Wednesday 18th September 2019

Post by **refitman** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:03 am

Morning all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:17 am

https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.u ... -been-lost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:19 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... britain-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:26 am

Lots of frothing at Corbyn for doing moderate things

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:30 am

Swinson has removed any remaining vestige of pretence of democracy from the NewTory partyIMHO Having said that,fair amount of hypocrisy from repeated voter enablers now attacking the partywho they voted for.Tactical voting is bullshit,all votes aid that party,as if the purpose gives a toss,regardless of convoluted (non)justifications for doing so.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:30 am

On the Labour Students thing, Stella Creasy asks why we want to "silence parts of our youth movement" .

My emphasis.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:36 am

Corbyn may as well be neutral anyway, since despite actively campaigning and voting for (he says) Remain last time, the received wisdom is that he is a Brexiteer.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:36 am

Moderate Marxism

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:37 am

Could be a hashtag

#ModerateMarxism

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:39 am

I could never vote for him or indeed any Arsenal supporter,it's in (my,unique)party rules exemption clause)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:40 am

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:44 am

ExtremeCentrism

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:08 am

https://www.parliament.uk/business/comm ... hed-17-19/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:14 am

HindleA wrote:ExtremeCentrism

Alt-centrism is a genuine thing these days.

GetYou · Post by **GetYou** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:18 am

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/11 ... 0113440768

Funny thread, but not a funny topic. I want a prosecution.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:41 am

Netanyahu seems to be basically saying he will ignore the election result. Sound familiar?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:42 am

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 11:52 am

I'm watching the Supreme Court proceedings.

We're, at the moment, on Bills which have fallen as a result of prorogation (which Lord Pannick undertook to address when asked about them by Lady Hale yesterday). It seems that has been dealt with by the provision (presumably) of documents overnight - although it's a bit surprising that he didn't have at least some of them at his fingertips, yesterday. Or is it a legal thing that they all have to be dealt with in one hit, thus explaining the way in which the matter is being dealt with?

Lord Eadie (please see below) can't give a full answer, either.

A judge asks Eadie if he accepts that five Brexit bills have fallen as a result of the decision to prorogue parliament.

Eadie says he does not have a complete answer on this. But his main point is that, if parliament needs to pass these bills in a hurry, it can act accordingly. (Politics Live, Guardian)

Edited to try for making sense.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:01 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.u ... -been-lost

Prorogation: which bills have been lost?
With parliament currently prorogued, and the government only choosing to carry over three pieces of legislation, 13 high profile pieces of legislation have now been dropped.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:02 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:08 pm

...the government only choosing to carry over three pieces of legislation....

https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.u ... -been-lost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A minority Tory government doing the choosing

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:23 pm

PorFavor wrote:I'm watching the Supreme Court proceedings.

We're, at the moment, on Bills which have fallen as a result of prorogation (which Lord Pannick undertook to address when asked about them by Lady Hale yesterday). It seems that has been dealt with by the provision (presumably) of documents overnight - although it's a bit surprising that he didn't have at least some of them at his fingertips, yesterday. Or is it a legal thing that they all have to be dealt with in one hit, thus explaining the way in which the matter is being dealt with?

Lord Eadie (please see below) can't give a full answer, either.

A judge asks Eadie if he accepts that five Brexit bills have fallen as a result of the decision to prorogue parliament.

Eadie says he does not have a complete answer on this. But his main point is that, if parliament needs to pass these bills in a hurry, it can act accordingly. (Politics Live, Guardian)
Edited to try for making sense.

If you have a choice of carrying bills over, why would you choose not to carry over time sensitive ones leaving yourself in the position of having to pass them "in a hurry"? It seems to me the only reason to do this is because the government wants to change something in these Brexit bills. The "in a hurry" bit thus becomes not just an inconvenience, but also yet another attempt by the executive to reduce and inhibit parliament's ability to scrutinise and debate government policy.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:40 pm

Corbyn basically doing what Harold Wilson did in 1975, then.

The odd thing is - Wilson got quite a lot of stick for his "indecisiveness" on Europe back then (both for his conduct of the referendum and more generally)

Its only with hindsight that people have generally approved of his actions.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:42 pm

Do I detect a degree of (albeit polite and controlled) testiness entering the Supreme Court proceedings?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 12:43 pm

HindleA wrote:Moderate Marxism

Did you see the film, Pride? In the Media subsection in the article linked describes co-opting pejorative nomenclature, transforming derogatory into appealing.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:02 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Netanyahu seems to be basically saying he will ignore the election result. Sound familiar?

yep

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:04 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak

2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but...

Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else

So No 10 thinks the Supreme Court will overrule both of the previous rulings?

Wishful thinking by the government? A decision not to intervene (which is more than possible) wouldn't change the Scottish Court finding which would continue to cast a cloud, despite not being applied. Only the above scenario would exonerate Boris completely by ruling his prorogation of 5 weeks proper and legal.

I can't tell from watching the proceedings which way it's likely to fall, but for the Supreme Court to overrule the Scottish Court on the facts of the mater rather than simply choose not to intervene in a political matter would be quite a big deal I would have thought.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:06 pm

"There's no press here!" Says Boris Johnson to the Sky news camera.

Post by **adam** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:20 pm

Willow904 wrote:

Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak

2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but...

Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else

So No 10 thinks the Supreme Court will overrule both of the previous rulings?

Wishful thinking by the government? A decision not to intervene (which is more than possible) wouldn't change the Scottish Court finding which would continue to cast a cloud, despite not being applied. Only the above scenario would exonerate Boris completely by ruling his prorogation of 5 weeks proper and legal.

I can't tell from watching the proceedings which way it's likely to fall, but for the Supreme Court to overrule the Scottish Court on the facts of the mater rather than simply choose not to intervene in a political matter would be quite a big deal I would have thought.

The idea seems to being regularly floated about this that to intervene would be an intensively political act, but not to intervene somehow wouldn't.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:24 pm

The case of the missing "Witness Statement" raising its head in the SC.

David Allen Green has been discussing this on twitter. It's noticeable by its absence and played a role in the Scottish decision.

I'm starting to wonder if 11 supreme justices sitting on this case is significant. There were 11 when they ruled against the government on the article 50 case. Safety in numbers.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:27 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On the Labour Students thing, Stella Creasy asks why we want to "silence parts of our youth movement" .

My emphasis.

The real point here, is that its a distinctly *small* part........

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:44 pm

adam wrote:
Willow904 wrote:

Laura Kuenssberg@bbclaurak

2. Senior govt source says - 'No 10 thinks Supreme Court will say prorogation is justiciable in principle' - in other words, it is a matter of law, not just politics, 'and they will fire warning shots about how a govt shouldn't use this to close Parliament illegitimately' but...

Number 10 does not, at the moment, think court will unravel their plan for Queen's Speech on Oct 14th - caveat, clearly we are all in very untested and spinnable territory here, and it will be down to the 11 judges, no one else

So No 10 thinks the Supreme Court will overrule both of the previous rulings?

Wishful thinking by the government? A decision not to intervene (which is more than possible) wouldn't change the Scottish Court finding which would continue to cast a cloud, despite not being applied. Only the above scenario would exonerate Boris completely by ruling his prorogation of 5 weeks proper and legal.

I can't tell from watching the proceedings which way it's likely to fall, but for the Supreme Court to overrule the Scottish Court on the facts of the mater rather than simply choose not to intervene in a political matter would be quite a big deal I would have thought.
The idea seems to being regularly floated about this that to intervene would be an intensively political act, but not to intervene somehow wouldn't.

This is definitely the central argument of the government's lawyer. I have to say, he's been taking a bit of a beating this afternoon, though, so I'm not sure it's going to fly. Johnson has opened a can of worms. Having forced the issue into the spotlight by blatantly breaking with convention for unashamed ulterior motives the Supreme Court may have no choice but to intervene because if an extra unnecessary 4 weeks is ok, why not 6 weeks, 3 months or a year?

And if the Supreme Court does decide to intervene, the fact no one in government is willing to swear to the cover story that it's all just about the Queen's Speech is going to make it hard for the court to decide the prorogation powers were used appropriately and legally.

Post by **adam** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:46 pm

Colour me amazed part whatever

Boris Johnson 'surprised' by level of Irish border checks

Boris Johnson expressed surprise to his advisers during lunch with Jean-Claude Juncker as he was informed about the scale of checks still needed on the island of Ireland under his alternative plan for the Irish border, according to EU sources.

Edit - The story also contains this

Downing Street has described as “nonsense” a report in the Financial Times that Johnson turned to his chief negotiator, David Frost, and the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?

We are back to the story of Barnier saying to Davis 'what are your intentions about your land border with the EU' and Davis replying 'What land border?'

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:54 pm

From the G, earlier.

Eadie cites approvingly paragraph 47 in the judgment from the high court in London, which ruled that the prorogation decision was non-justiciable. He says he particularly recommends the second sentence (which I’ve marked in bold).

Almost all important decisions made by the executive have a political hue to them. In the present context of non-justiciability, the essential characteristic of a “political” issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the executive’s decision or action.

Highlighting another massive flaw in our constitution.
Judicial standards by which to assess the legality of the executive's action would seem to me to be pretty fundamental - and we don't have any.

Eadie, for the govt, thinks that's a good thing.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 1:58 pm

adam wrote:Colour me amazed part whatever.....

We are back to the story of Barnier saying to Davis 'what are your intentions about your land border with the EU' and Davis replying 'What land border?'

They go through life winging it and getting away with it because of their background/accent, there are no bad consequences for them, only for the rest of us.

They expect their civil servants to do the detail but in this case it doesn't work, there's too much detail and too many decisions needed.

Post by **adam** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 2:07 pm

gilsey wrote:From the G, earlier.
Eadie cites approvingly paragraph 47 in the judgment from the high court in London, which ruled that the prorogation decision was non-justiciable. He says he particularly recommends the second sentence (which I’ve marked in bold).

Almost all important decisions made by the executive have a political hue to them. In the present context of non-justiciability, the essential characteristic of a “political” issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the executive’s decision or action.
Highlighting another massive flaw in our constitution.
Judicial standards by which to assess the legality of the executive's action would seem to me to be pretty fundamental - and we don't have any.

Eadie, for the govt, thinks that's a good thing.

The question of what 'reasonable' means comes up time and time again in cases before the appellate courts, and they make decisions that make sense in the context of the issues to hand. For example, back in the negative equity early 90s when lots of mortagees were gaining possession orders, the homeowner could apply to suspend the possession order if they showed they could continue to pay the sums due and pay off any arrears' within a reasonable period of time' which was all the rules said. The court said that in context 'a reasonable period of time' was the lifetime of the mortgage. And for another example, rules about ESA and so on talk about 'reasonableness' tests which the SSATs and higher have said mean 'in the reasonable context of being at work' - so if a test says 'can walk x meters safely, to an acceptable standard, repeatedly and in a reasonable time period’ the appellate courts have said that 'reasonable' means 'as would be acceptable at work' (as opposed to, say, after a rest of two hours).

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 2:19 pm

gilsey wrote:From the G, earlier.
Eadie cites approvingly paragraph 47 in the judgment from the high court in London, which ruled that the prorogation decision was non-justiciable. He says he particularly recommends the second sentence (which I’ve marked in bold).

Almost all important decisions made by the executive have a political hue to them. In the present context of non-justiciability, the essential characteristic of a “political” issue is the absence of judicial or legal standards by which to assess the legality of the executive’s decision or action.
Highlighting another massive flaw in our constitution.
Judicial standards by which to assess the legality of the executive's action would seem to me to be pretty fundamental - and we don't have any.

Eadie, for the govt, thinks that's a good thing.

The Scottish Court managed to find some standards to rule by, I'm sure it's not beyond the Supreme Court to similarly rustle some up if they put their minds to it!

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:13 pm

Turns out Laura endeavours to negate,relegate and divert valid criticism of governance and consequences thereof on the basis of particular party membership.Who knew?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:17 pm

Cameron had a sick/disabled child,how dare to even question

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:24 pm

HindleA wrote:Cameron had a sick/disabled child,how dare to even question

Yes, that was a rather effective "shield" for him when he was PM. Saying that doesn't detract in any way from the personal tragedy he endured.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:25 pm

Here's the frankly appalling Tweet from Laura K

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:32 pm

A shield compared to dismissal(and irresponsible given a whistle,as if the rags need one)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:33 pm

She isn't the only one either.

And it is in any case irrelevant to why BoJo lied about there being "no cameras" present.

He doesn't just fib, he gaslights.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:48 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Here's the frankly appalling Tweet from Laura K

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gutter press stuff. Quite shocking.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 4:51 pm

I'm so furious that I'm tempted to break my silence and post that "Tweet" over at the Guardian.

Edited to add -

Tomorrow would be better, though, as I expect the site will close down soon for today.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 5:53 pm

I agree. Laura K has crossed a line here for me. She should go.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 6:50 pm

The BBC complaints online thingy is currently unavailable. Could be because it's inundated, or they deemed it politic to give complaints a swerve. It's a 505 (or somesuch) error (?).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 6:59 pm

I noticed the other day that the BBC is closing down the Ceefax service. Not content with sticking people with a licence fee, they will close down the service which is likely used and valued by those selfsame people. (Can't say I've ever used it myself - but I know many elderly people who do).

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 7:39 pm

most of the responses to Laura Kuenssberg's inappropriate tweet are good

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Sep, 2019 8:01 pm