Cameron has a cheek. He failed as a PM, failed to properly gauge the feelings of the electorate and to predict the consequences of his actions. Now he is having a go at someone who is trying to deal with the mess which politicians created and to deliver the outcome which should have happened years ago.
Cameron's regrets and self-pity make me cringe a little, that's politics, it's tough and I am not sure why he is being given such coverage by the media. All past history, not what we need to focus on now!
Hastings Forum
Brexit and the current position
Re: Brexit and the current position
The English High Court threw out Gina Miller’s legal challenge, backed by former prime minister John Major, with judges ruling the suspension of Parliament is a political decision and therefore couldn’t be decided in a court of law.
But in response to a case brought by 79 cross-party of MPs, Scottish judges ruled Mr Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful and accused the Prime Minister of suspending the Commons for the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament”.
The losing parties in both cases appealed to the Supreme Court and Britain’s top judges will try to reconcile the two decisions and reach a verdict on whether the suspension of Parliament is unlawful by the end of the week, expected to be given late Thursday afternoon.
I see the aptly named Lord Pannick QC is again representing Gina Miller in her bid to stop Brexit at any cost. I am under the impression the huge legal expenses are being crowd-funded. The slippery Amber Rudd is more than very close to her brother Roland "Rat" Rudd, who incidentally was treasurer of Britain Stronger in Europe.. the main anti-Brexit campaign outfit. The Rat made a nice little earner selling his Public Relation firm - to that other Rat at WPP! You see the top re-moaners are all entangled in the web of deceit and lies - they have an interest...it is for their own interest. Boris and Brexiteers will win - and win comfortably...it will not take long thereafter for us all to see what a scam those, "for the good of the Country" fanatics are playing!
But in response to a case brought by 79 cross-party of MPs, Scottish judges ruled Mr Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful and accused the Prime Minister of suspending the Commons for the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament”.
The losing parties in both cases appealed to the Supreme Court and Britain’s top judges will try to reconcile the two decisions and reach a verdict on whether the suspension of Parliament is unlawful by the end of the week, expected to be given late Thursday afternoon.
I see the aptly named Lord Pannick QC is again representing Gina Miller in her bid to stop Brexit at any cost. I am under the impression the huge legal expenses are being crowd-funded. The slippery Amber Rudd is more than very close to her brother Roland "Rat" Rudd, who incidentally was treasurer of Britain Stronger in Europe.. the main anti-Brexit campaign outfit. The Rat made a nice little earner selling his Public Relation firm - to that other Rat at WPP! You see the top re-moaners are all entangled in the web of deceit and lies - they have an interest...it is for their own interest. Boris and Brexiteers will win - and win comfortably...it will not take long thereafter for us all to see what a scam those, "for the good of the Country" fanatics are playing!
Re: Brexit and the current position
Richard - this is getting quite worrying. I have been in full agreement with several of your posts and there is a serious danger of us being of the same mind on this.
Re: Brexit and the current position
There is masses of hypocrisy around currently. The jibe at Boris was that he was pursuing Brexit for his own career-interests. But they are ALL after their own careers. The Remain lobby are not largely acting in the interest of the country (they are ignoring the expressed wishes of the country), they are acting in pursuit of their own agenda i.e. their own belief that Brexit is wrong.
The Lib Dems see hitching on to the Remain wagon as a way of increasing their popularity and hopefully later a share of the vote. But what policies in other areas besides Brexit do they have? The same old mish-mash of ideas which has ensured that they have remained a minority party for many years.
I wouldn't bet on Boris winning. I admire his fighting stance and at least you know exactly what he stands for, like him or not. But he is up against a lot of MPs who cannot get their act together and have forgotten that they represent their constituents, not themselves.
That's my rant over.
The Lib Dems see hitching on to the Remain wagon as a way of increasing their popularity and hopefully later a share of the vote. But what policies in other areas besides Brexit do they have? The same old mish-mash of ideas which has ensured that they have remained a minority party for many years.
I wouldn't bet on Boris winning. I admire his fighting stance and at least you know exactly what he stands for, like him or not. But he is up against a lot of MPs who cannot get their act together and have forgotten that they represent their constituents, not themselves.
That's my rant over.
Re: Brexit and the current position
Where does power lie in this troubled kingdom?
That may sound like a quote from Shakespeare's Henry III but it applies today.
It lies somewhere between the Law Courts, Downing Street and Parliament.
A Court battle has to decide this time.
The historian D, Starkey summed it up well:
The intended break with the EU draws parallels with Henry VIII's marital troubles and his break from the Catholic Church, which (like the break with the EU) was necessary because England was then subordinate to a European Court, as it is now.
Should Parliamentary Sovereignty trump Popular /National Sovereignty?
The idea pursued by legions of Remainers, headed by Centurion Bercow, that parliamentary sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty – is an absurd contradiction.
"Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense within the notion of the sovereign independent state, otherwise, it’s meaningless verbiage."
As for J. Swinson, she wanted a referendum in the first place and then wanted to cancel the whole affair, so much for democracy under the Lib-Dems.
That may sound like a quote from Shakespeare's Henry III but it applies today.
It lies somewhere between the Law Courts, Downing Street and Parliament.
A Court battle has to decide this time.
The historian D, Starkey summed it up well:
The intended break with the EU draws parallels with Henry VIII's marital troubles and his break from the Catholic Church, which (like the break with the EU) was necessary because England was then subordinate to a European Court, as it is now.
Should Parliamentary Sovereignty trump Popular /National Sovereignty?
The idea pursued by legions of Remainers, headed by Centurion Bercow, that parliamentary sovereignty can be used to deny national sovereignty – is an absurd contradiction.
"Parliamentary sovereignty only makes sense within the notion of the sovereign independent state, otherwise, it’s meaningless verbiage."
As for J. Swinson, she wanted a referendum in the first place and then wanted to cancel the whole affair, so much for democracy under the Lib-Dems.
Re: Brexit and the current position
Many of them wanted a referendum, many of them don't like the result it delivered.
On ITV News, a young reporter incorrectly defined power within the (unwritten) UK constitution as lying between the Government, Parliament and the Judiciary. Government is only a product of the parliamentary system and of course it changes all the time, it is not a separate entity.
The constitution rests upon Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive i.e. the Civil Service plus governmental agencies and quangos. The three arms are responsible for decision-making, implementation of those decisions and overseeing adherence to the Law. This set-up is true of most democratic states.
This is why there is a fine line between judicial decisions and political policies. Sometimes politicians are accused of attempting to influence legal proceedings which are really just a straight matter of legal issues. Sometimes judges are accused of encroaching onto territory which is a matter for debate within Parliament or the country at large. The boundary moves around over time, often precedent influences that process.
On ITV News, a young reporter incorrectly defined power within the (unwritten) UK constitution as lying between the Government, Parliament and the Judiciary. Government is only a product of the parliamentary system and of course it changes all the time, it is not a separate entity.
The constitution rests upon Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive i.e. the Civil Service plus governmental agencies and quangos. The three arms are responsible for decision-making, implementation of those decisions and overseeing adherence to the Law. This set-up is true of most democratic states.
This is why there is a fine line between judicial decisions and political policies. Sometimes politicians are accused of attempting to influence legal proceedings which are really just a straight matter of legal issues. Sometimes judges are accused of encroaching onto territory which is a matter for debate within Parliament or the country at large. The boundary moves around over time, often precedent influences that process.
Re: Brexit and the current position
Considerable parliamentary time and effort goes into the scrutinising of the government of the day and governments are therefore, to all intents, considered separate entities.
If governments had no powers or legitimacy, distinct from parliament as a whole, then why not let parliament alone make decisions?
The law has to decide, sometimes, if the government has acted illegally/incorrectly in carrying out its business.
Parliament (Bercow especially) may step in to thwart efforts of the government and sometimes acts illegally himself but gets away with it if unchallenged.
Bills introduced (Queens Speech) have to be debated by parliament and can be revised or thrown out and the House of Lords has a say in matters too.
Then the Courts of Law themselves can be asked to make a judgement on matters arising in government political decision-making.
I would say that it is interesting that you seem to suggest that Downing Street has no powers except those which parliament and the law permit but we shall see how Boris gets on and receive further insights, no doubt.
seahermit you may be right in some of this but parliament and the law are acting as a result of one side not accepting a decision and attempting to overturn something they dislike rather than anything being inherently illegal and so I feel involving the Courts of Law is not entirely useful as a means to settle a case based on someone else's (Anti-Brexiteer Gina Miller's) opinion.
As you say it is a fine line when the government's political actions are the subject of Law Court judgement.
In the Canadian system of government proroguing was once carried out for a much longer period, very deliberately, in order to prevent the opposition from achieving its goal (which succeeded) and a fuss was made but nobody went to court and no action was taken.
If governments had no powers or legitimacy, distinct from parliament as a whole, then why not let parliament alone make decisions?
The law has to decide, sometimes, if the government has acted illegally/incorrectly in carrying out its business.
Parliament (Bercow especially) may step in to thwart efforts of the government and sometimes acts illegally himself but gets away with it if unchallenged.
Bills introduced (Queens Speech) have to be debated by parliament and can be revised or thrown out and the House of Lords has a say in matters too.
Then the Courts of Law themselves can be asked to make a judgement on matters arising in government political decision-making.
I would say that it is interesting that you seem to suggest that Downing Street has no powers except those which parliament and the law permit but we shall see how Boris gets on and receive further insights, no doubt.
seahermit you may be right in some of this but parliament and the law are acting as a result of one side not accepting a decision and attempting to overturn something they dislike rather than anything being inherently illegal and so I feel involving the Courts of Law is not entirely useful as a means to settle a case based on someone else's (Anti-Brexiteer Gina Miller's) opinion.
As you say it is a fine line when the government's political actions are the subject of Law Court judgement.
In the Canadian system of government proroguing was once carried out for a much longer period, very deliberately, in order to prevent the opposition from achieving its goal (which succeeded) and a fuss was made but nobody went to court and no action was taken.
Re: Brexit and the current position
No, I didn't say that Downing Street has no powers, of course the Government has legitimacy and the right to exercise day-to-day power but the Government is not a plank of the Constitution - the Government is part of and a product of Parliament which, quite rightly, has the final say and the right to scrutinise the Government's actions (Speaker, Select Committees, the challenges which we have seen over the last 12 months etc.).
It may be that the current proceedings in the Supreme Court are the right way to go at this moment and may bring some clarity - the last year has opened up a minefield as to the extent of the Government's powers, the extent to which it is bound to defer to the wishes of the electorate it is supposed to be representing, whether it is morally bound to act upon a referendum which was not actually legally binding(!), what checks and challenges are available to Parliament or even the country at large. Surely a case could be made out for suing the Government (or Parliament?) for fraudulently instigating a referendum, with the implied promise that the result would be respected, and then resolutely attempting to avoid actually implementing the choice which people voted for!
It may be that the current proceedings in the Supreme Court are the right way to go at this moment and may bring some clarity - the last year has opened up a minefield as to the extent of the Government's powers, the extent to which it is bound to defer to the wishes of the electorate it is supposed to be representing, whether it is morally bound to act upon a referendum which was not actually legally binding(!), what checks and challenges are available to Parliament or even the country at large. Surely a case could be made out for suing the Government (or Parliament?) for fraudulently instigating a referendum, with the implied promise that the result would be respected, and then resolutely attempting to avoid actually implementing the choice which people voted for!
Re: Brexit and the current position
I'm off to East Anglia at the weekend - it will be a relief to escape for a while from the madness of Parliament, but I suppose that I will be unable to resist the temptation to pop the hotel's TV on and check who's winning in the Supreme Court.
Re: Brexit and the current position
Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation.
The constitution is statute law.
It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation.
The constitution is statute law.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests