Switch to full style
A home from home

Forum rules

Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Topic locked

Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 6:03 am

Morning all.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 7:33 am

Morning.

Kwasi Kwarteng criticised for 'biased judges' comment

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49670901

Mr Kwarteng's views were also criticised by former Justice Secretary Sir David Lidington.

Sir David, who was effectively Theresa May's deputy when she was prime minister, tweeted that he had "seen no evidence of the courts getting involved in politics but rather English and Scottish courts grappling with important legal/constitutional questions referred to them by UK citizens - and coming to different reasoned judgements".


Carswell came up with a pretty awful tweet yesterday as well but that's to be expected.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 8:06 am

Any Tory MPs who had any doubts about the nature of the Johnson government must surely now see that it's not just a bluff and an act to win a majority, he genuinely has no respect for democracy, the rule of law or the interests of the country.

They will have to choose. Either they are conservatives or they are right wing populists. They can't be both.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 8:46 am

Yellowhammer is not a worst case scenario, it's a base case scenario.
Government caught lying again.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1171866078244417539?s=20

https://twitter.com/RosamundUrwin/status/1171864228879372289?s=19

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:03 am

Risk assessment is a combination of likelihood and seriousness of consequences. A very high likelihood of a paper cut is an acceptable risk, because a paper cut is not a serious consequence. A very low likelihood of death by falling is not acceptable because a death is never acceptable as a potential risk.

Hence lots of health and safety rules about working at height and use of ladders but no rules about handling sheets of paper.

So if there is any likelihood at all, however low, of someone dying because medicine supply is interrupted the risk is unacceptable, regardless of how likely it is to happen. Making a "base scenario" into "worst reasonable scenario", or whatever nonsense they're playing at, isn't going to change the fact the risk is unacceptable. It's just going to emphasise the fact they're untrustworthy liars. And don't give a shit about people dying as long as they make money out of their disaster capitalism. This shouldn't surprise us because we're talking about people who are happy to make money out of selling weapons, but it's still horrifying how easily they shrug off deliberate, needless harm to people who aren't them.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:03 am

Good morfternoon.

What is a base case scenario?

The base case is the model's expected case, determined by using the assumptions that the project team consider are most likely to occur. (Wikipedia - my emphasis)

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:10 am

Good morning, everyone.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:34 am

Willow904 wrote:Risk assessment is a combination of likelihood and seriousness of consequences. A very high likelihood of a paper cut is an acceptable risk, because a paper cut is not a serious consequence. A very low likelihood of death by falling is not acceptable because a death is never acceptable as a potential risk.

Hence lots of health and safety rules about working at height and use of ladders but no rules about handling sheets of paper.

So if there is any likelihood at all, however low, of someone dying because medicine supply is interrupted the risk is unacceptable, regardless of how likely it is to happen. Making a "base scenario" into "worst reasonable scenario", or whatever nonsense they're playing at, isn't going to change the fact the risk is unacceptable. It's just going to emphasise the fact they're untrustworthy liars. And don't give a shit about people dying as long as they make money out of their disaster capitalism. This shouldn't surprise us because we're talking about people who are happy to make money out of selling weapons, but it's still horrifying how easily they shrug off deliberate, needless harm to people who aren't them.


chart05.png
chart05.png (38.49 KiB) Viewed 1510 times


Green means 'go ahead (in light of the risk management and avoidance strategies you have in place)
Amber means 'go ahead with greater care' (in light... as before)
Red means 'No.' Just No.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:40 am

Screen Shot 2019-09-12 at 10.39.09.png
Screen Shot 2019-09-12 at 10.39.09.png (90.26 KiB) Viewed 1510 times


Submarines?

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:40 am

Willow904 wrote:Any Tory MPs who had any doubts about the nature of the Johnson government must surely now see that it's not just a bluff and an act to win a majority, he genuinely has no respect for democracy, the rule of law or the interests of the country.

They will have to choose. Either they are conservatives or they are right wing populists. They can't be both.
You are correct.

former Tory Justice Secretary Sir David Lidington
Lidington, remind yourself and what remains of your Tory government of your contributions in June 2015 regarding the drafting of the 2016 EU Referendum Bill.
Lidington is still a Tory MP which suggests he hasn't summoned the courage nor had the decency for responsible action in Boris Johnson's minority Tory government.
House of Commons Hansard
European Union Referendum Bill
16 June 2015
Volume 597


The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
"Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result."

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 10:11 am

SO... (and if only we had a resident legal expert). The Supreme Court is the SC of the UK and makes decisions for the whole country but ALSO makes final decisions interpreting and deciding the law for the different jurisdictions within the whole country. So given that we don't really have any kind of federal structure, certainly not in a formal legal sense, isn't the Supreme Court limited to deciding whether or not the decision of the Scottish Court of Session was right or wrong in Scottish Law? And then in deciding, if it was right in Scottish Law, how that has to relate to the whole country? Does it provide a kind of 'legal veto' over the whole procedure of prorogation/proroguement?

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 10:31 am

Trial by combat or ordeal? Constitutional validity wouldn't surprise me.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 10:53 am

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Any Tory MPs who had any doubts about the nature of the Johnson government must surely now see that it's not just a bluff and an act to win a majority, he genuinely has no respect for democracy, the rule of law or the interests of the country.

They will have to choose. Either they are conservatives or they are right wing populists. They can't be both.
You are correct.

former Tory Justice Secretary Sir David Lidington
Lidington, remind yourself and what remains of your Tory government of your contributions in June 2015 regarding the drafting of the 2016 EU Referendum Bill.
Lidington is still a Tory MP which suggests he hasn't summoned the courage nor had the decency for responsible action in Boris Johnson's minority Tory government.
House of Commons Hansard
European Union Referendum Bill
16 June 2015
Volume 597


The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
"Amendment 16 does not make sense in the context of the Bill. The legislation is about holding a vote; it makes no provision for what follows. The referendum is advisory, as was the case for both the 1975 referendum on Europe and the Scottish independence vote last year. In neither of those cases was there a threshold for the interpretation of the result."


Whilst not disagreeing, I don't think we have seen the last departures from the Tory benches by any means.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:26 am

Jennifer Rankin @JenniferMerode

European parliament president David Sassoli: "Up to now - and I would like to stress this point - the United Kingdom hasn't proposed any alternatives [to backstop] and anything that has been legally credible."

He has just met Michel Barnier.

11:52 AM - Sep 12, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:37 am

adam wrote:SO... (and if only we had a resident legal expert). The Supreme Court is the SC of the UK and makes decisions for the whole country but ALSO makes final decisions interpreting and deciding the law for the different jurisdictions within the whole country. So given that we don't really have any kind of federal structure, certainly not in a formal legal sense, isn't the Supreme Court limited to deciding whether or not the decision of the Scottish Court of Session was right or wrong in Scottish Law? And then in deciding, if it was right in Scottish Law, how that has to relate to the whole country? Does it provide a kind of 'legal veto' over the whole procedure of prorogation/proroguement?


Well, you can't have a situation where Scottish MPs return to Parliament because prorogation hasn't legally happened in Scotland but English and Welsh MPs can't because it was legally done under English Law, so someone has to take an overall decision I would have thought :D .

Seriously, though, I think the law is the same, just a different approach. I believe the discrepancy with the ruling last week with this week is that the English court ruled it a political matter and didn't rule on the facts of the case, while the Scottish court did look at the facts and ruled on them but didn't look at what the legal effect of that ruling would be - ie is it a legal or political question.

The English case is being passed up to the supreme court to appeal the ruling it's a political matter. If upheld, there will be no further action I presume but it wouldn't mean the ruling on the facts by the Scottish court has been overturned or found incorrect. It would just mean it is felt to be for parliament rather than the courts to deal with the matter. If the English ruling is overturned I find it unthinkable the Supreme Court could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion to the Scottish court, if that did happen it would be hard not to suspect bias on one side or the other, but as things stand I don't think the two rulings we've had so far are incompatible, they could both be correct in their own way.

I'm not a legal expert of course and I haven't looked into the individual cases in detail, this is just my overall impression of what's going on based on what I've read so far and I'm happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:45 am

PorFavor wrote:
Jennifer Rankin @JenniferMerode

European parliament president David Sassoli: "Up to now - and I would like to stress this point - the United Kingdom hasn't proposed any alternatives [to backstop] and anything that has been legally credible."

He has just met Michel Barnier.

11:52 AM - Sep 12, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)


But.....but BoJo is totally serious about getting a last minute deal! Bobby Pesto says that, so it must be true :roll: :lol:

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:49 am

@Willow904
I've read the rulings and that's my conclusion as well. It's not that correct to say the English rulings contradict the Scottish rulings. The English Court declined giving judgement having decided the case was an issue Parliament should resolve.

edited because I neglected to correct errors in grammar
Last edited by citizenJA on Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:50 am

Willow904 wrote:
adam wrote:SO... (and if only we had a resident legal expert). The Supreme Court is the SC of the UK and makes decisions for the whole country but ALSO makes final decisions interpreting and deciding the law for the different jurisdictions within the whole country. So given that we don't really have any kind of federal structure, certainly not in a formal legal sense, isn't the Supreme Court limited to deciding whether or not the decision of the Scottish Court of Session was right or wrong in Scottish Law? And then in deciding, if it was right in Scottish Law, how that has to relate to the whole country? Does it provide a kind of 'legal veto' over the whole procedure of prorogation/proroguement?


Well, you can't have a situation where Scottish MPs return to Parliament because prorogation hasn't legally happened in Scotland but English and Welsh MPs can't because it was legally done under English Law, so someone has to take an overall decision I would have thought :D .

Seriously, though, I think the law is the same, just a different approach. I believe the discrepancy with the ruling last week with this week is that the English court ruled it a political matter and didn't rule on the facts of the case, while the Scottish court did look at the facts and ruled on them but didn't look at what the legal effect of that ruling would be - ie is it a legal or political question.

The English case is being passed up to the supreme court to appeal the ruling it's a political matter. If upheld, there will be no further action I presume but it wouldn't mean the ruling on the facts by the Scottish court has been overturned or found incorrect. It would just mean it is felt to be for parliament rather than the courts to deal with the matter. If the English ruling is overturned I find it unthinkable the Supreme Court could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion to the Scottish court, if that did happen it would be hard not to suspect bias on one side or the other, but as things stand I don't think the two rulings we've had so far are incompatible, they could both be correct in their own way.

I'm not a legal expert of course and I haven't looked into the individual cases in detail, this is just my overall impression of what's going on based on what I've read so far and I'm happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.


I'm also no expert, but I worked in law for most of the nineties and remember some of this, and what I wonder is that if the Supreme Court confirms that within their own jurisdictions the different courts have reached decisions the law entitles them to meet, and that they have not made decisions that are plainly wrong (which are the real tests on appeal) then the issue is not that the government have won by two jurisdictions to one, the issue is that you only have to get shot down once.

And English and Scottish law are significantly different in some areas (and I can't do more than be vague here) but it's entirely possible that the SC could say 'we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal that the English and Wales jurisdiction don't have standing in English and Welsh law, and we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that it wouldn't undermine the GFA under Northern Ireland law, and we agree with the Court of Session that the prorogation was illegal under Scottish law.' And the question then becomes whether they have a way of blending and balancing those judgements (which i think would involve some deeply constitutional law making on their part) or whether they say that it follows that the prorogation is illegal because one of the jurisdictions says so.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:52 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Jennifer Rankin @JenniferMerode

European parliament president David Sassoli: "Up to now - and I would like to stress this point - the United Kingdom hasn't proposed any alternatives [to backstop] and anything that has been legally credible."

He has just met Michel Barnier.

11:52 AM - Sep 12, 2019 (Politics Live, Guardian)

But.....but BoJo is totally serious about getting a last minute deal! Bobby Pesto says that, so it must be true :roll: :lol:
It wouldn't surprise me if Johnson lobs something or another onto the table. He'll call it an alternative. It probably won't be but he's got to keep his story going.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 11:57 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:---
Whilst not disagreeing, I don't think we have seen the last departures from the Tory benches by any means.
(cJA edit)
I agree. I was encouraging the Tory bench to get on with it.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 12:27 pm

adam wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
adam wrote:SO... (and if only we had a resident legal expert). The Supreme Court is the SC of the UK and makes decisions for the whole country but ALSO makes final decisions interpreting and deciding the law for the different jurisdictions within the whole country. So given that we don't really have any kind of federal structure, certainly not in a formal legal sense, isn't the Supreme Court limited to deciding whether or not the decision of the Scottish Court of Session was right or wrong in Scottish Law? And then in deciding, if it was right in Scottish Law, how that has to relate to the whole country? Does it provide a kind of 'legal veto' over the whole procedure of prorogation/proroguement?


Well, you can't have a situation where Scottish MPs return to Parliament because prorogation hasn't legally happened in Scotland but English and Welsh MPs can't because it was legally done under English Law, so someone has to take an overall decision I would have thought :D .

Seriously, though, I think the law is the same, just a different approach. I believe the discrepancy with the ruling last week with this week is that the English court ruled it a political matter and didn't rule on the facts of the case, while the Scottish court did look at the facts and ruled on them but didn't look at what the legal effect of that ruling would be - ie is it a legal or political question.

The English case is being passed up to the supreme court to appeal the ruling it's a political matter. If upheld, there will be no further action I presume but it wouldn't mean the ruling on the facts by the Scottish court has been overturned or found incorrect. It would just mean it is felt to be for parliament rather than the courts to deal with the matter. If the English ruling is overturned I find it unthinkable the Supreme Court could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion to the Scottish court, if that did happen it would be hard not to suspect bias on one side or the other, but as things stand I don't think the two rulings we've had so far are incompatible, they could both be correct in their own way.

I'm not a legal expert of course and I haven't looked into the individual cases in detail, this is just my overall impression of what's going on based on what I've read so far and I'm happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.


I'm also no expert, but I worked in law for most of the nineties and remember some of this, and what I wonder is that if the Supreme Court confirms that within their own jurisdictions the different courts have reached decisions the law entitles them to meet, and that they have not made decisions that are plainly wrong (which are the real tests on appeal) then the issue is not that the government have won by two jurisdictions to one, the issue is that you only have to get shot down once.

And English and Scottish law are significantly different in some areas (and I can't do more than be vague here) but it's entirely possible that the SC could say 'we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal that the English and Wales jurisdiction don't have standing in English and Welsh law, and we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that it would undermine the GFA under Northern Ireland law, and we agree with the Court of Session that the prorogation was illegal under Scottish law.' And the question then becomes whether they have a way of blending and balancing those judgements (which i think would involve some deeply constitutional law making on their part) or whether they say that it follows that the prorogation is illegal because one of the jurisdictions says so.


Yes, that makes sense.

The rulings could all be correct under their respective jurisdictions but as they all apply simultaneously to the same question, if their conclusions point to different necessary outcomes there needs to be a mechanism to address that. And as you say, the mechanism may be that if it is illegal in one jurisdiction it is then necessarily illegal in all jurisdictions. Therefore, as you suggested, the Supreme Court would have to overturn the Scottish Court ruling as being incorrect in some way on the facts or interpretation of Scottish Law for the prorogation to stand, regardless of what English & Welsh Law has to say on the matter.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 12:33 pm

Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have repeated the lie that this was a worst case scenario today.

This comes after Michael Gove was forced to admit that it was a base case scenario (as the document was originally headed) in committee earlier:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-yellowhammer-no-deal-michael-gove-boris-johnson-base-case-a9102041.html

The bigger disgrace is that this is barely being reported in the media.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 12:46 pm

Boris Johnson denies lying to Queen about reasons for prorogation


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... -live-news

His mother must be so proud.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 12:55 pm

GetYou wrote:Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have repeated the lie that this was a worst case scenario today.

This comes after Michael Gove was forced to admit that it was a base case scenario (as the document was originally headed) in committee earlier:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-yellowhammer-no-deal-michael-gove-boris-johnson-base-case-a9102041.html

The bigger disgrace is that this is barely being reported in the media.


Yes, that's what I've been thinking. The only person to really go into it (on the TV news) was Robert Kerslake - he did a good job of it, too. Needless to say, it's only been broadcast the once - despite the continuous loop of practically every other news item.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 12:57 pm

Defra refuses to give details on no-deal Brexit food supply disruptions
FOI request from Green MP Caroline Lucas denied on grounds it would threaten EU negotiations

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:10 pm

PorFavor wrote:
GetYou wrote:Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have repeated the lie that this was a worst case scenario today.

This comes after Michael Gove was forced to admit that it was a base case scenario (as the document was originally headed) in committee earlier:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-yellowhammer-no-deal-michael-gove-boris-johnson-base-case-a9102041.html

The bigger disgrace is that this is barely being reported in the media.

Yes, that's what I've been thinking. The only person to really go into it (on the TV news) was Robert Kerslake - he did a good job of it, too. Needless to say, it's only been broadcast the once - despite the continuous loop of practically every other news item.
I wish a few big names most often seen in media decided they can no longer continue keeping quiet about the danger we all face.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:13 pm

There are still people saying that the last few weeks are just part of the Johnson and Cummings masterplan, and they have their opponents where they want them.

To which I would reply - when the original prorogation announcement was made, did they *really* forsee everything that has happened since? Really??

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:22 pm

Boris Johnson revives plan for £15bn bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland

Boris Johnson has revived his plan to build a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland - saying that it would be a “very good” idea and that it would cost £15bn. (Politics Live, Guardian)


The actual quote:

"[I was talking yesterday] about building a bridge from Stranraer in Scotland to Larne in Northern Ireland - that would be very good. It would only cost about £15bn."

Note the "only" (we can leave the "about" for later, if you wish).

Edited to add -

He was talking to children.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There are still people saying that the last few weeks are just part of the Johnson and Cummings masterplan, and they have their opponents where they want them.

To which I would reply - when the original prorogation announcement was made, did they *really* forsee everything that has happened since? Really??


Since my exchange of comments with Adam I'm starting to wonder if Boris remembered to take advice on Scottish and NI Law as well as English & Welsh Law when he decided he could get away with a lengthy prorogation!

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:54 pm

The EU must be thinking of adopting this as their anthem between now and the end of October -

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 1:56 pm

Whoops - hadn't quite decided whether or not to send that. Still, 'sdone now . . .

But it's very short and very apt, I feel.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 2:07 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Boris Johnson revives plan for £15bn bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland

Boris Johnson has revived his plan to build a bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland - saying that it would be a “very good” idea and that it would cost £15bn. (Politics Live, Guardian)


The actual quote:

"[I was talking yesterday] about building a bridge from Stranraer in Scotland to Larne in Northern Ireland - that would be very good. It would only cost about £15bn."

Note the "only" (we can leave the "about" for later, if you wish).

Edited to add -

He was talking to children.


Quote btl in the guardian

At least its a bridge and not a wall. I am waiting for him to say "and the Irish will pay for it".

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 2:18 pm

Also (can you tell I've been writing new 'you have to use this one' lesson plans all afternoon and have therefore fled to looking things up) the longest bridge over water in the world at the moment is over Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, which is about 24 miles long, and the lake has an average depth of about 3 metres and is about 20m deep at the most. This bridge would be about 30 miles long over the North Channel of the Irish Sea which has a depth of between 80m and 275m. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco is mentioned as having the deepest 'piers' of a bridge over water, and they are about 74 metres (which includes the length sunk into the seabed).

It sounds rather ambitious.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 2:31 pm

adam wrote:Also (can you tell I've been writing new 'you have to use this one' lesson plans all afternoon and have therefore fled to looking things up) the longest bridge over water in the world at the moment is over Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, which is about 24 miles long, and the lake has an average depth of about 3 metres and is about 20m deep at the most. This bridge would be about 30 miles long over the North Channel of the Irish Sea which has a depth of between 80m and 275m. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco is mentioned as having the deepest 'piers' of a bridge over water, and they are about 74 metres (which includes the length sunk into the seabed).

It sounds rather ambitious.


My geography is generally crap - but I feel that it would be very much at the mercy of bad weather (wind etc). Would that be right (or not)?

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 2:54 pm

Sorry about my ignorance here, and this should probably be aimed at Johnson rather than you lot, but which bit of the Irish Border problem does building a bridge solve?

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 2:56 pm

Willow904 wrote:Sorry about my ignorance here, and this should probably be aimed at Johnson rather than you lot, but which bit of the Irish Border problem does building a bridge solve?


It's a symbol of our outward looking - it's a sign that we're - it's - nobody call tell us to put a border in the Irish Sea if we've built a bloody bridge over it!

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 3:09 pm

adam wrote:Also (can you tell I've been writing new 'you have to use this one' lesson plans all afternoon and have therefore fled to looking things up) the longest bridge over water in the world at the moment is over Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, which is about 24 miles long, and the lake has an average depth of about 3 metres and is about 20m deep at the most. This bridge would be about 30 miles long over the North Channel of the Irish Sea which has a depth of between 80m and 275m. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco is mentioned as having the deepest 'piers' of a bridge over water, and they are about 74 metres (which includes the length sunk into the seabed).

It sounds rather ambitious.


Well that's our PM all over, all we need to do is "believe" in it enough and it will happen.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 4:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:There are still people saying that the last few weeks are just part of the Johnson and Cummings masterplan, and they have their opponents where they want them.

To which I would reply - when the original prorogation announcement was made, did they *really* forsee everything that has happened since? Really??
Good point. I'm encouraged. I hope their floundering attempts get stopped before more harm caused.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 4:33 pm

PorFavor wrote:
adam wrote:Also (can you tell I've been writing new 'you have to use this one' lesson plans all afternoon and have therefore fled to looking things up) the longest bridge over water in the world at the moment is over Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, which is about 24 miles long, and the lake has an average depth of about 3 metres and is about 20m deep at the most. This bridge would be about 30 miles long over the North Channel of the Irish Sea which has a depth of between 80m and 275m. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco is mentioned as having the deepest 'piers' of a bridge over water, and they are about 74 metres (which includes the length sunk into the seabed).

It sounds rather ambitious.

My geography is generally crap - but I feel that it would be very much at the mercy of bad weather (wind etc). Would that be right (or not)?
The weather in the Irish Sea isn't conducive for bridge stability. The San Francisco Bay is typically less volatile.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 5:33 pm

My guess is that the consultants involved in the garden bridge have run out of champagne and cocaine and need a top up.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 6:10 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... -live-news

Bercow is speaking now

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 7:50 pm

I highly recommend reading this article from the FT coming out about an hour ago. I realise it's behind a paywall. I stumbled across it using an Internet search engine with the words, brexit financial times.
Barnier says Brexit situation is ‘serious and uncertain’
But belief grows in Brussels and Westminster that Johnson wants a deal

https://www.ft.com/content/af2a1450-d55 ... 8ec6435630
I think the FT is a serious new outlet. I found this article interesting in that it consists of words strung into sentence after sentence about hopes of movements towards deals that Johnson and the DUP have suddenly discovered they want a lot and those not confident of any deal are now more reassured about a deal being made.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 8:21 pm

“The only form of Brexit that we have, whenever that might be, will be a Brexit that the House of Commons has explicitly endorsed.”
John Bercow
Well, quite. That was my understanding of UK parliamentary democracy too.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 8:51 pm

PorFavor wrote:My geography is generally crap - but I feel that it would be very much at the mercy of bad weather (wind etc). Would that be right (or not)?


Any wind over 60mph closes a bridge by law so if my time spent in the Hebrides is anything to go by it'll only be open about 3 days a year.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:05 pm

To Question Time, or not to Question Time, that is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the mind to just drink this bottle of wine and listen to music,
Or to take arms against a sea of idiots and shout at the TV.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:34 pm

adam wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
adam wrote:SO... (and if only we had a resident legal expert). The Supreme Court is the SC of the UK and makes decisions for the whole country but ALSO makes final decisions interpreting and deciding the law for the different jurisdictions within the whole country. So given that we don't really have any kind of federal structure, certainly not in a formal legal sense, isn't the Supreme Court limited to deciding whether or not the decision of the Scottish Court of Session was right or wrong in Scottish Law? And then in deciding, if it was right in Scottish Law, how that has to relate to the whole country? Does it provide a kind of 'legal veto' over the whole procedure of prorogation/proroguement?


Well, you can't have a situation where Scottish MPs return to Parliament because prorogation hasn't legally happened in Scotland but English and Welsh MPs can't because it was legally done under English Law, so someone has to take an overall decision I would have thought :D .

Seriously, though, I think the law is the same, just a different approach. I believe the discrepancy with the ruling last week with this week is that the English court ruled it a political matter and didn't rule on the facts of the case, while the Scottish court did look at the facts and ruled on them but didn't look at what the legal effect of that ruling would be - ie is it a legal or political question.

The English case is being passed up to the supreme court to appeal the ruling it's a political matter. If upheld, there will be no further action I presume but it wouldn't mean the ruling on the facts by the Scottish court has been overturned or found incorrect. It would just mean it is felt to be for parliament rather than the courts to deal with the matter. If the English ruling is overturned I find it unthinkable the Supreme Court could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion to the Scottish court, if that did happen it would be hard not to suspect bias on one side or the other, but as things stand I don't think the two rulings we've had so far are incompatible, they could both be correct in their own way.

I'm not a legal expert of course and I haven't looked into the individual cases in detail, this is just my overall impression of what's going on based on what I've read so far and I'm happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.


I'm also no expert, but I worked in law for most of the nineties and remember some of this, and what I wonder is that if the Supreme Court confirms that within their own jurisdictions the different courts have reached decisions the law entitles them to meet, and that they have not made decisions that are plainly wrong (which are the real tests on appeal) then the issue is not that the government have won by two jurisdictions to one, the issue is that you only have to get shot down once.

And English and Scottish law are significantly different in some areas (and I can't do more than be vague here) but it's entirely possible that the SC could say 'we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal that the English and Wales jurisdiction don't have standing in English and Welsh law, and we agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that it wouldn't undermine the GFA under Northern Ireland law, and we agree with the Court of Session that the prorogation was illegal under Scottish law.' And the question then becomes whether they have a way of blending and balancing those judgements (which i think would involve some deeply constitutional law making on their part) or whether they say that it follows that the prorogation is illegal because one of the jurisdictions says so.


Just to add another non-expert opinion:
I think the decision of the Scottish court may well mean that the Scottish MPs are not technically prorogued. Similar situations have arisen in the past where injunctions in one jurisdiction have not applied in the other.
The Supreme Court was, of course, set up to take over what used to be appeals to the House of Lords and presumably has Scottish and English judges. In this case the law will be the same in both jurisdictions but I would think it diplomatic to have a mixed bench hear both appeals simultaneously.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:39 pm

Goodnight, everyone.
love,
cJA

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 9:47 pm

adam wrote:Also (can you tell I've been writing new 'you have to use this one' lesson plans all afternoon and have therefore fled to looking things up) the longest bridge over water in the world at the moment is over Lake Pontchartrain, north of New Orleans, which is about 24 miles long, and the lake has an average depth of about 3 metres and is about 20m deep at the most. This bridge would be about 30 miles long over the North Channel of the Irish Sea which has a depth of between 80m and 275m. The Bay Bridge in San Francisco is mentioned as having the deepest 'piers' of a bridge over water, and they are about 74 metres (which includes the length sunk into the seabed).

It sounds rather ambitious.


Another thing to look up - "Beaufort's Dyke"!

Estimates of up to a million tons of WW2 ammunition - including phosgene shells - dumped there in 1945 and possibly concrete-encased nuclear waste in the 50s. Where is it? In the Irish Sea between Scotland and Ireland, not far from Stranraer and Carrickfergus. Not really a place to start disturbing the sea bed.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 10:01 pm

Eric_WLothian wrote: In this case the law will be the same in both jurisdictions but I would think it diplomatic to have a mixed bench hear both appeals simultaneously.


A constitutional lawyer on Radio 5 this lunchtime said that was precisely what will happen.

Re: Thursday 12th September 2019

Thu 12 Sep, 2019 10:05 pm

Willow904 wrote:Sorry about my ignorance here, and this should probably be aimed at Johnson rather than you lot, but which bit of the Irish Border problem does building a bridge solve?


Well, to (almost) quote Marx* - We'll have our borders, and if you don't like them... we'll have others. :)

*Groucho, not Karl.
Topic locked