically disagreed with). Having reached that decision, the High
Court did not go on to consider the legality of his action, so we will
never know what they might have decided if they had done so. Only the
Court of sessions actually ruled on his actions and that is the ruling
that the Supreme Court upheld.

Just goes to show that you can't get definitive legal advice in uncharted
areas in advance of doing what you want to do. You may succeed even in
the High Court but rather randomly be overturned in the Supreme Court.
Without precedent, it's all a bit of a lottery.

Although, in this case the success in the High Court was only insofar as
the Court decided it was not within its powers to decide the matter.

And that no court could do that. Its powers is no different to the supreme
court.

It did not provide a contrary opinion on the legality of the action to
that reached by the Court of Session and the Supreme Court.

Thats a dishonest fudge by you.

... Next time it will be clearer what is permitted and what isn't. When
Boris made his decision, it wasn't. And he can hardly be blamed for not
predicting what the Supreme Court would eventually decide. Indeed,
no-one had any idea until the judgement what it would decide, even after
all the arguments had been put. Opinion was pretty evenly split.

Insiders at No 10 seem to have been fairly definite about it before the
decision came, both in speaking off the record to political reporters

Because it was obvious what the supreme court was up to.

and in the tweet from Larry the cat, which we can probably assume is not
actually written by the cat.

But have no basis for assuming it had anything
to do with #10 except that it mentioned that cat.

...
I'm not sure that a general election is going to achieve anything. Boris
is alienating the moderate Conservatives, the Brexit party will be
stealing votes from the Conservatives, Jeremy is alienating the Labour
Remain supports and, no matter how well they do, the LibDems, who have
already ruled out a coalition with either side, are unlikely to be more
than an also ran. The most likely result is another hung parliament.
However, if we do need one, it has to be after we have sought a further
extension from the EU, to avoid leaving by default.

We need one *now*.

I'm not sure what you think that will achieve. The most likely result is
still a hung parliament.

Now is the time we have a government in office but not in power. It is
being prevented from governing by those who apparently think it's a good
game to stop it and have a good laugh.

They don't think they can trust Boris to request an extension to Brexit
without parliamentary overview. That is why he won't get a general
election until after he makes the request and probably not until after
31st October.

We have a zombie Parliament as it was described yesterday. It is
paralysed. It can't do anything, and it won't do anything to resolve the
situation.

It is still possible (if highly improbable) for it to reach a deal with
the EU before 19th October.

No chance of that, Barnier keeps proclaiming that the backstop
is non negotiable and Boris wont be caving on that, you watch.

It's all very dispiriting and childish. I expect better.

I don't have such high hopes of politicians in general nor of Boris and
his cronies in particular.

Corbyn and Swinson and Bercow in spades.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 19:04:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Just more mindless political bull****

That's your forte, you demented senile troll from Oz!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID: